Here’s to hoping that 2010 will be a year devoid of fresh content on this site – if the town boards and departments would simply leave local resident’s money and property alone, there would be nothing to write about here. Don’t hold your breath for that, though.

Cheers to the New Year!

And labor conditions at the north pole
Were alleged by the union to stifle the soul.
Four reindeer had vanished, without much propriety,
Released to the wilds by the Humane Society.

And equal employment had made it quite clear
That Santa had better not use just reindeer.
So Dancer and Donner, Comet and Cupid,
Were replaced with 4 pigs, and you know that looked stupid!

The runners had been removed from his sleigh;
The ruts were termed dangerous by the E.P.A.
And people had started to call for the cops
When they heard sled noises on their roof-tops.

Second-hand smoke from his pipe had his workers quite frightened.
His fur trimmed red suit was called “Unenlightened.”
And to show you the strangeness of life’s ebbs and flows,
Rudolf was suing over unauthorized use of his nose

And had gone on Geraldo, in front of the nation,
Demanding millions in over-due compensation.
So, half of the reindeer were gone; and his wife,
Who suddenly said she’d enough of this life,

Joined a self-help group, packed, and left in a whiz,
Demanding from now on her title was Ms.
And as for the gifts, why, he’d ne’er had a notion
That making a choice could cause so much commotion.

Nothing of leather, nothing of fur,
Which meant nothing for him. And nothing for her.
Nothing that might be construed to pollute.
Nothing to aim. Nothing to shoot.

Nothing that clamored or made lots of noise.
Nothing for just girls. Or just for the boys.
Nothing that claimed to be gender specific.
Nothing that’s warlike or non-pacific.

No candy or sweets…they were bad for the tooth.
Nothing that seemed to embellish a truth.
And fairy tales, while not yet forbidden,
Were like Ken and Barbie, better off hidden.

For they raised the hackles of those psychological
Who claimed the only good gift was one ecological.
No baseball, no football…someone could get hurt;
Besides, playing sports exposed kids to dirt.

Dolls were said to be sexist, and should be passe;
And Nintendo would rot your entire brain away.
So Santa just stood there, disheveled, perplexed;
He just could not figure out what to do next.

He tried to be merry, tried to be gay,
But you’ve got to be careful with that word today.
His sack was quite empty, limp to the ground;
Nothing fully acceptable was to be found.

Something special was needed, a gift that he might
Give to all without angering the left or the right.
A gift that would satisfy, with no indecision,
Each group of people, every religion;

Every ethnicity, every hue,
Everyone, everywhere…even you.
So here is that gift, its price beyond worth…
“May you and your loved ones enjoy peace on earth.”

Liked this? You might also enjoy [Noah's Ark in Modern Day Tamworth]

-Thanks to Harvey Ehrlich

Selectmen Abugelis, Farnum, and Roberts went a bit overboard with their new town raffle permit, inventing new rules and powers for themselves. From their new raffle regulations: “It is the express intent and purpose of these regulations, to strictly regulate the conduct of raffles within the Town of Tamworth, through the issuance of permits for the conduct thereof, to protect the welfare of the citizens and to prevent criminal activity“. Strictly regulate indeed – Selectman Willie Farnum stated at the most recent Selectmen’s meeting that not complying with their raffle rules would be a prosecutable criminal offense!

Initially under the auspices of merely “doing their job” and complying with a silly yet onerous state law, the Selectmen have gone above and beyond and come up with these gems in their new raffle permit, none of which are provided for in RSA 287-A:

• Local charitable organizations must have their permit submitted 30 days ahead of time. Billy’s Boy Scout Troop raising funds for that scout trip in two weeks? That’s a Willie Farnum “criminal offense” right there.
• Prizes must be listed in advance for the Selectmen as well as ticket prices, along with a sample raffle ticket attached to the application. – last minute donation of a raffle prize not pre-listed on their application? Criminal offense, apparently.
• The sponsoring organization must register with the Attorney General’s office, in complete conflict with RSA 287-A:1 II. (b). According to the new permit application: “Organization must be non-profit, a charity and registered with the Non-Profit Charitable Trust. To register, Call Attorney General’s Office, Division of Charitable Trusts at 271-3591.“
• Police review of the “suitability of the applicant for a permit”. Surely any notorious con-man defrauding people on a raffle (huge problem in Tamworth these days, you know) will make sure he has his paperwork duly filed with the town in advance. This is the problem – the only people who are going to care about filing the town’s silly paperwork are local community groups looking to not get in trouble with the bureaucrats.
• Finally, in classic Tamworth town government style, there is a blanket exemption from all of their new invented rules as well as all the existing silly state rules on raffles should the Selectmen deem it appropriate. While the Selectmen choosing not to enforce the obnoxious rules of the state or town government is a positive thing, Tamworth has a history of a lot of problems arising from having two sets of rules in town, depending on who you are and your associations with town government.

The seriousness with which the Selectmen seem to take charity raffles would be humorous, if their raffle sillyness wasn’t so indicative of how things roll with the Tamworth town government: causing problems and expense for people who have harmed no one, eyes lighting up at the thought of just a little more power, control, and paperwork, and inventing rules in conflict with common sense and state law. The Selectmen ought to leave the dozens of community groups in Tamworth alone, rather than protecting “the welfare of the citizens” with more paperwork and problems.

On his way out, Bob stated he heard Cassandra on the phone to Police Chief Dan Poirier to report that “there are people with guns” at the town offices. Turns out there were several other peaceful and responsible folks with firearms at that evening’s Selectmen’s meeting. Local officer Penny Frechette was observed in the hall later in the evening during the firearms discussion at the Selectmen’s meeting – Chief Dan Poirier refused a public records request for the specifics of his department’s call logs and reports for that evening, stating that he “doesn’t think that’s public information”.

Anne and Cassandra may want to ask themselves why they’re so concerned that people would be so mad at their actions that they think they need to be throwing local self-defense-minded gun owners out of their offices fortified with taxpayer funded security glass.

Privately deliberating on government committee appointments flies in the face of RSA 91-A, New Hampshire’s “open government” statute. Section 91-A:2-a particularly refers to communications outside of meetings as a no-no. That said, it really doesn’t matter who ends up on the committee or how they get there: the Planning Board will generate whatever zoning ordinance they please in the end – if not fully so this round, eventually. But as long as the state government has provided for a means of more openness, it ought to be fair to ask that the Planning Board go along with making their process for increasing government control publicly available for scrutiny.

With the stubbornness of an ornery donkey in heat, Selectman Willie Farnum let out one last political gasp after the Selectmen voted to remove the offending policy, declaring that he’d like to formally have added to the town policy that the Selectmen “respectfully request” that town employees not possess firearms at work. Update: Abugelis and Roberts steer clear of more firearms problems, turning down Farnum’s suggestion for a “respectful request” from the Selectmen at their subsequent meeting.

Selectman Tom Abugelis wrapped up the discussion: “I think this is an example of a town operating with openness and responsibility out of care and concern…I’m very proud to work with my two fellow Selectmen because of the degree of thinking and thought and care that they put into every issue. To me, it’s an example of really effective local leadership.” Christ, if this Selectboard in general, and their smarmy response to the firearms issue in particular, is a fine example of “really effective local leadership”, Tamworth is in some real trouble.

Update 2: In a win for liberty in Tamworth, the Selectmen beat a retreat on the firearms issue and removed their policy. Pro-Gun New Hampshire’s website declares “Reason and Law Defeat Prejudice in Tamworth“, describes Selectmen as having the enthusiasm of a “9-year-old going in for a root canal” in removing their employee policy.

The Carroll County Independent today published an article covering the melee over gun rights in Tamworth at the last two Selectmen’s meetings, specifically covering the firefighter’s initial objections, the illegality of the town policy, and the gun-toting town’s folk open-carrying firearms to the last Selectmen’s meeting to show the bureaucrats “that peaceful and responsible gun owners are not a problem”.

As well, the following e-mail from Ossipee Selectman and former NH State Representative Harry Merrow is reportedly making its way around the region:

From: Harry C. Merrow [mailto:{omitted}@myfairpoint.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:47 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Tamworth Guns

Take a look at the attached web site. What is happening in Tamworth goes against present state law (which I supported) and is clearly illegal. If the town reg. is enforced and/or expanded I will not be able to support or vote for John [Roberts] if he runs for a second term as a State Rep. unless he takes a clear stand against the town reg. on guns. Go to    livefreeandcomply.org

Harry

Of particular note, coming from three of the local farmers present:

What can we do outside of government that can facilitate that [neighborly] communication?…

You could create a whole set of regulations that tried to impose a certain kind of landscape, but it could all be fields that are mowed but aren’t worked….

I could live with seeing [agricultural land] protected [through government], but far better, far better to have people living on that land farming it….

So what do you do though then when you’ve got some nice rules in place, regulations that keep agriculture land agricultural land, but you can’t afford to be there to do an agricultural endeavor? If we were given Red Gables Farm today, we would have to move because we could never afford to live there…So how can the town encourage people with agricultural interests to come here and get a piece of something to do something with?…I think people passing through with an interest in agriculture are going to keep right on going when they look at the real estate brochure….

There are young families out there, who, if they had access to some of this land, could do a good job of making it productive. If not make their whole income from it, make a substantial portion of it. But they can’t do it without help. And I don’t look to the government to do it; frankly, that has to come from the private sector; it has to come from the good will of the people to figure out how that’s going to happen….

As Tamworth’s Zoning Queen herself put it:

What I’ve heard so far is that the big thing is to stay out of the way; to not make rules that you can’t have livestock here, you can’t have a farm here, you can’t do this, you can’t do that….

I’m really hearing pretty loud and clear, actually, that we need to be more careful about making too many rules.

At one zoning get-together, two Conservation Commission members weighed in on the subject:

Bill Batchelder: “I think there’s a misconception about zoning. A lot of people seem to think that zoning tells you what to do with your land. And it doesn’t. Zoning tells you a few things that you might not be allowed to do without special permission. The idea that the town is going to tell you what to do with your land, is just totally incorrect.”

Ned Beecher: “Land use restrictions are sort of based on that principle, as I understand it: we sacrifice something as an individual for the greater good.”

Clearly the town government’s good intentions are being misconstrued: you are to sacrifice your private property rights for the collective good, but you may be allowed to seek special permission from the bureaucrats. Who wouldn’t be yearning for that peachy arrangement?

Never fear though, it shouldn’t be too onerous, as Planning Board member Nicole Maher-Whiteside stated: “We’re going to start with something small, and think that it’s not going to get bigger: you’re right, it’s logical, it gets bigger. But I think if we can start with something that’s reasonable we may be able to head in a direction that doesn’t allow it to snowball into things that a majority of people don’t want.” – this is the promise with every new endeavor at every level of government, and one would be hard pressed to find a single instance where this promise was upheld over the years.

For all the purportedly awful scenarios that have been dreamt up that more government control of private property is supposed to prevent, the biggest problem on the horizon is a bunch of control freaks on this and future Planning Boards.