This week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives will debate nearly 100 bills in a two-day session. Among them, several pieces of legislation threaten to erode a core principle that has long been valued in our state: local control.
Over the past several weeks in the Municipal and County Committee, I have reviewed numerous bills that seek to strip authority away from cities, towns and school boards — decisions that traditionally belong to local voters and officials. What has been frustrating is the pattern I continue to see: legislators who, on the one hand, passionately defend local control, yet on the other hand, introduce bills that undermine it. The contradiction is stark and troubling.
In many cases, these bills stem from personal disputes between state representatives and their local governments. When unable to persuade their own communities, some lawmakers have chosen to bypass the local process entirely and attempt to codify their preferences into state law. This not only disrespects local governance but also sets a dangerous precedent for centralizing power at the state level.
While not every one of these bills will directly impact on our city, the larger trend should concern all of us. It represents a shift away from the fundamental values that have shaped New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” spirit.
Take, for example, HB 675. Initially, the bill aimed to increase the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT) to better fund public education. However, in the process, two critical provisions were stripped away: one that would have required property-wealthy communities to contribute their excess SWEPT funds, and another that would have aligned the per-student funding with the $7,400 figure cited in the ConVal court case on adequate education. What remained? A mandate to place a tax cap on local school budgets.
This raises a crucial question: If voters across the state consistently reject tax caps — over 20 communities recently did just that — why is the state legislature attempting to impose them from above?
As someone who regularly hears concerns about property taxes, I understand the frustration. But the solution isn’t to dictate terms to every city and town in New Hampshire. Our communities are diverse, and so are their needs. A one-size-fits-all approach imposed by Concord will only stifle local decision-making and hinder the ability of communities to address unique challenges.
One topic where I find more consensus among my colleagues is the issue of default budgets. Most agree that the system is flawed, but unfortunately, no meaningful legislation has been brought forward to address it. In our own community, we’ve seen default budgets that either match or exceed proposed budgets. Too often, voters who oppose a proposed budget may unknowingly trigger a default that costs them more in property taxes.
The frustration with default budgets has now fueled bills seeking to implement tax caps on town budgets and allow amendments to reduce default budgets year after year. While there is some merit to re-examining how default budgets are calculated, this conversation should not be a backdoor way to further restrict local control. If reforms are to be made, they must come with input from local leaders and residents, not by state law.
If the legislature cannot fix the default budget mechanism, perhaps it’s time to consider eliminating default budgets altogether. Local administrators are fully capable of presenting a second leaner option that reflects the needs and priorities of their communities, without relying on current default provisions that often confuse voters and complicated fiscal planning.
I fear that if these bills pass the House, we will be chipping away at the very autonomy that makes New Hampshire distinct. This is not the New Hampshire way. Our state has always championed home rules and trusts its citizens to make decisions at the local level.
Before it’s too late, I urge all residents to contact their legislators. Let them know that local control matters — not just as a talking point, but as a cornerstone of how we govern ourselves.
We can — and must — do better.
