Elections have meanings but do campaign promises?
Leading up to the elections in March we heard the candidates state their political platforms to the citizens of Gilford. During last year's elections we had a candidate that claimed to be a conservative and vowed to be “objective” in matters concerning the library that his wife heads. A quick review of the record clearly indicates that this Budget Committee member not only supported every increase in spending but additionally supported most of the requested increases beyond the Selectmen’s budget. This included a serious effort to add $40,000 to his wife’s library budget as well as advocating for a revote on the Warrant Article that would return an additional $110,000 to the library for the sale of public land. In politics it is common for 33% of the voters to be strongly for a particular candidate and 33% are strongly opposed to that same candidate. It’s the remaining 33% that each candidate is lobbying to win their vote. I’ve stated to the candidate countless times that he is doing what most of his constituents elected him to do. My point here is for those voters beyond his base that voted for him because they actually believed that he was a conservative and not go out of his way to lobby for his wife’s department. He may have legitimate excuses for his actions however they are in complete contradiction to his campaign promises.
I’m hoping the newly elected officials will have a better track record of keeping their campaign promises. Here are two promises that I am going to pay close attention to this budget season.
Kevin Hayes; Recognizing that spending is a problem he stated that he has ideas on raising revenues. He believes there are ways that Gilford can raise revenues, such as recycling, to off set spending.
Kevin Roy; “I’m frugal with a buck and I too would like to keep taxes down.” “I believe that town employees should be contributing more toward their health insurance benefits.”
Each Kevin is a stand up guy however the actual process of imposing tax reduction or even slowing the growth of government is easier said than done. We’ll see how they fare when the people that are requesting the spending are giving them the finger wag and accusing them of being cheap or uncaring for the children. As I sat through this process, I never realized how many poor single mothers live in Gilford.
I have already heard rumor that Mr. Hayes is already challenging his campaign promises by advocating giving priority status to the development of communities that would be exempt from the school portions of their tax responsibility. Labeled as a Senior housing community, their website indicates absolutely no restrictions on income levels are needed to be a resident. These types of communities will deprive our children of desperately needed dollars for all of time. Apparently Mr. Hayes is unaware of the New Hampshire law that requires cities and towns to provide tax relief to senior citizens that meet the financial requirements. Seniors do NOT need special communities to receive consideration for their limited fixed incomes. No surprise because he’s also unaware of the fact that Gilford has an ongoing recycling program that, if progressed to fast, would actually cost us more money. It appears the kind of revenue raising Mr. Hayes was discussing is your property taxes!
