any ideas for civil dis against Manch alderman?

[Dave Ridley]

posted this as a comment at UnionLeader.com ; anyone can post responses without registering:

<< What's kind of ironic is everyone on this thread seems to be in partial agreement:  Police should not fine people for picking up litter in the park at 6:00 a.m.

That's a good start.

Maybe someday police here will no longer fine or imprison *anyone* for *any* victimless crime. 

That's a good goal. >>

[FTL_Ian]

Expanding upon Kat's idea, let's say they hold a special election a year from the November election. In the time between when the cap was supposed to be placed and when it was placed because of the illegit delay of the alderman, the budget of the town goes up x%. A group of CD'ers should subtract the x% raise from their property tax, legitimately claiming that the cap was wrong put on too late, thus they shouldn't owe the x% increase. This may gain a lot of positive press coverage, it would be a massive revolt, yet over a small enough amount each that it can't be blamed for 'harming the children'. More people doing it means more public support, and surely there would be press coverage of the massive disobedience over x%. The percentage would be miniscule enough and the disobedience broad enough that the state would look as sinister and violent as it actually is if it tried to take homes from people over the x%.

Of course, this disobedience would be for well in the future, if and when the cap passes, and is dependent upon the council raising spending as a result of the delay.

I've considered this in the past that if NH was ever to pass an income tax, it surely wouldn't be with an overwhelming enough majority that those who disagree could imprison all of those who don't pay, so if they ever did institute one here, we'd need to immediately assure to the gov't that we morally oppose a state income tax and would never pay it.

You better believe I'd cover the property tax revolt on FTL.  That sure would be awesome news.  Good luck finding enough courageous property owners.  (Most are scared shitless of losing their homes at a tax sale and being kicked into the street.)  You certainly have more owners in Manch, I'd imagine, so your odds are better.

I'd be a really pathetic move for "free staters" to voluntarily pay NH income tax.   

[J’raxis 270145]

Expanding upon Kat's idea, let's say they hold a special election a year from the November election. In the time between when the cap was supposed to be placed and when it was placed because of the illegit delay of the alderman, the budget of the town goes up x%. A group of CD'ers should subtract the x% raise from their property tax, legitimately claiming that the cap was wrong put on too late, thus they shouldn't owe the x% increase. This may gain a lot of positive press coverage, it would be a massive revolt, yet over a small enough amount each that it can't be blamed for 'harming the children'. More people doing it means more public support, and surely there would be press coverage of the massive disobedience over x%. The percentage would be miniscule enough and the disobedience broad enough that the state would look as sinister and violent as it actually is if it tried to take homes from people over the x%.

Of course, this disobedience would be for well in the future, if and when the cap passes, and is dependent upon the council raising spending as a result of the delay.

I've considered this in the past that if NH was ever to pass an income tax, it surely wouldn't be with an overwhelming enough majority that those who disagree could imprison all of those who don't pay, so if they ever did institute one here, we'd need to immediately assure to the gov't that we morally oppose a state income tax and would never pay it.

Regardless of when the spending cap gets onto the ballot, it doesn't go into effect until FY2011. They're bickering over when to put it on the ballot not to push off implementation but to attempt to take advantage of lower voter turnout. They'll get all the city workers to come out and vote against it, so the lower the turnout of general residents, the better a shot they have of defeating it. Not to mention that it gives them a whole year, instead of just sixty days, to launch a fearmongering campaign against it.

[J’raxis 270145]

It seems to me that some people worked through the system to try to get a vote on a spending cap and some other people worked through the system to prevent it. How is one side the enemy of the people vs. the other side? What distinguishes them as good or bad? Weren't the aldermen given the power to do this through a democratic process? Are you claiming that that power is invalid? Why?

Actually, they're operating in contravention to their own laws: specifically, State laws pertaining to when ballot initiatives must be placed on the ballot. Alderman Jim Roy even admitted it at the Monday night meeting.

Just the same old situation of two interest groups fighting over control of the system.  One group is imposing its way while the opposition would like to impose theirs.

I think this "use" of the system is acceptable because it's a perfect example of using the system to restrain the system itself.

[dalebert]

Actually, they're operating in contravention to their own laws: specifically, State laws pertaining to when ballot initiatives must be placed on the ballot. Alderman Jim Roy even admitted it at the Monday night meeting.

So why is no one talking lawsuit or arrest?

[Mike Barskey]

So why is no one talking lawsuit or arrest?

Maybe they lost the vote on whether to arrest themselves.

[John Edward Mercier]

I believe they have filed for a court ruling.