Let localities have their say

Editorial, April 5
Regulating racing:
Let localities have their say

WHEN IS a race track not a race track?

When the Legislature says it isn’t.

Last year the Legislature passed a law that became RSA 287-G. It defines a “private driving instruction and exhibition facility” as a place that, among other things involving driving instruction, conducts “supervised amateur competitions.”

Another term for “competition” is “race.” But the authors of the law could not u se the word “race” because of Section II, which states, “A private driving instruction and exhibition facility shall not be considered a motor vehicle race track for the purposes of RSA 31:41-a or RSA 31:42.”

So even if a “private driving instruction and exhibition facility” holds auto races, by legal definition it is not a race track.

Oh, the two statutes referenced in Section II? They give local governments the authority to regulate race tracks.

If this seems like a sneaky way to create race tracks that local governments cannot regulate, that’s because it is.

The consequences of this law will be felt by the end of the summer in Tamworth, where investors are building a motor sports country club — a driving course for amateur drivers. They might be felt elsewhere in the state if House Bill 90 does not pass.

HB 90, on the House calendar for Wednesday, would repeal RSA 287-G. Its sponsor, Rep. Harry Merrow, R-Center Ossipee, wants to amend the bill so that it repeals only Section II, which states that a “private driving instruction and exhibition facility” cannot be considered a race track even if races happen there.

If HB 90 passes in the amended form Merrow wants, race tracks would be defined by fact — whether races actually happen there — instead of by a law that disregards the facts.

Local communities certainly should have the ability to regulate a facility that will produce the type of noise an automobile club would produce. Under current law they don’t have that power, which is why HB 90 is needed.