Josiah Bartlett Report - Click Here for PDF File

Here is a nice little package of self-serving conservationism from the Town of Raymond.

The short story:

In November 2008, the Southeast Land Trust, a NH non-profit, buys some property which rests in three towns, Raymond, Epping, and Nottingham. They paid $300,000.00, so says the tax stamp from the deed.

So, naturally, the SLT wants to recoup some of the money, $75,000.00 in this case, they spent, through the more than willing members of the Raymond Conservation Commission who like many NH Con Coms get half of all the current use penalty money for land purchases. The catch is that under state statute, RSA 36-A, they can only purchase land IN THE INTEREST OF THE TOWN. This parcel would be owned, lock stock and barrel, by a third party.

And another catch: The first conservation land non-profit, SLT, gave the parcel to another non-profit, Bear-Paws Regional Greenways. Now we have a third party twice removed.

On Dec. 22, 2008 the Raymond Selectmen signed a “Letter of Agreement” with SLT to pay $75 grand to them for the protection of this parcel. The Letter of Agreement spelled out that Raymond would have no interest or ownership in the parcel “being protected.”

Unbeknownst to the signing selectmen, apparently, was a letter from their own law firm, dated Dec. 17, 2008 saying “in short” that such a transaction was not lawful under RSA 36-A since the land was not purchased in the name of the Town.

No matter, RSA 36-A was up for a change in 2009 so that third parties could receive tax dollars for land from municipalities, a kind of enabling statute that has to be ADOPTED by the voters in each community. You may have noticed this statute slipped into your 2009 Town Warrant as a warrant article. It is very popular with the double dealing, land swapping, self-serving, conservation con artists who haunt this state. Conservation land “investing” becoming a whole, new, unregulated industry.

The voters in Raymond, alerted by their own taxpayer group after contact by CNHT, voted down this change to RSA 36-A by a three to one margin. This leaves the Raymond Con Com in a swampy area of municipal law. The still want to do the deal as far as we know and pay Raymond tax dollars for what has already been paid for with other tax dollars instead of just saying THANK YOU to the third party conservation real estate wheeler dealers who are out roaming NH “protecting” every patch of undeveloped land they deem “unique.”

Stepping all over state statutes, town votes, municipal interests, the limits of elected officials, and common sense is all part of saving the planet when you are a third party conservation land shopper. This one good reason you should find out if your town voted in the past to turn over half of all the land use change tax penalties to what is often the refuge of municipal moonbats in your community, the conservation commission, because these people, unlike most officials, answer to no one when they make long term decisions on behalf or the taxpayers. Current law lets Con Coms, by a simple majority of often only 5 people, “invest” in any scheme they choose once the money has been put in their fund. And the laws are changing all the time to expand their control of tax dollars and take more of it from voters.

Sure, we all want to buy, or have someone else buy, all the unused land in our town so no one else can move in - once our own house is built. It is the American way – not in my back yard!

But all this compelling conservation spending, along with our rewarding education “investments” have caused a slight problem.

It will not be long before towns own most of the houses on any given street because many smart conservation shoppers will no longer be able to afford to live in eco-utopias.

Stay tuned for “It Takes A Moonbat To Raze A Village”, part two, for a who’s-who of this deal - you will love it.

RAYMOND – The “sticker shock” after last week’s mailing of the new property tax rates has some residents eyeing the town’s bill with anxiety.

For resident Paul Brown, that initial look at the town’s end-of-the-year statement is something he’s been putting off for a few days. Last Thursday, town officials sent out the billing for the second half of 2008 with a new tax rate that comes to an even $19 per $1,000 of assessed property value, an increase of $1.50 or about 8.6 percent.

“I just brought my bill into my office a few hours ago,” said Brown yesterday. “I’m afraid to open it. Basically ” — it’s the overall economic situation that has everyone scared. I’m looking at some pretty high expenses for fuel this winter, and I also spent $1,500 to insulate my house and now the tax bill — there just isn’t enough money to pay for everything.”

Overall, Raymond’s property tax rate isn’t a record-setter for the region — Candia’s tax rate just went up by more than $2 for a 20-year-high of $20.90 — but as Brown noted, it’s the combination of the higher rate and the poor economy that makes a troubling equation for residents who weighed in on the matter in interviews yesterday. Of about a dozen residents questioned, an equal mix of full-time workers and retirees, the average property tax bill this year is $500 to $600 higher that the previous one.

According to a breakdown, some $11.56 is for local schools, while state school costs account for $2.13. The county receives 86 cents, and municipal costs, at $4.45, decreased by a penny, according to Board of Selectmen Chairman Tim Auclair.

Staff of the tax collector’s office said yesterday that despite the rate, a number of residents have already quickly paid the bills that were received by most households on Friday.

Some officials have received complaints. Last week, Budget Committee member Nick Longo became one of the first residents to publicly speak about the new tax rate as he implored selectmen to bring in a budget that will be “level-funded or reduced.”

Longo, a three year resident of Raymond, said he’s seen his own tax bill rise by an average of $600 annually since he came to town.

“The economy is bad, and it’s not getting any better,” he said. “It’s getting to a situation where I think the people really don’t have any more money to give to the town.”

Ultimately, Budget Committee member Ted Janusz said Raymond residents did a little better than the estimate from the Raymond NH Taxpayers’ Association, a local taxpayer advocacy group, which had originally estimated an increase at $2.25 or more. Janusz said the main focus should be on level funding as an option for bringing about a stable rate.

“From what I understand, there are no major increases ” — but it’s still going to be a tough year,” he said.

This article was written by Thomas N. Thomson, for The Moltonborough Citizens Allliance.

Jaden Thomson, is a great grandson of the late Governor Meldrim Thomson, Jr. Will he need a DES permit to dig and build his Sand Castle ?

On July 1, 2008 the new Comprehensive Shore Land Protection Act (CSPA) went into effect. A “state shore land permit” will be required after July1st for many construction, excavation or filling activities within the protected shore land. The New Hampshire statute covering CSPA is RSA 483-B and the Department of Environmental Services (DES) shore land website is www.des.nh.gov/cspa. I encourage you to review the new CSPA. Below I hope to pique your interest to do so.

These new amendments and or additions were passed by the New Hampshire Legislature and signed into law by Governor John Lynch and went into effect on July 1, 2008 just three days before we celebrated our Independence Day, July 4th and at the peak of construction season. But for many NH landowners there won’t be much celebrating once you learn of the impact to your property values and rights if your property is within the shore land protected area. I have, for years, gone out of my way to protect our water quality on the 2,400 acres of farm and forestland that we own and manage in NH; this is the same land that we share with the general public and our state. I am a Conservationist, one who lives, practices and protects the environment each and every day on our Tree Farm like nearly every other forest landowner and farmer in our state. We do the right thing because we are good stewards of the land. We don’t have to have big brother, our government, looking over our shoulder to tell us what to do. Let me make a suggestion to our elected officials in Concord, lets think outside of the box; let us try to “Educate rather than Legislate” on issues such as this!

I believe the original intent of the new CSPA was to control large development on our congested water ways such as Lake Winnipesaukee. An example might be an 8 acre lot that narrows down to a 50 foot water frontage and a developer wants to put in 75 condominiums. In this case I think there should be oversight by the state and I am sure most would agree with me. But, suppose you owned a 4 acre parcel with 290 feet of water frontage on a river, great pond or lake in NH that is now under the new CSPA and you wanted to sub-divide and give half of the water frontage and land to your son or daughter. As of July 1, 2008 you couldn’t do it, thanks to our Legislature and Governor Lynch. Under the new law “any new lots will need 150 feet of shore line frontage per residential unit whether or not there is on-site septic”. This new CSPA law supersedes any local regulations or ordinances and this should be of great concern to our NH citizens as our local control is in jeopardy. It is my opinion that the new CSPA is nothing more than state wide zoning and a taking of land owners property rights and values from our family assets by the state without any consideration of compensation. This is unacceptable in the “Live Free Or Die” state!

You may want to check to see if you are within the CSPA. This year an additional 1400 miles of NH water frontage will fall under the protection of this new law; if you are not included at this time, just wait, DES and the state are looking at taking another bite out of the apple. Stay tuned. After studying the new CSPA laws one concerned shore land owner said the following:

“Under this new law, the state has taken total control of our land, our buildings, and our trees and vegetation. We can be required to go to the DES to get a permit to:

1. Dig a hole – including our children building a sand castle on the beach
2. Plant a tulip - if it is not in a state approved location
3. Remove poison ivy that may be a health hazard
4. Repair a washed out area
5. Move a rock – that may be in our children’s play area”

If you are so “lucky” to be within the CSPA then your property has a 250 foot set back (on each side of the water body) with very restrictive uses of what you can do within that 250 foot buffer on your property. The 2005 Commission (a total of 24 members) that worked on and came up with these new ideas of regulations was made up of legislators and bureaucrats of state agencies, as well as some non-governmental organizations, but only two represented private land owners; when private landowners should have made up the majority of this commission as they are the true stake holders on this issue. I have suggested to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services, Thomas Burack, and Governor John Lynch to request that the NH Legislature place a one year moratorium on the CSPA and put together a new commission made up of no less than 50% of private landowners to correct this unfair taking of property rights and values. Remember, between now and November many folks who are running for state offices will be asking for your vote. Ask them if they support a one year moratorium on the CSPA and a new commission, with the majority made up of the true stake holders, you the landowner. If they don’t agree with you, vote them out of office.Your family assets and property rights are a stake!

Thomas N. Thomson
Orford, NH 03777