Category: Politics

By S.D. Plissken | March 2, 2020

Article #6 would have us join the Strafford County Regional Planning Commission, whose annual dues are currently $5,764.

Article 6: Strafford County Regional Planning Commission Membership Dues

To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the Sum of Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Four Dollars ($5,764) and to authorize the Town of Milton Selectmen / Administrator / Planner to pay said sum to the Strafford County Regional Planning Commission as dues for its fiscal year July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and thereafter to place the annual dues as may be adjusted from time to time into to [the] Town operating budget. (Majority vote required).

Estimated tax impact is $0.01 (One Cent).

Approved by the Board of Selectmen (3,0,0)

Approved by the Budget Committee (6,1,0)

We may note that the article’s language acknowledges frankly that those dues “may” be adjusted from time to time. That is to say, the annual dues will be adjusted upwards, both certainly and frequently. (There, I fixed it).

The bridge in question was already marginal when it was closed for the winter of 2010-11, because its revised load limit would no longer support snowplow equipment. The bridge was subsequently removed in 2012. It has been absent now for nearly eight years.

The stated justification for joining this regional planning commission was so that it might intercede on our behalf with the NH State Department of Transportation (NHDOT) in the matter of replacing the New Bridge Road bridge between Milton and Lebanon. A secondary justification given more recently was the regional planning commission’s assistance in helping us through the government-created regulatory morass in establishing conservation areas. (Thanks guys! Here’s $5,764 for your trouble).

Our Town planning entity wants “us” to join a Regional planning entity, complete with club dues, because the NH state planning entity (and its NH DOT planning entity) have passed us over in the matter of the bridge. Its projected replacement is years out from now, unless it gets postponed yet again. They might listen to us – or grant us more preferential treatment than those not paying these dues – if, and only if, we belong to this Regional planning entity.

Are we not paying already both Federal and State gas taxes to fund road and bridge improvements? (Those taxes being a substantial part of the per-gallon price). And have we not already set aside funds to pay for “our share” of this bridge? (As has Lebanon).

Assuming any part of the stated rationale was true, it would be the very definition of corruption on the part of the regional and state planners, as well as the NH DOT. That could not possibly be true, could it?

This channel is a very short span. During WW II, the army used pre-fabricated Bailey bridges to cross much wider bodies of water. They could be constructed from one side of a river – often under enemy fire – in very short times, days even. Those bridges could take the weight of heavy armored vehicles. Some postwar bridges of this type are still in use today.

Those unaware of the Hayekian “knowledge problem” might find themselves gobsmacked by the complete pig’s breakfast the various government planning entities have made of this. The bridge problem should not be a difficult one in itself. It is not as if they are going to build it themselves, as opposed to just paying contractors. The actual problem lies in it being planned by government. Add in other layers of government, such as the state and its DOT, and the governmental complexity, expense and delay only increases. (“Adding personnel to a overdue software project only delays it further”).

There is also the matter of the price. Without a price mechanism, government cannot “know” whether there should be many bridges or none at all, nor what they should cost. Their mechanism is the political means, for which it is evidently necessary to pay a “vig” to the government level above them.

To add in yet another layer of regional government will not help this at all. But it will cost us more than if we did not: $5,764 per annum more, at least to start.

Lebanon is considering simply abandoning this project. Alton pulled out of their regional planning commission two years ago. The petition by which they were liberated is available online. Just saying.

---

See also But, Who Will Build the Bridges?

---

References:

Bailey Bridge, Inc. (2020). Bailey Bridges. Retrieved from http://www.baileybridge.com/

Wikipedia. (2020, February 2). Bailey Bridge. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_bridge

Wikipedia. (2020, February 22). Vigorish. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish

 

By S.D. Plissken |  February 29, 2020

A recent post (January 31) on local social media asked a very good question regarding the so-called “fund balance.”

Last year (2019) the Milton Operating Budget was defeated and the Town operated under a Default Budget. The December Expenditure Report shows a surplus of $739,128.00. Will this be used to offset taxes. or will it be used to fund Warrant Articles in 2020?

Audience members at the Deliberative Session asked related questions. For those who did not already know, the official replies tell quite a tale.

The term “fund balance” might suggest that this amount is only what is left over when the necessary budget categories are covered – a sort of rounding error or spare change. That is only partly true.

The NH State Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) “recommends” that Towns collect a tax overage, above and beyond the tax amounts necessary to cover the Town budget. In replies to audience questions, it emerged that the DRA recommendation was formerly to collect an additional 5% to 15%. This year’s proposed budget is $4,562,047.

So, following the DRA’s recommendation would have the Town collecting this year additional funds above the Town budget of between $228,102 (at 5%) and $684,307 (at 15%). In a town with about 2,300 tax properties, that would be an average tax overage of between $99 and $298 per property.

It emerged also that the DRA has in recent years narrowed their recommended tax overage range to something that tops out at about 8%. This narrower range has been implemented already in various other NH towns, towns whose governments are better than ours.

At the Milton Deliberative Session the various members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) amended any and all articles that gave an estimated tax impact. They replaced those tax impact estimates with – let us not mince words – the same tired old lie about there being no tax impact or, as former Selectman Lucier preferred it, no additional tax impact, as the money would come magically from the unexpended fund balance.

I am not dim enough to fall for that – at least not more than once – but are you? Just as the fictional Soylent Green foodstuff was found ultimately to have been made out of people [!], we discovered last year that fund balances are made out of taxes [!!]. They are simply the DRA’s recommended tax “overages” from last year, over-collected and never returned.

Now, the thing about “recommendations” is that you need not adopt them. Town officials with any concern whatsoever for the taxpayers they supposedly represent would operate always at the lower end of the DRA’s recommended range. They might even disregard the DRA’s bad advice all together. But we have instead $739,128 worth of Soylent Green in our fund balance.

Obviously, we need to elect officials that put our interests – and particularly our ability to pay – before the fevered dreams of Town departments. We have for many years been disappointed by the various boards and committees, perhaps even feeling something akin to betrayal.

The answer to the social media question above – and the whole point of their removing the tax impact language from the various warrant articles – is “YES, this BOS absolutely intends to spend ‘your’ fund balance on warrant articles and not on tax relief.” But only if you are dim enough to vote for their warrant spending.

Despite the stated rationales when it was created, profligate spending is the entire point of having a CIP plan and of overtaxing us to fill magic fund balances. Remember, by definition, government has no “capital,” as such, with which to “plan.” Everything they spend is removed from your pocket.

References:

Calloway, Cab. (1931). Minnie the Moocher. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mq4UT4VnbE

Heston, Charlton. (1973). Soylent Green Is People! Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zAFA-hamZ0

 

 

 

By S.D. Plissken | February 25, 2020

The Presidential Primary election took place on Tuesday, February 11, 2020. 1,239 Milton voters took either a Democratic or Republican primary ballot.

As is usual, None-of-the-above won the election, in that about 60% of Milton’s registered voters gave the primary election a good leaving-alone and did not vote for any of the proffered candidates (nor did they write-in any other person).

Democratic Primary Ballots

696 Milton voters took a Democratic Party ballot. Of those, 195 (28.02%) voted for Bernie Sanders, 156 (22.42%) for Pete Buttigieg, 145 (20.83%) for Amy Klobuchar, 40 (5.7%) for Joseph R. Biden, 39 (5.6%) for Elizabeth Warren, 35 (5.03%) for Tulsi Gabbard, 33 (4.74%) for Tom Steyer, 17 (2.44%) for Andrew Yang, 6 (0.86%) for Deval Patrick, 3 (0.43%) for Michael Bennet, 2 (0.29%) for Julian Castro, 2 (0.29%) for Kamala Harris, 1 for Cory Booker, 1 (0.14%) for Ben Gleib Gleiberman, and 1 (0.14%) for Tom Koos.

In the Write-In category, 11 (1.58%) voted for Donald J. Trump, 6 (0.86%) for Mike Bloomberg, 2 (0.29%) for Mitt Romney, and 1 (0.14%) for Barack Obama.

The Democratic Party candidates in the 1-2-3 positions (bolded) received vote totals in a range that might get them a seat on the Milton Board of Selectmen in a Town election.

Republican Primary Ballots

543 Milton voters took a Republican Party ballot. Of those, 483 (88.95%) voted for Donald J. Trump, 29 (5.34%) for Bill Weld, 3 (0.55%) for Mary Maxwell, 2 (0.37%) for Larry Horn, 2 (0.37%) for Stephen B. Comley, Sr., 1 (0.18%) for Matthew John Matern, 1 (0.18%) for Eric Merrill, 1 (0.18%) for William N. Murphy, and 1 (0.18%) for Joe Walsh.

In the Write-In category, 17 (3.13%) voted for Bernie Sanders, 3 (0.55%) for Joseph R. Biden, 2 (0.37%) for Elizabeth Warren, 1 (0.18%) for Pete Buttigieg, 1 (0.18%) for Amy Klobuchar, and 1 (0.18%) for Tom Steyer.

Donald J. Trump received vote totals that would definitely get him a seat on the Milton Board of Selectmen, but the others not so much.

Why Are We Paying for This?

As usual, one might well question this exercise’s rationale. In the prior election cycle, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) argued in Federal court that they were a private organization that was not bound by the actual election results. That is to say, they could select whomever they wanted as the Democratic candidate, regardless of who won any actual primary elections. The Republicans had made similar arguments years earlier in refusing to seat Ron Paul delegates.

All of which begs the question: If these are just private club elections, as argued by the DNC, whose results the private clubs are not bound to respect, exactly why are these private club elections being conducted at public expense?

President George Washington, as well as other founding fathers, argued in his Farewell Address against having any political parties at all, let alone publicly funding their private club elections.

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion (Washington, September 17, 1796).

Can Milton send an invoice for its primary election expenses to the respective parties’ “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled” functionaries? On behalf of Milton’s 60% majority, that is, who might wish to free themselves from subsidizing those parties’ “unjust dominion.”

---

You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’ (George Bernard Shaw).

---

References:

Milton Town Clerk. (2020, February). State Milton Results, Feb. 11, 2020. Retrieved from www.miltonnh-us.com/sites/miltonnh/files/pages/state_milton_results_feb_11_2020.pdf

By Ian Aikens | February 24, 2020

Is there no limit to the lengths school administrators will go to undermine families?

Judging by House Bill 1459, a bill I recently weighed in against in a public hearing in Concord, their nerve shows no bounds. Under current law, parents have to give written permission for their children to fill out non-academic surveys. HB1459 would change parental permission needed from “opt-in” to “opt-out,” thus placing the burden on all parents to deny permission, rather than on school bureaucrats to obtain permission.

Why such a big deal over some innocuous questions in a survey? Under the law’s definition of a “non-academic survey or questionnaire,” it is “designed to elicit information about a student’s social behavior, family life, religion, politics, sexual orientation, sexual activity, drug use, or any other information not related to a student’s academics.” First and foremost, what business is it of busybody school administrators to pry into students’ and their parents’ family lives? Where I come from, we call that snooping, pure and simple. These are extremely personal areas—and definitely not in the province of school officials. In case they’ve forgotten what they get paid for, it is teaching the basics like the 3R’s, literature, history, science, and maybe a pinch of The Constitution once in a while, not probing into private lives.

The information the nosey parkers are going out of their way to obtain should be extremely alarming to any parent. Just think about the questions that could be asked in these surveys. Are there firearms in your house? Do your parents ever hit or spank you or your siblings? Do your parents ever leave you alone in the house? Have you ever seen marijuana or other recreational drugs in your house? Have you ever tried to kill yourself?* When you have sex, how often do you and/or your partner use a birth control method such as birth control pills, Depo-Provera shot, an implant, ring, patch, male or female condom (rubber), foam, diaphragm, or IUD?* How many adults have you known for two or more years who do things that are wrong or dangerous?* What political parties are your parents registered under? Who will your parents vote for in the next presidential election? Do your parents smoke or vape? By including the text “or any other information not related to a student’s academics,” the surveys could legally ask just about anything. Whatever happened to privacy and all those millions of privacy forms we see all the time that are supposed to protect our privacy? If it’s wrong for big corporations and private companies in the voluntary sector to share our data without our permission, why is it OK when government school bureaucrats do it? It is well documented that when government employees get hold of personal information, they sometimes misuse the information for nefarious personal purposes. And, even if not for personal misuse, can you just imagine what overzealous Child Protective Services bureaucrats would do with the survey data if it got into their overreaching hands?

(*Questions excerpted from a survey given to students as young as 5th graders).

All the survey results are supposed to be anonymous and kept confidential, but especially with declining student enrollment and smaller populations in many of New Hampshire’s rural towns, it wouldn’t be difficult for the snoopers to figure out where the responses came from—and possibly pay a surprise visit to a child’s home to check up on his “family life.” Data collection is one of the favorite ways for government bureaucrats to justify expanding their “services” in order to obtain more funding and personnel. Judging by the number of special interest groups who testified in favor of the bill, clearly they were looking for more business if only the schools could provide more data.

So how would the system of getting permission work under HB1459? Right now, if the school doesn’t receive the signed permission slip back from the parents, it’s a no go for the survey to be given to the student. Under HB1459 however, all the school would need to do is send written notice home to the parents via the student, and no signed permission slip would need to be returned. There was much ado by the bill’s proponents that the problem now is permission slips get lost in the shuffle of paperwork and never make it back to the school. The implication is that parents want to grant permission but logistics get in the way. From raising my own son, who always managed to lose not only papers being sent home but even the folder that contained the papers (“No homework, Dad!”), I can definitely agree with the proponents that indeed papers do get lost. However, their solution to the vanishing papers issue doesn’t solve the problem because the permission slip might never make it home in the first place; thus, by default the parents will be deemed to have given permission without ever having seen the permission slip.

Here is a real-life example how this scheme works in practice and enables bureaucrats to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. When I lived in San Francisco, the city was pushing its own government-owned electricity supplier CleanPowerSF over Pacific Gas & Power. Of course, they wanted enough rate payers to choose CleanPowerSF to make it financially feasible, so they have been “opting in” the entire city, one neighborhood at a time, over the last few years stealthily. When the issue happened to surface, a friend of mine who is a certified political junkie and in tune to what goes on at City Hall confessed that he didn’t even notice that he had been “opted in” to CleanPowerSF. He quickly opted out once he realized what happened, but considering that he is well read and generally informed, can you just imagine how little of the general public would even be aware of what had occurred right under their noses? In the olden days, when phone companies used to switch people over to their company without their permission, this was called “slamming” and was widely condemned. If it was wrong for “evil” corporations to pull this shenanigan, why is it suddenly OK when government officials do it? Where is the outrage now?

Also worth mentioning are comments made during the hearing I attended. One committee member noted that he heard from past similar surveys that older students weren’t taking them seriously and were filling in bogus answers. After all, if you’re taking drugs or sleeping around, would you really want to take a chance of your parents finding out, even though the results are supposed to be anonymous? So, after wasting limited resources to gather this data, even if the snoopers didn’t misuse it, it might not even be accurate in the end. Another point was brought up by the only other person to oppose the bill: who is vetting these surveys before subjecting the students to them? The lack of oversight really concerned her over the inappropriateness of some of the questions.

Lastly, should there be any question as to the motivation and purpose of the bureaucrats, one of the letters sent home to parents announced that the survey itself would be available for viewing during school hours at the school. Of course, most parents are at work during school hours, so why not just send the survey home for parents to view it themselves before granting permission? OK, for those concerned with wasting taxpayer dollars on hard paper costs, why not just post it online for all parents to see? In fact, parents complained about not being able to take the survey home for review, and some had to file several Right-To-Know requests to get hard copies. The breathtaking depth of the snoopers’ nosiness is surpassed only by their zeal to deceive and circumvent parents.

The bill is currently pending in the NH House Education Committee. If it makes it out of committee to the floor, I will keep an eye on how Milton’s representatives and senator vote on it. It and the shameful surveys are further evidence that something has gone really awry at government schools.

References:

Bamforth, Annabelle. (2014, April 9). School Misleads Parents On Survey Questions For Students. Retrieved from truthinmedia.com/school-misleads-parents-on-survey-questions-for-students/

Legiscan. (2020). HB1459: Relative to non-academic surveys administered by a public school or a chartered public school to its students. Retrieved from legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1459/2020

Ross A. Lurgio Middle School. (2014, March 31). Dear Parent or Guardian. Retrieved from www.girardatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AssetSurveyNotificationLurgio-03.21.14.pdf

School Choice for NH. (2016, February 16). Dear State Senators: Open Letter from Kathy Dunton. Retrieved from www.schoolchoicenh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SB-320-2016-letter-by-Kathy-Dunton-Rochester-NH-survey-homework.pdf

School Choice for NH. (2017, January 7). Non-Academic Surveys in the Classroom. Retrieved from www.schoolchoicenh.org/2017/01/24/non-academic-surveys-in-the-classroom/

Search Institute. (2012). Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes & Behaviors. Retrieved from www.girardatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Attitudes-Behaviors-Survey-1.pdf

By S.D. Plissken | February 23, 2020

The bad ideas prevalent elsewhere have begun to arrive on Milton’s doorstep. Cash on delivery.

In this warrant article, Article #3, the Milton School Board, the Milton Board of Selectmen, and the Milton Police favor hiring a School Resource Officer (SRO), i.e., a police officer, for the Milton school system. They propose to split the cost between them. That is to say, the taxpayers will foot the entire bill, but partly in their School taxes and partly in their Town taxes. This article concerns only the Town portion of the costs.

Article 3: School Resource Officer

To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Eighty-nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Dollars ($89,760) to be added to the Milton Police Department General Operating Budget to Fund a School Resource Officer. This sum will be for half a year for 2020 and will then become a full year position in 2021 and will become a new line in the Police Department General Operating Budget. This sum will be for salary, FICA, Retirement, Medicare, Workers’ Comp, and Insurance cost. (Majority Vote Required).

Estimated tax impact is $0.18 (Eighteen Cents).

Recommended by the Board of Selectmen (3,0,0).

Recommended by the Budget Committee (6,1,0).

The division between budgets, as well as errors made in calculating the correct amounts, make it difficult to state the actual bottom line for this innovation. Between salary, benefits, pensions, etc., it would seem to be well north of $100,000. That is to say, it will be at least double the average salary of a Milton taxpayer. The “million dollar” Police department price tag, of which so many have complained, will become the 1.1 million dollar Police department. Some might think that enough on its face to reject this article.

In recommending it, it was said that it would allow for a revival, potentially even an expansion, of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. An audience member pointed out that there have been literally hundreds of academic studies of this program. Nearly all of them rated it as having been completely ineffective, and many claimed it was actually counter-productive, in that it actually induced greater drug involvement.

Our results confirm the findings of a previous meta-analysis indicating that Project D.A.R.E. is ineffective. This is not surprising, given the substantial information developed over the past decade to that effect. Critics of the present analysis might argue that, despite the magnitude of our findings, the direction of the effect of D.A.R.E. was generally positive. While this is the case, it should be emphasized that the effects we found did not differ significantly from the variation one would expect by chance. According to Cohen’s guidelines, the effect size we obtained would have needed to be 20 times larger to be considered even small. Given the tremendous expenditures in time and money involved with D.A.R.E., it would appear that continued efforts should focus on other techniques and programs that might produce more substantial effects (West, et al., 2004).

Another advantage put forward was the opportunity to foster a relationship of trust between students and police. That would seem to be a very poor lesson to learn at school, compared with what lawyers tell us. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, long ago, that the police may lie to you (Frazier v. Cupp), and that they are under no obligation whatsoever to either help or protect you (Warren v. District of Columbia; DeShaney vs. Winnebago; Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales). That same audience member pointed out that any good attorney would advise you to never even speak to the police, let alone trust them.

The Milton Police Facebook site has for years featured a Thin Blue Line flag as its header, which might tell you something about their culture. It supposedly signifies that they are all that stands between society and chaos. However, in many places, Thin Blue Line displays are regarded instead as a kind of “gang” colors. For that reason, many departments prohibit their display on uniforms, vehicles, Facebook displays, etc. It does not project a relationship of trust, quite the contrary in fact. We stick together against you. (Desecrating a U.S. flag in this manner is not a crime, although the U.S. Congress has tried several times to make it so. (It would take a constitutional amendment to criminalize flag desecration)).

One is reminded of the shenanigans that took place a couple of summers ago. One or more Milton police officers disappeared off the payroll amidst a flurry of secret 91-A meetings. In the final meeting, the records were unsealed, but only for the police chief, so that he might include some of its information in his personnel records. The taxpayers are not to know what happened, we are not to be trusted with that information. The Thin Blue Line.

The audience member mentioned the many readily available videos of school resource officers assaulting students. This is true, it has happened many times. It is not necessary to belabor this point, but by way of proof here is a single one chosen at random: NBC Nightly News: North Carolina School Officer Fired After Video Shows Him Body-Slamming A Student.

The final argument in favor of a SRO was that that officer would be on hand to better document any incident. That is to say, they would be better prepared to move a student into the criminal justice system: the School-to-Prison Pipeline.

The Milton Board of Selectmen recommended this unanimously, as is their usual practice.

References:

Duane, James J. (2012, March 1). The Right to Remain Silent: A New Answer to an Old Question. Retrieved from papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119

Regent University School of Law. (n.d.). Don’t Talk to the Police. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

West, Steven L., et al. (2004, June). Project D.A.R.E. Outcome Effectiveness Revisited. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/

Wikipedia. (2018, November 23). DeShaney v. Winnebago County. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Wikipedia. (2019, October 18). Frazier v. Cupp. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

Wikipedia. (2020, January 1). School-to-Prison Pipeline. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Wikipedia. (2020, February 23). Thin Blue Line. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line

Wikipedia. (2019, August 28). Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Wikipedia. (2020, January 6). Warren v. District of Columbia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

By S.D. Plissken | February 23, 2020

The Milton Town warrant has upon it several articles with competing ideas that cannot be reconciled. This one concerns forcing most taxpayers to subsidize the particular “hobby horse” of a few.

The world is not on fire, nor is it going to end in ten or eleven years. These are false notions that can be denied, both easily and truthfully.

Who can even say what the “correct” temperature is or should be? It has been within quite a wide range during humanity’s tenure. There is a strong natural bias towards the temperature prevailing “now” as being the ideal one, but that is all it is, just a bias. I believe they call it a normalcy bias: a bias in favor of that with which one is familiar.

The Roman empire encountered what might be called adverse climate change in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. In Roman Britain, the warmer trend prevailing up to that time had allowed for an expansion of farming to formerly marginal upland areas. They even had viniculture, which requires warmer temperatures. Its population boomed, as did that of the Roman empire in general.

Then the climate cooled. Yes, temperatures cooled towards what they are now. The Romans were not best pleased with the change. It became harder to sustain populations that had expanded under what the Romans had regarded as “optimal” conditions. The barbarians became restless and advanced across Roman frontiers. The Romans pulled out of Britain in 409 A.D. They left a nice note, advising the Britons to take care of themselves.

The same thing happened later with the Greenland Viking settlements. They established settlements there that lasted for hundreds of years. Then the prevailing temperatures cooled, again towards the ones experienced now. The Viking settlements struggled against this cooling trend, but their populations dwindled and finally they just “winked out.” Current temperatures were just too cold for them.

Article #23 seeks to socialize the expense of owning so-called “Green” technologies. It might be more accurate to say that it seeks to “further” socialize them, to the Town level, as the Federal government is already subsidizing them to the tune of 30% off. State governments are on the bandwagon too.

Article 23: Optional Tax Exemption: Solar, Wind-Powered, Wood Heating Systems (Submitted by Petition).

To see if the town will vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 72:61 through RSA 72:72 inclusively, which provide for an optional property tax exemption from the property’s assessed value, for property tax purposes, for persons owning real property, which is equipped with solar energy systems, wind-powered energy systems or wood heating systems intended for use at the immediate site. Such property tax exemption shall be in the amount of 100% of the assessed value of qualifying equipment under these statutes. (Majority vote required).

Estimated tax impact is $0.74 (Seventy-four Cents).

Not recommended by the Board of Selectmen (0,3,0). [Amended to 2,1,0, Chairman Thibeault and Selectman Rawson voting to recommend that Milton taxpayers subsidize these energy systems, while Vice-Chairwoman Hutchings declined to do so].

Not Recommended by the Budget Committee (0,4,3).

The “estimated tax impact” is a bit deceptive. (But no more than the amounts estimated by the Town in general). That would be the estimated tax impact at the current numbers of such systems. Were those numbers to increase, then the tax impact would increase correspondingly.

Town taxes are as high as they are due to excessive Town budgets. Do not be sidetracked by variations in rates and valuations. Those are factors only in covering ever-increasing Town budgets. Despite what some Selectmen have put forward, it is not an accomplishment to lower the rate slightly while increasing the valuation greatly. (Be sure to ask “The Question” (of last year) of any and all candidates).

The Town taxes anything not nailed down, literally. People have been heard asking about structures on wheels. Why would two Selectmen recommend that “Green” systems be exempted from valuation and, therefore, exempted from their taxation?

One might answer that 1) this does not affect them: their Town budgets can still increase despite this measure, and 2) they believe in Global Warming (or its necessary rebranding as Global Climate Change) or, at least, they would like to “signal” that they do.

This measure absolutely does not reduce taxes by the value of these energy systems, it merely “redistributes” those taxes onto the backs of those that do not have them. Those who do not believe that the earth is on fire will be forced to subsidize the “Green” energy beliefs of those who do.

If one does believe in Global Climate Change, one should put one’s own money where one’s mouth is, rather than forcibly appropriating the money of others for that purpose.

---

“There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.” – Franz Oppenheimer

---

References:

Fall of Civilizations. (2019, March 25). 4. Greenland Vikings – Land of the Midnight Sun. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=dep69ARBNpE

 

 

By S.D. Plissken | January 16, 2020

A correspondent informs us that the AREA advisory petition was filed with the School District Clerk by Tuesday’s deadline and its signatures have been verified. This option will be on the School District ballot.

Canvassers obtained more than double the necessary signatures, well on their way to triple, which was excellent work for a later start. Only three signers were not as registered as they might think they are, but they have time still before the election to check their status.

A School Board member and a Board of Selectmen member looked in on the canvassing process. They did not sign, but agreed to the limited extent that they are reported to have felt it was in the best interests of Milton to explore all possibilities in educating the children of Milton.

Congratulations to Mrs. Laura Ott Turgeon and Mr. Les Elder for their effective effort. On to the election.

(For the text of the AREA advisory petition see AREA Petition Signing Times (The times, of course, are past)).

 

By S.D. Plissken | January 9, 2020

There is another petition afoot that seeks to begin to address Milton’s rather astonishing school expenses.

This Citizens’ Petition seeks to direct the Milton School Board to talk with neighboring school districts to determine the feasibility of creating an Authorized Regional Enrollment Area (AREA) (see RSA 195-A in References) for sending high and middle school students out of district.

Milton registered voters are to have several opportunities to sign:

• Friday evening, January 10, at Dunkin’ Donuts (565 White Mountain Highway), from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM; and
• Saturday morning, January 11, again at Dunkin’ Donuts (565 White Mountain Highway), from 10:00 AM to Noon.
• Sunday morning, January 12, again at Dunkin’ Donuts (565 White Mountain Highway), from 10:00 AM to Noon.

(The filing deadline is Tuesday, January 14 [Corrected]).

The text of the AREA petition is as follows:

To see if the voters of the Milton School District shall direct the Milton School Board to enter into talks with neighboring School Districts to determine the feasibility of an AREA Agreement according to RSA 195-A for the purpose of sending our high school and middle school students out of district.

One hesitates to say without more information, but the petition language might suggest that the Milton School Board has refused hitherto to consider or enter into such talks on its own. A public board, responsible to the taxpayers, would never choose to put its own notions before the interests of the taxpayers that are paying the costs. That just could never be, right?

One imagines instead that the Milton School Board will leap at the suggestion that they determine if such an agreement is even feasible. And if it reduces our burden, they could not help but be interested. So, this petition would seem to be another one that seeks rather moderate ends.

One of its proponents has argued that “This does not pin us down to one school or another,” while requiring transparency in that its findings would necessarily be public.

Readers may find several random examples of such agreements in the References below, including even an interstate agreement between Orford, NH, and several Vermont towns. Surrey’s AREA agreement with Keene provides for a 2.5% tuition discount in exchange for its 20-year commitment.

References:

Milton School Board. (2020, January 8). Milton School Board Meeting, January 8, 2020. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zw2T7c12Yo

Rivendell Interstate School District. (2011, March 26). Articles of Agreement for Rivendell Interstate School District. Retrieved from www.rivendellschool.org/images/stories/districtinfo/Articles_of_Agreement_Amended_03-26-11_FinalCorrected.pdf

State of New Hampshire. (2016, June 21). RSA Chapter 195-A. Authorized Regional Enrollment Area (AREA) School. Retrieved from www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/195-a/195-a-mrg.htm

SAU #19. (2014, January 9). Goffstown-New Boston AREA Agreement. Retrieved from www.goffstown.k12.nh.us/attachments/article/215/Goffstown-New_Boston_AREA_Agreement.pdf

SAU #75. (2015). Grantham-Lebanon-Plainfield AREA Agreement. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0xxSV9o0oV9TzJsOU9sLUNiUjg/view

VPR. (2013, November 15). Blinkhorn: Kennedy and Dresden [Dresden School District]. Retrieved from www.vpr.org/post/blinkhorn-kennedy-and-dresden