HUB status in Moultonborough

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jeffk

An argument in the absurd.

There are obviously some essential services that government must provide. Road management, fire and police protection, etc. A swimming pool and gym are NOT essential services.

Also note that even within the essential services, things like roads, the construction is done by private companies. That is because government is spectacularly BAD at providing business services, especially when dealing with costs, management, quality control, honesty and accountability, etc. Further, WHEN have you seen government projections of cost be accurate? Actual costs greatly exceed government estimates, either due to incompetence or dishonestly. Generally, the less the government gets involved with issues, the better the outcome. Private companies that can't manage their business properly go out of business. Government just stumbles on to make another mess; there is low/no accountability.

Also note that voters that think they can vote themselves whatever they want are foolish. The economic constraints on what a community can afford are not subject to a vote. The unique conditions of each community determine its ability to generate income and money spent on one thing preclude it being spent on something else. It's not unlike the household where the husband wants a new BMW, the wife a new house, the child a pony, and none of those things are affordable or practical for their finances. They might find a bank that will loan them money but they will struggle to pay their bills and other, more essential things that come up may not be possible to do.

Government use to provide none of this.
It was the desire of the majority of the registered voters that created all of it.
What we deem essential today... was not essential in the past.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Government used to be about needs not wants-at least in our small towns.

That changes with voter attitudes.
As we moved from agrarian, we access to the railroads - generally subsidized by the federal government... and some state... with roads that handles teams of oxen and wagons; to the industrial... think modern industrial parks with all the services; to the ''tourist'' all about recreation...

Recreation became an ''essential'' service.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That changes with voter attitudes.
As we moved from agrarian, we access to the railroads - generally subsidized by the federal government... and some state... with roads that handles teams of oxen and wagons; to the industrial... think modern industrial parks with all the services; to the ''tourist'' all about recreation...

Recreation became an ''essential'' service.

Some voter attitudes. It's the same as with kids, some parents want schools to totally take care of their kids, not just educate them. And look where that has gotten us.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

From the Brookline, Mass. town swimming pool ...... www.brooklinerec.com/150/Kirrane-Aquatic-Center ..... a list of fees which people PAY for swim lessons, splash 'n burn water exercise class, and pool use/laps practice.

The population of Brookline is 60,000, and they have no lake. This makes it quite reasonable to have a public swimming pool

[phoenix]

FLL one of your craziest posts. Look if 800 people show up 480 need to vote yes. Make sure anyone who is a no shows up.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Some voter attitudes. It's the same as with kids, some parents want schools to totally take care of their kids, not just educate them. And look where that has gotten us.

It only takes 60% of the population to not see frugality as reasoned.
I just don't think you will see Moultonborough devolve to its agrarian roots.

People love large homes and gas-powered toys.

The school education issue, according to the ConVal testimony, seems to be about State mandates.
Something that frugal legislators could change at any time... but that doesn't seem in the offering.
ConVal is a much bigger issue to Moultonborough and Alton on Winnepesaukee... Hebron and Bridgewater on Newfound; which is what stunned me seeing the movement of money toward Winnisquam - surrounding towns/Laconia not being exactly known for low tax rates. Belmont doesn't have an indoor pool... though we have pretty much everything else... and I suspect unless the movement toward homesteading becomes the major position of attitude in Belmont; we would in the not too distant future hear of a proposal.

[tis]

I was talking more about the woke issues in schools but since you mentioned state education, I always felt so sorry for poor little Freedom who was a donor town, giving money to Manchester and one of the things Manchester did with the donor town money was build a new athletic field. Freedom doesn't even have it's own school.

[John Mercier]

Woke actually references the Greatest Generation coming into adulthood.
It references Admiral Yamamoto's ''Awaken'' quote.

We use it whenever a new dominate generation will be entering adulthood and changes the political-economic-social fabric of society.

It was also used by proxy by Frank Herbert in his Dune novels to reference the awakening of the Boomer generation.

All State taxes have ''donor'' political subdivisions.
Residents of Freedom receive distributions from Meals & Room taxes collected in Manchester - more than likely.

Certain political subdivisions (towns/cities/etc) produce more of the M&R taxes, and other business taxes, in their area. But those taxes are generally redistributed using a formula that does not return the taxation to where it originated. The SPT is only different because of decision in 2011. After SPT got reinstituted - historically it had been our main State tax - the concept of ''donor'' was invoked.

I tried to change M&R to return to zip code of origin... but once the legislators had someone smarter than them realize that I was a lot smarter; they caught on that Belknap County and Rockingham would do very well compared to the current formula... while Coos would take a drubbing.
Recreation taxation not being very well understood at that time.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The topic has to do with Moultonborough’s town meeting and the HUB, and you’re heading off the tracks now….��

[winni83]

Posted on the Town of Moultonborough Website:

"RESCHEDULED TOWN MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT 2023


Town of Moultonborough
2023 Annual Town Meeting

To the inhabitants of the Town of Moultonborough in the County of Carroll in the State of New Hampshire qualified to vote in Town affairs, are hereby notified that the Annual Town Meeting, that was rescheduled from Thursday, the 11th day of May 2023 and will be held as follows:
▪ Second Session of Annual Meeting (Transaction of All Other Business) will take place on Thursday, the 1st day of June 2023 at 6:00 P.M., at the Moultonborough School Academy, 25 Blake Road, Moultonborough, NH for voters to act upon Article 2 and the remaining articles of the Warrant.
▪ Early check-in starts at 3:30 P.M.
▪ Limited parking available at Moultonborough Academy, as availability will be for Handicap Parking. Carpooling is encouraged. Overflow parking available at Town Hall, Public Safety Building, and Function Hall (former Lions Club building). Shuttle bus service will be provided.
▪ Childcare will be provided at Moultonborough Central School.
▪ Any person with a disabling condition who would like to attend this public meeting and needs to be provided reasonable accommodations to participate please contact the Moultonborough Town Hall at 603-476-2347 (tel:603-476-2347) so accommodations
can be made."

This is crazy. Town Hall is .8 miles, Lion’s Club is 1.5 miles and Public Safety is .8 miles from the location of the Town Meeting. Shuttle Buses -- how many and what are the specific schedules??? If they try to let people claim to be handicapped who do not have a state issued handicap plate or placard there is going to be trouble. This has the potential to be more of a disaster than the comedy on May 11th. Yet another reason to vote YES on SB 2.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

The topic has to do with Moultonborough’s town meeting and the HUB, and you’re heading off the tracks now….��

Not really.
Should the ConVal lawsuit be found in the favor the 32 town/cities suing the State, the SPT would most likely be need to be expanded to deal with the hundreds of millions more needed to be raised. And the remittance of the excess funds back to the town, last done in 2011(?), would no longer be holding down the town tax rate.

The HUB expenditure would not be able to be reconsidered after the finding and facts of those trials, which could take a few years.
Voters aware of the situation may be taking that into consideration... along with items like the possible need to move the FD from mostly volunteer to full time employees.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

For now, please let us discuss Moultonborough’s town meeting and the HUB, and take on other governmental topics later. The proponents of the HUB have no interest in anything negatively impacting their extravagant plans.

[John Mercier]

I'm sure they don't.
They will keep getting the 25 signatures required to vote again and again until passage.
Any discussion here will not change that.

[lakewinnie]

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

I hear you….have you ever had someone show up and not realize they weren’t invited to the party?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Post #415 sounds awfully snarky. My apologies….my sweet and docile temperament took a leave of absence for a while. Please blame it on the Proponents of the HUB!
Sue

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Suggest you take a look at www.thehubmoultonborough.com to see it's a community center that includes a 25-meter indoor swim pool, a multi-purpose gym large enough for two or three pickleball courts, a game room with ping-pong, pool, and table hockey, an adult social room, a large function hall and a kitchen.

Teaching swimming to very young children, school age children, and adults as well as water exercise classes would be happening all year 'round.

While nearby Lake Winnipesaukee and the Moultonborough Town Beach are a beautiful scenic lake location, the big lake water temps is 70-76 degrees warm, only from June 15 to September 15. For the the other nine months, Sept 15 to June 15, the big lake is way too cold for swimming and in-the-water activity.

The new Moultonborough Hub will have a 25-meter warm water indoor pool, good for swim lessons, and water exercise classes like Splash 'n Burn lead by an instructor all twelve months of the year.

Just to be clear on the two or three pickleball courts in the multi-purpose gym, you will be very pleased to know it will be large enough for THREE indoor pickleball courts!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

People that are not native to NH or went through school here generally don't understand our system of governance... especially at a local level.

Since it only takes 25 registered voters to petition the article. It can appear each and every time town meeting is held.

Should the article fail (bonds need 60% of the votes cast to pass), later in the meeting, the article can be brought back by reconsideration.

Because of this many times a voter will motion to restrict reconsideration... achieve a second... and sometimes win the vote (only 50% is necessary for that). But should enough voters leave, a proponent can motion to reconsider... enough votes and it goes to an adjourned session scheduled at least seven days later.

Should that happen, they will go over it again trying to gain the necessary majority of votes.

They can also go the route of capitalizing a special fund.
That would go through pretty much the same process but have a lower threshold for advancement.

So there really is no end to the saga. It is just part of living in NH. Those of us born and raised here have just gotten more used to it.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Post #415 sounds awfully snarky. My apologies….my sweet and docile temperament took a leave of absence for a while. Please blame it on the Proponents of the HUB!
Sue

Not a bit snarky. If you don't want everybody to see everything, you hang it between sheets on the clothesline. In this case, perhaps this forum is the wrong place to post Moultonborough's unmentionable's and the voters in Moultonborough should start a closed group on FB?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

We noticed that the powers in charge of the rescheduled town meeting on June 1
want the parking areas near the main entrance to the academy to be for people with physical limitations, which is a fine plan IF ENTITLED PEOPLE don’t abuse the privilege….and they will abuse it unless the area is patrolled and the parking restrictions enforced. I am skeptical about the plan….the honor system is not for everyone, if you get my drift. Anyhow, hopefully the meeting will actually take place, the ballots counted honestly, and the HUB goes down to defeat, with SB2 in the WIN column. 🤞

[Descant]

This confuses me. If they are entitled, what is the abuse? I can't imagine that, in a small town, people would abuse handicap parking privileges without being publicly shamed in front of their neighbors. To me, this is New Hampshire. Granite Staters just don't do that.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

This confuses me. If they are entitled, what is the abuse? I can't imagine that, in a small town, people would abuse handicap parking privileges without being publicly shamed in front of their neighbors. To me, this is New Hampshire. Granite Staters just don't do that.

I think she means people that are not handicapped, but feel entitled enough to take the spaces regardless.

[TiltonBB]

Triple the number of people will fit now.

"This time, every possible measure is being taken to be able to handle what could be the largest turnout in town history."

This seems true: “There were so many people, and so many people I’ve never seen before. It’s been dividing this community since 2007. ... It’s going to be an interesting conversation, I’ll tell you that.”

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...e029601f7.html

[winni83]

This is the latest information on the Town Meeting on June 1, 2023, from the Town Website:

Posted on: May 23, 2023
2023 Annual Town Meeting
Town of Moultonborough

2023 Annual Town Meeting


To the inhabitants of the Town of Moultonborough in the County of Carroll in the State of New Hampshire qualified to vote in Town affairs, are hereby notified that the Annual Town Meeting, that was rescheduled from Thursday, the 11th day of May 2023 and will be held as follows:

Second Session of Annual Meeting (Transaction of All Other Business) will take place on Thursday, the 1st day of June 2023 at 6:00 P.M., at Moultonborough Academy, 25 Blake Road, Moultonborough, NH for voters to act upon Article 2 and the remaining articles of the Warrant.
Early check-in starts at 3:30 P.M. No reentry after check-in. Please bring a government ID.
If you have a copy of the 2022 Town Report, please bring a copy. Town warrant/budget copies will be provided.
Limited parking available at Moultonborough Academy, as availability will be for Handicap Parking. Carpooling is encouraged. Overflow parking available at Town Hall, Public Safety Building (Police/Fire Station), Function Hall (former Lions Club building), Moultonborough United Methodist Church, Bank of New Hampshire (after 5 p.m.) and Meredith Village Savings Bank (after 5 p.m.). Shuttle bus service will be provided starting at 3:30 P.M.
Childcare will be provided at Moultonborough Central School.
Any person with a disabling condition who would like to attend this public meeting and needs to be provided reasonable accommodations to participate please contact the Moultonborough Town Hall at 603-476-2347 so accommodations can be made."

Aside from the real potential to be as much of a disaster as the aborted May 11th non Town Meeting, just how is the Town Moderator going to enforce the "NO REENTRY AFTER CHECK IN"? Such policy was never in place before as I have gone outside to take a break from the endless comments at various town meetings. Does that mean you cannot leave the building itself or the room you are in. If the latter, good luck with stopping people from using the restroom. If the former or the latter, just when did Moultonborough enact this rule or is it just another power grab by the Town Moderator. Expect the no reentry rule to be challenged and if the rule has no validity, then perhaps the vote on the bond would be suspect or at least brought to the attention of bond counsel prior the issuance of the required bond opinion.

See issues in previous post about "Handicapped Parking" and what that means.

[longislander]

Early check-in starts at 3:30 P.M. No reentry after check-in.

The "reentry" had been mentioned at the last select board meeting and commented on how can that be enforced. No answer then, no answer now. The BoS even joked about maybe a movie should be provided!

It probably came up because of folks getting there early to claim a seat, and then taking off to return later.

Legalities could easiily kick-in. The moderator has no authority over the building, nor its property. He has authority of the meeting. That authority can easily be overturned by a vote of the voters to overrule thhe moderator. The supervisors of the checklist control the registering of voters and handing out of the ballot cards and "secrret ballots". Do they have any authority after folks have checked-in? Doubt it. Who has authority to refrain a voter from voting after legally registering to vote at town meeting? Anybody? What is the penalty for preventing a voter from exercising his/her right to vote?

Realistically, it is probably an attempt to instill some semblance of sanity with expected problems. However, you can rest assured that all parties involved with setting-up this town meeting will be in unison, including the police department.

Going off topic for a moment but cogent to town meeting secret ballots. Many times the wrong secret ballot is used 1, 2, or 3 and nothing is said about disqualifying those votes after the moderator insructions on which to use (self-evident). The excuse in the past is because old person used the wrong ballot. Really. I'm an old person and that insults me! What if it is ballot stuffing and using more than one ballot. Pass/fail decisions by a few votes have occurred in the past. Those votes should be negated.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by longislander

What if it is ballot stuffing and using more than one ballot.

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

Back to the Community Center and the Recreation Complex.

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

[longislander]

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

Back to the Community Center and the Recreation Complex.

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

The SB2 discussion belongs in a different thread, yet it's here.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

The SB2 discussion belongs in a different thread, yet it's here.

SB2 discussion is here because if we had it, there wouldn’t have been the fiasco at the cancelled town meeting…..so it’s relevant in that respect.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

SB2 discussion is here because if we had it, there wouldn’t have been the fiasco at the cancelled town meeting…..so it’s relevant in that respect.

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.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

ITD, you misinterpreted my comment in my last post. Let me first say to you “Calm down….it’s not good for your health to get your toga in a knot!”
SB2 and the HUB are the most highly contested warrants on the docket at town meeting. Where SB2 comes into the discussion here is that it has been noted by many that if we had SB2 instead of town meeting, the recent fiasco would have been avoided. It’s not really that difficult to understand. EOM.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

ITD, you misinterpreted my comment in my last post. Let me first say to you “Calm down….it’s not good for your health to get your toga in a knot!”
SB2 and the HUB are the most highly contested warrants on the docket at town meeting. Where SB2 comes into the discussion here is that it has been noted by many that if we had SB2 instead of town meeting, the recent fiasco would have been avoided. It’s not really that difficult to understand. EOM.

Lol, I'm not uptight at all about this, but it seems the sb2 crowd feels it's perfectly logical to hijack a thread with their agenda, but it's knot (not, see what I did there?) Start your own thread rather than incorrectly stating that sb2 will solve all these problems. That is innately false, you can't know that, you are speculating. Regardless, it is a discussion for another thread. I'm not going to bother looking back, but I'm thinking that you are one of the individuals admonishing Less for his thread hijacking, this is worse.

Start another thread if you want to talk about SB 2, but leave this one to the merits or disadvantages of the HUB. Stop hijacking the thread, "it's not really that difficult to understand."

[longislander]

incorrectly stating that sb2 will solve all these problems. That is innately false, you can't know that, you are speculating.

SB2 comments and The Hub comments have a common course of a 60% vote requirement to pass at the same town meeting by the same legislative body!

What facts are false?
About a month to get "informed" before voting?
All warrant articles would be voted on the same ballot?
Articles can be amended?
No new warrant article subject matter can be eliminated, nor introduced?
Absentee ballots would include all warrant articles?
Voting would occurr on the second Tuesday of the month decided by the legislative body, not the select board?
Voting from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm?
Voting in a private setting (curtained voting booth) without anyone looking over your shoulder?
There would no longer be postponed town meetings because of available floor space?

leave this one to the merits or disadvantages of the HUB. Stop hijacking the thread,

How many "pages" are needed on this thread to determine The Hub has no merit? This last comment will probably give rise to another hijacked thread. Comprehend what ... mindless babbling ... or diapers ... how about restrooms!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

SB2 comments and The Hub comments have a common course of a 60% vote requirement to pass at the same town meeting by the same legislative body!

What facts are false?
About a month to get "informed" before voting?
All warrant articles would be voted on the same ballot?
Articles can be amended?
No new warrant article subject matter can be eliminated, nor introduced?
Absentee ballots would include all warrant articles?
Voting would occurr on the second Tuesday of the month decided by the legislative body, not the select board?
Voting from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm?
Voting in a private setting (curtained voting booth) without anyone looking over your shoulder?
There would no longer be postponed town meetings because of available floor space?



How many "pages" are needed on this thread to determine The Hub has no merit? This last comment will probably give rise to another hijacked thread. Comprehend what ... mindless babbling ... or diapers ... how about restrooms!

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.

[John Mercier]

SB2 meant that all the voters would not need to be in the location of the polling at the same time. So I think they are talking about the room not being large enough to hold the voters and the delayed vote due to that factor.

[tis]

Honestly I can't see anybody being against SB2 except the little town clicks that want everything that they approve of to pass having their own personal agenda. Most people don't want to take the time to go to town meeting so very few end up voting. SB2 takes very little time to run in during the day and vote.

[longislander]

ITD

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.

Thank you for continuing this thread.
You need to slow down and read. I did not state "why it's false" My post was an enumeration of facts, easily confirmed. Try researching the NH Municipal Association, the NH Dept. of Revenue Administration, SB2 town administrators, to name a few.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

Honestly I can't see anybody being against SB2 except the little town clicks that want everything that they approve of to pass having their own personal agenda. Most people don't want to take the time to go to town meeting so very few end up voting. SB2 takes very little time to run in during the day and vote.

Exactly. The "perfect democracy" of Town Meeting is baloney. The largest effect of these meetings today is to impose a steep cost on voting, so that only those who have the most time and most at stake will vote. We erase a huge chunk of voters.

In this particular case, it's easy to see HUB supporters rallying every time--if they win, they get the huge reward of a subsidized pool. People who just think this is not the best thing for the town...maybe they show every time, maybe they just get tired of the hassle

[John Mercier]

We have been under SB2 for decades...
It doesn't stop what you are expecting.

The majority of town residents' attitude is what forms the basis of the town's future development.

Moultonborough is pushing a tourism/recreation town.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

In a communication with the Select Board Chair, we learned that there will be sufficient accommodations for seniors and especially those voters with mobility problems. There should not be a problem with drop offs, and spaces specifically designated for handicapped will require the necessary placard. No exceptions, we were told….so that the captain of the track team can’t come wheeling in and grab a prime parking spot! Lines should be shorter, and those needing special attention can be moved to the head of a line. Hopefully, this will answer some questions, and pass it along if so. We need lots of support, so show up and vote!

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We have been under SB2 for decades...
It doesn't stop what you are expecting.

The majority of town residents' attitude is what forms the basis of the town's future development.

Moultonborough is pushing a tourism/recreation town.

Unfortunately most voters are not informed. They vote for something if it says recommended by the planning board or selectmen or whatever. I stood outside talking to voters years ago and was shocked at how little they knew about what they were voting for. Zoning amendments are particularly difficult unless you have studied before hand because for instance if they are recommending a change, it doesn't tell you what it is changing from. In this case, it has been publicly discusses enough so the voters know what they are voting for and therefore the big turnout.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by tis

Honestly I can't see anybody being against SB2 except the little town clicks that want everything that they approve of to pass having their own personal agenda. Most people don't want to take the time to go to town meeting so very few end up voting. SB2 takes very little time to run in during the day and vote.

Yes, they are little, small, selfish, cliques. Although using the word click is understood.

Now back to the HUB status and the associated adjunct of SB2.

Who is paying for all of those mailings sent to homes in Moultonborough?

As learned in early 1970's: follow the money.

[longislander]

Who is paying for all of those mailings sent to homes in Moultonborough?

The Friends of the Moultonborough Community Center (FOTMCC)

https://quickstart.sos.nh.gov/online...inessID=714337

[Wishbone]

I did a quick search and found at least 8 companies in the business of running facilities like they are proposing for the Hub. If there is such a need for that type of facility, why aren't they working with the sponsors of this article, or fighting each other to build such a facility here?

[tummyman]

Moultonborough knows better than anyone else how to do things. Logic and rational thinking does not exist here. Only wants for the residents survive that get paid for by the majority of non-resident lakefront people that bankroll 70% of everything.

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Exactly. The "perfect democracy" of Town Meeting is baloney. The largest effect of these meetings today is to impose a steep cost on voting, so that only those who have the most time and most at stake will vote. We erase a huge chunk of voters.

In this particular case, it's easy to see HUB supporters rallying every time--if they win, they get the huge reward of a subsidized pool. People who just think this is not the best thing for the town...maybe they show every time, maybe they just get tired of the hassle

This. People give up from exhaustion but the zealots have never ending energy and if it comes up enough times it will pass eventually.

[tis]

Please let us know how it goes today!

[winni83]

Just got to Town Meeting. Still room in the auditorium and was able to park on the school property. No chaos yet but it’s not supposed to start for an hour.

[Susie Cougar]

Any update?

[winni83]

Six minutes to start time. Unknown if it will start on time.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by winni83

Six minutes to start time. Unknown if it will start on time.

What was the vote ?

[Susie Cougar]

How many people are there, would you guess?

[winni83]

No vote yet. Article 2 is being presented. Then debate then secret ballot box open for an hour so we are a long way from voting on the HUB.

[winni83]

No idea as to attendance numbers. Auditorium is full and there are quite a few people in the gym and the cafeteria.

[winni83]

Debate ended on the Hub at 6:47 so ballot box is open until 7:47. Article 3, SB 2 is now on the floor.

[thinkxingu]

This is riveting—thanks for the live updates!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[winni83]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

This is riveting—thanks for the live updates!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

Surely you jest.

[winni83]

SB 2 is being voted.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by winni83

Surely you jest.

Actually, no—I'm interested to see where this goes...and how my taxes change as a result.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[Harry Heffalump]

Any results?

[winni83]

The HUB failed. 990 votes total. No 546. Yes. 444 Hub needed 60% or 594 so they fell short by 150 votes. The Hubbers will be back next year I am sure. 👍👍
But they have yet again failed.

[Fastfury]

Congrats to all who voted voted No
Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[winni83]

They did not even get a majority ����

[winni83]

SB 2 did not pass. Your reporter is signing off now 😊

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by winni83

The Hubbers will be back next year I am sure. 👍👍

Time for a new Petition Warrant Article stating no more voting articles for any recreation complex for 10 years.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I wish we could do that….they have been pursuing this community center for 16 years…..and each time it’s way more expensive and grandiose. They’re very dense in that they fail to realize that the majority of taxpayers aren’t buying. What is so infuriating to me right now is that they are blind to the effects inflation and other factors are having right now…not only blind, but extremely insensitive to their neighbors.
By the way, that turned into 6 hours from start to finish. We left home at 3:15 so we could snag a decent parking spot, and registration started at 3:30 for a 6:00 meeting. We got home at 9:30. Long day…..sorry SB2 failed to resonate with enough voters.

[thinkxingu]

150 votes isn't a ton to lose by, so I can't help but think the Hub proponents will feel emboldened (or at least not dissuaded).

That also seems like a super low voter turnout for something that could significantly affect taxes. Does anyone know what the registered voter count is in Moultonborough?

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Winni, thank you so much for the updates. It was very interesting. That's still a decent defeat. I am sorry SB2 didn't pass. I think townspeople are against it, but once they have it, they seem to like it better.

[Pineedles]

A big thank you to all voted against the HUB, from those of us who pay the highest taxes and can’t vote.

[phoenix]

Maybe the “ hubbers” can add an indoor golf course next time so can get price up to 30m. Glad it failed

[neckdweller]

I'm sure this will surface again next year because the HUB proponents just don't seem to want to take no for an answer.

Not being an eligible voter I didn't bother watching any of the meeting since I'm going to get a bill regardless of what was said and how the vote turned out.

What I wonder is if there's any thought by the HUB people of taking their proposal and dropping the two pools from the mix. I don't know what that would do to both the initial cost estimate as well as the ongoing operating expenses but I've got to believe it would drop considerably. Not sure if that swings more votes to yes if the cost is more reasonable but on the flip side that makes some of the yes votes go to no because people that don't have as much tax skin in the game are looking to get a cheap (to them) place to swim.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

Yeah, that's your opinion.

[phoenix]

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.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

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.

[longislander]

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.

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.

[tummyman]

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 !

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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.