A call for real solutions to NH’s property tax and housing challenges
Dec. 27 − To the Editor:
I agree with many of the critiques of New Hampshire’s property tax system made in Portsmouth city councilors Andrew Bagley and Kate Cook’s recent op-ed, especially in light of the housing affordability crisis. That said, I would have preferred to see real solutions offered at both the local and state level as opposed to passing the buck to residents to tell their state representatives their concerns. We live here; we get it. I also found accurate statements about local tax law constraints hampered by oversimplifications.
For one, the proposed solution to exempt a portion of a homeowner’s primary residence from taxation (e.g., the first 10%) could alleviate some of the burden on homeowners. Property tax exemptions, however, also reduce overall revenue for essential city services. Portsmouth would need to make up for lost revenue by cutting services (e.g., public safety, infrastructure) or increasing other tax categories. The state might also have to step in to offset lost revenue, which would strain the state’s already tight budget.
Further, rent increases are not always tied to property tax hikes. While it is a reasonable assumption that property owners may pass along higher property taxes to renters, this is less likely in a highly competitive rental market like Portsmouth (or “overheated,” as Bagley and Cook call it). Additionally, it is not universally true that commercial properties are seeing reductions in their tax bills due to slower growth in their assessed values. It is possible that not all commercial property owners will see reductions, especially if they are experiencing rising rents themselves. Policies to increase affordable housing supply, such as incentivizing development through tax credits or zoning changes, could eventually stabilize property values. Rather than slowing development through committees like the one overseeing the Sherburne Property Project, the city may want to focus its efforts on streamlining residential property development. City officials have told me they prefer to keep housing policies local, but more state intervention may be warranted to address this growing concern.
Despite some accurate general points, these claims would have been more compelling with specific data, especially around the effects on rental markets, commercial property taxes, and potential solutions at all levels of government. Both our state delegation and our City Council have roles to play, and cooperative approaches are needed to implement targeted and immediate actions.
Rep. Jennifer Mandelbaum
Rockingham 21 (Portsmouth/Newington)
I refuse to be gaslit into normalizing school shootings
Dec. 29 − To the Editor:
In the Dec. 24 edition of this publication, Nadia Scharf and Alec Johnson, wrote that “Connection could curb shootings.”. I read the article hoping to learn something useful about the war zones that have become our schools. I’ve been a teacher for decades and wear only sneakers to school as those are the footwear in which I can run the quickest. I don’t dress for fashion, rather, potential escape.
So, when I read that “experts” declare “Trust and training can boost school safety” I continued to read and found an entire article talking of “going to trusted adults” and Ken Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services speaking on “climate, culture, relationships and connectedness.” The article was filled with “threat assessment processes” and mentioned that “US Schools and colleges spend an estimated 3 billion annually on security products and services.”
Alas, not once in the article were guns mentioned, access to guns, or the fact that guns are easier to get than sudafed, a driver’s license, a decent plumber. Guns, firearms, assault weapons were not mentioned ONCE. Not at all. Zip, zero, zilch.
Huh. So, if connectedness, trust and training are the solutions to school shootings, why are these solutions proposed at schools and not at gun venues, sales or training locations? Certainly it is vital for students and staff to identify potential threats but why, oh why, NOT ONCE in this article are gun manufacturers, the NRA, federal and state laws addressed? Why are only school personnel and students held responsible? Mentioned? Where are the politicians, the gun manufacturers, the gun sales personnel in this scenario? Are they not to be expected to know about “climate, culture, relationships and connectedness” when dealing with assault rifles? Potential murderers?
I refuse to be gaslit into normalizing school shootings, into normalizing lock down drills, into normalizing positions like “president of National School Safety and Security Services, a position that comes with a $600,000+ salary. I refuse to be conned into believing that 3 billion dollars on security products and services is money well spent. I refuse to accept “thoughts and prayers” as the answer to violence, to atone for the lives of children, educators, school personnel.
What I do believe in are stronger laws, bans on assault rifles and more accountability on gun manufacturers. That is my connection, my trust. I invite you into that climate and culture.
Let’s find real solutions in 2025, those that put billions back into education, those that bring common sense back to communities, those that allow teachers to wear footwear other than sneakers.
Susan Dromey Heeter
Newmarket
A final solution to the Bibi problem
Dec. 27 − To the Editor:
If the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu shows up at Auschwitz for the eightieth anniversary commemoration where—to paraphrase Ilhan Omar, “Some people did something”—the Polish government may have him arrested for “war crimes.” This would be a foolish mistake. Simply invite Bibi for the ceremony but do not arrest him. Just detain him “for his own safety.” Built by Germans and proudly maintained by Poles, the Auschwitz facility is tailor-made for detention.
If the dastardly Netanyahu arrives by train, just whisk him along to his “final destination.” Problem solved! Quell any alarm or concerns by showing him the infirmary, the herb garden, the puppy kennels, and the children’s playground that captivated the Red Cross so many moons ago. Point out the roomy camp-style huts that once accommodated many of his kind. Netanyahu will feel right at home.
While he settles in, give him a commemorative tattoo—tats are very now. Just imprint the date of his visit on a forearm for old times sake. Nothing ostentatious. As he will be an overnight “guest,” don’t forget to offer him sleepwear, perhaps a chic broad black-and-white pinstripe outfit tailored by Hugo Boss, who designed such striking uniforms for the Germans. And of course, Auschwitz is such a super facility, the Poles could offer their guest a light repast, perhaps even a shower…
Like those Europeans of old, we could all then feel virtuous and righteous. Just like Germany, Italy, Canada, Ireland and other nation states who support the International Criminal Court’s anti-Semitic efforts to arrest Israelis in this brave new age of racial tolerance and social justice. I just hope Bibi reads the new redesigned sign over the entrance to Auschwitz: “Woke Macht Frei.” Or something like that. But then, who remembers?
Denis Lipman
Rye
Trump should be disqualfied; Harris should not certify election
Dec. 30 − To the Editor:
When then President Trump asked his Vice President to recognize bogus elector ballots and declare him the winner of the Electoral College vote on January 6th 2021, Vice President Pence declined. He had consulted a number of legal advisors who told him that he lacked the Constitutional authority to do so. The US Capitol building was subsequently attacked.
So if Donald Trump is saying that Vice Presidents have such authority, perhaps we should hold him to his word. According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, those who have engaged in insurrection after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from holding office. Logic then follows that Vice President Harris can choose to disregard electoral college votes for a disqualified candidate. She would then become President. “Section 3 further provides that Congress may remove the bar from an otherwise disqualified person by a two-thirds vote in each House.” No such votes have been taken.
If you would like to read more about the Presidential eligibility issue, Wikipedia has a fairly inclusive page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump
It is easy to see why the broadcast and cable media has spent so much time covering constant, distracting outrage. As they impersonate groups of cats following laser pointers, they want us to disregarded that we are about to swear in a disqualified President. If it does come to pass, at least the American flag will appropriately be at half staff, to mark not only President Carter’s death, but the death of our Democracy.
Don Cavallaro
Rye