Seventeen years is a loooong time for this……
 

To put it simply, I think that the townspeople, particularly the seniors, are just plain worn out with this community center project, which has strung out for more than a decade. People realize that we need something for use by the community, but the current HUB proponents have been at this for a very long time. A scaled down version of their proposal does not suit them. It must be 35,000+/- s.f. with 2 pools and a host of other amenities. This is just too much for most people to swallow, and that is why it continues to be voted down. People in this community are very generous with their time and money, but there needs to be a limit. The per capita expenditure for education exceeds $34,000, and you rarely hear complaints about that, but I think that people draw the line when it comes to expensive recreational facilities at taxpayer expense. It’s just that simple, and the planners for any center need to come down to earth.

well said and the division this causes in the town needs to end. Hopefully they will give it a break for a couple years. By the way the waterfront homeowners will continue to see large assessment increases

It was my first town meeting in Moultonboro and it was well organized and well run.

This town does need a better center than what it has now. Unfortunately, the players in this are well entrenched in their positions. The hardcore naysayers are never going to be swayed for this. But I think a lot of people who voted against the hub would be willing to support a building that was more modest. I think the rigidness of the presentation and some what I considered tenuous points as to why it needed to be the way it was presented and any amendments to whittle some things out would cost more, well those things kind of turned me off a little. I can imagine people who might have been on the fence or an unsure no weren't impressed.

I think each select committee member feels the hub is a toxic reelection death sentence, which is unfortunate. It's too bad that someone on the committee won't step up and get a conversation going on the HUB, good things would probably happen.


Since this is the unofficial SB2 thread too, I'll say, I'm pleased the town rejected this attempt. Although I do think with the absentee vote aspect of SB2, it would have been a golden opportunity for the HUB promoters to harvest the votes needed to put a proposal like they had last night over the top. Fortunately the townsfolk understand the huge opportunity for everyday people to effectively steer the direction of town government with a traditional town meeting. I hope this awareness continues in this town.

The increased market demand and low tax rate would lead to that conclusion.

Moultonborough
residents 5,091 (2020 census)
registered voters 4,276 (town documents)
parcels of land 7,565 (town documents)
taxpayers 8,509 (town tax office ... reason for more taxpayers than parcels according to tax office, is some parcels have multiple owners and therefore, tax bills)

NH (NH.Gov)
10 counties
13 cities
221 towns
25 unincorporated
72 SB2 towns (NH DRA)


2023 town vote
Hub vote 444 yes 546 No total vote 990 60% needed = 594
SB2 vote 426 yes 464 No total vote 890 60% needed = 534

Looks like 100 didn't vote, or left the meeting from Art.2 to Art.3

There ya go traditionalists ... need to attend a town meeting to get informed,... sure!. At least with SB2 all the trouble of putting a paper ballot in a box would have been accomplished with a lot less expense and grief. However, with respect to the democratic process, no SB2 for MoBo, is accepted.

A community center, not recreation center, will surely come up again. Maybe this time it can be done with the help of engineered, structural steel building vendors, that provide accurate build costs, and not rely on uninitiated. The inside of the buildings can be town-defined.

Where else have you been!
Your first MoBo meeting! 2004 and it is now 2023 and ... you're going to opine on the effectiveness of town meetings? Especially here in locally controlled MoBo as in keep absentees from voting ... please!

See above.

The Hub folks believed just the opposite. Absentees would futher erode The Hub vote and might provide the 60% needed for SB2. They believed the SB2 folks were the main opponents to The Hub. Not true, however.

Aside from the defeat of the HUB, I’d like to add a positive note about an unknown person at Town Meeting. Prior to the meeting my wife went to a local bank and withdrew $100 from the ATM. She wrapped ATM receipt around the bills and went to the meeting. Unbeknownst to her at some point during the meeting the bills and the receipt fell out of her pocket book. Yesterday we got a call from the bank that her cash and the receipt had been turned into the bank. So thanks to the honest person.

Winni83, that’s great news…..and not too surprising…..we have lots of good people out in the community. Thanks for sharing.

Lol, calm your jets Mr. or Ms. speedy assumptions. There are way more possibilities than a or b, you may need to open your mind. I was a non-voting taxpayer here until last year, my previous town was governed via town meeting, so I'd put my number of town meetings attended up against yours any day.

Your post is a perfect example of how incomplete, reactionary thinking can lead to an erroneous result.

You continue with your "facts" in the last paragraph of your post. You can't possibly know what you assert. Nice opinion, but most likely incorrect, my opinion. See how that works?

All the more reason you have no knowledge to opine on MoBo town meetings, if you didn't get involved.

My comments acknowledged that you might be a taxpayer but non-resident till recently. I stated your first MoBo meeting. I was the same from 1974 till 1996, when I became a resident. I've only been attending MoBo Town meeting for about 15 years. You mention you have many town meetings "under your belt". This is relevant to what? Was it in NH or some other state.

If you joined this forum in 2004 why aren't you more aware of MoBo town politics.

The SB2 push came about last Spring when two select board members that are staunch Hub supporters, got the select board to change the town meeting to Thursday evening after years and years of the town meeting being on Saturday. Town meetings had been changed to May to accomodate snowbirds that could make May but not March town meeting, as well as the town changing to a fiscal year, rather than a Julian calendar year.

Hub supporters at last years's town tried to move the town meeting back to March for the same reason ... not allow snowbirds to vote at town meeting with The Hub coming up this year for a vote.

Legally, the voters choose March, April, or May for town meeting but the select board chooses the time and day of the second session. That choice by the select board would have gone away with SB2.

I don't know if the sun will come up in the next 30 days, but I can make some pretty good guesses. Your words, opinion. My words, educated probability.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is misinformed or not allowed to "opine" on politics? That's rich, I thought the whole point of SB2 point was to bring more people to the table and generate more participation. Your post here shows that you are not really interested in more participation, you just want an echo chamber. Your tone is kind of blowhard in this post.

The "politics" you talk about concerns meeting dates. Yet, the scheduled meeting had to be postponed a few weeks at the last possible minute and a huge crowd still showed up to the rescheduled meeting. That's a fact that blows up your concern about which day a meeting is held or what date affecting participation.

What you saw this week was classic town meeting politics. The system worked, it's far from perfect, but much better than the alternatives including SB2. Town meeting was moved from earlier in the year until May to accommodate snow birds, yet people still don't participate. That sounds like a choice to me. The meeting this week proved that motivated people will find a way to exercise their right to vote.

The select board, that group democratically elected by the citizens of this town. If they don't do the bidding of the citizens then they don't get reelected. It's pretty easy, they understand it, and again, it works pretty well.

I'm sure the SB2 crowd will be back again, as will the people who want the community center. It's going to be a fun show, thanks for the entertainment.

That is exactly what SB2 does.
More participation in voting.

Currently, it is more cliques or clicks that wish to control the assests of the town. Those cliques or clicks don't want more to vote. Those cliques or clicks want less to vote. So that their pet projects can get enacted. And property taxex go up for all for the benefit of the few.

More allowed to vote is better than less allowed to vote.
Thomas Jeffereson: 1792

The Prof is spot on!

Also, the snowbirds did participate, as did the "local control" folks or cliques.
Statistics are not opinion. Opinions are fine, but are views or judgments formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Your comments to me at #434:


Your comments to Sue Doe-Nym at post #430 in this thread:

Those are more than opinions. More like passing wind.

I find it interesting that the complaint is town meeting is too cumbersome/inconvenient/hard/scary or what ever the impetus is for those who want to pass sb2, yet what sb2 does is insert more bureaucracy into the equation and limits discussion at the most important meeting, where people come to vote and it opens the process up to more potential for "cliques" to have their way.

It requires two meetings instead of one. How is that more efficient?

It requires a ballot vote, apparently with absentee ballots and most likely early voting. Both added burdens on infrastructure and personnel.

Those absentee/ early ballots are not simple one page affairs. There were about 40 items on this warrant. Ideally if they were put to a ballot, to be useful each question would require a paragraph describing what it is, then a pro and con paragraph or two for the questions. These of course would be summaries, with no opportunity for the voter to address inconsistencies or misinformation. No opportunity to hear new information.

Two meetings-- the main complaint of sb-2 proponents is that the town meeting is too long, too cumbersome, to inconvenient to attend. So what is the sb-2 solution? Add a second meeting! Who came up with that idea? I imagine the original conversation went something like this: "We, the sb-2 originators, have heard you, attending town meeting is difficult and inconvenient, so we have a great solution, we'll add a second meeting to the town meeting. You'll have to come twice to be fully informed, it will be great. Science and statistics!!!" Makes me laugh every time I think about it.


Cliques/special interests are a fact of life in politics. SB-2 gives those groups more power because of the ballots, absentee and early voting opportunities. Ballots can be harvested with relatively little effort. I firmly believe that had SB-2 gone through, a vote on a HUB like project would have been a sure thing next year, a little more effort on the proponents part to gather votes would have paid off grandly for them.

Finally, more votes. I think people get confused when they say more votes are a good thing. More participation is a good thing. People who actively research, think about an issue then cast a vote are a good thing. People who don't want to spend the time, look to short circuit the process at every turn, fail to read up and educate themselves, think that the latest fad (sb2) is a panacea, are the easiest fooled when that ballot comes around.

Yeah, that's your opinion.

i started this post now almost 500 responses maybe it should be retired and come back if the hubbers try for another vote next year.

Pure unadulterated hogwash.

MORE people get a chance to vote. That eliminates all of the cliques or clicks from controlling the voting.

More voting is better. The Supervisor of the Checklist makes sure that all vote are registered voters.

Had to pause there. Either cry or laugh to misinformation stated. You are entitled to your opinion, as incorrect as it is. The town has voted ... so be it. SB2 will not be back for a long time (opinion). A community center, not recreation center will probably be up next year (opinion).

Cilques are part of human nature ... or is it inhumane nature.

SB2 and Traditional both require two meetings. Traditional meeting, votes elections and zoning on Tuesday and the business session whenever the select board decides. SB2 deliberative session is the same as the business session of traditional except not vote till about month later on the Tuesday. Legally, town meeting is "a day" with two sessions. Try reading some material on the NH Municipal Association (NHMA) website where legal counsel can help you understand the processess.

The warrant/ballot questions are determined to be voted on at the deliberative session for SB2, with the same procedures as at traditional meeting. I'm not going to go thru point by point and dispute opinion from facts, but I could.

This is probably a repeat from somewhere, but here's the main thrust that was on the screen at the Mobo town meeting. Presumption is you could read what was on the screen.

FOR SB2:

SB2: A Month To Research Warrant Article Discussions Before Voting. Traditional Requires Immediate Vote, Then and There.

SB2: All Warrant Articles Are Voted On Tuesday Ballot. All Day Voting. In And Out. Not Hours Waiting to Finish Voting, and Bored.

SB2: Absentee Ballots Would Now Include All Warrant Articles. Snowbirds, Military, and Other Absentees Can Vote On All Warrant Articles.

SB2: All Voting Is Secret, In Curtained Voting Booth. Traditional Hand Or Card Votes, Intimidate Some Voters.

SB2 No, Voter "Reconsideration" Shenanigans.

AGAINST SB2:

Fewer Attendees At SB2 Deliberative Session
There Should Be! Many Folks Already Know How They Will Vote.

Traditional Meeting Allows For More of a Social Event. No, It Doesn't. SB2 Deliberative Session Can Also Be a Social Event, Same as Traditional.

SB2 Does Not Allow Debate of Warrant Articles. Not true! Yes, It Does, At The Deliberative Session. Same As Traditional.

SB2 Does Not Allow Amendments to Warrant Articles. Not true! Yes, It Does, At The Deliberative Session. Same As Traditional.

SB2 Jeopardizes The Budget. Traditional Town Meeting Imperils The Budget More. SB2 Also Has a Default Budget.


The Tuesday May 9th election ballots cast were 1374; 1276 cast and 98 absentee. These are official town clerk numbers, not opinion.
I've already posted in this thread the numbers for the June 1st meeting. Official numbers not opinion.

I really hesitated to jump onto this spin re: SB2 on a tread well used for HUB discussions. However, while many express the thought about the need for discussion and the thirst to hear debate at Town Meeting, think about...

1. A $10 million dollar Town budget was swiftly passed despite only one amendment questioning the $125K need for a new hire and no other questions were asked. And the budget data provided by the Town in the Warrant was almost non-existent. Not one single question on any account.

2. A $1.25M road rehab program with a $250K increase from the prior year got ZERO discussion...not even asking what was to be done.

3. A $160K new dump truck replacement got only one question about a cost comparison to last years budget, when there are more dump trucks than drivers in DPW.

4. A new $41K recreation van got zero discussion when the current one was being used, nice and shiny and fully working, to move people back and forth at town meeting.

5. A $30K feasibility study at the Transfer station I recall didn't even get a question as to why and what.

And after the HUB, SB2, and extra firefighters, there was a mad dash for the exits. Yep, everyone hang right in there to get the facts and debate. I even walked out mid way as there was no apparent appetite by attendees to discuss anything in an apparent rush by many to get home.

Yep, people really attended Town Meeting for that thirst for debate. Sure... This is just my opinion. Enuf on SB2. Move on....life is short !

Presentation too long
 

As much as I like and respect the presenter, it was very difficult to hear him. He talked too fast, and we needed bullet points, not a long spiel. People were just plain worn out by that time. I hope we can have another go at it next year. That’s it for me on SB2, at least for now.

The conversation continues here:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=28863