HB 1707 to Double property taxes

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The ideas are based on Montana and Florida.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...313803813.html

Looks like we should get working on homesteading my wife in Florida!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Major

Looks like we should get working on homesteading my wife in Florida!

They need a constitutional amendment.
But I think they will get it done.

My mother discussed it with us when she came home for the holidays.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Major

Looks like we should get working on homesteading my wife in Florida!

You can't have it in two states though. You would have to give up NH.

[Major]

Originally Posted by tis

You can't have it in two states though. You would have to give up NH.

Understood. Both properties are in a trust, and she's the trustee. Giving up NH homestead rights is no big deal.

[Biggd]

I have some friends from Conn, very wealthy, that took up Florida residency even though they still own 3 homes in Conn. They have to prove they live in Florida for at least 6 months each year to avoid paying Conn income taxes.

[BroadHopper]

There at least one state, Texas?, where if you live on the property year round, you were allowed to deduct $2 to $5K off your property tax. If the folks from this state moves up here, god only know that they want that implemented here!

[John Mercier]

Probably all the States will end up doing it.
Scapegoating second home owners is just a bias that seem to be growing.

[tis]

You would think they would be happy to have people gone for part of the year. Think what our towns would be like if all the vacant houses are filled year round. Most hate the big population in the summer but this would now be year round. Wolfeboro/ Tuftonboro would have 30,000+people year round instead of 8 or 9 thousand.

No, I think all this is a money grab. They are banking on the fact that people won't care and still not live here year round.

[JayR]

Hopefully this reply will help me if I ever have to prove it in a court of law, but I hereby declare on January 16, 2026, that if this bill passes, I will no longer be a weekender; instead I shall move to Gilford and reside there for 183 days a year or however many days it takes to avoid paying this terrible tax!

A pox on those who constantly seek to extract more dollars from good taxpayers!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

You would think they would be happy to have people gone for part of the year. Think what our towns would be like if all the vacant houses are filled year round. Most hate the big population in the summer but this would now be year round. Wolfeboro/ Tuftonboro would have 30,000+people year round instead of 8 or 9 thousand.

No, I think all this is a money grab. They are banking on the fact that people won't care and still not live here year round.

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

[tummyman]

Maybe they should turn it around the other way...charge the residents more as they use the services full time !!! Same for the schools..they are the ones with kids in school...so why not pay for it ? Let's be honest...the year rounders get more services than the seasonal gang. Never going to happen but it felt good saying it !!

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

Dozens of state are doing what? Not allowing people to leave their homes empty, forcing them to rent their homes when not there? Or giving residents tax breaks? And what happens if there aren't enough people interested in renting your home when you are not there? What then? I just can't imagine the infrastructure of our rural area can accommodate a year round population like we have in the summer if that many people were even interested in doing it. And this is supposed to help ease the shortness of rentals? Are they thinking about how the working class looking for rentals can even pay the HEATING bill for most of these homes? Probably the next step is to allow use of your home rent free and pay all the expenses. After that people that occupy their homes year round would be forced to have families to live with them, share their house with them. And if island homes need to be rented, how are they going to get on and off the islands? Maybe free boat service in the summer, ice boats in the winter? Air boats when no ice? Free to them the renters of course.

Please excuse the rant, the whole thing just seems to be so ridiculous that thoughts fly out of my head with not a lot of organization.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Dozens of state are doing what? Not allowing people to leave their homes empty, forcing them to rent their homes when not there? Or giving residents tax breaks? And what happens if there aren't enough people interested in renting your home when you are not there? What then? I just can't imagine the infrastructure of our rural area can accommodate a year round population like we have in the summer if that many people were even interested in doing it. And this is supposed to help ease the shortness of rentals? Are they thinking about how the working class looking for rentals can even pay the HEATING bill for most of these homes? Probably the next step is to allow use of your home rent free and pay all the expenses. After that people that occupy their homes year round would be forced to have families to live with them, share their house with them. And if island homes need to be rented, how are they going to get on and off the islands? Maybe free boat service in the summer, ice boats in the winter? Air boats when no ice? Free to them the renters of course.

Please excuse the rant, the whole thing just seems to be so ridiculous that thoughts fly out of my head with not a lot of organization.

Raising State level property taxes on homes that are not primary homes.
The exemption for the long term rentals are so that residents that could not afford a home do not see an increase in costs.

[gilford232]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

You seem to be rationalizing this proposal by saying other states do it. That should hardly be a reason to accept this. Should we accept sales and income tax because other states are doing it?

[John Mercier]

We rationalized getting rid of vehicle inspection on that basis.
What makes you think that won't be an issue?

The rational behind it is simple. Property taxes are high.
The elderly that make up most of the population are feeling strained.
And they are looking for a new source of revenue to either alleviate that or at least slow it.

Same reason the other States are going in that direction.

The only thing we know is that assessments and taxes will continue to rise as the forward projection of the labor pool is to worsen for some time to come.

[Biggd]

With the federal government cutting back on doling out funds to the States, they will all be looking to raise revenue!

[CTYankee]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We rationalized getting rid of vehicle inspection on that basis.
What makes you think that won't be an issue?

The rational behind it is simple. Property taxes are high.
The elderly that make up most of the population are feeling strained.
And they are looking for a new source of revenue to either alleviate that or at least slow it.

Same reason the other States are going in that direction.

The only thing we know is that assessments and taxes will continue to rise as the forward projection of the labor pool is to worsen for some time to come.

The problem with rationalizing is that it is most often used to mask what the real motivation is for some action taken either by an individual, group of individuals, or, in this case, by a government entity. This results in even the proponents not truly understanding the true reason(s).

I agree with Mr. Mercier that property taxes are high. I also agree that property values have dramatically increased since the pandemic. I do not agree that increased property values should necessarily result in higher property taxes. With an across the boards increase in property valuations as reflected by periodic reevaluations the mill rate should correspondently decrease.

I also disagree that a majority of New Hampshire residents are elderly. Approximately 21.5% are over sixty-five, not that sixty-five is considered elderly.

New Hampshire assesses property tax on 100% of valuation. Perhaps a graduated percentage could be adopted whereby property taxes are assessed on a lessor percentage for the elderly or disabled. This would constitute a homestead provision.

I'm not sure what property values and taxes have to do with the labor pool. The way New Hampshire seems to be going the only people who are going to be living here are professionals and well monied.

In any event governments need to learn to live within the means of the people they serve. People in government should stop rationalizing and start dealing with the limited resources of the people. The people should not simply accept the fallacious rationalization arguments put forth by those in power.

[phoenix]

So the argument is that if we need money find anyway especially to raise taxes who cant vote

[tummyman]

Nobody here is talking about the other side of the equation...cost of government. School spending is out of control at least for administration and all the classroom assistants. Insurance coverages far exceed what business offers today. Answers to problems seem to aways be add more people instead of looking for ways to be more productive. Nobody ever gets laid off. And productivity is low and not measured. Leaders just want zero problems and if that means more hires, so be it. They look the other way and just want to be voted back in at any cost. Always looking at what voters may think of any actions they take. Yes, taxes are high but the role of government is not to redistribute income. Nobody said they had to play RobinHood. They are supposed to be fair, not punitive. And yes, as a prior poster said, if what other states do is the barometer for NH, then why no sales tax, why no income tax ? I get it, leaders would rather tax those who cannot vote and seek ways to lower their burden at the expense of others.

[Descant]

It appears the Ways and Means committee voted unanimously Inexpedient To Legislate and agreed to put the bill on the Conse3nt Calendar. That is, it probably will get voted on in one vote with dozens of other bills, no floor debate. For those who think people with second homes don't get to vote, look around. Many, many NH residents own a ski or lake second home or a hunting camp.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

It appears the Ways and Means committee voted unanimously Inexpedient To Legislate and agreed to put the bill on the Conse3nt Calendar. That is, it probably will get voted on in one vote with dozens of other bills, no floor debate. For those who think people with second homes don't get to vote, look around. Many, many NH residents own a ski or lake second home or a hunting camp.

Anyone could pull it off the CC.
But I don't think the point was to get it passed.

Because of the several bills out there, I think the point is to get it on record and get it discussed.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Nobody here is talking about the other side of the equation...cost of government. School spending is out of control at least for administration and all the classroom assistants. Insurance coverages far exceed what business offers today. Answers to problems seem to aways be add more people instead of looking for ways to be more productive. Nobody ever gets laid off. And productivity is low and not measured. Leaders just want zero problems and if that means more hires, so be it. They look the other way and just want to be voted back in at any cost. Always looking at what voters may think of any actions they take. Yes, taxes are high but the role of government is not to redistribute income. Nobody said they had to play RobinHood. They are supposed to be fair, not punitive. And yes, as a prior poster said, if what other states do is the barometer for NH, then why no sales tax, why no income tax ? I get it, leaders would rather tax those who cannot vote and seek ways to lower their burden at the expense of others.

There are no more hires.
Very hard to find help in this labor market.

And as I have stated... NH has income and sales taxes.
Income taxes provide about half of the State's revenue. Sale taxes about 3/5th and the remainder is a property tax.

Whereas anyone can choose to make NH their primary residence. Change their DL, vehicle and voting registration, etc.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

There are no more hires.
Very hard to find help in this labor market.

And as I have stated... NH has income and sales taxes.
Income taxes provide about half of the State's revenue. Sale taxes about 3/5th and the remainder is a property tax.

Whereas anyone can choose to make NH their primary residence. Change their DL, vehicle and voting registration, etc.

"Very hard to find help in this labor market"...

In my experience "nepotism" breeds future government employees.

[John Mercier]

Not sure what that means.
Labor in the open market has a strong hand due to supply/demand.

So the State is wondering how do we get more supply or less demand.

Either one I think is just interceding in natural market forces that tend to self-correct over time.

I think they might just fear that natural correction.

The new entries into the area have significantly more income and wealth than we dealt with before or even during covid except in some very rare cases.

Starting to see customers with appointments that have annual household incomes measured in tens of millions become more of a regular occurrence.

I think the seacoast may be built out.

[DesertDweller]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Not sure what that means.
Labor in the open market has a strong hand due to supply/demand.

So the State is wondering how do we get more supply or less demand.

Either one I think is just interceding in natural market forces that tend to self-correct over time.

I think they might just fear that natural correction.

The new entries into the area have significantly more income and wealth than we dealt with before or even during covid except in some very rare cases.

Starting to see customers with appointments that have annual household incomes measured in tens of millions become more of a regular occurrence.

I think the seacoast may be built out.

Ok, I'll bite. To confirm, you are not talking people that are worth $10mm or more but rather people that have incomes of more than $10mm (which is what you said). The number of people worth more than $10mm is 2.3 million and the people that make more than $10mm is 23,000. That's a pretty select group.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

The problem with rationalizing is that it is most often used to mask what the real motivation is for some action taken either by an individual, group of individuals, or, in this case, by a government entity. This results in even the proponents not truly understanding the true reason(s).

I agree with Mr. Mercier that property taxes are high. I also agree that property values have dramatically increased since the pandemic. I do not agree that increased property values should necessarily result in higher property taxes. With an across the boards increase in property valuations as reflected by periodic reevaluations the mill rate should correspondently decrease.

I also disagree that a majority of New Hampshire residents are elderly. Approximately 21.5% are over sixty-five, not that sixty-five is considered elderly.

New Hampshire assesses property tax on 100% of valuation. Perhaps a graduated percentage could be adopted whereby property taxes are assessed on a lessor percentage for the elderly or disabled. This would constitute a homestead provision.

I'm not sure what property values and taxes have to do with the labor pool. The way New Hampshire seems to be going the only people who are going to be living here are professionals and well monied.

In any event governments need to learn to live within the means of the people they serve. People in government should stop rationalizing and start dealing with the limited resources of the people. The people should not simply accept the fallacious rationalization arguments put forth by those in power.

They have it for the poor elderly and disabled.

But taking further from the poor young to fund the poor elderly isn't rational.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

There at least one state, Texas?, where if you live on the property year round, you were allowed to deduct $2 to $5K off your property tax. If the folks from this state moves up here, god only know that they want that implemented here!

Lets talk about the Texas Property Tax system, no that I have been around down here long enough it is actually pretty slick.... and advantageous....

1. Yes you get to declare your primary residence as your homestead, and it helps lower your taxes.......The do this by adjusting the taxable value of what you own.
2. You can apply for further exemptions if you are disabled, and over 65, to further reduce your tax burden....
3. They freeze taxes for people over X age, so that they don't become burdened with higher then expected taxes in retirement......
4. There is no ambiguity in where your tax dollars are going... There are line items for county, local and Schools.....
5. Before taxes can be raised for School funding it has to go before the voting public...

Overall the scheme used in Texas isn't to bad.... My Taxes in Texas when down by ~3K once I had the primary resident exemption in place....I realized there was a solid point to make here, the 3K difference comes from two areas, with my homestead declared my School funding (ISD) amount owed almost was cut in half.......my county Tax, was cut by 1/3, local taxes where almost not effected.....

[John Mercier]

NH is slightly different due to our Constitution.
Part First Article 28-a was adopted in 1982.

So exemptions have to be voted on at the local level.
Along with local expenditures for municipality and schools.
County is by representation.

State funding to schools or other mandates, have to be through a State level taxation. So only at that level could the State apply a homestead exemption.

Current State Property Tax Rate is 1.44 (???), so a full Homestead Exemption would only save the 1.44 per $1000 of assessment.

We have a constitutional amendment that allows them to treat different classifications of properties differently for local taxation, but that is only systematic prior to the 1982 amendment.

Even that is being questioned at the local levels, because the State changes some items after 1982, and causes judicial questions to arise under that amendment.

So the "doubling" of taxation on second homes is really a "doubling" (and then some) of taxation on all homes, with the Homestead Exemption being applied at 50% of total (or 100% of the increase) to primary homes and those rented long term (6 months or more).

[Mr_Marty]

Only a Democrat could come up with something as stupid as this.

We don't have a "housing shortage". We have a "people surplus". There are already too many people in NH. The roads are too crowded. You can't go to the State Parks anymore without being trampled by crowds. The lake is chaos in the summer. We need to dissuade people from coming here.

Property tax (and any tax) pays for services from the government. This is a tax rooted in spite and envy. For those of us with second homes on the lake we receive almost nothing in exchange for our property taxes as it is. We get police, fire and crappy roads. We aren't using the schools. Most of us don't even get our trash picked up.

We are paying property taxes on two properties but receiving effectively half the services per dollar. Now they want to reduce this to 1/3 the services per dollar.

So this "brilliant" law would punish people who are already being punished. Absolutely insane.

And if the bill passes it will force some people to have to sell their homes. The homes will be bought up by wealthy New Yorkers or whatever and it will not do a single thing to address the so-called "housing shortage" and aggravate an already lopsided wealth distribution.

Ridiculous. The sponsors of this bill should be publicly shamed.

[John Mercier]

So DeSantis is a Democrat.
What about Abbott? Did he switch sides without us knowing.

Don't remember Montana being a Democrat State.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

You can't have it in two states though. You would have to give up NH.

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

As of now NH doesn't give any homestead relief but if that comes they will have to decide which state they want to take it in as you can only take it in one.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

As of now NH doesn't give any homestead relief but if that comes they will have to decide which state they want to take it in as you can only take it in one.

That is what these bills are about.
Providing a homestead discount.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

For some of the proposed bills, since the trusts would be the "owner", simply long term leasing it to the couple would meet the criteria in NH.

[tis]

John, it sounds like you support these taxes and think they would work??? So people that are paying $10,000-100,000 or more a year in property taxes should pay double? That ok with you? Hit 'em harder? Plus they not only pay double but let's force them to let somebody live in their house when they aren't there? I just don't see how anybody can think these are good bills.

And I think I have made myself clear. I guess if you get your wish we will see what happens.

[tis]

They never stop. Watch who you vote for, if you can vote in NH.

Sexton
Political Director
CONCORD, N.H. —
A new plan for an income tax to fund education in New Hampshire is being brought forward at the State House, and it's touching off a firestorm of debate and discussion.

Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists unveiled what they are calling their "3-3 Tax Savings Plan": a 3% income tax to fund education and a $3 statewide property tax, each raising $1 billion.

[tummyman]

The savior is that an income tax is a non starter. But it is always disheartening that politicians everywhere always take the safe route of raising more money, never attacking the root cause issues off out of control spending. If they are going to try something like this, it is time for SB2 to take effect everywhere to allow all voters a chance to weigh in on expenditures, not just those who can attend town meeting. The bloat is heavy and parents/educators hijack town meeting to approve budgets. The entire process is out of control.

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

The savior is that an income tax is a non starter. But it is always disheartening that politicians everywhere always take the safe route of raising more money, never attacking the root cause issues off out of control spending. If they are going to try something like this, it is time for SB2 to take effect everywhere to allow all voters a chance to weigh in on expenditures, not just those who can attend town meeting. The bloat is heavy and parents/educators hijack town meeting to approve budgets. The entire process is out of control.

I agree. All of these bills have been proposed by Democrats but stopped by Republicans. So I worry if the Dems take over the state again, one of these could pass.

[phoenix]

Another reason we meed to keep the governorship

[John Mercier]

It isn't will. It is when.
Republicans in other States have already passed them.

The Democrats are just trying to get ahead of Republicans on the issue because they see voter angst.

For instance, Meredith Town Budget is proposing a 20.9% increase.
The STR issue is alive and well at the local level.

So getting on the right side of that before elections is what both sides are attempting to do.

Many Dems realize that an income tax would tax residents - their voters; and expanding sales taxes beyond the current scope is raging against the wind. So they just follow the wind.
Saw this coming. Even posted about it all those months ago when the fictional Governor Dutton proposed it on a show that is now run over and over again.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree. All of these bills have been proposed by Democrats but stopped by Republicans. So I worry if the Dems take over the state again, one of these could pass.

I disagree. It's a political rather than party problem. The Republicans at the local, state, and federal level are just as bad (at the federal level, worse) as Democrats when it coms to over spending and running up deficits. Each party blames the other but when push comes to shove both keep spending and just come up with different ways to fund things - in ways that benefit their constituents.

[John Mercier]

State is overspending; but the major problem is downshifting.

It is unconstitutional in NH, but the Legislature can say the oath and have no real knowledge of what they just swore an oath to.

Most of their failures since Claremont has been the fact to not recognize that all mandates must be paid with State level taxation. Which is why they lose so many court cases and then try to "spin" it.

We saw this with the mandate on civics education.
All the schools teach it.

But the Legislature failed, and continues to fail, basic critical thought.

Since most of NH voting residents did not attend school in NH - never mind primary school - they never got an education on NH State level civics.

Same goes with our taxation policy. Actually pretty easy to see what is going to happen - but willful ignorance takes over until no other option presents itself.

They are either going to lose the "wants" or have to raise new revenue.
They may try to continually downshift it, but at a point that will no longer work.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

State is overspending; but the major problem is downshifting.

It is unconstitutional in NH, but the Legislature can say the oath and have no real knowledge of what they just swore an oath to.

Most of their failures since Claremont has been the fact to not recognize that all mandates must be paid with State level taxation. Which is why they lose so many court cases and then try to "spin" it.

We saw this with the mandate on civics education.
All the schools teach it.

But the Legislature failed, and continues to fail, basic critical thought.

Since most of NH voting residents did not attend school in NH - never mind primary school - they never got an education on NH State level civics.

Same goes with our taxation policy. Actually pretty easy to see what is going to happen - but willful ignorance takes over until no other option presents itself.

They are either going to lose the "wants" or have to raise new revenue.
They may try to continually downshift it, but at a point that will no longer work.

All true, except:
Around 2010 we elected a truly conservative House and Senate and the budget was cut about 8%. It can be done.
Big swing in the other direction in 2012 with all sorts of new fees and taxes which then got repealed the next session.

IMHO the Claremont cases were never about education. Andru Volinsky and friends saw the issue as a way to force the state into income and sales taxes.

We should have built a huge casino and NFL stadium in Salem when there was still a rail line straight to Rockingham. The major gubernatorial candidates from both parties for 2026 have stated that they will veto a sales or income tax, including the hated I & D tax which mostly hurt retirees...

[John Mercier]

We were also ignoring the funding of mandates at that time.

Watch the proposed 20.9% municipal rate increase in Meredith be spun by talking about what the higher proposal was, but the "conservatives" stepped in and got it down to 20.9%. This is how the masses are fooled.

Belmont BOS is upset because they are almost certain that we will vote down our budget again this year. But we have no real cuts.
Our "conservatives" are trying to convince us otherwise.

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We were also ignoring the funding of mandates at that time.

Watch the proposed 20.9% municipal rate increase in Meredith be spun by talking about what the higher proposal was, but the "conservatives" stepped in and got it down to 20.9%. This is how the masses are fooled.

Belmont BOS is upset because they are almost certain that we will vote down our budget again this year. But we have no real cuts.
Our "conservatives" are trying to convince us otherwise.

I wonder then if the town of Meredith is hoping the Girl Scout camp on Meredith Neck does in fact get sold as opposed to staying as a camp. I recall the project was talking about 8 to 10 new homes with a value of upwards of $10 million each. That would raise some ~$1 million dollars in additional taxes as I suspect they get nothing now from the Girl Scouts. I guess you can't have it both ways.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

I wonder then if the town of Meredith is hoping the Girl Scout camp on Meredith Neck does in fact get sold as opposed to staying as a camp. I recall the project was talking about 8 to 10 new homes with a value of upwards of $10 million each. That would raise some ~$1 million dollars in additional taxes as I suspect they get nothing now from the Girl Scouts. I guess you can't have it both ways.

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

[John Mercier]

Correct.
It will just further the cycle.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Hello, Town of Alton? Are you listening? Pay attention to what this person said.

[dva]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Hello, Town of Alton? Are you listening? Pay attention to what this person said.

Nobody will listen till it's to late and they have a MONSTER in there back yard!!

[John Mercier]

Build out - which is a function of property rights and demand - does not create the problem, nor can it resolve the problem.

The problem they are experiencing is a labor shortage.
The balance of seasonal to resident has tilted further over time reducing the workforce available. And the push toward lower children and residents in that child-bearing age group.

This was all discussed decades ago and ignored.

[Little Bear]

No, no, no….HELL NO!

https://www.businessnhmagazine.com/a...king-firestorm

[John Mercier]

Already posted.
That is what the 3-3 is.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Already posted.
That is what the 3-3 is.

Ok, so what? Do you have a problem with my posting of the link to this article from Business NH Magazine?

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Yup - tricky situation. Which is worse, the 8 to 10 new $10M homes or continually raising taxes on family camps (which is any shed touching the water at this point) that then leads to owners or families selling - then they get knocked down and we are back to the $10M home. I have personally seen this exact thing play out 3 times in the last 2 years. I suppose one could argue that in either case, they are 2nd homes with likely no additional pressure on the school system. The cycle seems unsustainable to me but what to do. I vote sales tax as at least you have some control over what you buy and don't but I know that's not popular. Live free and die of taxes!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

Yup - tricky situation. Which is worse, the 8 to 10 new $10M homes or continually raising taxes on family camps (which is any shed touching the water at this point) that then leads to owners or families selling - then they get knocked down and we are back to the $10M home. I have personally seen this exact thing play out 3 times in the last 2 years. I suppose one could argue that in either case, they are 2nd homes with likely no additional pressure on the school system. The cycle seems unsustainable to me but what to do. I vote sales tax as at least you have some control over what you buy and don't but I know that's not popular. Live free and die of taxes!

We have sales taxes. Lots of sales taxes.
At the State level, sales taxes almost provide as much revenue as business taxes.

[tis]

WE also have an income tax for business people, the Business Profits tax and the Enterprise Tax.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Perhaps use the $1mm to widen Meredith Neck Rd. into a 4-lane highway bottle-necking at Pleasant St. and Rt. 25 resulting in the addition of Meredith's third traffic light.