Conference vmszoo::new_hampshire

    I see posters in MK0 about going to the PB meeting and expressing you
    (negative) view of this...
    
    
    Steve

    Thanks...
    
    I brought the article in today and hadn't had a chance to type it..
    
    BTW - I got notice on Saturday that the board is now scheduling a 
    3rd public hearing on Feb 18, so that they can incorporate comments
    received at tomorrow nights hearing...
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

  What I'm most concerned about re the Globe article is that the proponents
were able to get this bill thru the Legislature with almost no publicity.
People should not have to call their legislators every week to ask if there
are any bills coming up that could affect them. It is the press's responsibil-
ity to keep people informed about issues like this, and it is the legislature's
responsibility to notify the press (and, indirectly, the public). It's clear
to me the Weyler wanted this bill to go thru with as little fanfare as 
possible. And that is wrong.
  I feel compassion for the people in Brentwood who feel the only way they
can regain a sense of security is to sell their house and move. Whether their
fears are well-founded or not, they are obviously living in fear.

>>People should not have to call their legislators every week to ask if there
>>are any bills coming up that could affect them. It is the press's responsibil-


Amen.

bjm

    the article also demonstrates the need to immediately get something in
    place least a grandfather could occur.  It appears as though
    the planning board is acting very responsibly for town residents.
    
    the story also demonstrates that perhaps you can't work it out with the
    pilot as was previously mentioned.  
    ed
    

    But, in New Hampshire, you have to understand who and what is passing
    these lofty laws.....

    
    Well thought out public policy clearly states what the true
    goal is and then lays out fair means to get to that goal.
    If the town of Merrimack desires to ban any of its residents
    from operating any kind of flying machine from any surface
    within town limits, then they should say that.  Then that 
    goal can be debated and voted up or down.
    
    What it looks like Merrimack is doing, is trying to regulate
    an activity that they do not understand.  The proposed
    ordinance asks individuals to get a state agency to grant an
    approval, but that state agency says that they have never
    been in the business of approving what the town is asking.
    The town has chosen to try and codify some noise values for
    this one activity, and to assign some minimum land-use size,
    and structure requirements.  But when you look at the
    list of requirements, its obvious that the drafters need to
    do more homework.  Haste makes bad law that is easily
    challenged in the courts.  Better to take more time and
    make rules that will stand up to scrutiny and can be
    applied fairly.
    
    Current use, such as aircraft operation on Baboosic Lake,
    and the individual(s) who already fly from their property,
    are grandfathered.  So this will activity will continue.
    If the town rushes to enact a poor ordinance to head off
    one individual from doing something, that individual has
    an excellent chance of getting a court to knock down the
    ordinance.  Its a catch-22.  If the town does a bad job,
    they will wind up losing.  If they go slow, then existing
    users are grandfathered.  BUT! if the enact a hasty, and
    badly formed, ordinance and later have it struck down,
    they risk having to allow more folks to get established
    before they can come up with a better ordnance.  Bad law
    is always a bad idea.
    
    Another perspective is the real risk vs. the perceived risk.
    Seems like everyone these days lives in fear.  But when you
    look at the real numbers, many more folks have trees fall on
    them, fall off ladders, slip in the bathtub, and get hit
    by drunk drivers, than get any kind of injury from any
    aviation activity.  So you have to balance how you respond
    to folks fears, with those individual's responsibility to
    own and deal with those fears themselves.  Some folks are
    afraid of trains.  Do we ban railroad crossings and force
    all tracks to tunnel under roads?  Anyway, if you start
    banning anything that makes one person fearful, then our
    society will grind to a halt.
    
    But small town politics is not about common sense or making
    good ordinaces.  And Merrimack politics has managed to get
    itself nationally known for trying to push the clock back
    much farther than the Wright brothers.  Glad I don't live
    there.

>> RE .33
>> It is the press's responsibil-
>> ity to keep people informed about issues like this,

No, the press is part of the entertainment industry and the only real
responsibility they have is to sell newspapers and make a profit for their
shareholders.  That's pretty much where their responsibility ends.  I don't
want a newspaper taking the responsibility for the information I receive.
That's MY responsibility and mine alone!

Dan

    Wow! What are they going to do with them helli pads in MKO?:) Should be
    really funny....

    re: the bigger problem of "quiet legislation"...
    
    I learned something the other day that was quite interesting (I don't
    know if this is how this particular law was passed though).
    
    NH recently passed a bill that now makes it OK to add any admendment to
    any pending bill, whether it is related to the issues in that bill or 
    not!  As a result, the public needs to be more vigilant in reading all
    of the bills and amendments, not just bills that sound like they 
    affect you.  So, for example, an amendment to allow toxic waste dumps
    can be added to a highway safety bill.
    
    Good or bad, right or wrong, this is the way it is in NH.
    
    Cheers,
    jeff (who is learning a lot about politics!)
    

re: the press's responsibility

.38 is dead on.  It's the press's responsibility to sell papers or broadcast
time.  If they happen to find that that end is served by dispensing some
information, swell.  Otherwise, it's all features or music or talk or some
other fluff.


re: quietly becoming a law

How poetic.  Almost *every* law "quietly becomes a law" unless you care
enough to dig out the facts.

For starters, look at Webster, the NH state government's online service at
http://www.state.nh.us/.  You can drill down and find the airport law from
last year.  Not that it looks all that dangerous in this form.


re: the state let's the locals decide what they want to do about it

How very new Hampshire.  How did that all of a sudden become sinister.


re: the danger

That's a fine comparison of relative dangers a few back.  We take the
automotive carnage for granted (nationally, the equivalent of the total 
Viet Nam death toll *every year*).  How logical is it to carp about this
private plane thing?  Eight people a year?  More people than that die falling
down stairs.  Do we legislate ranch-style houses for everyone?  And who
volunteers to have his or her house be razed as the first demonstration
of compliance?


What the 90's needs is a little more perspective.  Not everything is equally
grave, even though it's written in the same point size.

-Mark

    RE: .40
    
    Exactly how it works in Washington or doesn't work depending
    on your point of view... :-(
    
    				-John

>No, the press is part of the entertainment industry and the only real
>responsibility they have is to sell newspapers and make a profit for their
>shareholders. 

  This is true of the broadcast press, because there is a limited number of
channels available and the startup and operating costs are so high that only
those stations that have a large audience can survive. However, for the print
press it is fairly easy for someone to organize a small company and publish
a newspaper on their own. So if the big papers don't cover the important
stuff properly, and a large segment of the public knows this, it should be
possible for someone to start a new paper that DOES provide this coverage.
  I know this is not always possible. For example, about 20 years someone
tried to start a less conservative alternative to the Union Leader and it
folded after a short time.
  I still feel that the press has a moral responsibility to cover that which
is important, even if they think it is less profitable to do so.
  If it is indeed the case the people must call their legislators every week
to find out if there is are any "hidden" bills on the floor that affect them,
then the phone company had better put in a lot more phone lines, or else we
will be getting a lot of busy signals.

> That's a fine comparison of relative dangers a few back.  We take the
> automotive carnage for granted (nationally, the equivalent of the total 
> Viet Nam death toll *every year*).

  I am one of the few people who do NOT take this for granted. And there are
some things we can do about it that we are not doing, but I won't go 
further down this rathole here.
  I personally would not live in fear if someone were landing and taking off
a small plane in the field next to my house, as long as my house was not
directly under the flight path. I would, however, be disturbed by the noise.

    Whelp. Then if they can attach a nuke waste dump to highway
    improvement. I wanna add a quite muffler to the dam bikies, and want to
    have all motorcycle owners have 10 acres of land to land their bikes
    on.:)

    Interesting meeting last night...
    
    Out of about 75 people, I was the only pro aviation speaker.  I pointed
    out the errors and absurdities in their proposal.  A large number of
    people felt that the restrictions were not enough, and that the
    proposal should ban them. 
    
    I expect that the next revision will propose a ban on powered aircraft 
    in Merrimack.  And, if last night was an indication, the ban will 
    likely be passed.
    
    While I will lobby and vote against the ban, at least the wording and 
    intent of the change will be clearer so that the voters can get what
    they ask for...  If voted for, I will be happy to live with the voters
    wishes.   I just hope that if this change is voted down, that the 
    proponents will accept the community's wishes as well.
    
    Anyone else reading this at the meeting last night?  Comments?
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    > If voted for, I will be happy to live with the voters wishes. 
    
    Keep on fighting them.  Just because the "majority" votes for it,
    it doesn't mean its legal.  The constitution is there to prevent
    the "majority" from trampling the rights of the "minority".
    
    				-John

>     Keep on fighting them.  Just because the "majority" votes for it,
>     it doesn't mean its legal.  The constitution is there to prevent
>     the "majority" from trampling the rights of the "minority".

	Someone should tell the RR that ...

Just curious -- if you fly from your own land in
Merrimack, or for that matter, any town in close proximity
to an airport, are you required to contact the air traffic
control folks? Or, does one "just wing it" :-)

    The term 'just wing it' unfortunately does not do justice to the detail and
    preparation which should go into EVERY flight - from a 747 to something
    much smaller. There is a reason that becoming a private pilot takes a
    whole lot of hours of study, a whole lot of hours of flying with an
    instructor, and, unfortunately, a whole lot of money associated with
    both of the above. I think that no one flying 'just wings it'.
    
    Having said all that, the answer to 'contact traffic control' is 'It
    depends'.
    Unless an aircraft is flying in certain designated airspaces, and/or is
    flying when certain weather conditions prevail, there is not a need,
    requirement, or value in conversing with 'traffic control'. In fact,
    the value that 'traffic control' brings to aviation is often
    misunderstood and often over-rated.

>>     it doesn't mean its legal.  The constitution is there to prevent
>>     the "majority" from trampling the rights of the "minority".

>	Someone should tell the RR that ...

  In what way is the railroad trampling the rights of the minority? Or does
"RR" means something else in this context?

I think RR meant 'Religious Right'

> Out of about 75 people, I was the only pro aviation speaker.

	BTW, in case you didn't know yet, you got mentioned in
	the article in Thursdays paper:

	    "Resident Jeff Friedrichs spoke in favor of allowing the 
	    use of aircraft in residential zones, but till criticized
	    the prposed amendment because he felt in its current form
	    it places undue restrictions on aircraft owners."

	    ... "Residents will vote April 8 on all proposed amendments."

re: .48

>>     Keep on fighting them.  Just because the "majority" votes for it,
>>     it doesn't mean its legal.  The constitution is there to prevent
>>     the "majority" from trampling the rights of the "minority".
>
>	Someone should tell the RR that ...

Assuming that the RR is a minority itself, I think you've just given us
great encouragement.  Thanks!  :-)

-Mark

    	Re: last few
    
    	Unless there are *valid* concerns, I don't see where it's fair to
    just ban something like this. Obviously, you'll never have a majority
    of people at a town meeting that want to have their own landing strip.
    
    	The safety issue has already been shown to be insignificant. So if
    it's a noise issue, there should already be laws on the books that
    anyone should have to conform to. If neighbor A can't fly his plane
    because it's too loud, but neighbor B can run his chainsaw all day
    that's just as loud, then this is an unfair law.
    
    	Some people think that democracy is a "majority rule" situation,
    but it's not. Sounds like a call to some of the major network news 
    stations might be worth while.
    
    	Ray
    

>>    of people at a town meeting that want to have their own landing strip.

It does not matter if they all show up at town meeting.  They have to show 
up a month later at the TOWN VOTE.  

Brian J. - who does not expect 2/3 of the town to vote for a rebuild of my
           road.

    	Re: last
    
    	So does 2/3's of the town have to vote for this bill for this ban 
    to take affect ? 
    
    	Ray

>>    	So does 2/3's of the town have to vote for this bill for this ban 
>>    to take affect ? 

I doubt it.  The 2/3's vote is for BONDed warrant items, which the 613K price
tag of Seaverns Bridge Road qualifies for.

My guess is its a "simple majority" has to vote for it.  

Since I have not seen the question, I guess it could be worded like:

* We are going to ban private air strips.  Check NO if you don't want
  this to happen.

Or

* Check YES if you would you like to ban private air strips.


So either a 50% yes or no, depending on the wording :-)

bjm

    	re:last
    
    	Great, so the one person with the plane shows up to vote against 2
    or 3 emotional neighbors, who have not proven they have any *valid*
    concern, and it's a done deal ? That sucks.
    
    	Ray

    It isn't just "local politics", its just poor turnout in all elections. 
    It is hard to make statistical claims about the concerns of the
    electorate when only a handful show up to vote.
    
    It makes me laugh when a politician claims a "mandate" when they
    win an election by a large margin (of those voting) when only 
    15-20% of all registered voters even voted!  In those races, I
    say apathy won...
    
    				-John

In the 1996 Presidential election, less than 1/2 of the voters turned out
to vote. Of those who did, less than 1/2 voted for Clinton. 

He was elected by less than 1/4 of the elegible voters.

Nobody cares about apathy any more   B^)

Art

    (reposted with Item 8 info added)
    
        Well, over the weekend I received the final wording of the articles...
    
    The following will all be added if Item 1 is approved by the voters.
    
    Permitted residential uses:
    
    "Aircraft takeoffs and landings on private land by the owner of such 
    land or by a person who resides on such land are not valid and
    permitted accessory uses"
    
    Definitions:
    
    "Airport/Heliport/aircraft: An area of land or water providing certain
    specified facilities and services for use in connection with air
    transportation which could be used as a site for landing and taking off 
    of aircraft.  Aircraft means any engine power contrivance for air
    transportation"
    
    Permitted Use:
    
    "The use or operation of equipment, vehicles or aircraft, including
    aircraft takeoffs and landings, for the purpose of emergency response,
    medical necessity, public safety, emergency landing, media coverage, 
    building construction, equipment installation or political
    campaigning."


    Item 8 also addresses airport/heliports in the "Aquifer Conservation
    District" and sets heliports and airports - including aircraft
    refueling, deicing and maintainance as "regulated uses" in all Aquifer
    Conservation Districts.

    BTW - The public hearing on these changes will be on Feb 18, 7:30pm.
    It is my understanding that the result of this hearing will be simply
    whether or not to include each item on the ballot in April.  If there
    is opposition to the proposed wording, there is not enough time to
    rewrite it and still get it in front of the voters this year.
    
    
    My comments:
    
    - I am happy that it is now much clearer to the voters what they are
    voting for or against.
    
    _ I am happy that they included my change in the definition of 
    aircraft.  That appears to protect my radio control airplane use.
    
    - I am surprised that they left "political campaigning" in as there
    was a fair amount of opposition voiced about this loophole in the 
    2nd public hearing.  The way I see it, as long as I am filed as running
    for any public office, I can paint "vote for me" on the side and then
    fly out of my private property.  But since the item refers to
    "equipment, vehicles or aircraft", they had to leave it in.  Otherwise,
    cars with "vote for me" could not be parked in residential areas
    either.
    
    - Under the new wording, I can't fly off my land, but my neighbor can
    fly off my land.  Or I can fly off his!
    
    - This still doesn't address Baboosic Lake and the Merrimack River..
    Actually, perhaps it can't because I suspect that the lake itself can
    not be (is not) zoned residential.
    
    - For whatever reason, they decided not to ban flights in the
    commercial district.  That is interesting.  (FWIW -
    Digital/Sanders/Fidelity are all in the Industrial zone, and there was
    never any attempt to restrict flights into those zones).
    
    - With the changes in Item 8, I wonder what I need to do if I want to
    work on my airplane that is sitting in my garage.  The current wording
    would imply that I need approval.   Yet my neighbor can restore his
    car and not be regulated...   Hmmm..
        
    I am still against the ban (Item 1).  If there are noise or safety
    concerns, then address and apply those equally to all residents, no
    matter what they are doing.  To paraphrase the helicopter pilot, "My
    neighbors want to enjoy the peace and quiet of my land, without paying
    for it."  There is a lot of truth to that statement..
    
    Item 8 clarifies overall is needed though.  I will question the board,
    and perhaps I will have to get approval, but I can't imagine why they 
    would turn me down.
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

> In the 1996 Presidential election, less than 1/2 of the voters turned out
> to vote. Of those who did, less than 1/2 voted for Clinton. 

	Just keep in mind however it's hard to compare his popular vote
	in the 1996 or 1992 elections with the popular votes received by
	most if not all the Presidents in recent times.  That's because
	the last two elections were as close to being 3-way races as any
	Presidential election that I can recall.  With a 2-way race, baring
	a tie, or a substantial "anybody but those 2" vote, receiving at
	least a simple majority of the popular vote is not hard to do.

    
    Merrimack voters, don't forget to vote on Tuesday, April 8.
    
    Oh, and btw - I encourage you to vote NO to Article 2.
    
    Cheers,
    jeff