Suzanne Birchard

The importance of protecting New Hampshire’s land base has been deemed very important for the natural resource, for tourism, and for the people of NH as shown in 1968 when Proposition 7 was passed by the necessary two-thirds majority of voters. As a result, the NH General Court enacted RSA 79-A, Current Use, in 1973 because it was in the public interest. The reasons for Current Use and the need for Current Use have not changed. What has changed is legislation reducing taxes raised at the state level. NH towns raise over 60% of their revenue by property taxes. It’s the one big NH tax bill that all property owners see – it is a lump. With the state needing more revenue yet not having income tax, sales tax, interest/dividend tax, capital gains tax sources of income are being sought. But don’t raise money by compromising the state’s land base – land is the precious resource that is never expanded and creates the environment that makes New Hampshire a beautiful state for raising a family, for tourism, for wildlife, and for natural resource management. The proposed house bill 1691 would disqualify most of the land that is now in Current Use. This would be damaging to the land, which is a natural resource that cannot be replaced. This would damage the rural character of the state which is why many people, tourist, and businesses are attracted to NH. House bill 1691 is a radical change to the land taxing system that is using a hatchet instead of a scalpel. The proposed changes gut the program. If towns need to raise more money and it is deemed changing to taxation of Current Use is part of the solution, then make appropriate changes that continue the values that Current Use was designed to keep while also considering measures to raise revenue. Perhaps direct the Current Use Board to tighten the parameters for lands that qualify, but don’t destroy a program that the citizen’s overwhelmingly support.