4/5/2005

House in two days doesn't get to HB 90, vote expected Wednesday

Amendment to racetrack bill repeal may help success in Senate, Dickinson says

Nate Giarnese

CONCORD—The New Hampshire House, in its second day of legislative session Thursday, again failed to vote on HB 90, a bill drafted by local state representatives to repeal racetrack legislation, SB 458. The vote, seen by many as critical on the issue of state versus local control, was pushed to an unusual third day of session set for Wednesday, and an amendment may help it pass.

The House Municipal and Government Committee last week voted to kill HB 90, citing written testimony from a silent majority in Tamworth, supporting a planned Club Motorsports Inc. auto sports park, and its promised jobs and tax relief. The committee vote came despite an outpouring of public testimony resoundingly against the 250-acre track facility and SB 458.

Hundreds of area residents and officials in recent months have regularly overrun public hearings in Concord and Tamworth furious that SB 458 undercut local control in New Hampshire towns like Tamworth.

Area legislators railed against what they called deception by Senate sponsors, after finding the seemingly innocuous SB 458 had unanimously passed both the House and Senate last year, making moot a Tamworth zoning ordinance carefully crafted by town citizens and officials to regulate the CMI track.

HB 90 sponsor Rep. Harry Merrow, R-Ossipee, who has called for a "flat out repeal" of SB 458, said HB 90 will be amended on the floor Wednesday to leave the bulk of the existing law in place, removing only a clause exempting practice tracks— as SB 458 (now RSA 287-G) defined the CMI facility— from local laws.

According to Conway Rep. Crow Dickinson, should the amended repeal pass the House, the Senate would be "crazy" not to pass it.

"If Harry's bill were to pass as is, the Senate would probably just kill it," Dickinson said Tuesday.

The amendment, however, which leaves intact language in the existing law that separates practice tracks from larger, louder spectator facilities, will be far more palatable to lawmakers in the Senate—especially those who first sponsored SB 458.

"I think they will go along with (the amended repeal)," Dickinson said. "I can't see them doing anything otherwise.

"There may be a legitimate reason for making the dichotomy—the two kinds of tracks," he said. "But a new kind of track should have the same kind of oversight as other kind."

"That's what got Tamworth in trouble," Dickinson continued. "And it was underhanded. Nobody told Babson, nobody told Merrow, nobody told McConkey."

Cosponsor of the repeal, Rep. David Babson, R-Ossipee, told the House Municipal and County Government Committee last month, that legislators were "snookered," as SB-458 was slickly shepherded through the House and Senate by developers and special interests, and accused senate sponsors of coercion and secrecy intended to subvert local control.

"I just don't think we were snookered," committee chair, Rep, Betsey Patten, R- Moultonborough, said last week, after her committee voted 14-5 to kill the repeal. "Our committee thought that wasn't a valid complaint. If the reps didn't know what was going on— It happens to all of us."

Committee dissenters and repeal supporters were livid after last Tuesday's vote, charging committee members sided with state rule over local control, and said the vote encourages developers to run to the state house in hopes of flouting town laws.

A citizens' group, Focus:Tamworth, was outraged by the committee rationale. Local and Dover state representatives promised a floor fight and the amendment, for the House vote next week.

"The issue is whether the process used to remove local control is ethical and honest. They all felt it was not, and I agree," Dover Rep. Peter Schmidt said, referring to repeal sponsors, Ossipee representatives, Harry Merrow and David Babson, Conway Rep. Crow Dickinson and Madison Rep. Don Philbrick, who all have spoken against SB 458's passage.

"It can hardly be described as an honest process. SB 458 had to be cleverly maneuvered through the senate and house to get that lack of attention," he said. "In my view there were deceptive omissions on the part of sponsors."

"I don't know why Betsey's committee voted to kill the repeal," Dickinson said Tuesday. "The committee didn't recognize the validity of this."

Should the repeal pass the House and Senate, it may come too late to right any wrongs done to Tamworth, Dickinson said. But HB 90 would, he said, prevent developers in future cases from skirting local control.

"It won't have any effect on Tamworth," Dickinson said. "We don't think they should be exempt."

About a dozen repeal supporters, including Focus members from Tamworth, Sandwich, and Madison, arrived in Concord Wednesday expecting the legislature to vote on HB 90 by at least Thursday. A slow day of roll calls and grinding debate Wednesday set the legislature back, leaving a slew of bills still unvisited by 5:30 p.m. Thursday, prompting the House to schedule the unusual third day of voting.