Tweed/Rafter Debate
Insight into the dividing lines in town politics.
Candidates for the one-year Budget Committee seat, Brent Tweed and Hal Rafter, have been having an interesting debate on the Nottingham Democrats Facebook page. As this Facebook page is not widely read, and as this debate is important not only for voters who have yet to firmly decide on whom to vote for, but it also illuminates some of the political divisions in town, I’ve reproduced this debate for the Nottingham Blog.
The debate was prompted by Hal Rafter’s posting of his candidate statement, in which he says:
My opponent, Brent Tweed, is a Free Stater who would probably align with like minded members of the Budget Committee. If they gain control of the Committee, they could force arbitrary cuts or limits to the school or town budgets. It is also likely that the meetings will remain negative and confrontational – which has discouraged several people from running this year.
This prompted Brent Tweed to respond:
Thanks for continuing the personal attacks by using guilt by association. It seems the analogy would be if I said my opponent Hal Rafter is a progressive socialist who is likely to continue with increases to the budget above and beyond the rate of inflation in pursuit of an ever increasing role for the government. I can't really say for sure if that is your position, but I will assume so based on who you associate with. In reality, if I am elected there is unlikely to be any cuts to the budget year over year. My goal is to oppose increases to the budget that are in excess to the rate of inflation. Over the years we have seen our budgets increase above the rate of inflation and this creates a hardship for low income and fixed budget households. My goal is to provide the same service without the ever increasing cost to the taxpayers. Most people will not see their incomes rise at the rate of inflation, and in fact, accounting for inflation most people over the last few decades have seen a decline in their standard of living.
Hal Rafter:
You have been a volunteer for the Free State Project. Volunteering usually means that you agree with an organization's principals and goals. You have not said you disagree with the project’s agenda, only that it is a “personal attack” to point out your association with an explicitly political group. Why don’t you want to be linked to a group you volunteered for?
If I volunteered for socialist groups then you could say something, but you are implying something based on unnamed people who I “associate with”. I doubt you know my associates, but they are across the political spectrum. I have been on boards with very diverse members and, I hope, have always been able to work productively with them. I am active in the Nottingham Democrats, do you consider that a socialist group?
Come to think of it, we have never had any socialists on any of our boards that I know of – would taxes be lower if we had a few socialists serving?
My priority is not larger budgets, I am semi-retired like other people in town and absolutely understand that we do not want taxes to go up. On the other hand, we have obligations as a community to provide police protection, fire protection, highway maintenance, and education for our children.
But if you want to keep increases to the rate of inflation, what specifically would you cut to do that?
Our state government has decided that local services will be funded through property taxes. In recent years our representatives have cut state funding for things like police and fire department pensions, so that we have to pay more through our property taxes. Those are payments that we have to cover because the state requires us to pay for them but it won’t contribute.
However, the state can afford to build a new liquor store at the Epsom circle to sell more alcohol. Not sure what this says about our priorities as a state.
Brent Tweed:
Didn't you support the chemical trespass ordinance? It is interesting the D's mailer criticizes me for opposing the chemical trespass ordinance. They blame me instead of those who supported it for the legal cost to the town. They are the one's who pushed this extremely radical ordinance and a New Hampshire Superior Court judge ruled it illegal and unconstitutional. What is your response for being associated with people who say "Civilization, especially industrial civilization, is fundamentally destructive to life on earth. Our task is to create a life-centered resistance movement that will dismantle industrial civilization by any means necessary. Organized political resistance is the only hope for our planet." See https://deepgreenresistance.org/about-us/ A national group CELDF (an extremely radical environmental group) helped with the chemical trespass ordinance. One of the person's on the board of that organization wrote a book titled the Deep Green Resistance. To see how dangerous and radical the chemical trespass ordinance and CELDF is I suggest you look at these articles:
https://naturalgasnow.org/radical-celdf-deep-green.../
https://deepgreenresistance.org/about-us/
https://naturalgasnow.org/the-marxist-con-artists-at-the.../
Hal Rafter:
The chemical trespass ordinance did not cost the town, or any resident, a penny until you sued to overturn it. You were not criticized for just “opposing” the ordinance, but for filing a lawsuit to have it invalidated. You could have done a petition warrant article to rescind the ordinance and convinced the voters to rescind it – which would have cost nothing. But then again, the voters might have kept the ordinance.
Yes, I was one of the voters who supported it at town meeting, but that does not mean we are “associated” with fringe groups or ideas. The ordinance was an attempt to protect the town from contamination. There was discussion at the meeting that it might not be enforceable, but a majority supported it because the law does change and it, or parts of it, could have been deemed valid by a court.
You say the chemical trespass ordinance is “dangerous”, but can you identify any person or business that was harmed by the ordinance when it was in effect? And what were those harms exactly?
By the way, I had never heard of Deep Green Resistance until your post, but nice try to imply an association between me and a radical group that does not exist.
Brent Tweed:
Any person who takes the time to read the ordinance and to read about CELDF can see how radical it is. The ordinance has wording in it for citizens to enforce it by "direct non-violent action". The CELDF group behind the ordinance has an individual on its board bragging about ecoterrorism. Yet you double down and continue to defend this ordinance. You and the folks who supported this ordinance are responsible for the legal costs to the town.
