Letter to the Editor
Wednesday April/05 09:31
To the Sentinel:I write this in response to Joshua Cline’s letter of 5 April, and his support of a moratorium on growth.
I am attempting to move to Troy from Oregon. My family searched the entire state of New Hampshire looking for a good place to “land”. An exceptional property in Troy caught our attention, and we have been trying to obtain a building permit.
This permit is for a single family home on 40 acres of land. There is a right-of-way (“ROW”) to Monadnock Highway. This ROW has appeared on official town maps since at least 1976 – long before all the myriad rules, regulations, ordinances, RSA’s, etc. ad infinitum took effect. Yet we were told the ROW was not adequately defined.
It seems that everybody has a say on this permit – except for the buyer and the seller. Total strangers –elected and not- tell us we cannot build due to a large number of constantly changing objections. RSA this, ordinance that, frontage 50’, frontage 200’, etc.
In the meantime, we come to the county, stay at a motel, and talk with myriad pencil pushers, selectmen, and attorneys. Delays have already cost us over $2,500. We live in an RV on a friend’s property out of state, and it costs us money to deal with this.
Today, for the first time, I met the seller of this property. He showed me many fragile yellowed pieces of paper with seals and stamps and signatures from people long dead. Papers which describe the land in question since the 1920’s. Documents mentioning this nebulous ROW which every local inhabitant seems to know about.
All of these are meaningless. The South West Regional Planning Commission (“SWRPC”) has new rules. They get to decide these things. Sometimes in direct opposition to the property owners’ viewpoints and rights!
Mr. Cline, sees no problem with a one year moratorium on new building permits. He claims that such a plan, “will not cause undue harm, and do immense good.” Good for whom? Not the private property owner, or property buyer. The “good” he talks about is for the myriad people who want to utilize the so-called “viewshed”, hiking trails, nature paths, and so on, without paying for them.
He decries “urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl”, saying that they are bad. I submit that those are merely his subjective preferences. I have met many people living right here in Keene, that love the idea of Applebee’s and Borders within short driving distance. I ate dinner with about 100 of them last week!
Mr. Cline clearly despises private property rights. He endorses more regulations, more obstacles (which he benefits from, monetarily). He wants to force a Currier & Ives image upon Troy and other small towns. A vision he thinks should be paid for by unwilling owners and taxpayers.
That vision is fine for china plates and cups, but these small towns are living, breathing organisms, populated by real people. To force a static artist’s conception of New England small town ‘life’ may be good for tourism, but it’s ultimately as satisfying and real as the glass eyed trophy mounted on a wall. A mere snapshot of what New Hampshire used to look like – when it was alive.
I love the New Hampshire towns. I have personally visited over 50 of them in the last week alone! What Mr. Cline seeks is to deny property owners – such as that 77 year old fixed income seller of our property– the right to use their land as they see fit. He denies a 77 year old man the money to repair his house, and has the gall to say that no “undue harm” has occurred.
Unelected “planners” , who go from township to township, while based in Keene clearly couldn’t care less about Troy. What they seek is control. They use the force of government to take away the hard earned assets of property owners, then hide behind various rules and ordinances. As a permit seeker, the only thing I can see is a finger –pointing toward other bureaucrats.
In order for us to buy this property, we are forced to grovel before several groups of people – most of whom are antagonistic towards “growth” like Mr. Cline. This last statement is supported by reading the SWRPC’s own documentation about Troy, written in 1998. Their #1 goal was to keep Troy’s designated historic landmarks intact.
Perusing the SWRPC website shows that they have no problem spending Federal money for community block grants. They approve large shopping centers, restaurants, big box stores, bypasses, and so on. It’s OK for Keene to have a large retail district, but not Troy.
Clearly, if enough money is involved, you can get your project approved by the SWRPC.
That is always the result of government regulation – the wealthy and connected get what they want; the less wealthy move somewhere else. This is Mr. Cline’s desired goal.
These obstacles increase the cost of building and doing business. They cause the stagnation and decay of New Hampshire’s quaint New England towns. Towns Mr. Cline ostensibly wants to preserve.
Looking at another part of the SWRPC’s guide to Troy:
“GOAL #4: ENCOURAGE DIVERSE MARKET-COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. “ *
This goal is bewildering. None of these bureaucrats knows anything about competition – only know how to stifle it.
We will probably not be able to move to Troy. We cannot wait a year negotiating our way through arbitrary rules set up by unelected and unaccountable people whose publicly stated opinion is to deny our petition. Our business will never be started there. Our contributions will go to some other town that embraces newcomers – and taxpayers. It saddens me when I think of all the many friendly people I met in Troy whose wonderful town will be just another trophy on the SWRPC’s wall.
Neil Alexander
* (Town of Troy, New Hampshire ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1998 page 5)
Bureaucracy Run Amok
Tuesday April/05 20:01
We're still working on obtaining the property in Troy. We are finding out first hand, exactly what kind of localized tyranny zoning and "planning" boards commit.
We've received so many different stories about why we can't build, that it's becoming a bizarre maze akin to the Incredible's "They're penetrating the bureaucracy!". Only we're NOT penetrating so far.
It appears that a pencil pusher in Keene has determined that it's not a buildable site. It should be noted that it took a WEEK to find out WHERE this particular pencil pusher worked. All this time, I was led to believe it was a municipal attorney. Hmmm.
The original stated objection was that the right-of-way was not well enough defined. Now the issue appears to be that there is not enough frontage. The amount of frontage went from 50' which is the number we've heard for the last week, to 200' which we heard about the first time yesterday.
We also were led to believe that the various rules were because of STATE laws, and therefore out of their hands. Turns out the 200' rule is a TOWN rule. Prevarication? Convenient phrasing? Who knows.
So the layers are: Town, Planning Board, and State. The main obstacle appears to be the planning board. However, it doesn't seem to matter. Everybody has to sign off on it. *sigh*
This is exactly the kind of garbage that the FSP is designed to fight. Though it looks damned doubtful at this point that we'll be able to get this property. Jean and I plan at least one more planning board meeting. I will prepare a speech, and all my paperwork.
The amount of time and effort needed to do this is not compensated. All my opponents are paid. Of the people, by the people? I think not.
Democracy in Action
Monday April/05 17:47
Just attended my first "selectmen" meeting. One of the selectmen wasn't - a man, I mean.Anyway, we wanted to get some first hand accounts of the problems with issuing a building permit. *sigh*
It's amazing how complicated it is. You end up feeling like you have to grovel to the town, county, and state. All for the "privilege" of using your own property however you see fit.
What we heard first was that there was a State law demanding 50' of right-of-way on a Class V or VI road. Turns out that is not exactly right. It's a TOWN ordinance - one that's causing a fair amount of grief, apparently. (One wonders why such an arcane ordinance even came up to a vote, much less passed, since it deleteriously affects quite a few back lots).
In spite of all the myriad laws and regulations and ordinances and rules, etc., etc., etc., This particular property STILL comes under a "fuzzy" area! If 500+ pages of rules can't cover everything, why bother??
Crux of the matter is that it's possible that the right-of-way can be grandfathered-in. (no state issue, just a town issue), if it's defined better. OR, it's ALREADY defined better - because it's shown clearly on the official town survey maps.
This latter is what I call the "34th Street Argument". If you recall, in the movie, "Miracle on 34th Street", the defense said that the man in question really WAS Santa Claus, because the US Post Office, "a branch of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" just declared him to be Santa Claus, therefore he was!
The right of way in question is on official town maps, and therefore is in fact, defined, for the purposes of a building permit.
As a couple of zingers thrown in at the end, there are actually SEVERAL "permits" required, including a driveway permit (from the state, apparently), building permit AND and "occupancy" permit.
Each permit costs money, and any of them can be refused.
In other words, this could take months, if it happens at all.
The legal entanglement here is absolutely amazing! And this is a relatively simple state!
The FSP has a *lot* of work to do!