Gilford Dock Owners losing access to Glendale Launch Ramp

[The Real BigGuy]

I agree with the current law when talking about federal & statewide elections. Where I have an issue is local elections. I feel that people should be able to vote/have a voice in local elections/matters wherever you pay property tax. Unfortunately, I am in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I agree with the current law when talking about federal & statewide elections. Where I have an issue is local elections. I feel that people should be able to vote/have a voice in local elections/matters wherever you pay property tax. Unfortunately, I am in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

You know, I think you are exactly right. Federal and State Elections are different than local. Obviously you shouldn't vote for those twice. But, if you pay taxes thereby contributing to the budget of a town, you should have a say on how it is spent. (Even though most don't even bother)

[John Mercier]

So would all the shareholders of Lowes/Walmart/Home Depot be able to vote?
Or are you just suggesting that some property owners paying taxes should have that option?

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So would all the shareholders of Lowes/Walmart/Home Depot be able to vote?

Or are you just suggesting that some property owners paying taxes should have that option?

If the shareholders in Lowes/Walmart/Home Depot can produce a property tax bill from the town for their share of the tax then yes, they should have a vote. But, as you are aware, the tax bill goes from the town to Lowes, not each individual shareholder.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

You know, I think you are exactly right. Federal and State Elections are different than local. Obviously you shouldn't vote for those twice. But, if you pay taxes thereby contributing to the budget of a town, you should have a say on how it is spent. (Even though most don't even bother)

Yes, I also agree with RBG. Just as a matter of neighborliness and good faith, I would put this and beach/dock access into a separate category

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Yes, I also agree with RBG. Just as a matter of neighborliness and good faith, I would put this and beach/dock access into a separate category

The dock/beach issue is too many users for an amenity designed and constructed for a lower number of users.

Only fix is to restrict user base or build a bigger amenity... AKA more taxes.

Easiest fix for the other issue... declare residency here.
Or you have to let every tax payer of every business vote on the issues.

[Descant]

At some point of saturation, the problem will be self solving. As the Yogiism goes: "It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore".

[Lake Fan]

Originally Posted by Descant

At some point of saturation, the problem will be self solving. As the Yogiism goes: "It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore".

If we aren't at the saturation point now, we're probably pretty close. The shoreline is completely developed, to the point that tear-downs are common, and the new houses are huge compared to the camps that used to exist, with lush green lawns right down to the lake. Boat docks and moorings are pretty much unobtainium, and are now astronomically priced. Boat traffic is at an all-time high, with bigger and faster boats being driven erratically by entitled, inexperienced newbies. The water quality has gone from pristine to marginal, if not unsafe, in many areas of the lake during peak times.

Granted, having been on the lake for over 50 years, I'm in the old geezer shouting "get off my lawn" demographic. Despite all the above, I still love the lake though.

Rant off.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Easiest fix for the other issue... declare residency here.

That may be the "easiest" fix, but that does not mean it is easy if you are a summer resident--you need to stay 183 nights.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

That may be the "easiest" fix, but that does not mean it is easy if you are a summer resident--you need to stay 183 nights.

I don't think this is the case. Pretty sure the state you are leaving is the place you have to be able to show you are NOT there for 6 months. I can't, for example, declare my NH property as my home because I am spending more than half the year in MA. When I retire, I can declare NH as my residency - but want to be able to prove to MA that I am NOT in Massachusetts for at least 6 months out of the year. I can live in NH for 5 months, travel for 2, and live in MA for 5.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I don't think this is the case. Pretty sure the state you are leaving is the place you have to be able to show you are NOT there for 6 months. I can't, for example, declare my NH property as my home because I am spending more than half the year in MA. When I retire, I can declare NH as my residency - but want to be able to prove to MA that I am NOT in Massachusetts for at least 6 months out of the year. I can live in NH for 5 months, travel for 2, and live in MA for 5.

I'm not a lawyer, and your post makes sense. But the point remains the same--it is damn difficult for a summer resident (from Mass in your example) to declare NH their primary residence. They still need to spend 183 nights away from Mass

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I agree with the current law when talking about federal & statewide elections. Where I have an issue is local elections. I feel that people should be able to vote/have a voice in local elections/matters wherever you pay property tax. Unfortunately, I am in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

We also pay property taxes to the State... so your option is to either recognize the system when you enter the agreement, or abide by the agreement and change residence.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We also pay property taxes to the State... so your option is to either recognize the system when you enter the agreement, or abide by the agreement and change residence.

And we pay taxes to the feds. So you vote once in your state and to the fed. If you live in California or NH there is only the one federal budget and elections. But you pay two sets of taxes to two different towns with TWO different budgets if you have homes or property in two different towns. So why shouldn't you have a say in each town?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

And we pay taxes to the feds. So you vote once in your state and to the fed. If you live in California or NH there is only the one federal budget and elections. But you pay two sets of taxes to two different towns with TWO different budgets if you have homes or property in two different towns. So why shouldn't you have a say in each town?

I don't pay property taxes to the feds.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I don't pay property taxes to the feds.

I didn't say property tax. I said taxes. Since you work you obviously pay income tax.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

I didn't say property tax. I said taxes. Since you work you obviously pay income tax.

I get a vote at the federal level.
But my father paid taxes his whole life... and never got to vote because the rules are citizenship (sort of like resident).
The payment of taxes does not guarantee the right to vote.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I get a vote at the federal level.
But my father paid taxes his whole life... and never got to vote because the rules are citizenship (sort of like resident).
The payment of taxes does not guarantee the right to vote.

And your father didn't want to become a citizen of the US? If he did, he would be able to vote- the same as islanders on the lake if they want to become residents of NH. They should be able to vote in NH and their town if they are residents. primary residence that is. Or is it illegal to make an island property your primary residence? People have lived on the islands all year.

[John Mercier]

The islanders had the option pry to the zoning change. They would have been grandfathered in at that time.
Currently, the zoning makes it illegal to make an island property in Gilford your primary residence unless it is connected by bridge to the mainland.

They could seek to change the zoning...
But on the issue at hand, it is really too many users for the existing infrastructure.

So the proposal was for those that had another access at the marina to use that one. If they determine that isn't an option... then they will still need to come up with a proposal to reduce the usage.
Or expend some money to increase the capacity of the facility.

The issues at the beach are the same.

Infrastructure is outdated and built when the Town of Gilford had a lot less residents and even less seasonal.

We build a lot of homes and condos, but forget about all the infrastructure that makes that possible.

[tis]

OK, so that is why. The zoning law makes it illegal for islanders to claim their property as their primary residence. Is that just Gilford?

[John Mercier]

Each municipality is zoned, or not, separately.

You would need to research each one around the various lakes to see if one is different.

But voting is really not the issue with the restrictions. Some mainland residents of Gilford have dock access to the lake. The town is simply looking for a means to maximize the use of the current infrastructure without having to raise taxes to build out new infrastructure.

All the infrastructure is currently becoming concerning around the lake.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Each municipality is zoned, or not, separately.

You would need to research each one around the various lakes to see if one is different.

You mean you don't know? I thought you had the answers to everything!! I am disappointed in you!

[John Mercier]

Even for Gilford I didn't know.
I simply looked it up and then posted the link.

I learned a long time ago how to use a computer with an internet connection to find the information that I was looking for.
I'm just not willing to search each municipality around all the lakes in NH to discover what they are zoned.

Like I stated. It isn't really pertinent to the discussion, because the issue is too much demand for the existing infrastructure.
Some municipalities will build out the infrastructure, others are concerned for a future change in demand... which would mean too much investment in infrastructure that goes unused.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We also pay property taxes to the State... so your option is to either recognize the system when you enter the agreement, or abide by the agreement and change residence.

No you don’t pay property taxes to the state. You pay your property taxes to the town/city and the town/city pays their assessments to the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

No you don’t pay property taxes to the state. You pay your property taxes to the town/city and the town/city pays their assessments to the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The transference is a matter of ease. The taxing authority is the State.
Same thing for the county tax.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The transference is a matter of ease. The taxing authority is the State.

Same thing for the county tax.

Sorry, the fact is you “pay” the town. Your check is written to the town. They take their cut and send the state what is required. The state grants the town the authority to collect property tax so, legally the town is the taxing authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Sorry, the fact is you “pay” the town. Your check is written to the town. They take their cut and send the state what is required. The state grants the town the authority to collect property tax so, legally the town is the taxing authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The DRA sets the rates... because the State is the taxing authority.
The State acquires that power under NH Constitution Part Second Article 5.

Towns/Cities are only municipal corporations, and can be taken by the State into receivership. We are a Dillon's Rule State.

The town collects those taxes under the authority of the State.

The authority to tax, and the mechanism of collection are two different things.

For instance, the restaurant cannot set/set aside a Meals Tax... but it remands a portion based on the State statute.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The DRA sets the rates... because the State is the taxing authority.
The State acquires that power under NH Constitution Part Second Article 5.

Towns/Cities are only municipal corporations, and can be taken by the State into receivership. We are a Dillon's Rule State.

The town collects those taxes under the authority of the State.

The authority to tax, and the mechanism of collection are two different things.

For instance, the restaurant cannot set/set aside a Meals Tax... but it remands a portion based on the State statute.

Mia culpa, you are correct. The state is the taxing authority in that it is state law that provides for taxation of property. The municipality is acting as an assessor & collector. The DRA does “set” the tax rate but in reality is setting the education tax rate and approving a property tax rate requested by the municipality.

However, when I write my property tax checks to the municipality, I am thinking mostly about the municipal services that are driving the tax rate and my assessment, not the broader state services. I believe most people feel this way. If they didn’t you wouldn’t see some the topics on this site that you do. (As an example we have the current thread on the proposed Moultonborough project). People who pay local property taxes expect something in return, and some say in how their taxes are paid. They expect to be treated equally with other residents.

The beach & ramp issues could be handled other ways then excluding certain residents. By day, by time of day, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Because the State is the taxing authority...
It would need to change the law to allow a local municipality to have non-residents vote on only that local taxation. They still couldn't be involved in the county or State part of the taxation (the State part most likely to become much larger as the ConVal lawsuit is not going well for the State).

The State would also need to carefully define the option within a constitutionally valid format.
For instance... every shareholder of Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes... etc are taxpayers in the town of Gilford. Optioning a voting right, while denying them the right could prove constitutionally rife with lawsuits and damages.

Allowing them to vote, could cause a logistical nightmare for the town.
Also, most residents... those that would need to make the change after the State would allow it... may question whether non-residents have the collective best interest of the town.

So it is a very tall order to change the process that NH has used since it was a province of the crown.