HUB status in Moultonborough

[winni83]

To respond to a question from Think:

Moultonborough has somewhere around 5,000 registered voters. At the Town Election on May 8, 2023 (where Town Officers are elected, among other items), there were about 1,374 ballots cast. This is the election where the polls are open all day and there is the opportunity to vote by absentee ballot. At the Town Meeting on June 1, the highest number of votes cast was 990 (on the HUB). Rounding up to 1,000 people present at Town Meeting is an historic high. Previously, the highest number voting at Town Meeting was 2019 where there were about 650. So the number present at Town Meeting was in my view very high since historically more people vote in the Town Elections than at Town Meeting. The fact that the HUB failed to achieve even a majority of the 990, let alone the fact that the proposal fell 150 votes short of the 60% required, given the extensive effort to convince voters to approve the Taj Mahal is in my opinion a significant defeat for the Hubbers. Unfortunately I do not know of any way that one Town Meeting can restrict what happens at a future Town Meeting, so like the proverbial Hydra, we can expect more efforts to wear down the opposition and shove this thing down the throats of the Moultonborough taxpayers, especially those who own property and are not eligible to vote.

[phoenix]

150 votes out of 990 is actually a landslide by most pundits. But after all this effort will they do it again? Only time will tell but this is also a very divisive issue that hopefully the Hubbers will let the wounds heal.

[DesertDweller]

Originally Posted by phoenix

150 votes out of 990 is actually a landslide by most pundits. But after all this effort will they do it again? Only time will tell but this is also a very divisive issue that hopefully the Hubbers will let the wounds heal.

Well said and completely agree.

It's only 150 votes but that's 15 percent.

[Descant]

A quick Google shows a population of 4189 in 2019. Enter the pandemic and it jumps to 5091 in 2021. HUGE. Where did these folks come from and what are they used to voting for?

As of June 2021 the NH Secretary of State shows 4615 registered voters
DeM:1001,Rep: 1089 Undeclared: 1805. 1000 at Town meeting is good turnout, but there are a lot of hidden voters just waiting to be led by the hand.

Presidential elections usually get the highest turnout and M'borugh had 1987 for Trump and 1605 for Biden in 2020 total 3592 (NY Times)

Anybody giving odds for/against the HUB next time around?

[mishman]

I agree with Cal to NH - a more scaled down proposal could have carried the day - especially with a reduced threshold of 60% vs. the previous 66%. In an attempt to provide all things to each constituent group, the project grew beyond what the majority of voters could stomach. Most everyone agrees the Lion's Club building needs replacement. And if the Town cares to make sure our kids can learn to swim (as was stated in the proposal for the pool), why not redouble our efforts to teach swimming in the summer time at the Town Beach?
I am sorry if the HUB proponents felt disparaged by the opponents. They put a lot of thought and effort into their proposal and should be recognized for their work. It will be interesting to see if they "read the room" and scale down a future proposal to better meet the most compelling need of replacing the Lion's Club. I guess time will tell. If they persist in bringing back a larger proposal, I fear townspeople will really dig their heels in again with another strong no vote.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by mishman

Most everyone agrees the Lion's Club building needs replacement.

Hogwash !

No, most do not believe that the Lion's Club building needs replacement.

The Lion's Club buildiing was properly constructed. The building is perfectly fine for its intended use.

[mishman]

In my conversations with many residents who voted against the HUB, most agreed that the Lion's Club should be replaced. You may disagree but that is my experience and also how our two no votes would turn to yes (assuming it is a more practical design). The town has three gyms and a declining school population. Just my opinion but the town could do a better job of utilizing current facilities for recreational use without the need of another gym.

[Wishbone]

A plan for replacing the Lion's Club needs to emanate from the Selectmen. The actual needs, need to be identified, and a proposal outlining all costs and issues developed. Sitting in the auditorium last night next to some people with expertise in excavation and building last night, their input was the proposed land the Lions Club is on has wetland issues and could require more extensive work than was included in the presentation last night.

We don't need another click petition for the building of a Moultonborough Taj Mahal.

I also agree with another poster, the usage of the current gyms and other facilities needs to be evaluated to see if they could be better leveraged.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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.

[phoenix]

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

[ITD]

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by phoenix

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

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

[longislander]

population of 4189 in 2019. Enter the pandemic and it jumps to 5091 in 2021

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.

[longislander]

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

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH

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!

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.

See above.

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.

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.

[winni83]

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.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

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?

[longislander]

I was a non-voting taxpayer here until last year,

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by ITD

I thought the whole point of SB2 point was to bring more people to the table and generate more participation.

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

[longislander]

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.

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:

ITD
Senior Member

You posted why it's false in your quotation of me above, yet you continue. Stop it, start another thread about SB 2, leave this one alone. Unbelievable. You can certainly make up points like you did above, but they are your opinion, not facts. Stop misrepresenting them. Stop it.

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

It's not at all relevant and your assessment is suspect, most likely dead wrong. I could bring up the current federal fiascos with inflation, debt and other maladies using your logic and I would be just as wrong as you.

Those are more than opinions. More like passing wind.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

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

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.

[Cal-to-NH]

So the "go for it all" philosophy of 2020 killed this.

Remember these take-aways

* On the two previous votes, more than 50% of the voters were in favor. For this one it was only 45%. - learn from this.

* This project was destined for failure in 2020, you just didn't know it yet. The $5.5M First-Phase project (track, courts, rooms, etc) that could have been expanded in the future, that the Selectmen voted in favor of, back in 2020, was the lost opportunity. By organizing the "I want it all" $7.3 M project and putting it in THE SAME town meeting, and with the Selectmen voting against it - was your undoing. Not only did your option go down, the $5.5M project still got >50% of voters. If your voters had also voted for it, the town would have easily reached the 66% threshold. The cost would have been a 10-yr bond at 1.3%. If you had gone for your additional needs in a second phase today, you may well have succeeded.

* It will be years now before you get the economic conditions AND the positive reception by the town that will make this project possible.

No joke - As I sat there, the HUB people gave us a project that was well-planned. All the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed, very good. These folks were honest and forthright, had no desire to name-call, etc.... Embarrassingly, the other side was not so civil.

But-be-that-as-it-may, Just keep in mind that the answer to this is NO, will likely continue to be NO, and if you don't change your plan it will be like Groundhog Day...