HUB status in Moultonborough

[phoenix]

John I would be shocked if they didn't monitor this site

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by phoenix

John I would be shocked if they didn't monitor this site

They might... but would it add value to their strategy?

I would guess few of the people on the forum are residents of Moultonborough, and even fewer are young enough to be in it for the long haul.

They have to convince that younger group that this type of recreation has merit.

That may be harder than they think, but it is the only strategy they have.
This forum probably doesn't have a strong target audience when that subset is the focus.

[loonguy]

A quick search of the Forum members identified 99 who said they were from Moultonborough or included Moultonborough in their member name. That is certainly a small percentage of the total Forum membership, but I suspect it includes some on both sides of the issue. 99 is also a very small percentage of the residents of Moultonborough, so the issue might still find majority support in Moultonborough at some point.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by loonguy

A quick search of the Forum members identified 99 who said they were from Moultonborough or included Moultonborough in their member name. That is certainly a small percentage of the total Forum membership, but I suspect it includes some on both sides of the issue. 99 is also a very small percentage of the residents of Moultonborough, so the issue might still find majority support in Moultonborough at some point.

Yeah, but how many—like me—don't have locations filled out? I think there's quite a few Moultonborough peeps here.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Residents that are Millennials.

You can move Boomers with senior tax exemption changes written into the article tied to the HUB, but that creates a problem for the younger voters. GenX... we don't have the numbers worth targeting. So Millennial residents need to be convinced of the value... not always an easy thing.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Residents that are Millennials.

You can move Boomers with senior tax exemption changes written into the article tied to the HUB, but that creates a problem for the younger voters. GenX... we don't have the numbers worth targeting. So Millennial residents need to be convinced of the value... not always an easy thing.

Maybe we need to start letting the people that want all these goodies pay for them!!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Maybe we need to start letting the people that want all these goodies pay for them!!

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I think they should help me out with my taxes on my lakefront property? Why should I pay so much? (tongue in cheek of course)

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

The”donor” towns pay a lot to Franklin for schools since you’re using Franklin.

[John Mercier]

There is no such thing currently as a donor town.
There is a group looking to recreate the donor towns.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...ding-solution/

[tis]

Technically no, but we the richer towns still pay a lot more toward state education than the poorer towns. That's why I put the word donor in quotes.

[John Mercier]

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

[longislander]

https://www.nhbr.com/new-school-fund...ax-inequality/


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit..._history_0.pdf


https://indepthnh.org/2022/06/28/new...unding-system/


https://www.seacoastonline.com/story...s/10059076002/

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

Sorry, you are wrong. We pay a local school tax and a state school tax.

[John Mercier]

And the receipts from both go right into the Moultonborough school system.
None of it is transferred to another municipality or school district.

It has not been transferred since 2011.

If we change back, then the SWEPT would be collected and redistributed... and since it would not all go back into the Moultonborough system... the local school taxes to be raised would need to make up for the difference.

The State figures the districts educational grant, minuses the SWEPT, and then should the district still need more, provides that money with the Lottery revenue (much like the Augenblick Formula) and covers the difference using unallocated funds... since the money from tobacco is drying/dried up... that is largely business taxes.

So if a district raises more than the total of its grant... it doesn't get any extra funding... but it doesn't send any money anywhere else. It is all used to offset the local school tax portion.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

This thread started as a commentary on the HUB. We are not now a donor town, but the threat is always there because we are known as a tax rich town. We spend in excess of $30k each year for each child attending our schools. What this has to do with the HUB is probably this: when is enough enough?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[loonguy]

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

Clear water year round?

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Yeah, but how many—like me—don't have locations filled out? I think there's quite a few Moultonborough peeps here.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I do not dispute this point, but my perspective is that although the people commenting on the issue on the Forum are mostly negative, there are many more out there who are entitled to vote and might vote for it at some point even though they have not expressed support on the Forum. Negative comments on the Forum do not, and should not, preclude supporters from pursuing what they view as a worthwhile project for Moultonborough and campaigning for it in whatever manner they deem appropriate.