Voters in Bow have the opportunity to take another look at SB2. In the past SB2 has come very close to passing in Bow but the opposition to SB2 is very well financed and has been successful in peeling off enough voters by unfairly framing SB2 in a negative light. Anyone who is concerned with their property taxes knows that the Town/School Meeting form of government has failed them and failed them miserably. Bow property taxes have increased year after year, doubling, tripling, and even quadrupling for many hard working Bow Taxpayers.
SB2 is very popular and effective in many towns the size of Bow through out NH. In fact when given the choice to go back to the Town/School Meeting form of government there isn’t a single town with a population anywhere near Bow’s who has decided to go back to the inferior Town/School Meeting form of government. In fact this year a town near Bow voted almost 3 to 1 to keep SB2 and that tells you something. It is guaranteed during SB2 debate you will hear the scare tactics against SB2. So keep in mind that SB2 always gives you the option to go back to what we have now if we choose to. The real question is why wouldn’t Bow try SB2? What do we have to lose except maybe sky high tax bills.
Thank-you for the comparison sheet. It confirms what I hear from my friends from towns that have SB2 like Goffstown and Weare.
I still think I will go to the Public Hearing on 4/23.
Thanks for posting the comparison sheet. It is a must read for those who don’t know much about SB2. I am sure we are going to get the same old same old misinformation from the crowd that want as few as possible to control Bow spending.
I have friends in Goffstown and Weare who love SB2 they don’t understand why people in Bow aren’t “smart enough” to make the improvement.
I personally think people of Bow are smart enough but there is too much misinformation/propaganda going around against SB2. The biggest offenders of this misinformation/propaganda are the members of the School Board. You know the same people who almost sold us the new school we didn’t need and the ones that finally admitted, this year, that school population is going down (after 5 + years of decline and dropping).
I am going to the April 23rd SB2 Public hearing just to hear the new misinformation that is going to come out of the school board this year. It should be a whopper.
Thanks for the comparison. Hopefully it will wake people up.
Yeswecan, I know this website is anonymous but I would love to know who your friends in Weare and Goffstown are?
sportsfan,
I grew up in the Goffstown and have family friends in Weare. I don’t think you would know them but I do know that they would never go back to the town meeting. My friends universially say that SB2 has taken the power out of the politicians hands and returned it back to the people.
I have opposed SB-2 in the past but I am now on the fence about SB-2 and maybe leaning a little toward supporting it this time around . Can we get a good discussion going here about the pros and cons of SB-2?
I don’t see any ‘cons’ do you?
On voting day, you have all day to vote and it’s in private.
No babysitter problems, and no staying until midnight to worry about reconsiderations.
I am for SB2, hands down. It’s a no-brainer. This is the 21st century and it is high time that Bow adopted this policy that other towns have had for years. Average people will actually have a voice without the intimidation factor of a public meeting.
Please read my longer comment on the prior topic: “SB2 and Town Meeting Compared.”
I’m surprised Publius hasn’t responded. Could it be…………that he or she is FOR SB2?
retiredvet,
I do not wear my politics on my sleeve. Please respect my right to do so.
I’m not certain why one would be afraid to vote in public. Moreover, there is a procedural device to move to have a a vote cast in private. It would require you publicly vote on the motion, but not on the substantive matter.
As a taxpayer, I am glad to raise my hand at town meeting. I do so knowing that I have walked in as an informed citizen, listened attentively to others arguments, and made a decision based on what I believe is correct. I feel no shame or sense of intimidation in publicly voting.
Moreover, I’m glad to schedule a few days a year to do my civic duty. I had a tremendous amount of work due the following day. But I dutifully attended, work in hand, and used downtime to multitask.
As to the babysitting “problem:” I instead see a community building Social Capital, as young people volunteer to help their elders to engage in the democratic process. This I find one of the greatest benefits of the town meeting-style system.
However, I do understand that not everyone feels the same way I do, and will understand if Bow decides to move to an SB2 system.
If you like the idea of more people voting then you should love the idea of SB2.
to Teachers says:
Right on target!!!! That’s the whole concept in a nut shell. We need more participation to get a true consensus and not the meager 5% now deciding what is and what isn’t going to pass.
to publius: re the babysitting “problem:” would you leave your child with someone whom you have never met? I wouldn’t. I know that the good intent is there, BUT…… Thanks but no thanks.
publius said:
“…I instead see a community building Social Capital, as young people volunteer to help their elders to engage in the democratic process. This I find one of the greatest benefits of the town meeting-style system.”
“Social Capital”??? Whoa, please spare us the “Obama-speak” OK? This is not a communist kibbutz, this is serious business called voting. We don’t want to create a commune or a collective, or sing kumbaya, we want people to have the chance to vote IN PRIVATE.
There is plenty of time to impress your neighbors and elders in the ‘democratic’ process at the deliberative session.
Teacher,
Actually, the idea of “Social Capital” does not come from President Obama, but rather Robert Putnam, who wrote a phenomenally popular book called “Bowling Alone.” The basic premise is that community connections are breaking down nationwide (the title is in reference to the decline in bowling leagues across the country). It’s a book that is heavily statistics-based (300,000 surveys conducted), but is still quite readable. I had a number of my students read the book in the Sociology class I taught.
Putnam, by the way, met both with President Clinton and President George W. Bush about the idea, so it would seem that the political views split right down the middle. However, when I took a class taught by Putnam, Seion pastor Rick Warren was featured as a guest lecturer, if that informs you better of his possible political outlook.
I think your comment only drives home his point: communities are eroding because people fail to trust each other. It would seem that if you long for the days when kids played on the streets and you actually talked to your neighbors, you would want to promote events that enhance community involvement. SB2 seems quite contrary to this goal. Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
To the contrary, Bush and Clinton believe in the exact same things, which is the problem we face in this country.
SB2 being contrary to the goal is patently absurd.
Remember the saying, good fences make good neighbors. I don’t have to have you see how I vote to have ‘community’.
Sheesh…
Teacher,
Unfortunately, the cliche isn’t quite apt here. I am suggesting that SB2 is, perhaps, indicative of the breakdown in Social Capital. The purpose of a town meeting is not to see how people vote. If it was then there would not be a proceudral device to allow a secret ballot. Rather, it allows the town to come together, listen to debate, discuss the issues, and vote. Moreover, it allows an opportunity for the town to come together and to catch up, socialize, and reminisce in a manner that they otherwise do not have, or make, time for.
I’m not certain what you mean when you say “Bush and Clinton believe in the exact same things, which is the problem we face in this country.” Could you please explain.
Hope you had a nice weekend.
What you have just described is the deliberative session which for all intents and purposes is exactly a ‘town meeting’. It’s not a social event nor is it intended to be.
Teacher,
I think it is obvious that while the primary purpose of town meeting is to vote, the secondary purpose is social. Anyone who has been to town meeting knows that there is a substantial social element. I’m sure you’ve been to enough town meetings to have noticed this, and yourself caught up with neighbors and friends.
The other issue you bring up, is that there is no incentive for people to attend a deliberative session. What suggestions do you have for making sure there’s a good turnout at the deliberative session?
I never said people don’t want to attend the deliberative session! I said that people will turn out to vote even if they haven’t been at one.
And I still disagree with you on the purpose of Town Meeting. There is not time to be social, with the meetings dragging on into the wee hours sometimes.
I think you must not have lived here very long if you think that.
I live in a old bow development and most of my neighbors and friends are elderly. I think I saw 1 other person from my neighborhood.
Town meetings are not friendly to older people and for that reason they are not acceptable. To suggest that we need them for social purposes is absolutely insane.
SB2 has the delibertive session to get people to mee. In 2007 the school district meeting had only about 47 voters to suggest that that is an acceptable amount of voters is also unacceptable. Publius you are losing a huge amount of credibility on this issue.
This is my opinion but I think you don’t want certain people to go to your little social event.
publius, Back the truck up. Aren’t you the one that was so against Bow Bingo and how serious the town/school meeting had to be? Now you are saying how important the social aspect of the meeting is. I don’t wish to pile on you but your are really sounding like a hypocrite.
I really don’t find the meetings as social. The lines of factions line up together real quick.
taxed2death,
Interest point; however, I think a closer read of my comments would show that the social aspect of Town Meeting was a secondary purpose.
Now I do not want to appear insulting, because I respect you too much; however, if you want me to describe the differences between playing a BINGO game that pokes fun at our elected officials by yourself, and talking with your neighbors, I will gladly do so.
For my part, I was able to catch up with a number of old friends who I hadn’t seen in some time. As an extrovert, aside from becoming better informed on the issues, I find this to be one of the best parts of Town Meeting. I’m sorry your experience was different.
Of course, I recognize my experiences are the universal norm. While I would prefer that people continue with the traditional Town Meeting-style system, I would not be heartbroken. A good argument has been made by both sides.
All,
Just out of curiosity, how many times has SB2 been proposed in Bow? If memory serves, it first came up about a decade ago. I’m trying to remember if it’s been on the ballot every year since then.
publius said:
::While I would prefer that people continue with the traditional Town Meeting-style system, I would not be heartbroken.::
publius, I’m trying not to lose my patience here but you CAN’T be serious???
What do you think a DELIBERATIVE session is? You gather, you discuss, and you amend if you wish. You just don’t vote that night. How many times are we going to have to tell you this?
Teacher,
I’m well aware of the difference, and the distinction. Thank you.
And don’t be so touchy: the measure of a person’s debating skills is to be passionate, without become impassioned.
That’s just it, there IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Feel the passion.
publius,
To answer your question. I believe SB2 has been brought up approximately 6 times a few times it came a whisker of passing even with some very dirty tricks.
One major fact is that SB2 has never been voted on since we moved the election to May and that is a huge factor with regard to seniors who winter in climates with warmer weather.
For this reason the I think dirty tricks are coming out again.
I have always thought of SB-2 as a change in government for the town and school district, but after doing my homework I find and have come to the conclusion that it really is only a change in how we vote.
We debate, then we vote in a voting booth a few weeks after. I am liking that aspect more and more along with the ability use a absentee ballot if necessary. That is good in my opinion.
I have made up my mind and have decided that I am going to support SB2 this time around for both the town and the school district with my YES vote.
I can’t help but think that part of the reason you thought this was the misinformation that flies around from the town workers when it’s time to vote on SB2.
It really is a small change that makes a big difference. It has nothing to do with how things are decided, it just puts them in two steps.
Town Meeting on one night
Vote by ballot on another day, between 7 AM – 7 PM usually, which is MUCH more convenient for all concerned!
No one has disputed that taxes in Bow have risen dramatically with the Town Meeting form of government. Can’t we slow that rise down at least a little?
Try SB2 we may like it. (like most everyone else who have tried it)
taxed2death,
You state “no one has disputed that taxes in Bow have risen dramatically with the Town Meeting form of government.” I’m going to provide a little history lesson.
Bow was incorporated in 1727. As part of the incorporation, the town committed itself to the traditional town-meeting style of government that was used throughout New England at the time. 282 years later, we still have Town Meeting. No unless you’re suggesting that tax have “dramatically” rises consistently over the last 282 years that Bow has used the Town-meeting-style system, your argument is not valid. In fact, tax rates have, generally gone in sine-wave-like cycles of steady increase, followed a tapering, then a steady decrease, then a tapering, and so on.
Simply stating, and hoping, that SB2 is the only way to have lower taxes is both unfounded and historically inaccurate.
For more information, you can contact Jill Hadaway at 225-2683.
Of course, let me reiterate, that I’m not trying to come down on SB2. I think there is some validity to the concerns raised; however, I’m committed as much as anyone on this site to making sure that it is done in as accurate a manner as possible.
Publius – ever the representative of the status quo left of center. SB2 gives the voters what our state and US constitution guaranteed – the right to vote. Town meeting in Bow is rule my minority. It prevents our military service people and our students away at school from participating. Shame on Bow!
Is no one afraid that the small cadre of lawyers could take over the deliberative session and provide so many legal smokescreens that on voting day the poor ordinary voters wouldn’t be able to understand what they were voting on? In my experience there is often a lot of confusion about what the legal wording of certain warrant articles mean, imagine if we had to vote on the whole budget that way…
This small cadre of lawyers that you speak of have already taken over the town meeting or deliberative session of town and school district meetings.
If there is confusion on a particular warrant article regarding legal jargon then vote “no” as nothing can be so important that it cannot wait until the next year to decide. If it is time sensitve and important then it is up to the petitioners or officials to word and define the warrant article with clarity of words. Simple solution.
Besides SB2 allows for 4 weeks for voters to find these legal traps and expose them.
Our current town and school district meeting does not allow anyone the time to expose these traps before you vote, the officials depend on this immediate vote so the voter does not have any time to think about ramifications of the particular warrant article and change their minds before voting. This is why most officials oppose SB2.
taxedout,
Actually, there is no Constitutional guarantee to vote. While voting is a fundamental right once one qualifies, it may still be taken away if the reasons pass the strict scrutiny test. For instance, the Supreme Court has upheld that convicted felons, if the State in which they reside so chooses, may prohibit their voting rights. Moreover, the Court has found that durational residency requirements may also be allowed.
Though it may seem a bit esoteric, your statement that the right to vote is Constitutionally guaranteed is not accurate. Precision in language is important in a public forum such as this.