As we have reported before, the 9 RPCs in New Hampshire were created as “political subdivisions” in 1969, and operate under RSA 36 (45-53). They are taxpayer funded and thus subject to all NH’s 91-A (Right to Know) laws. You can see an example of one of their taxpayer-funded budgets here.
It would seem however, that their existence is fraught with contradictions. For example, while the state mandates the towns get help from the RPCs to write their master plans, towns are only paid members on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, when RPCs procure money for town projects through federal HUD grants, often there are requirements within those grants that would mandate zoning changes. This would seem to contradict the assertion that RPcs are “advisory only”. To make things worse, now some towns want to remove the right of the voters to approve zoning changes and there has even been a bill submitted to the NH legislature to allow this. HB 1124 permits towns to opt out of official ballot voting requirements for the consideration and adoption of zoning ordinances. The RPCs have used our tax money to hire lobbyists to promote these types of bills so they can push their agenda through even faster.
This succession of videos demonstrates the confusion over Regional Planning Commissions.
While RPCs are NOT NGOs, they are a layer of government over which the voters have little, if any oversight. Their boards are unelected. They interface with your town planning and zoning boards, but, does the voter get to vote on the changes they recommend, especially the ones mandated by these federal HUD/EPA/DOT grants they have procured on the town’s behalf?
RPCs may as well be NGOs since private corporations and their foundations and NGOs are their biggest influence. Private corporations have even provided them with PR firms to convince the voters that the ideas they promote are coming from the community when they are NOT.
This series of videos shows why towns are considering rejecting membership in this layer of unaccountable government.
To demonstrate just how little our legislature and local boards know about RPCs I present to you these videos.
In the first video, the Hampton Budget Committee is trying to figure out just what kind of group are the RPCs. One comes to the wrong conclusion that they are NGOs.
In this video, the Hampton Budget Committee states the requirement that towns take help from the Rockingham Planning Commission to write their master plan. This is correct.
At this meeting of the Hampton Board of Selectmen, Cliff Sinnott from the RPC is defending his existence and trying to prevent them from dropping membership. But one member says he doesn’t know who came up with these projects. Why? Because they are not coming from the community. In fact, Mr. Pierce states voters have turned down one particular project TWO OR THREE TIMES, a project that suddenly seems to pop back up when federal funds are dangled in front of the town. The RPC rep does state correctly that they are NOT a private entity but a layer of government created by the legislature.
In the following video, a citizen is discussing with the Hampton Planning Board the classifying of roofs, driveways, and walkways as “impervious surfaces” for the purpose of TAXATION. The board doesn’t want the voters to know this would restrict property rights, and claims it would be illegal to state that on the ballot, and yet the town can legally print a recommendation near the item that they recommend its passage. Go figure.
In this video the Board of Selectmen speak about the invisible strings that come with federal programs…
In this video, the Hampton Board of Selectmen wonder why they pay dues to the Regional Planning Commission and consider withdrawing. They seem to understand that it is another “central planning” body.
Now the question we have to ask is, do they even know what the Granite State Future program is?
