GilfordGrok

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.

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:

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)