Hartford chose well
on local option tax

Hartford voters were wise to defeat the 1% local option general sales tax for the following reasons:

1. To the best of my knowledge, Hartford would have been the only town bordering tax-free New Hampshire to impose a local option general sales tax. Woodstock is an affluent tourist town 15 miles from New Hampshire.

2. The purpose of the tax would have been to capture a portion of revenue from cannabis sales in town. Attempting to derive a windfall from the addictive or elective choices of others, some of whom use it medicinally, should be unconscionable.

3. The Vermont Legislature has been entertaining the notion of revamping the state’s general sales tax by reducing it to 3.6%, but removing almost all of the exemptions that currently apply, particularly services and clothing. It would apply to labor costs to repair your car or home, accounting and legal fees and possibly medical and dental care, medicine and groceries. It would reap a giant windfall for Hartford on 1% of the broader base of taxes, but would hit hard those on fixed incomes and in lower income brackets who can least afford those taxes.

4. The proposed sales tax revamp is designed to be “revenue neutral” (for the state) but will disproportionately be a negative cash flow for taxpayers.

5. Because of the very slim margin of defeat, the local option general sales tax may be re-introduced in a repackaged format in hopes that it will pass. Voters would be wise to defeat it again because it could be a Trojan horse that sucks money out of our wallets while putting it into the town’s coffers.

On another subject, is anyone else questioning whether the Lebanon City Council and Hartford Selectboard are appropriate venues to take positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict or the legitimacy of military service and wars? Another reminder that, in the words of Barack Obama, “Elections have consequences,” so we should be careful whom we vote into public office.

William A. Wittik

Hartford

Springfield, NH allows
short-term rentals

A recent article (“Upper Valley voters go different ways on short-term rentals,” March 20) states that, “In Springfield’s case, voters approved a zoning amendment that would ban short-term rentals from its rural residential and forest conservation districts by a vote of 154 to 74.”

Springfield voters did no such thing.

The voters approved a change that clarifies the definition of a short-term rental and adds more specific language to the Zoning Ordinance. Springfield is a Rural Residential District. The ordinance change makes short-term rentals go through the process of special exception and site plan review, just like any other business.

Springfield’s elected representatives spent many hours — and tax dollars in legal fees — analyzing and discussing the issue with the goal of preserving the town’s identity and quality of rural living.

There is enough discontent going around on this subject. Sloppy inaccuracies of this sort are unfair and do great harm.

Leigh L. Callaway

Springfield N.H.

Grateful for wallet’s return

While grocery shopping in West Lebanon recently, I lost my wallet. I frantically retraced my steps, checking with customer service people in stores, but I couldn’t find it. I was quite upset.

The next morning when my husband went to the mailbox to get the mail, he found my wallet totally intact inside the mailbox. Nothing was missing, including credit cards and cash. Some kind person found my address on my driver’s license and then took the time to drive to my home to deliver my wallet. I want to sincerely thank whoever you are! I still find it amazing!

Arlene Andeweg

Hanover