From the 2014 Recreation Needs Assessment And Planning Report prepared by the Department of Recreation Management and Policy, University of New Hampshire submitted to the Town of Moutonborough in January, 2015 and paid for by the Town of Moultonborough:
“There is strong and principled opposition among town residents on the question of a new indoor recreation facility, and the voices of these residents were heard the most during the public input portions of this project .While every effort was made to engage all residents in some facet of this process – focus groups, public input meeting, community survey, and various public meetings on the project - the majority position that was heard during this process was against building a new facility.” [At Pages 34 and 35].
In light of these independent findings in a study by Ph. D’s paid for by the Town, is it really credible to argue that the vote of 60% against to 40 % for Article 2 was either: (a) a surprise; or (b) the result of “hijacking” or parliamentary “tricks”? Perhaps the legislative body is more intelligent than certain people had thought.
|