Carroll County Independent
FEBRUARY 24, 2005

Many speak for repeal of law to redefine tracks

Tamworth selectmen oppose HB 90

By TERRY LEAVITT
Editor

TAMWORTH — Many Tamworth residents, town officials and state representatives testified that they believe they were mislead and have lost a valuable piece of local control under a new state law (RSA 287-G), regarding what is and is not a racetrack.

A smaller number of people said they believe the law is a good one and should remain on the books. Among those who spoke in Concord against the repeal of the bill are Tamworth’s two current selectmen, Mariette Ross and David Haskell.

Over the past week, N.H. House Municipal and County Government committee heard testimony on House Bill 90, on the proposed bill to repeal the law creating a new definition for private driving education and exhibition facilities and exempting them from regulation under town racetrack ordinances. RSA 287-G was approved in 2004 as Senate Bill 458.

More than 75 people spoke over the two days of hearings, in Tamworth Thursday night and in Concord Tuesday morning, on HB 90. Those speaking in favor of repeal were in a clear majority in both Tamworth and Concord. Only three people including an attorney for Club Motorsports spoke against the bill in Tamworth. Less than a quarter of those who spoke in Concord favored leaving the law as it stands.

Several N.H. Representatives and Senators weighed in on the issue.

Rep. Harry Merrow of Ossipee, sponsored the legislation to repeal the law. He and Rep. David Babson of Ossipee, who represent Tamworth in the House, both spoke in favor of the repeal. Rep. Mark McConkey, of Ossipee, who also represents Tamworth, was present at the meeting in Tamworth, but did not speak.

Merrow said neither he nor Rep. David Babson were aware of what the bill did before it became a law.

“I’m very upset by how this bill was passed and what it does and I think we should repeal it,” Merrow said. “Everything was done legally but that doesn’t mean it was right.”

He said he did not recognize from the title and blurb what the bill was for. He quoted from the bill which defines private driving instructional and exhibition facilities and asked “would you recognize this bill applies to and only to the Tamworth racetrack?”

He said the description given matches the Club Motorsports proposal given in its brochure, and added, “It certainly sounds like a racetrack to me.”

If the facility is not a racetrack, he added, the bill was not needed in the first place.

Merrow went on to say that maybe the legislature does need to look again at the definitions of racetracks of different types, then added, “but certainly not on an individual location basis” or in a way that would take away the authority of a town to regulate a facility.

“Why are we having such a hard time admitting we made a mistake? It’s beyond me,” he said.

Babson called the law “special interest legislation” and said legislators were “snookered” in hearings on the issue. There was no opposition to the original legislation because no one who might oppose it heard about it. The committee was told that the bill would have no affect on local control, “when in fact it had everything to do with overriding local control.”

“There should be no room for deceptive Democracy in our system,” he said. “This was nothing more than a blatent attempt to subvert the democratic process.”

Using the analogy that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, Babson also said if the facility has mechanics garages, pit crews and timing devices and “makes noises like a racetrack, it’s probably a racetrack.”

Rep. Howard “Crow” Dickinson, co-sponsor of HB 90 urged the committee to support the bill.

He said none of the Tamworth representatives were notified of the affect of the bill and said the law deserves to be repealed, “if only because of the process.”

Rep. Don Philbrick of Eaton and Rep. Tom Buco of Conway also spoke in favor of HB 90 in Tamworth.

In Concord, two members of the House transportation committee that reviewed SB 458, also said they thought the process of reviewing the original bill could have been done better.

One member, Rep. Kimberley Casey said she believed that there were questions that should have been asked that were not and that data collection and deliberations could have been better. Although she said she did not want to disparage the committee, she now supports repeal of the law.

“This bill was not presented in a way that I was able to fully comprehend how it could be applied in towns,” she said.

Committee member Rep. Stephen Schmidt asked if she believed she was deceived by those presenting the bill.

“I would prefer to say I was not deceived,” she said.

Other N.H. Representatives and Senators, including Rep. John Flanders and Rep. Sherman Packard, submitted statements in opposition to the repeal.

Rep. Robert Boyce, of Alton, opposed the repeal and said the new law was needed to clarify what is and is not a racetrack. “A racetrack is Loudon,” he said, adding that is what people think about when they think “racetrack.” Such facilities have spectators, traffic issues, cars with no mufflers, jet cars and dragsters.

Boyce, who said he has run his cars with clubs on racetracks set up in parking lots and on old unused runways, said what is being proposed by Club Motorsports is “not noisy and not intrusive.”

Schmidt questioned Boyce about how he reconciled the law’s definition as emphasizing safe driving skills with Club Motorsports’ advertising the facility as a place to drive fast cars, with slogans such as “Feed Your Need for Speed.”

“I think both can be at the same facility,” Boyce said, adding that he believes he benefitted from learning to drive cars fast under adverse conditions.

Ross, Haskell oppose bill

Tamworth Selectman Marriette Ross said, “I don’t feel that Tamworth or any town in New Hampshire has lost local control due to SB 458.”

She said she believes the law defines a new type of facility, and Tamworth still has a proposed town noise ordinance to control noise there. “I feel people still have local control to enact zoning and pass ordinances.

Tamworth Selectman David Haskell said state applications are in place to protect wetlands and that he too believes local control is safe.

He said, “Seems to me SB 458 did us a favor,” because it “mad sure land use laws were applied properly and saved the town a lawsuit.”

Other Tamworth officials, including Conservation Commission Chairman John Mersfelder and members of the committee that drew up the racetrack ordinance disagreed, saying they believed that the town was protected by the ordinance, and without it, the town has given up local control.

Selectmen and officials from Madison, Sandwich, Effingham and other towns also expressed opinions, saying they believe the law does affect local control and sets a dangerous precident.

Madison Moderator George Epstein read a letter from Madison selectmen supporting the bill, noting that “The policy behind its passage reverberated to all small towns in the area.” Further, they said, “Developers should not be permitted to subvert local control” with secret legislation, passed by people who are out of touch with local concerns.

Residents speak out

Several Tamworth residents said they were concerned that the law was written specifically to circumvent local control even as an ordinance was being developed and enacted by the town of Tamworth.

Tamworth Resident Tom Cleveland said the developers “clearly chose Tamworth because it had no zoning.” He also said the town passed a racetrack ordinance not to prevent the CMI facility from being built, but because there were 22 things that the people of Tamworth believed needed to be regulated in such a facility.

Tom Vachon said, “Give us back our town government. Let us make our decisions. Don’t let some people who don’t understand our local government take away our ability to regulate.”

Others spoke about the process by which the law came to be passed, without giving people who would be affected a chance to speak on the issue. Some said they had lost confidence in their government because of it and asked the committee to help restore that confidence.

“It was legal. It was not moral to do this. People should have a chance to know what they’re voting on,” Nancy Coville said.

Several people questioned how the proposed facility differs from a racetrack.

Leo Laforge said the developers are advertising the facility for racing, talking about “getting bragging rights” and the chance to be number one. “Number one in what?” he asked.

One woman said the new law is overly broad and any racetrack would fit within its scope.

One man who spoke against the bill said the facility will be good for the town. “Anything that will bring revenue is good,” he said.

Club Motorsports plan, he said, “is not a racetrack by any definition. The older definition is not accurate today. I’m opposed to the bill because it reverts to the old definition.”

He said Tamworth can control the noise at the proposed facility with the noise ordinance on the warrant for town meeting.

Others said the noise produced by the proposed racetrack would be no greater than noise from logging operations, rock crushers and other businesses in town, and it is unfair to have ordinances that single out one type of business.

Another Tamworth man said he supports the law because, “I trust my state government, not my local government.

James Boothby, who supports the racetrack, said the bill was being proposed by people whose only goal is to stop the development.

The final speaker in Concord, Ellen Keith, of Tamworth, said many members of her family have been involved in racing over the years and some of them expect to use the Club Motorsports facility if it is built. But, she said, all of them support the bill to repeal the law.

The House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of March.