Op-ed: Protecting Municipal Sovereignty: Safeguarding Local Control in New Hampshire

The persistent threat to municipal sovereignty is illustrated by the extreme proposals put forth by Republicans in the House Committee on Municipal and County Government. Disturbingly, even moderate Republicans have been forced to display a false sense of unity, emerging from a culture of fear that suppresses independent thought within their ranks. In such an oppressive environment, common sense and expertise are sidelined in favor of “advancing their agenda” that blatantly disregards the needs of our communities and the voices of the people who inhabit them.

As the Federal Government finds itself in turmoil-characterized by erratic decision-making and an uncertain future for critical programs like Social Security, Medicaid, congressional spending, and grant funding- this turbulence has profound implications for our neighbors, friends, and family. The State of New Hampshire and its representatives in the House and Senate must protect the stability of our towns and cities by empowering municipalities to create some insulation from this uncertainty, so they can continue delivering reliable and essential services that their residents deserve.

New Hampshire’s municipal landscape is diverse, with each town presenting its own set of unique challenges and opportunities. No two municipalities are identical, and there are significant differences in demographics—such as average income and age—and public infrastructure, including water, sewer systems, and public transit. We must also acknowledge the significant impact a limited commercial tax base has on residential taxpayers. Unfortunately, these critical issues, often highlighted by Democratic members, frequently go unaddressed during public hearings and committee executive sessions. The notion of a one-size-fits-all solution is fundamentally flawed for New Hampshire, as evidenced by our adoption of seven different forms of local government.

The extreme legislative proposals we are facing reveal a troubling trend: personal local grievances are being transformed into statewide mandates. The Republican message seems to be that if your unpopular ideas are rejected at town or school district meetings, you can seek help from a legislator to impose your will on voters across the state. These proposals include the statewide adoption of unpopular tax caps, establishing minimum voter turnout requirements for SB2 communities, enforcing super-majority thresholds for revenue-generating agreements, and undermining powers assigned to various department heads and elected officials. These actions threaten to stifle progress and silence the voices of the electorate.

Safeguarding local control is not just important, it is essential. While the Republican-controlled State House, Senate, and Corner Office have made every effort to reduce funding to public education and decrease revenue for the State benefiting only the wealthiest inhabitants, property taxes will continue to rise. Knowing this, municipalities and school districts have been desperately seeking solutions to overcome this financial downshift. We should empower voters by allowing revenue-generating decisions to be made through simple majority votes, especially for initiatives that lower operating costs, reduce energy consumption, or explore innovative funding options.

By maintaining the established processes for adopting and approving warrant articles and respecting the authorities granted to municipal officials and employees—who already operate alongside a thoughtful and effective system of checks and balances—we can strengthen their ability to provide a responsive and resilient local government that truly reflects the unique needs and priorities of the communities we serve.