Should Non Resident Tax Payers vote?
 

Should non resident tax payers get to vote in the March town elections? These are the elections where towns vote on Zoning Ordinances, election of local officials and tax and budget issues.

No. Residents and non-residents have very different priorities and perspectives about local government. Looking at this more broadly, do we want people who own property in several communities to be able to vote in each town's election? It seems to me it gives property-rich individuals a disproportionate voice in local affairs.

Sky

People - this question was answered 200+ years ago. I think they called it taxation without representation back then. But that is history, it's all about me and my personal agenda now so I voted based on that.

No Vote
 

I am a non resident and I pay taxes to the city of Laconia, however I believe this does not give me the right to vote. Going into your investment as a non resident and paying tax you must resolve yourself to the fact that residents have certain right that you dont. Just as I have a business in NYC and pay taxes to the city yet I live on Long Island and I can not vote in the city.

Taxpayers
 

Taxpayers should have the rights to represent themselves in monetary affairs, but should not be included in the local government affairs.

I know there is a very fine line between the two. But there should be representation.

I will not vote in this poll, as this is not a yes or no question. I am a non-resident taxpayer, and I find this a very prudent issue. There are times where I believe yes I should have a right. However a majority of the time, I don't believe I do.

When it comes to services in the town that I use, such as the Police, Fire, DPW, Town Hall, Parks and Rec. and how they Spend their Money yes do I believe I should have some input yes. However even in these case I don't use some of the resources 100% as I don't visit the area year around so why should my vote carry the same weight as someone that lives in town all year.

However When it comes to services such as the schools, no I really shouldn't have a say.. Why because no matter what I would have a jaded view, as this is a service I don't use. It wouldn't matter to me whether or not the town had to layoff teachers, or couldn't by new books...

In short the bottom line is this, as unfair as people think it is, This is how our country has defined voting laws for every year. I don't know of any place you can go and vote just because you pay taxes. You are allowed to vote because of residency. And that folks is the bottom line. To have a second home and to pay taxes in a non-residency situation, isn't a requirement it is a choice. A choice you made of free will, and based upon full knowledge of what you where getting into. Don't go and get all upset about it now, because your town has done things and raised your taxes, or will not respond to your issue the way you want them too, because your not a voting citizen of the town.

As a tax-payer by the way, you do have some rights in every town... It is up to you to find out what those rights are.

Don't try and change a historical way of doing something just because you don't think it is fair, and your agenda isn't being met.

One votes in the municipality where one is "resident", and unable to be resident in multiple locals, regardless of owning real estate in multiple places.
That simple.

Solution is Simple
 

The answer to this question is simple. Stop taxing property and start taxing consumption (sales tax) and income. Declare your residency in one state and vote there. Those that live in a state have more at stake than just how their money is spent. I know someone will say these are regressive taxes but there are ways to address taxes on the not so well off such as a rebate of consumption taxes through income tax filings for low income people.

YES ! For the record. I am not a seasonal resident, I live here year round. I believe Every taxpayer should be able to vote at both local elections and at the archaic side show event they call "town meeting".
If they are required to pay tax's then they should be allowed to have a say in how those tax dollars are being spent and who is spending them. It shouldn't matter whether they live here 365 days a year or the occasional weekend.
Right now all were doing to these people is telling them to, Give us your money and Go away, Don't tell us how to spend it, we will spend the way WE want !

The NH legislatures don't "get it". However, once a sales tax always a sales tax; then cities & towns add tax on to. Like Vail, CO has a sales tax on top of the state sales tax!

I am not in State offices in Concord in any fashion. I don't think those "lawmakers" read forums like this. NH does tax all sorts of items, like un-earned income, interest & dividends. Fees for all sorts of things get increased as a "band-aide" approach to the budget. Like not long ago, they planned as toll both on i-93 in Salem - a nice dis-incentive to cross the border!!! We could go on and on & on.

Cities and towns only add takes if the legislature lets them. You don't need to tell me about taxes and fees. I own a small business and live in New Jersey! We are the leading tax state in the nation! My property in NH is assessed at about the same $ value as my home in NJ. Taxes in NH just under $4000.00/year. Taxes in NJ Just under $12,000.00/year in addition a 7% sales tax on almost everything and a 8% income tax on earned and unearned income. Buy a new car for say $25,000.00 and your registration will be about $250.00/yr and the state makes you pay for 3 years up front. I could go on and on. Our accountant for the business calculated that when all the fees, taxes and required insurance are paid, it takes 75 cents of each $ or profit to pay them.
Fortunately we now have a governor who is not afraid to take on the legislators and tell them no to spending. He is also butting heads with the public workers unions.

I vote no on this but
 

As an owner of property in Maine I would like it if they gave us a break on things like snowmobile and ATV registrations. After all we do pay the same taxes as other homeowners.
As for the tax issue I believe it was summed up when someone said the agenda and or priorities would definitely be different for weekend warriors.
I know it would be for us.
I believe a prime example of what can still happen was the new speed limit.
I believe many who supported this were in fact from out of state.

Taxation without representation
 

I get annoyed when the town of New Hampton votes for expensive things. They reassessed and tax the heck out of waterfront properties like my own and yet I have not right to vote for the people who are spending my money.
There seems to be a double standard. Lakefront properties are getting taxed at higher rates and we seem to be the ones who have no say. They have lower rates and they get us to pay for all the stuff they want.
I get very very angry about it.
I have no problem paying for fire, police and schools to some degree. But, I use nothing from this town. Our private road gets no snow removal, we get no trash collection, we get virtually nothing and pay through the nose for it.
They are thieves in my opinion. Give me the right to vote in this town, give the rest of us who own places this right. I'm not asking to double my vote for things like President, but I should be able to say how my money is spent.

OK, so the reverse should be applied: If I live & own my residence primarily in New Hampton and vote there, THEN when I own a residential property in Boston, a "second" home because I work there and sleep there. I claim just less then 50%. Should I be voting in Boston? NO, as it's not my "residence", which can be in only one municipality, by definition.
The laws and way for ages and ages.

It is troubling, for the reasons stated by many.

Calling Shanagans
 

You as a lakefront owner are not being taxed at a higher rate (tax rate). You are being taxed at the same rate as the guy with a 2-bedroom ranch on the other side of town. You have a higher value applied to your rate due to the land value (being waterfront) and possibly a bigger building.

Question. Were you made aware of the tax rate and property value when you purchased your property? or did you not read that portion of the property disclosure?

Anybody wondering why most locals do not want non-residents to vote, your answer is above. Ill informed tax payers that could care less about what the town needs and are only looking out to save themselves a few bucks on a property that all the information was presented to them ahead of time as expensive.

And just to clear things up, "private" road means that the town does not maintain it.

So are you of the opinion that my house on a "private road" should be valued and taxed the same as the same property built on a town owned, built and maintained road? It seems like I get even less for my tax dollar with no recourse in valuation because my "non voting taxpayer" opinion doesn't matter to the town.

Your house is assessed based on the market value of the property, not services received. That is the way it is throughout the state and in most other states. If you believe that the assessed value of your house is well above market value then you should talk to the assessor in your town.

There are a lot of high value properties on private roads, the market value determined by what people are willing to pay for property in that location.

I believe the point was that the non-residents pay for services they never use. The vast majority of lakeside houses are seasonal. The people who use them don't send their kids to the schools they are paying for. They use the roads but a fraction of the time the residents use. The list goes on.

People could complain that NRs don't have the best, long term interests of the town always in their minds and there's some truth to that. On the other hand the residents can spend with near impunity at rates that otherwise wouldn't be allowed for because it's OPM and beyond the NR's ability to control.

What's needed is some balance.

The problem is the assessor's don't believe and won't accept the argument that being on a private road diminishes the value of a home. They don't even want to hear about the expense of upkeep, plowing etc. Their response is "simiilar homes have similar value and the road makes no difference to us"
Kindly explain how that is justified!
I'm surprised they didn't propose that they should add the value of the paving that I paid to my assessment.

How do you feel about full time residents without children being allowed to vote? Obviously "they could care less about what the town needs and are only looking out to save themselves a few bucks on property that all the information was presented to them ahead of time as expensive."

How about voting children of taxpayers who don't actually pay any taxes themselves? I have two of my own. It is ironic that they can vote at the town meeting where we live but I can't vote in the town meeting where I pay taxes.

This issue is not fully obvious to all of us.

BTW I voted No in the poll.

Have a lot of explaining to do!
 

Charlie T first. Before we get to deep in this conversation we need to look at what causes a road to be private vs. public.

A private road is typically created for one of two reasons.

It is a right of way that services one or multiple properties (private cul de sac or association). Typically these properties pay an association fee for upkeep or services, so you are basically paying a higher fee for privacy.

The second is that someone wanted to build down a class six road even though the town was not interested in taking it on for whatever reason, so someone fit the entire bill to bring that road up to spec with the knowledge that they were going to have to maintain it. These situations can typically be brought into full town maintenance if enough houses are built per mile to off-set the cost of maintenance (then they raise the town tax rate to pay for it) and enough people on the road want it to happen. Usually though if it is not at current spec, which typically requires two points of entry, the town will not play.

You are in a tough spot, but living on a private road has benifits over us public road folks.

I can understand your feeling on this as my folks entered this arena about 11 years ago. This is their take on that; they do not have a choice in the matter but if by paying into the burden of the school budget means that someone elses children get the same opportunity or better than their kids got, then they are OK with it.

On your second point. I would have no problem with this situation, but I can only hope that this situation is handled properly. By that I mean, having parents that will take the time to discuss the issues with these children and clearly explain why they (the parents) are choosing to hold a particular platform on town spending (why is spending OK in one arena and not in another). That way, they understand why it is important to you and what you used to base your opinion on and so that they understand that you are not simply voting solely based on emotion; an all to common trait in voters it seems.

Anyway, my opinion on these types of issues is not a secret and I do not hold my nose to a non-resident in my town, thinking that I am better than they are, the same cannot always be said when the shoe is on the other foot. This coming from the resident of a town that shares police, ambulance, road maintenance and a school with the town next door, but we pay $2.00 more/K of value. We have a fire station and so do they and the town offices are on our side as are the school and police station, with seperate post offices. Try to figure out that arrangement as I have never been able to get a straight anwser from anyone, other than their side (no geographic town boundary either) has Highland Lake, so maybe those folks are getting a break to off-set the higher valuation, who knows.

And I also voted "no" in this poll. Suprise, suprise.

Simple: No taxation without representation
 

When it comes to local laws governing the land, if you own land and pay property taxes you should have a vote and the right to local representation.

No taxation without representation PERIOD.

I Disagree
 

Does this mean that every state I own property in I should be able to vote. I dont think so you should only be able to vote in the state of your primary residence. What about people that own property here or for that matter anywhere in the US and they are not US citizens do they now have the right to vote? When you own property outside of your state of residence resolve your self to the fact that you can not vote.

Remeber though if you have property issues this does not mean you do not have the right to legal remedies allowed under local law when you disagree with local building codes and laws regarding your property.

Be glad that the lake region towns don't do what Park City Utah does. They give residents a 45% discount on their property taxes and still don't give the non-residents a vote. It would be nice to have a system that let non-resident taxpayers have a vote on some issues, but in Moultonborough, they can at least speak at town meetings with permission from the moderator. Why couldn't a town implement a non-binding online voting process to at least get the pulse of non-voting taxpayers?

What is the defination of timeframe someone has to spend for this discussion of a "non- resident taxpayer"?

Is it someone who owns a home/condo- whatever a dock? and spends a day here or weekend or weekends or months here. Is this like State of Florida in order to be qualified to be a resident I have to spend 6 months of my time there, and most snow birds come back and forth- very difficult to enforce. This is to much of gray area.
If I am shelling out thousands I would like to have a say. Currently I do not have the free time to vote up here but If I have the time maybe I will if I am informed about topics that are important to me.

Do most town issues at the lake pertain to me? Yes and No.
Library trustee, or similiar do not impact me but maybe a huge bond issue does. How do you draw a line on how to vote for what and when? So what is next, Big brother telling me to vote or not to vote or else. Again who would enforce this? A "honor system" or a voter enforcement board and at what cost in tough economic times. Most of the lake towns would not exist if it were not for Summer residents and the tax dollars they bring only to mention a few "trickle down theory at work". Next winter just take a drive around, the summer resident to winter residnet ratio is probally cut by 50% or greater. Would the new high schools and public safety buildings "sans" federal funds exist up this way without tax revenue-No.

Like most town elections only a small percentage vote. In my southern NH hometown only 10% voted in the last town election.
This thread should be about "apathy" which is more of an issue.

Moultonborough's annual Summer Informational Town Meeting will be held this Thursday the 22nd at Town Hall at 4:00 PM. Good opportunity for you to voice your opinions.

Like we all have said, one must decide where they want to reside!
Regardless to owning property on Lake, across town from Lake, in Boston, or in Naples FL. Where is the majority of time spent? Answer that and vote there.

All info of meetings are usually in news media. In today's life, town happenings and issues at meetings seem to be posted on town websites.
It's time to get a life, as it's easy to be informed of issues before voters.

Per Roberts Rules, a non voter can be recognized and speak about an issue!

No
 

NH law requires that a person be a citizen before being allowed to vote. Been that way for 200+ years, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I find the elitist arrogance of out of staters absolutely astounding. They knew before they bought property that they would be subject to NH law. Now they not only want to vote in their own state but here as well. Tall about having your cake and eating it too! To think that they believe that they have the right to vote(yes, voting is a right!) in a town and state that they don't live in is astounding indeed. Their indifference for our state's constitution is remarkable and unjustifiable.

Using their logic, if I worked in Mass. and lived in NH, should I have the right to vote in Mass? I would say yes, absolutely.

Simply ludicrous.

I'm sorry but New Hampshire law only requires that you not be registered to vote somewhere else in order to vote here. If you are in New Hampshire on election day and you are not registered somewhere else then you have a right to vote in NH.

I double checked this with the Secretary of States office a couple of years ago.

So, just how do you define the word "Live" ? This is how the Merrium Webster dictionary defines it.


Main Entry: 1live
Pronunciation: \ˈliv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lived; liv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English libban; akin to Old High German lebēn to live
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant
2 : to continue alive
3 : to maintain oneself : subsist <lived on rice and peas>
4 a : to occupy a home : dwell <living in a shabby room> <they had always lived in the country> b : to be located or stored <the silverware lives here>
5 : to attain eternal life <though he die, yet shall he live — John 11:25(Revised Standard Version)>
6 : to conduct or pass one's life <lived only for his work>
7 : to remain in human memory or record <the past lives in us all — W. R. Inge>
8 : to have a life rich in experience
9 : cohabit
transitive verb
1 : to pass through or spend the duration of <lived their lives alone>
2 : act out, practice —often used with out <to live out their fantasies>
3 : to exhibit vigor, gusto, or enthusiasm in <lived life to the fullest>
4 a : to experience firsthand <living a dream> b : to be thoroughly absorbed by or involved with <she lives her work>

— live it up : to live with gusto and usually fast and loose <lived it up with wine and song — Newsweek>

— live up to : to act or be in accordance with <had no intention of living up to his promise>

— live with : to put up with : accept, tolerate <had to live with their decision>


They may not spend 365 days a year here but it sure sounds to me like these people "Live" here, and if anything is ludicrous, it's your comparison.
These "out of staters" aren't living in CT. PA. NY. FL etc. and working in New Hampshire. They Own property here !
If you "Owned" property in MA, then Yes, you should have the right, to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent there.

This is why most of Florida has lousy public schools. The retired folks that live and claim residency there do not vote favorable when it comes to school budgets and this makes for a lousy school system.

I'm sure at home where some lakefront owners raised thier kids they voted plenty of money for schools to make sure their kids got a good education(unless they sent them private$$$). The school system in a town is also a primary reason some people move to a particular town vs another. This is likely true whether they have kids or not due to the fact that schools indirectly factor into property values.

Many Old Folks Have More Sense...
 

And, They often do voluntary, [ NO Charge ] work in 'their' communities to enhance education of the young!

I would ask YOU, where are you getting you're numbers from????

Now in most cases, and most younger folks get free education from the elderly, NO?...

Some need to take a better look at where they are getting their Nummer's from!... :) ;)


Terry
__________________________________________________ _______

Taxation without Representation
 

Ever hear of this? Funny thing is, the Tea Party movement is once again in the news. Better go back to the history books.

As much as I hate to banter with you and your misguided view of just about everything:

To be accurate, the person must be a resident. Which is defined as:

A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there.

What you suggest would not be legal. Property ownership does not grant voting priviledges. If I owned 10, no let's say 1000 pieces of property between MA, CT, and NH. Would that mean that I get to vote 1000 times? Nope. I could only claim one of them as a residence--And I would have to live there more than 50% of the year.

I don't know how you come up with these comparison of yours but I do believe that whatever your smoking has to be illegal. :rolleye2:

I give up on this thread. I believe Everybody that pays property taxes should have the Right to say who gets to spend those dollars and how. I don't give a rats a$$ what anybody else believes. :)

Voter qualification clarification
 

There is no "term of residency" in the State of New Hampshire, and the belief that you would have to live here "more the 50% of the year is incorrect.

Bear Islander continues to be correct in his comments about this subject.

In New Hampshire I can vote simply if I claim I am a resident the day of the election, provide or sign an affidavit stating/verifying my current NH address and do not vote in any other election.

And in actuality I do not even have to have a valid physical address. The Courts have ruled that a homeless person with no address still has a right to vote in at least one locality.

And this has been further addressed for those folks that live completely mobile either by motorhome or trailer. They can claim NH as home, even if it is a PO Box, as long as they do not claim any other locale as home.

I say this as a long time elected moderator for my hometown and as an attendee (mandatory) of several election forums hosted by members of the NH Attorney General's Office. This subject invariably comes up at each session and is clearly explained by AG Staff.

The concept is simple. Everyone has a right to vote in one location. The Government is extremely limited in its ability to attempt to restrict that right by employing numerous qualifications on residency. That is why in every major election cycle in New Hampshire (and a great many other States) there is always a number of political advocasy groups challenging voters based on perceived residency issues (it was a big issue in NH after the last Presidential election) and after investigating hundreds of complaints no criminal intent is discovered or prosecuted.

Skip,

The part where you say "as long as they do not claim any other locale as home." prompts a question. If I go to my CT town clerk's office and un-register to vote, if I can even do this I'm not sure but if I were able, I could truthfully answer the registered to vote question. However, since there are such things such as my driver's license, CCW license, all tied to CT, I guess I couldn't truthfully answer the question about where my home is, even for one day. Am I correct?

Good question...
 

You are correct.

For purposes of residency (unless you are a college student or active duty military) you still have to prove or sign an affadavit that NH is your home.

Here's an example. You have a home, driver's license and cars registered in CT. You have a camp on the Lake up here. The day of the election you decide that you won't vote in CT so you go down and sign the residency affadavit and vote in NH. You make sure you don't vote in CT. But you never make an attempt to change your license or registrations and claim you moved back to CT the day after the election.

In this case, if discovered, you will be prosecuted by the AG for voter fraud as an argument will be made you really never changed residency.

Let's look at it another way.

Just before or during the election cycle you also move your license and vehicle registrations to NH. Even if its on the day of the election. Here you have clearly established your intent and it is OK to vote, because there is no length of residency requirement in NH.

Be forewarned though. Your home State may have entirely different laws and regulations on residency. I am only commenting on what the election laws are in reference to NH.

In reality its a commmon sense call for the moderator on the day of the election. I had to deal with hundreds of UNH students bussed every election cycle, and sort it out each time. What I found in Dover is that while there was plenty of confusion on election day by many voters, I never once had an honest case of intentional voter fraud.

There's an RSA for that....
 

NH RSA 669:4 Qualifications of Voters. Any person having his domicile within the town and qualified to vote under RSA 654:1 - 654:2 and 654:4 - 654:6 and who is on the town checklist shall be qualified to vote in town elections.

----------------------------------------------------------------

NH RSA 654:1 Voter; Office Holder.

I. Every inhabitant of the state, having a single domicile for voting purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves. A person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose.
[The rest of this RSA can be read here: http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa654.htm]

-----------------------------------------

NH Constitution - Article 11
[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile. No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. The general court shall provide by law for voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or state elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons including disabled and elderly persons who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non-payment of any tax. Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.

June 2, 1784
Amended 1903 to provide that in order to vote or be eligible for office a person must be able to read the English language and to write.
Amended 19l2 to prohibit those convicted of treason, bribery or willfull violation of the election laws from voting or holding elective office.
Amended 1942 to provide for absentee voting in general elections.
Amended 1956 to provide for absentee voting in primary elections.
Amended 1968 to provide right to vote not denied because of nonpayment of taxes. Also amended in 1968 to delete an obsolete phrase.
Amended 1976 to reduce voting age to 18.
Amended 1984 to provide accessibility to all registration and polling places.

As Skip mentioned there are RVers roving the country that do not have permanent residences. An estimated 100,000 citizens, mostly retired, consider their motor home or trailer to be their domicile. They consider themselves to have "mobile domiciles".

Therefore when they get a hook up at a RV park or park in a friend or relatives driveway they consider themselves instant residence of that community, and entitled to vote immediately.

Very simple solution
 

For those who are bothered by paying NH property taxes simply don't buy property in New Hampshire or sell the property you have. The taxes, AND the voting rights, have worked this way for quite a while now. My guess would be that the majority of people that have purchased land have done so within the last 50 years and the same tax and voting structure existed then. Yes, as property values have increased the taxes have gone up as well but you don't hear people complaining that the property they bought for a $200K twenty years ago is worth over $1,000K today. If the property tax bugs you so much, buy a house on one of the lakes in Maine. It's very nice there as well. You will pay some property tax but probably not as much. And you won't get to vote in local elections there either. You will also have to pay sales tax on anything you buy there. Plus when you sell your Maine house you will probably have to pay Maine capital gains tax. But it's not a perfect world, perfect defined as "someone else pays all the taxes, not me".

This thread is about whether or not Non Resident tax payers should have the right to vote. I don't believe it makes any referance to people, resident or not, being bothered with having to pay property taxes !
Your post is coming in from somewhere way out in left field.

I guess we are in left field....
 

Early on in this thread you are the one that ties the right to vote with paying property taxes:

And then you make this statement:

Explanation?

Thank you BI, Skip, and AW. I kinda knew it would be illegal to vote in NH, but you all have confirmed it. You guys and girl are the best. As for other posters who criticize folks that are upset that we non-resident taxpayers would like to have a voice in how our tax dollars are spent..... Our home was built over 100 years ago and we have inherited the home. We have gone through expensive legal expenses to set up a trust to make sure that that cottage will never fall into dissrepair or be SOLD. So despite the notion that you think we will profit from its sale some day,,,, check back when the court system of the United States is no longer in effect...Hopefully that will be a day I never see..

Yes I did ! I do firmly believe that paying property taxes should give a "taxpayer" the right to have a say in Who spends those tax dollars and How !! After all, it Is There money. Isn't it ?
Where in any of my posts on this thread do I make referance to being bothered by "having to pay property taxes" ??
One thing doesn't even come close to meaning the other. I am at a loss to even understand how any person can make a correlation between the two.
Are you and Yankee smoking the same illegal substance ? :)

Great idea! Own property in fifty states, pay property taxes on them, and vote 50 times in 50 different places!!!

Could you tell us what you are smoking?

I usually play right field
 

The reality is that if the property taxes were a lot lower the majority of property owners wouldn't care if they could vote in local elections. They would only be interested in voting to be able to control spending and thereby lower their taxes. Occasional summer residents would have little interest in schools, winter issues, libraries, social programs, etc. Non resident interest is driven by the level of spending and the associated taxes.

You believe that paying taxes should give you the privilege of voting but that has never been the case. Residency and citizenship always controls voting rights. If you live in the USA and are a citizen you vote in US elections not Canadian elections, even if you have interests in Canada that causes you to pay taxes in Canada. If you live in New York you vote in New York, not in Massachusetts, even if you work in Massachusetts and pay income tax there. The same carries through to the town level. Where you live is where you have voting rights and you can only reside in one place at a time.

There is sense in this because it is the people who live in an area that are most impacted by laws in that area. Suppose for example that Moultonborough, that has a large non resident population, was controlled by the votes of those non residents. They might gut school programs, snow plowing budgets, and other programs that they don't find of personal value.

Further, if money buys the vote, as you are proposing, shouldn't more money buy a bigger vote? If I pay 10 times the property tax shouldn't I get 10 times the votes of someone else? How about big companies? They pay big property taxes in the town. Shouldn't they get a big vote as well?

I would agree that my last post didn't directly answer the question posed about voting rights. Instead I answered the real question behind the question, i.e the disatisfaction with the level of property taxes paid. Mark, are you telling me you would like the right to vote here to be able to work on improving NH schools or the social support programs in the towns?:D

Wait until 2011
 

The law is clear, but in Moultonborough, it creates some special problems. First, something like 70% of the property valuation is shoreline property and less (probably well less) than 20% of the voters live on the lake. This means a large majority of the tax revenue comes from nonvoters.

The second problem is that of the voting 20% that do live on the lake, many (maybe half) are in Florida during the town meeting in March, where there is no absentee balloting. There is a lopsided balance between funders and spenders. Many issues are decided by voters who are also town employees, because they show up in sufficient numbers to swing the vote their way.

For the most part, Moultonborough is a conservatively fiscal town, but the state has designated it a “donor town” in 2011, to provide schooling welfare funds to poorer towns. The new donor tax alone will be about $1.25 per thousand in 2011, or a $1250 increase for a million dollar home. Ouch!

The recent controversy is boiling because an appraisal firm from Mass raised the valuation of most shoreline properties this year, while decreasing many non-shoreline ones. Their justification was not compelling and the process was not transparent. The law makes the tax situation unbalanced as it is. It appears as if non-voters are being taken advantage of, and are upset there is no apparent recourse, other than to suck it up. :(

It will be interesting to see how those on this forum, who are dead set against, and willing to deny others the right to have a say (yes I know the laws) in how their money gets spent, start whinning when the tables are turned and they have to start paying more taxes without having any say in how the money gets spent. :laugh:

Buy property in any other state in this country and go complain that they won't let you vote either. This system has been in place for quite some time. You were aware before you bought and are aware now, also the next buyer will be aware as well, unless they decide to live here fulltime. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain you are not alone, in not being able to vote as a non-resident property owner anywhere in this country.

IMO, there is another reason why this bothers you so much now. If it bothered you this much when you purchased the property I would think you would have passed, given your attitude on the situation. I have a thought, but am not going to make any assumptions on your situation.

The members of this forum do not make the rules on whether or not you can vote as a non-resident property owner. Some of us just look at things differently than others.

For instance, I cannot afford waterfront property on Lake Winnipesaukee. I have to use a public means of access to enjoy the lake. In my mind you are fortunate that you have a private domain to enjoy the lake without having to deal with another soul, if you so choose. That is something that comes at a price.

Seriously, count your blessings and be thankful for what you have and quit whining. This is the number one reason why many locals could care less what folks from out of state have to say. Change, Change, Change!!!

Residency
 

The test of voter eligibility is residency, not property ownership. If a non-resident wants to vote in any jurisdiction he must become a resident, not simply a taxpayer, of that jurisdiction. And one cannot be a resident of more than one jurisdiction. It's that simple, imo.

Suppose one (is fortunate enough) to own multiple properties in several states. Would proponents grant voting rights to that person in the several states? If that sounds ridiculous it's because it is.

In my case, being a snowbird, I faced this dilemma years ago and decided to declare NH my place of residence. I can vote here but not in Florida also. My proof of residency is my NH drivers license or another state issued ID. I can have only one of them, too.

While I can understand anyone's frustration with NH's property based tax system, because I am also hit hard by its unfairness, changing voter residency requirements is not the solution to the problem.

Neither can I !!!!!!! See what happens when you assume !
If you will take the time to go back and read post #9 you will see that I clearly state that I am a year round resident and not seasonal and just so you know and don't assume wrong again. I do not own waterfront property. I don't even live near the lake. I do not even use the lake. I am just a normal working stiff who spends his time working to pay my bills, taxes included. Fortunatly I am one of those who does get a say in how my property taxes get spent. :)

First, I apologize for making an assumption and for forgetting what was written back at the beginning of the thread.

But,
You need to sit down and think long and hard about what you are fighting for. Think about the affects of being able to vote anywhere you want, as you can find property for under 5K in just about any town in this country that will satisfy a tax payment for residency type of program.

This conversation just got really confusing to me. I do not get where you are coming from at all, don't take offense to that.

I am in agreement
 

The school issue has been used to attempt to slam a broad based income tax down New Hampshire's throat, as has been done in many other states (that all have income,sales, AND a fairly high property tax now). The donor mechanism is the legislatures ham handed attempt to avoid that. I live in Moultonborough and agree that the latest assessment is unbelievable in light of current economic conditions. Perhaps it's time for a class action lawsuit against Vision assessments to assure fairness and transparency. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes based on the reasonable assessment of my property but I have had 2 assessments done of my property last year and the town valuation comes in at over $150K over both of them. That is just ridiculous.

But in spite of all that, who gets the right to vote still should remain determined by residency.

Thanks Jeff....
 

I just wanted to thank you for your continued even-handed and common sense posts related to this subject! :)

My reading here is that this subject has been beaten to death. A forum can not change laws!
To me, and other posts, it's perfect sense that one votes in the jurisdiction of residence - property owner or a tenant..... Residence is the key!

Anyone can attend a city council meeting or town meeting! If one desires to speak to an issue, ask and be recognized by the chair after identifying oneself as whatever: resident & voter, tenant, property owner, etc.. That simple!
Roberts Rules!

Agree with residency but not about forum
 

I agree that a forum has no legal power BUT a forum is where ideas are brought out and discussed. A town meeting is a poor place to discuss ideas simply because there is not enough time and not everyone who has an interest can attend. Further, minds are often made up before town meetings. In a forum, people can float whatever questions and ideas they want and others can respond. In addition, a forum environment allows people time to consider what is said and what response is given. On some topics that matter to me I have spent a couple hours considering the issue, researching information, and crafting a reply. This is very unlikely to happen in a meeting because of time constraints and the nervousness of "being in the spotlight". Many people with good ideas may be uncomfortable or unwilling to speak in a meeting. People come up with all sorts of viewpoints and until they are tested in a discussion forum of some type they won't see the strengths and weaknesses of their ideas. Forum discussion allows a concept to be tempered into a better final form that might then be presented at a meeting or to realize the idea may not have merit.

I'm not sure that some of these discussions fit well on the Winni forum because they can, regrettably, become contentious and that distracts from the main purpose of the website. Don has given us considerable leeway in some of these discussions and I appreciate that. So I say, respectfully, discuss on.

Proportional Taxes
 

I have no problem paying taxes on my summer residence but, either let me vote on how the money is spent or let the portion of the population that uses the majority of the services pay thier proportional share.

I spend maybe a total of 50 days at my summer residence. Not only am I part time resident that doesn't send my kids to the local school, use the library, dump, etc. I live on an island so I don't have roads to plow and the fire department will only be successful in saving the property next to mine if I have a fire. Why am I carrying the same or greater load than the family that lives here full time?

To me, it comes down to one thing - a portion of the full time residents of NH (I'll admit, not all of them) want someone else to foot the bill. "No income tax!" "No sales tax!" Instead, "let's put a surtax on people's vacation home most of them are from out of state." Let's rasie the waterfront property valuations and lower the inland valuations. Most of the waterfront people are from out of state." "Let's let other towns in the state pay for schooling my children."

Some one once said, "There is no free lunch." I gues the message missed the granit state. One day this chicken will come home to roost!

I remember the expression...
"There is nothing fair about taxes, just some taxes are less fair than others."

AW, I really enjoyed the political incorrectness of our for fathers that you posted.

Amended 1903 to provide that in order to vote or be eligible for office a person must be able to read the English language and to write.

That's a copy and paste from the State's website... I also found it interesting but then it was in keeping of the national attitudes of the times. You can almost see the time line of the amendments to the US Constitution along with the NH State Constitution's amendments.

Interesting that the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment was just a week or so ago. Women haven't been allowed to vote in this country for 100 years yet but our country is 234 years old.

In Gilford ~48% of the taxes are from NRTP
 

Folks,

I just did a quick EXCEL on the 2009 assessors data base for the town of Gilford. A whopping 48% of the taxes come from non resident taxpayers...who can't vote. So I guess when the locals vote to spend money its basically half price to them!

Ms Merge

Value
 

You are paying based on value, like the valuation process or not. Putting the valuations aside (because we all know that the only way to truly know what your house is worth is to sell it), your tax rate is not based on the level of service you receive or use but instead on the level that is available. It is no different than the elderly folks that live in the suburbs surrounding Boston, they have no kids in school but are paying for new schools (like Newton's $197M monstrosity).

The issue is that the real big guy in the sky is not going to create any new waterfront on Winnipesaukee. Frankly, I think we will see more and more people priced off the lake so that eventually only the uber-rich will be able to afford to do so. It is really no different than what has happened to many NH residents who once owned waterfront property.

You are right though, we don't want an income tax or a sales tax.

I beg to differ.

When your taxes go up 5%, so do mine. When Joe Doe from CT, who owns a lovely piece of real estate I can only dream of owning, sees a 5% increase in his tax bill, so do I. My 5% increase has as much of an impact on me, even though my taxes may only be $2,000/year, as it does on Joe Doe who pays $200,000/year in taxes. Simply put: an increase is an increase.

As someone who serves on a local town budget committee and school board, who owns a business and a home, believe me when I say the last thing I want to see - especially in this horrible economy - is a tax increase of any kind. I would consider a well-justified increase but nonetheless, I don't welcome it like you may think. I've never heard anyone say, "Hey, lets run up a big budget this year; the non-voting tax payers can't do a thing about it!" I do hear the people who say, "My husband's been laid off and we only have one income," or "My social security checks are getting smaller this year." I get it. I really do. It's not "party central" like you think it is when it comes to budgeting....

The bottom line is that we need to stop gov't from thinking that taxpayer money is a bottomless pit that they can continually draw from. Cut spending! Stop thinking that the waterfront owner and the non-waterfront owner can continue to fund an unlimited number of programs.

Please forgive me for also responding to this - I don't want to seem like a "know it all" but I have sat through four years - going on five - of the budget process for both the school districts and the town budget for Alton. This will be my first year as a board member. I've had four years to watch and learn, as I was a recording secretary before I ran for office and was elected. I can't speak for other towns but I do know that our town employees have forgone raises or cost of living increases, presented a level-funded budget, etc. Our schools have cut spending in numerous ways - from supplies, to going in on a co-op like buying situation with other towns for oil, to getting grants, and coming in last year with a budget at almost -6% less than the previous year's budget. It's a strange reality when your default budget is MORE than your proposed budget that's on the ballot!

Now, keep in mind, this is small town government - the local of the local... not the state level of the budget...

I will admit I don't know much about the state budget. That's one budget session I'd be interested in attending. We assume there's fat in the budget but do we know that for certain? Really, how much do we pay attention to what happens beyond our local control? Again, I admit that's an area I know very little about... but I know that on our local level the budget is reviewed by many people, cut, re-cut, and well justified before it's brought to the voters in March.

Ultimately, the real power is executed at voting time. That sorta brings us full-circle, doesn't it?

Politicians act according to their nature
 

I think the town of Alton must be the exception rather than the rule if the budget has been controlled as you indicate. However, the problem is that spending should be limited at ALL times, not just when the economy is slow because spending committed to in the fat times is still around when things slow down. It is too easy for government officials to see "need" for one thing or another and I would be the first to say that the need may be real BUT we simply cannot afford to do all "good" things. Politicians, by wanting to help and by the pressure of the election process to provide good will among the voters are driven to spend money with limited concern for long term consequences or viability of such spending. The only real solution to to keep government OUT of as much as possible. If it isn't government's responsibility to fix something then they can't spend money on it. Unfortunately, the population at large has a credit card mentality and thinks the bill will never come due. As you say, ultimately the power rests with the voters. However they don't show up to vote and they keep passing bloated budgets. If people were really fed up with the spending you would see a wave of town budgets being defeated but that happens only occasionally. Frankly people have become dumb and lazy. They have left it to the politicians to "take care of things" and the politicians have a HORRIBLE track record with most things they do. We probably have the government we deserve because we have been careless and foolish as an electorate.

As to the original topic, I worked in Mass most of my career but lived in NH and paid 6% income tax to Mass, far more $$$ than I pay in property tax. Mass spends money like a drunken sailor on LOTS of stuff that I would never receive benefit from and would not support and yet I got no vote in Mass either. I can't think of a single tax where it entitles someone to voting privileges no matter how unfair or significant the tax is. I could have found a job in NH but Mass has a wider variety of opportunity so I worked there and paid the tax, without a right to vote. The same is true for property. NH property is apparently attractive enough to bid the prices up to the level they have reached even with the existing property tax burden and no vote in the local government. If the system was so onerous people would not be buying up here and people wouldn't be saddled with million dollar properties.

Gilford is no Alton
 

Folks,
Alton does seem to be the exception versus the rule. Look at the tax rate. Alton is uner $12 and Gilford is over $17. I read the other day that Alton bought Gilford's old fire breathing apparatus after the Gilford voters voted to buy new equipment (recommended by the Selectman 3-0 and Budget Committee 8-1). So if its good enough for Alton why was it not good enough for Gilford? This information never seems to make it to the ballot. When its recommended you think that it is a NEED versus a want.

My comments about the locals paying half is meant to illustrate that the total cost of a budget item (like the school budget) is spread out over all the taxpayers. In Gilford's case 48% can't vote on the budgeted item even though they have to pay for it. So opposition is going to likely be much less.

As far as the non resident taxpayer accepting the taxes because they are 'rich' and own million dollar waterfront property. I will tell you this those days are coming to an end. Demographically the boomers are beginning to retire. Property taxes (especially in Gilford) will and have begun to dominate personal budgets. Folks can no longer justify the property taxes. Retirement investments and savings are in the tank. As we have seen in Gilford waterfront properties will start to sell BELOW assessed value and thus the downward spiral starts.

Kudo's to Alton for REDUCING their budget. In Gilford they only talk about zero increase....and say that cuts would hurt the town employees. My response is that the citizen/taxpayer must come first. Once the local officials prioritize the public employee OVER the citizen taxpayer I think we are in trouble. The public sector must respond just as the private sector has. The private sector prioritizes the CUSTOMER, they have to thats where the money comes from, over its employees and in the public sector we must prioritize the CITIZEN/TAXPAYER and their welfare over the pay, benefits and retirement of the public employee. The public sector, like the private sector, is employed at free will. If they don't like it and can get a better deal elsewhere they are free to go.

Ms Merge

Good post Ms. M. I totally agree with you. I think taxpayers are reaching the breaking point and the government needs to stop spending.

As a great man once said " The goverment that governs least, governs best". T. Jefferson.

You note that the Town employees had forgone raises, can the same be said for teachers?

No, they did not, but the two proposed contracts failed in March and have been renegoiated, to come before the voters for a decision this fall. Currently, the teachers' contracts have expired. (Keep in mind we have two school districts in our town.) I may be mistaken, but I don't think that the two proposed contracts, if they pass, would have an increase of one or two cents (that's pennies - not percent) on the tax rate.

The schools have returned a sizable amount of unencumbered funds over the past few years. We've had budget freezes for two years in a row and last year found our energy costs (and a few other budget line items) came in lower than we'd anticipated simply due to market shifts or cost savings we were able to make.

Speaking from my own point of view and as a parent with two children in the school system, the teachers, staff, and employees at the school go above and beyond to give back to the community. From raising money, supplies, and food for the Alton Food Pantry, donating time and materials to landscaping projects around the school, winter coat drives, building dugouts (donated time, materials, and labor), writing for grants, and much, much more, there's a lot that is done that isn't in folks general job description. It's not difficult to see the impact on the community - and it's a positive impact on the students, as well. The parents are also a big part of these efforts, of course. The sense of community is something special we have at our schools.

Non resident taxpayers
 

IN some NH towns there are more non resident taxpayers so they are paying taxes without representation and the residnets are really being subsized by the seasonal residents and inreality are not paying their share of the amenities that they have voted
A numer of folks make NH their legal residence are here for 6 months and day and do not vote or even have an interest in local government unles stheir taxes are increased substantially

Residency requirements...
 

Although we've covered this subject in numerous threads, just a couple of quick corrections for anyone new.

There is no such thing in New Hampshire as a "6 months and a day" rule for residency. You can be a resident of NH and never spend a day here, as long as you call nowhere else home. You also can become a resident the day you move here, and vote on that same date.

Their is no denial of rights to a non-resident that owns property here but cannot vote here. The Courts have held that every citizen has a right to vote, but that right only extends to that person's place of residency. It has nothing to do with, or is tied to, land ownership.

And while I can appreciate and understand the angst of property tax paying non-residents I can pretty well assure them that nothing is going to change in reference to that in this State anytime soon. It has been this way for decades. Remember, while it is an obvious concern to waterfront property owners particularly in the Lakes region with several communities, it is not an issue in most of the rest of the State.

Finally it is interesting to me that down here on the seacoast we have many valuable homes as well, populating the ocean and many of the bays, rivers and inlets. Many of these homes are owned by non-residents and in a few communities they make up a great percentage of the tax base. However you do not here the protests down here like you do from some in the Lakes region.

Interesting.....I have an idea why but I will defer the speculation to others for now.

If you don't like it, why do you stay as a non resident. Wherever you file your federal income tax is your legal residence. Try enrolling as in-state residence at any state run school, ie, UNH, UCONN, UMASS etc.

After reading posts by Argie's Wife and some others it seems to me that residents have a much greater grasp and understanding of the workings of a town and it's people, it's real financial needs, it's operation, it's social needs and much more. Residents vote based on that knowledge. I suspect non residents would vote based on how it would affect the tax on their vacation property, I know I probably would. It doesn't seem a decision based only on tax rate would be good for the wellbeing of a town as a whole. JMHO.

What is your idea, my speculating capabilities are very poor?

I read it as your speculating powers are so great that he need not assist!

228 non residents of NH and 111 residents of NH Guess how they are voting?

In all of NH? Wow... I knew we had more trees than people but only 111 residents in NH? ;):cool:

Now, you know I'm talking about the forum members that have voted.

Now that you've explained it, I do. :)

Sorry but that's not a measurement of the number of resident voters and non-residents who wish to vote, but the number of respondents who answered "yes" or "no" when asked if non-resident tax payers should be allowed to vote.

There's 5361 registered members on the forum. At this time, 230 posters responded with a yes vote, and 116 posters have responded with a no vote. The combined number of respondents is less than 6.5% of the total registered members on this forum. In other words, it's not enough of a response on which you can base any trend at this point.

I would also wager that if this same poll had been posted in the winter months, when we have fewer seasonal posters active in the forum that your poll results would be quite different. :)

I hate to say this but I don't think most people have any idea of what they are voting on. I wish they did. They think if the selectmen or the planning board or the school board recommend it, it must be good for us. I would not vote if I didn't have a thorough understanding of what I am voting on.

You may be quite right tis but as you said, if you as a resident didn't have a thorough understanding of the issue you would not vote on it. There are many that would not be hindered by not having a thorough understanding.

My experience years ago was that my cousins in Wolfeboro knew the unpublished details of everything that happened in town and why they should vote yes or no on an issue. That may not be the case now for many.

Since I don't own property there I did not vote in the poll.

Just stumbled on this:

NO

If you own in more than one town, pick one as your residence and vote like it matters...because it does.

I appreciate the stewardship provided by the residents of my second home town.

I believe that they know best how to manage the town they have chosen as their residence.

CT is my current residence. In a few years I'll move to NH and make it my home. I can vote then.:D

Wow !Way to dig up an old topic from 2010.....:D

i think you should not be able to vote to elect officials, but be able to vote on matters that pertain to your property such as taxes, programs, and what not

So are you saying we should have two different voting days? One for non residents and one for residents? The non residents can come up on any weekend in July and cast their vote...oh wait Saturdays only.

You mus have known when you got your New Hampahire property that you were not allowed to vote on state and/or local matters. I have lived in several states and towns and none of them allowed nonresidents to vote on state issues or local issues out side of their main residency.

You may see this as not fair - Well life is not always fair! If you must you can sell the property which in spite of the poor real estate market would probably give you a very profitable return.

voting
 

No, you do not need two different voting days, but two seperate ballots one for residents and one for non residents. But what I see could be a different problem. Should my sister vote for our cottage? Should I be able to also vote? Perhaps it would be two different views:rolleye1:

I do not know, but I believe people should have a say when it comes to the taxes, or towns they own property in. you could do absentee ballots or early voting, just like they are doing now

I do not wish to amend voting for representatives in city or state offices being a 2nd home owner, but I should be able to voice and vote my opinion on something that directly effects me

just my two cents, take it or leave it

Not complaining and yes i Knew it was this way buying into a second property. It is what it is and I am willing to accept this fact, just saying it almost seems unconstitution not to be able to vote on things that directly effect me

Taxes
 

What would you all say if the town that you are a non-resident passes a bylaw that says
"if you are a non-resident your tax rate will be X and if you are a resident your tax rate will be a lot less than X"
Now would you think that non-residents should have a vote?

Interesting question however such a "bylaw" would be illegal in NH. Property taxation in governed by NH state laws and rules.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Just for entertainment purposes let me ask a question or two, since you live in Boston you would not get the local PTV channels to watch any meetings. How would you get the information? Read the minutes of all the boards? Newspapers do have a lot of information but not enough I don't think. The town hall is closed on weekends so you would need to rely on your neighbors? Oh wait they are weekender's too! Some properties are inherited, so like John B stated who gets to vote for the family? Most (lakefront, MA residents) property owners think they pay too much to begin with. Do you real think anything that would raise taxes they would vote for?
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

I remember when they voted in the 3% sales tax. They are known for raising taxes, that is why I left years ago,

My biggest issue with not having a say is that we pay the same taxes as a resident and can't we still have to pay ad a Non resident when registering boats, snowmobiles and other recreational veichles.