GilfordGrok

Gilford Neighbors,

As you may know, I am currently seeking a second term as your Selectman.  As the March election draws closer, your support of my candidacy is critical in ensuring that a proven fiscal conservative is reelected.  I am and have always been committed to keeping local government’s size and spending to a minimum and I am dedicated to continue my mission of an open and transparent government.  It’s been my passion and pledge to make each and every Gilford family the central focus when every decision is made.

While everyone running for office states that they are fiscally conservative, my voting record and budgets are proof.   I have been committed to reducing spending which reduced taxes while maintaining efficient and effective Town services.  

As your Selectman, each year I have recommended an extremely lean Town Budget with very little growth in personnel and spending.  Each year, the Town spending was less than anticipated and over $500,000 was returned to the Undesignated Fund Balance.  In my second year, the Board of Selectmen required the Facilities Planning Commission who is responsible for recommending construction options for the Police Station, to create a detailed blue print of the project which resulted in a savings to the overall project of over $100,000.  During a transitional process in our Finance Department, a full-time position was changed to part-time resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in reduced wages and benefits.  In my third year, we proposed the use of the “Old Library” facility to the School District for the yearly lease price of only $1.  The previous lease agreement with the School District cost taxpayers $3600 a year.  This proposal will save tens of thousands of dollars in taxes in the years to come.

As a Selectman, I negotiated with the Town Department of Public Works Union and successfully reached an agreement where:  1. Cost of Living Adjustments were eliminated and replaced with merit raises 2. Merit increases were reduced from a maximum of 5% to 4% and 3. The Union agreed to give up Sick Pay bonuses which save the taxpayers over $23,000 a year.

 By being respectful, honest and listening to their needs, I am happy and proud to say that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 534 which represents the Gilford DPW Union employees and the Gilford Professional Firefighters IAFF Local 3517 have decided to endorse my candidacy.  Words can not express how I grateful I am to these Town employees for placing their confidence in me.

It has been my priority over the last three years to have an open and transparent local government.  Listening to the voices of each and every citizen has been a major goal for me throughout these last three years.  Too often, local government forgets that its mission and goal must be to meet the needs of its residents in the best and most efficient manner.   To this end, we now have Selectmen’s meetings at night for your convenience, Selectmen’s meetings are recorded and televised on the Cable Public Access channel, the Town Check Register or Manifest is posted on line for viewing without any formal request required and public work sessions are conducted before policy changes are made.

In these critical economic troubling times that face every Gilford home, it is vital that the Town reelect a true proven fiscal conservative to represent you.

Thank you for your support and vote on March 9th.

Gus Benavides

Posted by Skip at 07:39 PM | Permalink

As Election Day nears for Gilford voters it’s important to remember that elections do have consequences. Over the past couple of years we’ve heard candidates proclaim how conservative they are prior to their elections. Two such candidates, Dale Dormody and Mark Corry are running for the Gilford Budget Committee this year. They can proclaim whatever they wish prior to this election but it’s their voting record you should listen to before you head for the polls. You will see proof positive that both candidates have a solid voting record of liberal spending with your tax dollars.

Mark Corry initially slipped up and actually opposed the Lacrosse Warrant Article. He even tracked me down to tell me that he was not supporting the Lacrosse Warrant Article based on their budget proposal. It wasn’t long before he was told to correct his error. He publically explained his changed vote this way; “people emailed me”. Obviously, the man has no principles or spine because his reasons for not supporting the Lacrosse Warrant Article didn’t change but he voted for it anyway. There is NO question that his vote is completely owned by a special interest group. Even if you support a newly added Lacrosse budget expense, do you really want a puppet elected official with special interest hands in his back on every decision? You can rest assure that it doesn’t matter what he tells you about an issue, he will vote the way “They” tell him to. Coincidentally, Mr. Corry is also a member of the Meadows Committee, appointed by the School Board. It’s no secret that the School Board isn’t happy with the Conservation Commission’s efforts to make sure that any development in the Meadows is environmentally sound. Mr. Corry sought to use his position on the Budget Committee to cut any funds for that effort. It would be perfectly acceptable for him to try to cut money that his constituents “tell him” is not wisely spent. He goes wrong when the Conservation Commission made it abundantly clear to him that NONE of their budget goes toward the Meadows project and then he decides to votes against their entire budget anyway! In fact, the Commission’s budget requests were cut to the previous year’s level in an effort to keep the overall budget low. Mr. Corry voted against the Conservation Commission’s budget in what can only be described as a retaliation vote. In my opinion, politician’s like Mr. Corry who abuses their elected position for retaliation votes do not deserve our vote. 

     

Dale Dormody also ran as a “Fiscal Conservative” three years ago to get elected. During his campaign he promised not to participate in votes concerning his wife’s salary because she is the Director of the Gilford Library. Knowing he didn’t legally have to refrain from voting on ANY budget issues, he ignored that promise just as soon as he was elected. In fact, one of his very first actions was to lobby the Budget Committee to restore a $40,000 request from the library that was denied by the Selectmen. He was unsuccessful in that attempt but gladly voted for the 13% increase to the Library budget that year which contains his wife’s salary. He then successfully pulled out all the stops to request a revote to recommend a Warrant Article that would send the proceeds from the sale of the Potter Hill property to the Library. The following year he pointed the boney finger at the Library sub Committee and accused them of not doing their jobs in assessing the Library budget. Though Mr. Dormody didn’t even attend the meeting, he took issue with the sub committee’s failure to recommend another 13% increase in the Library budget. Do you see a pattern? 

Dormody and Corry are running for Budget Committee positions that have real consequences. Whether budgets are high or low, in good times or bad, these two have the voting records to prove that they never met a spending proposal they didn’t like! In fact, they are going out of the way to promote new spending items. Their voting records prove they have some specific agendas. We need some new faces that aren’t personally connected to budget items. Please join me in voting for the other three candidates on the ballot for Budget Committee.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:36 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

SECOND SESSION

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 8: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to repeal involuntary mergers of contiguous non-conforming lots in common ownership and allow lots involuntarily merged by the municipality to be unmerged and considered lots of record subject to all other aspects of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances by deleting language from Section 9.1, adding new language to Section 9.1 and deleting Section 9.1.1 in its entirety? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

I seconded this motion when it became apparent that no one on the dias was going to do so. 

This petition was put forth by Barbara Aichinger who is in the middle of such a "taking by administrative fiat" by the town.  Just as with the attempted "Nix Knockout of the Ames Farm" amendment is effectively using the force of Government in the taking of the value of Private Property (a Right under the Constitution, one of the bedrock philosophical pillars of this representative Republic), so is the action of the Town on its own decision.

In these cases, I believe the right thing to do is to have the input of the landowner whose Private Property value may be affected be part of that decision making process.  Although the Town should have the ability to approach the landowner concerning the matter, the ultimate decision should be that of the landowner.

After all, it is not the Town's land nor should it solely be the Town's decision to make (or even the "majority" part of the decision).

I URGE you to vote YES on Article 8

I would not want to be in the same situation, of having the Town determine how my personal property.  If it would cost more in tax monies, so be it.  Even if the size or makeup of the lot would be such that it would have to remain undeveloped, so bit it.  The decision would be mine - or, yours.

Barbara Aichinger (who has started  www.NHPropertyRights.com) sent along a couple of documents - see after the jump.

SB406 AN ACT relative to merger of lots or parcels
Municipal and Public Affairs Committee
February 4th 9:00am LOB 103

Testimony of:

Barbara P. Aichinger
558 Edgewater Drive
Gilford, NH 03249
Wk:603-472-5905
Cell:603-548-5037
Email:Aichinger@comcast.net
www.NHPropertyRights.com


I would like to thank Senator Sgambati for putting this bill forward along with Senator Roberge, Senator Houde , Senator Bradley, Senator Clark along with five house members who have also co-sponsored this bill.  This bill is the result of almost 3 years of intense study for me.  When the town of Gilford remerged my lots my family and I went into a financial tail spin. Several lawsuits erupted, I could no longer sell my property, complete the house on the second lot or refinance my property at the now historically lower interest rates.  In essence I have two houses on a double merged lot.  What I have found is that I am not alone.  Once my story hit the papers people started to call me and tell me their story.   There is a widow in town that had her two adjacent lots automatically merged when her husband died because both lots were in her name  She could no longer sell the vacant lot next door to fund her retirement because it was merged to her house lot.  Then there is the family who owns 5 lots out on Mark Island.  These lots have been in their family for over 100 years.  The owner walked into the town hall a few years ago to inquire about building on them.  He found that he did not have 5 lots but only one lot from a zoning perspective.  He said to me ‘now I have to figure out which one of my children to leave the one lot to.’  Then there is the couple who owns two lots, one vacant and one with a house on it, in the village area of Gilford.  The vacant adjacent lot is on the corner so he can’t even split it with an abutter.  The town has rendered it useless and if he tries to stop paying his taxes on it because it is useless due to the towns actions the town will take his house because the town has merged the two together. This merging was done without informing him and without his consent.  This lot is a perfectly good buildable lot and is the same size as the other lots on the street.  These are all examples of economic waste and I have many more. 

How did this all get started?  There were two schools of thought that developed in the 1970’s.  One school said that involuntary lot merging was unconstitutional.   The municipalities only have the authority given to them by the state and the state, never gave them this authority.  Municipalities that were advised along these lines never merged.   Then there was the merging crowd.  These folks followed Case Law and municipal attorneys love their case law.  In the mid 1970’s there was a case that hinted at the theory that the purpose of zoning was to reduce non conformities.  This was then interpreted by some attorneys  that aggressive reduction of non conformities was now a mandate.  So when a town changed the lot size or street frontage requirements lots that were smaller were meant to be abolished or somehow made compliant. One method of making them compliant was to join them together but the only way they could do this was if they came into common ownership.  What I have found was that in the vast majority of cases the landowner was never given any notice.  When landowners complained the merging crowd said that the Zoning Ordinances themselves were the constructive notice and that the landowners were responsible for understanding the zoning as it applied to their property.

Now I would like to read for you a passage from an actual Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting when a landowner tried to regain their property rights.  The year was 1998 the applicant had two lots in a completed subdivision and the subdivision was created prior to zoning.  The applicant’s house is on a lot that is .55 acre and the adjacent vacant lot is .92 acre.  The town of Gilford had since increased its minimum lot size to 1 acre.  Questions from the zoning board ‘Are you contesting the Nighswander doctrine?  …how does the [applicants] two lots differ from any other lots that have been merged by the Nighswander doctrine?’ The attorney for the applicant states ‘if the lots had been placed in different names, they would be legal buildable lots…[the applicant] stated she did not know that her 2 lots were considered 1 lot, no one told her, noting that she has two deeds and they are registered in Laconia (location of Registry of Deeds for Belknap County).  A board member then states that he ‘has a very serious problem with the application the merger doctrine stands, nothing was presented that shows this lot is any different from the many lots under the same circumstances.’  The Planning Director then stated that ‘relative to hardship, the hardship has to be inherent in the lot itself.  The physical nature of the lot has to be so different from other lots similarly situated, that a hardship almost to the extent of disabling any use on the lot, would be created which is not the case.’   The ZBA then voted to deny the variance to unmerge the lots.  The reason for the denial is officially listed as the following ‘1. There is no particular hardship to the property 2. The use is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance 3. Substantial justice will not be done.’  Thus the property owner was bullied by the town and the local land use board into thinking that they suffered no hardship at the loss of their second lot.  Restoring their property rights would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance and the real kicker here folks is that substantial justice will not be done.  This couple could not afford to appeal the ZBA’s decision to the Superior Court thus once 30 days had passed from the ZBA’s decision the die was cast on this property forever since you cannot apply for the same variance again once you are denied.  Subsequent owners can also not apply.  A complete destruction of land wealth for this family. 

In 1995 there was a bill HB 390 An Act relative to the grandfathering of subdivisions and separate lots.  This bill was hotly contested as the merging crowd wanted the state to finally give them authority to merge.  What happened was just the opposite.  This bill gave us the Voluntary Merger statute RSA 674:39;a.  Most real estate professionals, landowners and attorneys thought that this finally ended involuntary lot merging.  Not for the merging crowd.  Since this legislation did not expressly forbid the towns from merging they reasoned it is still allowed.  They argued that the RSA 674:39;a simply allows the landowner to do it voluntarily if they want to.  The merging crowd conveniently ignored the fact that landowners could already do voluntary merges simply by stating the fact in their deeds or resurveying to only indicate one lot!

Involuntary lot merging has caused countless hardships for landowners here in New Hampshire.  It has also been the source of many lawsuits.  Here is Concord a recent four year long court battle resulting from the conveyance of a lot with a tennis court and a garage resulted in the Concord Economic and Development Council to recommend that the City of Concord abandon involuntary lot merging.  Now is the time to finish the job.  We must make it absolutely clear to judges, zoning boards, landowners and town attorneys, you cannot engage in involuntary lot merging.  Lots created prior to zoning and lots created by planning boards have vested rights and those rights need to be protected.  If a lot cannot be developed due to current setback requirements it must go through the variance process.  If a lot does not have adequate septic or water it must remedy those issues or it cannot be built on.  This is the process that exists today no new processes need to be created.

I would like to leave you with a very patriotic passage written by the late Justice Frederick Goode of Rockingham County.  I suspect that there was no involuntary merging in that county when Judge Goode was alive.  He writes in a decision for the land owner

“What the town of Candia has done in this case by treating Mr. Snow’s separately deeded acreage as a single zoning lot is clearly unreasonable.  When a restrictive policy, regulation, or ordinance as applied to a particular piece of land is unnecessary to accomplish a legitimate public purpose, or the gain, by such a restriction, to the public is non-existent or slight but the harm to the citizen and his property is great, the exercise of the municipality’s police power becomes arbitrary and unreasonable, and judicial intervention will afford relief under the constitution of this state.”

God Bless Justice Goode and God Bless the supporters of this legislation.

Thank you.

=============================================================

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { color: #0000ff } -->February 3rd,  2010
Deliberative Session Gilford NH

Vote YES on Article 8 to Eliminate Involuntary Lot Merging

Hello my name is Barbara Aichinger, 558 Edgewater Drive.  I and 58 other Gilford citizen’s have organized the petitioned warrant article that will hopefully eliminate involuntary lot merging here in the town of Gilford.  As some of you know I have done an exhaustive research of this issue.  What I have found is truly amazing and very disturbing. 

I have started a web site named www.NHPropertyRights.com.  On this site I have elucidated the town’s actions with regards to the inconsistent and unfair practice of involuntary lot merging.  I have found two cases where planning board members lots, vacant, non conforming and in common ownership were not merged although all the lots near them were.  I have also found that when the town through tax foreclosure came into tracts of vacant non conforming lots they were also not merged.  So the town did not follow its own ordinance yet forced mergers on its citizens. While some folks used their insider knowledge to avoid merging there were the not so lucky landowners.  Like the nice family out on Diamond Island.   They purchased an inaccessible back lot for a wildlife and nature preserve.  They had this back lot merged to their waterfront lot and since the waterfront lot became bigger they were hit with a much higher tax bill.  And then there is family who had a vacant lot of .92 acres only .08 acres shy of the regulation rendered totally unbuildable when it was merged to their house lot.  They could not afford to appeal the decision and lost all of the value of this lot.  The only thing it did was increase the taxes on their house lot.  Next there is the story of the widowed land owner who wanted her son and his family to build next door so she could have someone nearby and could stay in her home.  No can do.  That lot was merged to her house lot and he could not build.  She ended up in a Nursing Home.  Here is another example, two lots near the center of town a vacant one merged to the adjacent house lot.  The vacant adjacent lot is on the corner so he can’t even split it with an abutter.  The town has rendered it useless and if he tries to stop paying taxes on it, because it is useless due to the towns actions, the town will take his house because the two are merged together. This merging was done without informing him and without his consent.   This ordinance has rendered his perfectly good buildable lot, same size as the others on his street, totally worthless.  Then there is my situation.   I now have two houses on one double lot.  Go figure.  These are all examples of economic waste and I have many more.  Involuntary lot merging has easily resulted in over a million dollars of lost tax revenue for the town over the last 30 years.  Its not just small lots folks,  I have even found cases where two one acre lots were merged together and each of these lots had houses on them!  A destruction of land values into thin air.

It wasn’t always like this.  There was a period of about 8 to 9 years from the late 90’s to May of 2007 when the town actually unmerged people if they knew enough to request it.  Then in May of 2007, Planning Director John Ayer on advice of Counsel Walter Mitchell remerged my property on Edgewater Drive.  At that point, unmerges stopped for everyone in town, the town reversed its position on merging and the Planning Department began the ill fated attempt to cover up its previous actions of unmerging and non merging.  The result of the Planning Departments actions has been several lawsuits and more wasted tax dollars for the citizen’s of Gilford.  In addition, due to the Planning Departments reversal of its interpretation of this ordinance, hundreds of Gilford properties are now technically merged, even though they have separate tax bills for each lot.  What a mess!

Fifty nine registered Gilford voters have stepped forward to put this issue on the ballot next month.  They are asking you their neighbors and fellow citizens to eliminate this unconstitutional and clearly inconsistently applied ordinance.

Unmerged non conforming lots will be treated like any other non conforming lot in the town of Gilford.  They will be subjected to all other aspects of the zoning ordinances. 

I would like to leave you with a very patriotic passage written by the late Justice Frederick Goode of Rockingham County.  I suspect that there was no involuntary merging in that county when Judge Goode was alive.  He writes in a decision for the land owner

“What the town of Candia has done in this case by treating Mr. Snow’s separately deeded acreage as a single zoning lot is clearly unreasonable.  When a restrictive policy, regulation, or ordinance as applied to a particular piece of land is unnecessary to accomplish a legitimate public purpose, or the gain, by such a restriction, to the public is non-existent or slight but the harm to the citizen and his property is great, the exercise of the municipality’s police power becomes arbitrary and unreasonable, and judicial intervention will afford relief under the constitution of this state.”

I urge the Citizen’s of Gilford to Vote YES on Article 8.   Gilford needs to protect its citizen’s property rights and to treat property owners fairly and in a consistent manner. 

Thank you and God Bless you all.

Posted by Skip at 10:28 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

...

ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Both of these articles speak to a revamping of fire / safety codes here in Town. When they are read quickly, the first impression is "sure, who can be against more safety"?  Who can be against the idea of more fire alarms, more tools against the loss of life?

Well, my first reaction over the last few years has grown to almost always to:

• And the cost / benefit to this proposal?
• Is this a case of incrementally relinquishing of our freedom?
  

Now, I'm not a planning maven nor a fire expert.  However, I did ask Mr. Ayers the question as to the cost of Article 3 to future development:

approximately $50,000 for a such a cistern.

Thus, for a housing development of just 5 homes, it is an additional cost of $10K / per.  This, just on a simple basis, effectively eliminates the standard family home at around $250,000 cost and may have the unintended (intended?) push to slant future development to much bigger homes - effectively shoving Gilford towards a future where our sons and daughters of median incomes might not be able to build for themselves in the town in which they now reside.  It also will effectively raise the cost of "Work Force" housing as well.

Or force a clamor for an extension of the town water system in order to build. Or, this could shut down development altogether - which might suit some in town just dandy.

I also ask folks to reread what was written in the Jan. 14 version of the Gilford Steamer (Pg. A2) where Chief Hays was interviewed about this change in the fire code:

Although the overall document has not significantly changed, fire alarm system codes have been updated, as well as a section dealing with outside cooking devices and gas grills. Hayes added that some sections have been rewritten solely for clarification purposes before being resubmitted this year.

“It prohibits the use on any exterior deck on a multifamily dwelling (such as a condominium). You can’t have a gas grill on a deck anymore,” said Hayes.

And how many of us have decks on which we have "the barbie" ready for quick use in reasonable weather?  "No more grilling for you!" (shades of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi).

Any multi-family dwellings, new or substantially renovated units, either/ or consisting of four units or three stories or more, will now require sprinkler systems, regardless of the height or width of the building, said Hayes. Although an increased risk of fires are probable in multiunit dwellings with outside kitchen appliances, Hayes said part of the fire code prevention change has to do with the department’s abilities as well.

“It is really a matter of the size and capability of our fire department. It puts all occupants at risk. It is larger than what we are capable of looking at, and gives us a better chance to control the fire,” said Hayes.

I had to reread this a couple of times; each time I came up with the same conclusion.  Even though I like Chief Hayes (and thank him for his years of service to the Town and wish him an excellent retirement), I am aghast at the assumption:

Because the Fire Department cannot handle a given situation because of a lacking on its part, we must make the act of simply cooking hot dogs, hamburgers, steaks, and the like, illegal. With that statement, my take away is that because the Fire Department is unable to assure the safety of a home's residents, the use of the Property Owner of his or her cooking a meal is denied?

Doesn't this totally shift the responsibility from the homeowner for an adverse outcome to the State (give me a moment for waxing a bit philosophical here)?  Isn't this restricting the freedom of an individual to do what is otherwise legal activity?  This is not Boston where there are streets upon streets of three-deckers effectively rubbing siding on siding here, where an ignition could literally take out a block of houses or more.

A more philosophical question: Does the Chief believe like many Statists, that the responsibility for the safety of its citizens resides solely with the State and not with individual responsibility of its citizens?

And do we wish to cede more control over our lives to Government and limit freedom? Cooking the family's steak on the deck may sound like a rather puny dispute, but when does it stop?  

I may sound like I am going stark raving mad, and there are certainly those that already believe that, but I ask you to think this through - do not revert to what sounds good at the moment but instead, consider the basic philosophical tenets of our society at its founding (that is, if you can truly remember or if you received that education in the beginning) - who is really responsible for you?

I urge you to vote NO on both Articles 3 and 11.

Posted by Skip at 06:14 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

And this has already passed us by - more later.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

For the last few years, it seems that the preponderance of Warrants have been nothing but zoning issues. For those that may be following GraniteGrok, the writings have become more oriented to basic principles - what are our Natural Rights as debated and described by our Founding Fathers and encapsulated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to the Progressive philosophy that relinquishing those rights to a more and more centralized Government (pick your level) is preferable such that Government can solve all ills and provide for all needs...but I digress.

The question is, what is the boundary between controlling the character of the town and the Right to Private Property?  And this year, which are those that are:

• Concerned with defining the character of the town?
• Concerned with safety issues
• Concerned with safety issues but have, in my opinion, crossed that line of the "common good" vs the individual Right to Private Property?
• Simply using the the coercive force of Government to destroy someone else's Right to Private Property (and the value thereof) so as to facilitate their own well being the value of their Private Property (AKA - the Stephen Nix vs Ames Farm Warrant)?
  

And yes, this is the Article that I stood up in opposition to at the Deliberative Session (the FIRST SESSION, above), that in my belief, is yet more "legalfare (e.g., legal warfare) leveled by Mr. Nix against the Ames's. Let me address this Article first.

Mr. "no boats for you" Nix, from my viewpoint, would like nothing more than for the Ames Farm to go defunct.  Frankly, his cause is just about the same as the person who JUST moves into either the flight path of the Laconia Municipal Airport (just gotta love that name...given that is located in Gilford) or right near it complaining about the noise.

Er, who was there first (and Ames has been operating for 120 years), Mr. Nix?  And to me, that is a fundamental issue.  He moved to his present residence well after the establishment of the business which, by most accounts, has been a positive venue for tourists in Gilford.

I'd be willing to bet, if his home was on the other side of town near Meadowbrook, he'd be complaining there too (er, still).

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a lawyer than can freely throw up obstacle after complaint after lawsuit after lament (you get the idea) and try to spend / annoy / limit / deny the rightful owners of their Right to the free use of their Private Property strictly for his benefit.

What was important was the question that I asked of John Ayers, Director of Planning and Land Use department: "Would this article, in your professional opinion,  adversely impact the operations at the Ames Farm?"

His answer: Yes

This is NOT, it seems, about the character of the town - it is all about what Steve Nix wants and will not stop until his wants are met.  There's a word that describes that kind of behavior....

I URGE you to vote no on Article 9

After all, what would YOU do if a lawyer or developer felt that his needs came before yours, and he is a "Johnny-come-lately" to the neighborhood?

(cross posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 02:23 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

 

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

 

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

And this has already passed us by - more later.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 1: To choose the necessary Town Officers for the following year; to wit:

One Selectman for a 3 year term
One Moderator for a 2 year term
One Trustee of Trust Funds for a 3 year term
Two Library Trustees for 3 year terms
Three Budget Committee Members for 3 year terms
One Fire Engineer for a 3 year term
One Cemetery Trustee for a 3 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 6 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 2 year term

GilfordGrok will have its recommendations for each contested position a bit later on.

Posted by Skip at 02:18 PM | Permalink

Game on!

At this time, the run for the elections is on.  Selectmen, Budget Committee, School Board, Library Trustees, Planning; those that have decided that they have a reason to serve, that they have an ability that can be helpful to the Town, that they have something to GIVE (versus that hated phrase "give back" - which is utter nonsense unless one believes that the "community" is totally responsible for one's life and success) have signed up and will be making their pitches for the titles / positions.

I'm quite sure that the Steamer will be making its recommendations; GilfordGrok will be making its recommendations as well.  

Certainly, the Gilford fire fighters have made their recommendation:

In a unanimous vote, Gilford Professional Firefighters has voted to endorse incumbent Selectman Gus Benavides to a second term as Selectman. President Scott Mooney said “we have looked at Gus’s voting record for the past three years and Gus has supported the Fire Department when we needed it”. The thing with Gus is he does not just approve or disapprove an issue without knowing all the facts. And that’s all we want is our officials to make informed decisions, Mooney said. Benavides requested a meeting with the Firefighters to ask for their endorsement and discuss some of the issues. “We had a very productive meeting with Gus and discussed many issue that will arise in the next three years, Gus promised an open line of communication with the Selectman’s office, and possible a town employees working group to help research the health care issues”. Gilford Professional Firefighters endorsed Benavides three years ago for his first term in office.

Hmm, one has to ask the question: a union endorsing a conservative?  While it is true that I am considered (and self-admitted) to be quite Conservative, I think that Gus is to be viewed as the more conservative person in the race (the three: Gus, Margo Weeks who is leaving the position of Chair of the School Board, and perennial runner Joe Hoffman).

Posted by Skip at 12:10 PM | Permalink

Town meeting time here in NH brings the political musical chair(s) time as well.  Here's the list of the players for the contested positions:

Board of Selectmen:

• Gus Benevides (current Chair)
• Joe Hoffman
• Margo Weeks (current Chair of the School Board)
  

Moderator:

• Dennis Corrigan
• Joe Hoffman
• Sandra McGonagle

Budget Committee:

• Mark Correy (incumbent)
  
• Dale Dormody (incumbent)
• Dale "Chan" Eddy
• Dave Horvath
• Philip "Pat" LaBonte

Library Trustee (one opening):

• Steve Geer
  
• Tracy Petrozzi (incumbent)

Supervisor of the Checklist (three openings):

Six year term (one opening):

• Irene LaChance
• Mary Villuame

Two year (one opening)

• Connie Moses (incumbent)

School Board (two openings):

• Conrad Hanf
• Rae Mellow-Andrews
• Don Pangburn
• Derek Tomlinson (long term incumbent)

Posted by Skip at 11:40 AM | Permalink