Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProfessor
ZONING.
Zoning, zoning, zoning.
Each year many towns pass new stricter zoning laws and restrictions.
All with good intentions. Nice. All seem to wish that these towns remain beautiful New Hampshire towns. The beautiful old farmhouses, pretty old barns, and save the trees. Trees, trees, trees.
Also, don't change the town AFTER my McMansion is finished. I want my McMansion but I don't want any more new McMansions to "ruin" the woodsy scenic views I have. Just one example of many others.
Don't build any homes on the mountains. Don't want my view of the mountains obstructed by some new house. Private property is private property. Whether on lowlands or highlands. But let's restrict the highlands. Have the government/people pass laws to prevent hillside construction thus lowering the value of some private property. That's OK. Right?
Let's zone all vacant land so that no new businesses can construct or move in. And some wonder why there are few good paying jobs available locally. Cruz Con is OK as that is a nice pretty building. But we don't want any new ugly buildings - whatever that means.
Here in my town, the minimum zoning for a home is one acre. You can't build a home unless the lot has one acre. OK. BUT, then the town/people ADD a caveat. The lot must be one acre of "buildable" land. More restrictions. So that one acre that your grandparents were saving cannot now but built on as it has a 20 feet by 20 feet "dip" in it that may "hold" some water in the Spring time. That "dip" may be construed by some as wetlands. Making that one acre lot Not buildable. An extreme example. yes, but that is where some are heading.
So some wonder why younger families are not moving into these small towns. Some towns now have committees seeking solutions to workforce housing or affordable housing to bring in families. Yet other will scream that we don't want any low cost housing as it brings in "poor" people or the undesirable people - whatever that means.
So each year some questions why the towns population is aging and why the school population is declining. All the while questioning why the per pupil costs go up. But this post is not about schools. This post is not about schools. Stated twice on purpose. Take that school debate to another thread or another forum. This post is about the big picture of the towns we reside in.
Back to the Recreation Complex.
The Town Meeting does restrict the number of participants. Some like this just for this fact. Bring in an organized few and the $20,000,000 (twenty million) dollar budget passes by 27 votes. Yes, this is fine. Except many can't sit thru a 3-6 hour meeting. Many can't show up for other reasons.
The only answer is SB2. One day, all day, voting. Including absentee voting. Each item will pass or fail on it's own merits.
More citizens voting is more democracy. The more people voting is better isn't it?
|
Not sure if the Professor is referring to Moultonboro zoning or not but perhaps he/she should know what they are. Last time I checked the residential zoning allowed construction on a lot containing a minimum of 40,000 square feet or LESS than an acre. The lot must however conform to certain soil types and slope requirements. These conditions are not new and in no way an effort to prohibit new building. The soil types are necessary to allow for on site septic requirements and the slope restriction is generous but does not allow impractical building lots. This zoning appears to be more generous than where the Professor lives.
On a totally different topic, it appears that the Moultonboro Blogger aka the selectman with a soapbox for personal use only, has started again on his agenda for the CC/Gym that was dealt a huge defeat at the recent town meeting. He now is pushing for the rec dept agenda and states that usage numbers have been supplied by the rec dept director. Blogger knows for a fact that his statement is totally false as evidenced by Al Hume's comment plus numerous other instances where the rec director has not been held accountable. He is correct in stating that a lot of misinformation has been thrown around but he cannot bring himself to admit that he has been one of the ones most responsible for the misinformation. His power point presentation given months ago about the proposed facility included a slide that said that based on the UNH survey the MAJORITY of residents did not want a new gym, etc. Why then is he so angry that his pet agenda was soundly rejected?