Barry Rudkin: Article 6 is a high-priced, open-ended trip to the dice table

To The Daily Sun,

So, again we have to decide to support or reject two articles on the Moultonborough town warrant. Article #5 proposes to construct a new facility on the Lions Club property at a firm cost of $3.5 million, and is considered "shovel ready". The alternative is Article #6, an estimated $6.7 million facility on the considerably un-vetted Taylor property. This is where fairness to all taxpayers, common sense, and emotion collide. Proponents of Article #6 are perhaps currently less concerned with increased taxes, vetting of unknown environmental issues and the effect on vehicle traffic. They seek to secure $6.7 million before there is clarity on these issues. This is an apparent "cart before the horse" maneuver and a dangerous page from their playbook.

Most are aware of the argument that out of state non-voting property owners fund a major share of the town's capital improvement projects. These projects can only be voted on by those in attendance at Town Meeting, with no absentee voting even for resident "snowbirds." Isn't it time that we look at this system again. You can argue disenfranchisement.

Last year at Meet the Candidates night, the question was asked as to how many times we're going to go down the same road? The answer was shouted out, "until it happens." Recently, a town official was quoted in a news article, that we need to pass Article #6 because "That is something the town deserves ". "DESERVES?" These emotional statements do not address the unanswered questions inherent in Article #6 and it should again be rejected.

A new BOS candidate, Susan Price, has it quite right as she critically points out that many town residents, and I contend some town officials, see our "property rich" town, driven by Lakefront second homes, as a proxy for the wealth of year-round residents. If you agree, then consider giving Susan Price your vote. I've long held this belief. I've seen it in action over the past quarter century with the building of a Town Hall, library, recycling center, Life Safety Complex, and school expansion, all coming during and after the 1990's building boom and explosion of the tax base.

Consider our seniors and other year-round residents who may even struggle on fixed incomes having to face another tax increase. I don't accept the argument that these proposals mean only a "small increase." Maybe to some, but it's another tax increase, period! Let us not forget, it is easy to be generous with other people's money. True leaders consider everyone not just certain interest groups.

I see Article #6 as a high-priced, open-ended trip to the dice table in Las Vegas which might leave the taxpayers requiring a second IOU, and I would judge it as irresponsible and truly emotional to move forward with an approval in its current form. If you must, consider Article #5 as a common sense alternative. Please vote using common sense!

Barry Rudkin,

Moultonboro