The Community Rights Movement to the New Hampshire House: Let the People Decide What’s Best2/8/2018 inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/20896/community-rights-new-hampshire-corporate-power-self-government
BY JOHN COLLINSWhen you combine an economic system that requires constant growth in order to function, with a legal system that mistakes corporations for “people”—you inevitably wind up with a few extremely powerful corporations and a lot of powerless citizens. Furthermore, when that same system regards nature as property, thus allowing those in control to do whatever they see fit with a given area’s natural resources, long-term ecological health takes a backseat to short-term profits. For decades, communities across the country have been learning this lesson the hard way. In recent years, for example, energy development projects in New Hampshire have sparked resident concerns over contamination of local water supplies. In addition, according to the EPA’s latest Toxics Release Inventory Program data, the small state is home to 127 of the 21,600 toxic sites monitored by the agency. Maintaining that a weakening of citizen’s rights at home has left their communities defenseless against ever-worsening corporate abuses, a group of Granite Staters are challenging the legal system that in effect grants corporations a license to pollute by denying local governments the right to control what occurs within their jurisdictions. When citizens determine that the actions of a corporation pose an economic, environmental or public health threat to their community—whether it’s a new pipeline, a factory farm, a facility generating industrial waste, a mining operation etc.—and they try to stop that entity from setting up shop in their community, they’re often surprised to learn that (despite what the Declaration of Independence says about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”) they are powerless to do anything about it. This is by design. Over time, one state legislature after another has passed preemption laws—legal doctrines restricting a city, town, or county’s legal authority to regulate its economy or protect its environment—that prioritize corporate interests over those of local communities. In other words, corporations usually get what they want because the law, as it is written, is on their side, not yours. Instead of fighting each and every corporate assault—on people or on nature—on a case-by-case basis, the community rights movement, a grassroots network of people who’ve had-it-up-to-here with corporate power, is working on the local, state and federal levels to address the problem at its source. The National Community Rights Network (NCRN) and its affiliates in states across the country are attempting to end government-sanctioned corporate exploitation by amending state and federal constitutions in order to “codify a community’s inalienable right to self-governance.” This can be difficult. In many cases, before a proposed constitutional amendment can even get on a state’s ballot, supporters must first convince state legislators to allow it. On Tuesday, February 6, members of the New Hampshire Community Rights Network (NHCRN) met with the state’s House Municipal and County Government Committee in Concord in an attempt to do just that. NHCRN organizers and about 50 of their supporters, including Thomas Linzey, the executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (and a Rural America In These Times contributing writer), gathered to urge the committee to consider Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 19 (CACR19). This is NHCRN’s second attempt to give New Hampshire voters a chance to decide for themselves whether or not to add a community rights amendment to their state’s constitution—an amendment that would allow local municipalities to enact laws to protect their people and environment from corporate harm. The full text of the bill can be found here, but reads in part: Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows: I. That the first part of the constitution be amended by inserting after article 39 the following new article: [Art.] 40. [Right of Local Community Self-Government.] All government of right originates from the people, is founded in their consent, and instituted for the general good; the people have the right and the duty to reform governments when those governments manifestly endanger public liberty; and sustainable environmental and economic development can be achieved only when the people affected by governing decisions are the ones who make them; therefore, the people of New Hampshire have an inherent and inalienable right of local, community self-government in each county, municipality, city, and town to enact local laws that protect health, safety, and welfare by recognizing or establishing rights of natural persons, their local communities, and nature; and by securing those rights using prohibitions and other means deemed necessary by the community, including measures to establish, define, alter, or eliminate competing rights, powers, privileges, immunities, or duties of corporations and other business entities operating, or seeking to operate, in the community. Local laws adopted pursuant to this article shall not weaken existing protections for, or constrict the fundamental rights of, natural persons, or their local communities, or nature, as those protections and rights are secured by local, state, federal, or international law. While about a dozen New Hampshire towns already have ordinances geared toward ensuring the health, safety and welfare of their residents, municipalities cannot technically enact any laws the state doesn’t allow them to. This is because, like all but 11 states in the country, New Hampshire follows the so-called Dillon’s Rule—a doctrine that since 1868 has been a “cornerstone of municipal law” and holds that local governments can only enact laws that are approved by their state Legislature. Twenty-six states, as well as Washington, D.C., offer initiative and/or veto referendum rights for their citizens—the ability to petetion a new statute or constitutional amendment through the collection of a minimum number of registered voter signatures—New Hampshire is not one of them. (Infographic: ballotpedia.org) Urging Granite State residents to get behind their amendment, NHCRN organizers wrote the following in a letter-to-the-editor of Seacoastonline, an online news agency based in Portsmouth:Such recognition has been a long time coming to strengthen and restore “We the People’s” right to self-determine the future of the communities we live in. This right has been all but suffocated by corrupt corporate privilege that has been woven into law and upheld by judicial precedents. Together with state preemption, this weakening of citizen rights at home has left us with no defense when corporate projects come to develop or to extract resources in our towns—much less when these projects contaminate where we work and live, often with toxic waste. We’ve seen this happen all across our state. We should be able to have a recognized right to local decision-making authority to determine whether or not we want these projects in our communities. By empowering people with authority to use this self-determining voice, CACR19 would reinforce the viability of our civil rights by supporting our democratic right to cultivate communities founded in peace and civility in which no person or entity has free pass to violate the health, safety, or well-being of another person or of nature, and certainly not for profit. Each day that our government denies us full participation in determining this cultivation, we are discriminated against—blocked from accessing and engaging in our rightful democratic process to protect our basic and inalienable rights that are not limited to but which include our right to clean air, water, and healthy ecosystems. These inalienable rights were the ideals that birthed this nation’s experiment in democracy. And what is democracy if it is not the civic employment of people’s inalienable right to have democratic authority over what happens in their communities? When we cannot protect ourselves through the self-government so integral to the principles of our Revolutionary ancestors, then we are not living in a democracy. We must not let this right to self-government go un-championed by a disengaged sense of civic duty, nor can we afford to lose it amidst the animosity found in our divided political aisles. Now is the time to unite both community and bi-partisanship solidarity and action to recognize our right to self-government. What the Revolutionaries of this country fought for was not something they could buy. It was the right to pursue a self-determined life of honesty and goodness. For our legislators to deny us an enlightened path to access this self-determination is for them to admit doubt in their constituents’ ability to reason over and to trust in the goodness that is in ourselves and in the ecosystems around us. CACR19 will secure our right to protect this goodness for a new future honoring people’s and nature’s natural right to sustainability. Before the bill can go anywhere, the House Municipal and County Government Committee must vote OTP (“Ought to Pass”), at which point the amendment could continue to the House and Senate. If approved, only then would it be placed on the ballot for voters to decide. CELDF’s Thomas Linzey tells Rural America In These Times the public turnout on February 6 was good despite the fact the flu was “running rampant up there.” “We have nine co-sponsors who are committed, so we’re in a better place than last year at least,” he says. The next subcommittee hearing is scheduled for February 13. Below is an interview in which Tom Groover, vice-president of the National Community Rights Network’s (NCRN) board of directors, speaks with CELDF organizers Michelle Sanborn, Monica Christofill and NHCRN member, Douglas Darrell, about their effort and why they feel it is more important than ever that they succeed in putting the measure before New Hampshire voters. For more information about the NHCRN or the proposed constitutional amendment, contact info@nhcommunityrights.org or visit www.nhcommunityrights.org.
0 Comments
nhpr.org/post/local-governance-advocates-try-again-amend-state-constitution#stream/0
Advocates for more local control in New Hampshire are trying again to amend the state constitution, this time to let municipalities pass laws protecting people's health and the environment. A dozen New Hampshire towns already have ordinances geared toward ensuring locals’ health, safety and welfare, sparked by big energy developments or water quality concerns. But Granite State municipalities technically can’t enact any laws the state doesn’t allow them to. So supporters say those ordinances wouldn't hold up in court – which is why they need a constitutional amendment. They tried to pass the so-called Community Rights Amendment two years ago, but failed amid concerns it would give municipalities too much power and undermine state government. Like most states, New Hampshire follows what’s called Dillon’s Rule, where municipalities derive all their governing abilities from the state Legislature. A minority of states has varying degrees of the opposite – home rule, where towns and cities can govern freely as long as they follow state and federal law. Lobbyists for the Community Rights Amendment told the House local governance committee Tuesday the proposal only creates a narrow degree of home rule in New Hampshire. They were joined by dozens of residents and families who support the bill. Rep. Wayne Burton, a Democrat and co-sponsor, says the amendment would give citizens recourse for when they don't feel the state has their best interests at heart – such as when it permits an unwelcome local land use. "When the character of the town is severely threatened, the people in local level ought to have an ability to pass a law or regulation under this,” Burton says. “That's what this is for." The amendment is scheduled for several work sessions before it can go to the House floor. (Read the full text of the bill here.) CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that about 10 states follow Dillon's Rule. In fact, about 40 do. nhpr.org/post/plymouth-latest-try-blocking-big-energy-projects-local-ordinance
By ANNIE ROPEIK • 3 MINUTES AGO The town of Plymouth, N.H. New Hampshire has put the brakes on the Northern Pass energy project for now, but some towns are still prepared to block it with local laws asserting their view on big utility development. Plymouth is the latest municipality to approve an ordinance saying certain energy projects, while allowed under state law, are harmful to local health and environment. When such laws are enforced, developers either have to go elsewhere, or sue to build in town. Eversource didn’t respond to a request for comment on how they’ll handle the handful of community rights ordinances along Northern Pass’s route if the project wins its forthcoming appeal to the state Site Evaluation Committee. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund has been helping write these ordinances in New Hampshire since 2006. Organizer Michelle Sanborn says they've been sparked by Northern Pass, large wind farms and other concerns. "It's basically withdrawing their consent to be governed in the manner that the state is dictating that they be governed,” she says of Plymouth’s ordinance. Sanborn's group is also lobbying for a state constitutional amendment to affirm towns' right to pass these ordinances. That proposal gets a hearing in the state House of Representatives’ Municipal and County Government Committee, Tuesday at 2 p.m. www.unionleader.com/energy/Plymouth-residents-take-aim-at-Northern-Pass-with-new-ordinance-01312018&source=RSS
PLYMOUTH — Residents have adopted an ordinance they believe will give them the authority to ban Northern Pass from building within town borders. During a special town meeting on Thursday, residents voted by secret ballot 132 to 19 to adopt a Community Rights-Based Ordinance designed to strip legal power from corporate entities that seek to force unwanted activities on a town. Richard Hage of Concerned Citizens of Plymouth, who helped spearhead the development of the ordinance, urged its adoption, telling townspeople to “invoke restorative justice to broken law.” “It’s our next best shot at banning Northern Pass,” he said. The $1.6 billion project to bring hydroelectric power from Quebec into New England has a 192-mile route through more than 30 communities; 60 miles of the transmission lines would be buried. Northern Pass work along Plymouth’s Main Street could last over two construction seasons; dozens of businesses have expressed fears about financial losses during the construction. The Site Evaluation Committee is currently considering whether to approve the project. Henry Ahern, who raises red deer at his local farm, expressed his concern that if the Rights-Based Ordinance passed he would be forbidden to use bio-solids as fertilizer on his fields or precluded from planting certain seeds. He proposed an amendment sun-setting the ordinance after eight years. Chris Wood, who is also involved in agriculture, shared Ahern’s concerns, but said he would rather see the amendment exclude farmers than include a sunset provision. Hage told voters the ordinance’s language on prohibitions “makes it clear we are trying to protect farmers, not attack them.” The amendment was defeated. Resident Frank Miller read from a copy of the New Hampshire Constitution, which he noted predates its federal counterpart. He said the ordinance mimics the document and its assertion that all men are free, sovereign and independent. “It’s a function of self-determination, of how we are going to be,” he said. David Moorhead said he opposes Northern Pass. He said plans to bury a stretch of the Northern Pass transmission line along Main Street would be the death knell for some businesses. But he also expressed concern that the ordinance would make the town subject to a lawsuit. State Rep. Steve Rand, D-Plymouth, said he is one of six sponsors of a constitutional amendment that if passed “would not only make these types of ordinances OK, but desirable.” If adopted, Rand said, the town would likely be sued. But he said a constitutional amendment “would provide an umbrella, making it immune from legal challenge.” The ordinance became effective immediately and as written will apply to any and all actions that would violate it, “regardless of the date of any applicable local, state, or federal permit.” www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/111237-pamela-martin-1-30-383-community-rights-amendment-is-necessary-to-stop-evil-corporations-that-want-to-defile-our-environment
January 31, 2018To The Daily Sun, Women have finally decided “time’s up” when it comes to sexual harassment and assault. An old commercial used to tell us “Membership has its privileges” and the elite moneyed membership has been using its privileges way too long in disgusting and heartbreaking ways. Now it’s time for all people to stand up to corporations which wish to assault and defile the environment for their own personal benefit that their time is up, too. Whether it’s the EPA announcing it will suspend environmental protections for an area of Alaska that is home to the world's most valuable wild salmon fishery. the doing away with a decades-old clean air policy that scientists say will result in more pollution and lung disease, or any of the other toxic attacks on our environment, people need to get angry and take action to stop a system that allows these assaults. In New Hampshire people are fighting one of their own corporate abusers, Northern Pass. Gov. Sununu is enormously pleased that the Northern Pass Transmission plan was selected as the only project in the Massachusetts Clean Energy Requests for Proposal. Northern Pass was selected over 45 other projects that were much less destructive to the environment and private property, less expensive and engendered none of the seven-year controversy that is attached to the Northern Pass project. There’s an old saying, “The only way for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.” Evil corporations are all around us and the only way to defeat them to is do something. The N.H. Community Rights Amendment, CACR19 (Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution), will be considered at a public hearing by the House Municipal & County Government Committee in Concord on Tuesday, Feb. 6, at 2 p.m. in Room 301 in the Legislative Office Building. This bill would give power to communities to protect themselves from harmful corporate activities that would destroy the natural world for their profit. If you can’t attend this hearing, please writehousemunicipalandcountygovt@leg.state.nh.us and ask the members to support this bill. People can’t keep fighting one bad project after another. We have to change the system that allows these corporations more authority to harm people and the natural environment than people have to protect themselves and the ecosystem. This bill would make that happen. Pamela Martin Plymouth www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/110998-tejasinha-sivalingam-1-21-517-let-s-not-wait-for-the-legislature-to-us-permission-to-self-govern
To The Daily Sun, The Ashland deliberative session on Feb. 3 will be of historic significance due to its consideration of a petitioned warrant article for a Community Rights Based Ordinance (CRBO). Ashland’s deliberation on this Community Rights Based Ordinance is part of a larger Civil Rights movement to acknowledge and provide for the right to local community self-government. In brief, a community affected by governing decisions has the right to make those decisions. The Municipal and County Government Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives is discussing Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 19 (CACR 19), which would provide for local community self-government. However, since rights are natural, it might be more suitable to say that adoption of CACR 19 would codify this right. Additionally, there have been 11 towns which have adopted similar Community Rights Based Ordinances. The immediate political significance of this proposed Community Rights Based Ordinance is that it will be the first time the people of Ashland will be implicitly asked: Do the people of Ashland want Northern Pass?, and it may be the last opportunity for the people of Ashland to directly say ‘NO!’. However, the greater significance is that the people of Ashland will be asked: "Do you believe local community self-government is your right?" Ashland’s response to this question will likely have a meaningful impact on the legislative discussion, which could further or delay this significant change in the way we govern. As the Ashland deliberative session approaches, it is noteworthy that there will be efforts to stop the Community Rights Based Ordinance from being considered as it was intended, as legally binding and enforceable. These efforts will likely call upon legal advice to declare the CRBO as "advisory only," in effect pre-empting the community’s inalienable right to peacefully “reform the old” government (NH Constitution, Article 10) through a legally binding and enforceable CRBO. Ultimately, efforts to deem this ordinance "advisory only" at the deliberative session will be motivated by a fear and anticipation that the Community Rights Based Ordinance will pass if voted on by the people as petitioned. This fear is based on the concern of an anticipated unfavorable judicial decision declaring the CRBO illegal and unenforceable, however, I trust that an “...impartial interpretation of the laws...” (NH Constitution, Article 35) will ultimately uphold the right to local community self-governance. Those who attempt to make the Community Rights Based Ordinance "advisory only" will argue that it is much more proper to give an advisory vote, and then to wait for the Legislature to act on CACR-19. However, every inalienable right gives an inalienable power to act. For example, you have the inalienable right to speak, and therefore the inalienable power to speak; no one gives you the power to speak, it is natural. Likewise, the community has the inalienable right to self-government, and therefore has the inalienable power to affirm this right of self-governance by the self-governing act of adopting a Community Rights Based Ordinance. To wait for the Legislature to give us the permission to self-govern would be antithetical to the assertion that the right to do so is inalienable. Tejasinha Sivalingam Ashland www.unionleader.com/Northern-Pass-a-likely-target-of-ordinances
By BEA LEWIS Sunday News Correspondent January 27. 2018 9:41PM As now planned, a portion of the Northern Pass transmission lines would be buried along Plymouth's Main Street. Plymouth voters will decide at a special town meeting Wednesday whether to adopt a Rights-Based Ordinance designed to challenge the legal power of corporations, which can now proceed with projects despite local opposition. (BEA LEWIS/Sunday News Correspondent) PLYMOUTH - The push is on to adopt Rights-Based Ordinances in two Grafton County towns with Northern Pass the probable target. Plymouth voters will attend a special town meeting Wednesday to decide whether to adopt a Rights-Based Ordinance (RBO) designed to challenge the legal power of corporations. In neighboring Ashland, residents will have the chance to discuss an RBO at the deliberative session of their SB2 town meeting Feb. 3, and then vote March 13. "The question is who has the right to decide what happens in our town," said Plymouth resident Richard Hage. As it now stands, Hage said, corporations are given "personhood rights" under state and federal laws and can override a community's attempt to protect itself from corporate projects within its boundaries. According to Hage, an RBO confronts this structure of corporate legal privilege by asserting the community's right of local self-governance. "We're trying to return those rights to the folks in the local community, who are closest to it. The RBO movement is trying to put self-regulation back where it belongs," he said. While conceding that Plymouth has been "quite animated" in its opposition to Northern Pass - the proposed 192-mile transmission line project that will carry hydropower from Canada - Hage said adoption of an RBO has the broader effect of maintaining local decision-making on issues of health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. "Northern Pass is certainly on people's minds, and this is one effort that would help prevent our Main Street from being dug up," said Hage. As now planned, a portion of the Northern Pass transmission lines would be buried down Plymouth's Main Street, a process that could take as long as six months. When the town updated its own utilities, two businesses couldn't survive the downturn in traffic and folded, Hage said. Northern Pass spokesman Martin Murray said an application and permitting process is already in place for such projects and that Northern Pass is still involved in that process at this time. The company is willing to work with any communities to help lessen the impact construction will have on traffic and related issues and already has signed memorandums of understandings with some municipalities, Murray said. Michelle Sanborn of Alexandria is the state coordinator for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has partnered with residents and municipal leaders in several communities to draft RBOs. She said 11 communities in the state have already adopted them. In 2006, Barnstead became the first municipality in the nation to adopt an ordinance that prohibited water extractions by asserting the rights of residents over the decision-making process. According to Sanborn, Barnstead's vote to adopt an RBO was a proactive measure spurred after the state issued a 10-year large groundwater extraction permit to USA Springs Inc. in Nottingham, and the municipality had spent about a quarter of a million in tax dollars in an effort to keep the water bottling company out. The towns of Barrington and Nottingham followed suit. Alexandria, Atkinson, Barrington, Danbury, Easton, Grafton and Sugar Hill also have adopted RBOs. In 2012, Plymouth adopted an RBO but it was later declared to be advisory only as a result of a procedural error - just a summary had been printed in the warrant instead of the entire ordinance. When residents gather at the Plymouth High School Auditorium at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday they'll find printed copies of all nine pages. However, none of the RBOs now in place have faced a court challenge. North Country lawyer Alan Baker, who ardently opposes Northern Pass, said he has no ax to grind with the grass-roots, self-rule motives of RBO supporters, but believes their efforts are better served by bringing RBO sentiments directly to the attention of state legislators who can work to modify existing state law or propose a Constitutional amendment, if they concur. "I just think their methods of trying to effect global change at the municipal level by proposing local ordinances that conflict with state law won't work in practice," he said. As a general rule, Baker said, federal and state law take precedence over municipal ordinances and regulations when they are in conflict. "My 40 years of legal experience tells me that conflicts between state law and local municipal regulation is not a good thing. It often leads to wasteful disputes, litigation and, God forbid, staggering attorneys' fees for both the winners and losers alike. Often both sides lose in monetary terms." Adopting an RBO does not mandate that a town must enforce it, Sanborn said, and communities that have them on the books can still benefit if a corporate entity that might be considering a project in a community perceives an RBO as an obstacle, and decides to move on. Rep. Vince Migliore, R-Bridgewater, sent a letter to community leaders in Alexandria, Ashland, Bridgewater, Bristol and Grafton (the five towns in Grafton District 9), urging them to hold community educational forums on RBOs. A member of the House Municipal and County Government Committee, Migliore will be hearing a bill, CACR 19, that proposes to amend the state Constitution to allow the enactment of local laws to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents. He said he wants to hear the views of constituents. Speaking during a meeting of the Ashland Board of Selectmen last month, Migliore said amending the Constitution was needed to give RBOs teeth. "An RBO may or may not give you the protection that you expect. It depends on how it is worded and needs to be tailored for each community," he said. Tejasinha Sivalingam of Ashland, who helped get the issue on the warrant by petition, said for him, adoption of an RBO is a peaceable method of reforming the government made necessary as all means of redress have become ineffectual. "I don't want my children growing up in a community that is jeopardizing healthy soil and water," he said. Adopting an RBO will give residents the right to decide whether a project has reached a threshold that impacts the health, safety, welfare and environment of the community. That question, he said, needs to be answered by local people. The House Municipal and County Government Committee will hold a public hearing on CACR 19 at 2 p.m. Feb. 6 in Room 301 of the Legislative Office Building. www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/110926-tejasinha-sivalingram-1-17-592-every-ashland-resident-should-read-proposed-crbo-before-feb-3
To The Daily Sun, I would like to offer my comments on the discussion that took place at the Ashland Board of Selectmen meeting on Tuesday, Jan.16, regarding a petitioned warrant article for a Community Rights Based Ordinance (CRBO). To start, I would like to say that I agree, every Ashland resident should read the CRBO in its entirety prior to the Ashland deliberative session on Saturday, Feb. 3. A full copy of the Community Rights Based Ordinance (CRBO) can be accessed online at: https://goo.gl/fpJnmv. Further, residents should be able to get a full copy of the CRBO from the Ashland Town Office. Ashland residents are also welcome to call me at 603-960-4127 for the purpose of respectfully requesting a printed copy of the CRBO, and to the best of my ability I will provide one printed copy of the CRBO. Additionally, a summary of the CRBO can be accessed online at:https://goo.gl/ZhPFb5. Now, let's deal with a very concerning element of the dialogue that took place at this meeting. There was the use of imagery and ideas which I felt were alluding to socially and physically violent outcomes, and this made me uncomfortable. I am concerned about the use of the words "bloody," "weapon," the idea of "neighbor against neighbor," and reference to "seceding from the Union," obviously reminiscent of the Civil War. Were these meant to insinuate that the Community Rights Based Ordinance might be used for violent purposes? If so, they demonstrate misunderstanding. I support the adoption of the CRBO, and as a husband, father and a deeply religious man, I will assure you that I am firmly committed to nonviolence and peace. I believe any idea that the CRBO would incite violence is uninformed, at best. Yes, the CRBO mentions Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution, i.e. Right of Revolution, but I interpret the words “...the people may, and of right ought to reform the old...” as a Right of Evolution, or a peaceful revolution of mind! Page six and seven of the CRBO even gives the definition of direct action as the following “...shall mean any non-violent activities or actions...”. There were so many rebuttals to the proposed Community Rights Based Ordinance that demonstrated firm opposition; it will be impossible for me to address them all in the remainder of this letter. However, my wife and I both submitted a citizen comment form to the Board of Selectmen to be read as public comments at the Jan. 16 meeting; which may have, if actually given due consideration, given a more well rounded picture of the CRBO. I will offer a few points here. First, there will be an informational, educational, and discussion session for Ashland residents on the CRBO, held on Sunday, Jan. 28, at 2 p.m. at the Common Man Restaurant in Ashland. Please bring your concerns, and questions about the CRBO. Second, yes, the CRBO is, in my understanding, a claim that there is a harmful discrepancy between our inherent constitutional rights and our government's current statutory mandates and judicial interpretations. However, this happens from time to time. We, as a people, broaden our sense of the rights provided for us in our Constitution, which protect our human dignity and, as our understanding of our rights broaden, they come into contrast with the current legal limits. Every civil rights movement has had both people in the legislature working for change, as well as local people pushing the outer limits of the status quo. This is not irrational; this is the people being the sovereign power of this country. Tejasinha Sivalingam Ashland www.caledonianrecord.com/opinion/letters/rights-based-ordinance---alexis-eynon/article_a71e005c-e561-59df-b9b6-78e053ca73bc.html
To the Editor: I am writing this letter in support of the Rights Based Ordinance (RBO) that the town of Plymouth is bringing forward in their special town meeting on January 31. A community group called Concerned Citizens of Plymouth has partnered with the Plymouth Board of Selectmen to put the ordinance on a warrant and hold a special town meeting. The aim of the ordinance is to stop the Northern Pass project from entering the town. One might ask, “Why is this necessary? Why do these townspeople feel they must pursue this route of action?”. The simple answer is that because no matter what else we as citizens try to do- attend SEC and EIS hearings, write to our legislators, introduce bills at the state level, appeal to federal senators and legislators- the simple fact remains that corporations just have more power in our towns than we do. That is the truth. State and federal law can preempt any course of action that we take right now. As citizens, there is no recourse to oppose these giant corporate projects from forcing themselves into our towns- and the corporations know it. So then, what are we to do? Plymouth and 11 other towns in New Hampshire have sought the help and guidance of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) through their New Hampshire organizer, Michelle Sanborn. CELDF and Ms. Sanborn clearly point out that we have three choices: 1) Do nothing, and get the project; 2) Oppose the project through the regulatory structure and get the project anyway; 3) Assert local governing rights and ban the project- do not compromise by voluntarily surrendering our local authority and force the powers that be to strip these rights from us publicly. This is where the RBO comes in. It is our right to defend the health, safety, and welfare of our towns as citizens of the town. Please attend the information session on the RBO on Tuesday, January 23 at 6pm in the Board Room of the Plymouth Town Hall and get informed! www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/op-ed/corporate-rights-shouldn-t-override-those-of-individuals/article_16dc4cdf-5ede-506a-95e1-fc6cc15c8878.html
There are two main reasons for this: 1) State and federal government agencies issue operating permits that legalize harmful corporate projects and activities that would otherwise be illegal; and 2) Corporations routinely use their “rights of personhood” to prevent communities from using local lawmaking to stop these projects and activities that are not in the best interest of the community. Corporate activities such as the Northern Pass transmission line, fracked-gas pipelines and infrastructure, and large groundwater withdrawals are just a few examples of harmful projects that are decided without the involvement of local governing authority. State and federal agencies such as the N.H. Site Evaluation Committee and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are appointed, not elected, for the sole purpose of issuing operating permits to industry, even if this means using pre-emption to override health-protecting, safety-protecting and rights-protecting local laws. Pre-emption dictates that higher government trumps lower government. When pre-emption is used to force harmful activities upon local communities, residents are denied their unalienable right to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people and natural environments where they live. The N.H. Community Rights Amendment would empower people and their local governments with the authority to enact local laws that are free from pre-emption and corporations’ claimed “rights” when these local laws protect the rights of people, communities and natural environments to defend their health, safety and welfare. This amendment would add Article 40, the Right of Local Community Self-Government, to the N.H. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The N.H. Community Rights Amendment has three key components: Right to Local Self-Government: specifically recognizing the right of people in communities across the state to local community self-government Rights of People, Communities, and Natural Environments: people, communities and natural environments have rights to health, safety and well-being, and the authority to prohibit business activities that violate those rights Expanding and Protecting Fundamental Rights: people can use their local lawmaking power to enact local laws that protect and expand fundamental rights – any efforts to restrict or weaken fundamental rights under this Amendment are prohibited Rep. Ellen Read, D-Newmarket, has agreed to sponsor CACR 19, the N.H. Community Rights Amendment, with bipartisan House support from cosponsors Suzanne Smith, Stephen Darrow, Wayne Burton, Jan Schmidt, Vincent Migliore, Steve Rand, Charlotte DiLorenzo and Raymond Howard. The NH Community Rights Amendment is headed soon to a public House Municipal and County Government Committee hearing, where the committee’s legislators will recommend either that the amendment be moved one step closer to a vote by the people of New Hampshire or that we be denied our right to vote on the matter entirely. Please contact the House Municipal and County Government Committee members to encourage them to protect the people and places of the Granite State from corporate overreach by recommending the amendment be moved to the November ballot for the people to decide. The bottom line is this — if the N.H. House and Senate do not approve CACR 19, proposed by “we the people,” to expand and protect rights of people and their communities, then we will have been denied the legitimate democratic process of having even the opportunity to vote on a matter that directly affects and concerns our health, safety and welfare. Please address any questions to N.H. Community Rights Network: www.nhcommunityrights.org Michelle Sanborn of Alexandria is president of the N.H. Community Rights Network. Posted Dec 21, 2017 at 8:02 AMUpdated Dec 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM
www.fosters.com/news/20171221/to-editor-we-people-shall-rule To the Editor: Throughout recorded human history there has been an ongoing struggle between the rulers and the ruled. The rulers have been the wealthy, powerful elite, and the ruled have been the working classes and the poor. The American Revolution was a time when the ruled rose up to take control of their destiny from the King of England and his wealthy patrons. It is time for We the People to rise again! Today’s rulers are the huge Wall Street banks, the energy monopolies, health care profiteers, the military-industrial complex, and their corporate media. They control our government through “the best politicians money can buy” who are funded by legal bribes from political action committees (PACs) and wealthy donors, The voters get to choose the lesser of evils and the rich ruling elite win either way as they control both Parties! The Silent Majority gives it’s consent to the rule of this corrupt status quo by remaining meek, disorganized, uninformed and uninvolved. The NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) is working to revitalize our democracy by empowering every city and town with the right of local control. The Community Rights Amendment (CACR 19) has been introduced by Rep. Ellen Read (Newmarket) and eight other sponsors to give people the right to stop corporate exploitation that harms our communities. Whether it be Northern Pass, dredging Great Bay, gas pipelines or toxic sludge dumping, the local voters should have, and will have, the right to pass ordinances that protect the health, safety, and welfare of people and nature. By passing CACR 19 We the People shall rule our towns once again, if enough people take action. Contact the NHCRN at info@nhcommunityrights.org and get involved, our democracy needs you! Peter A. White, Board Member, NH Community Rights Network, Nottingham The proposed NH Community Rights Amendment, CACR19, would nullify preemption when it is used to override local protection of the health, safety and welfare of both human and natural communities. If you support local law-making authority to protect people and natural environments, please submit a written testimony encouraging the NH House Municipal & County Government (M&CG) committee to vote in favor of CACR19 when it comes before their committee - anytime after Jan. 3rd. NHCRN would love to receive a copy of your testimony - just copy info@nhcommunityrights.org on your email when you submit to the committee. Here is a link to the contact info for the M&CG committee. mailchi.mp/grassrootschange/preemption-watch-newsletter-december-20-2017?e=a6217bdef4 GRAFTON COUNTY TOWNS ARE RALLYING TOWARD COMMUNITY RIGHTS-BASED ORDINANCES; MEETINGS DEC. 16 AND 2012/17/2017 December 16, 2017
www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/110150-michelle-sanborn-12-14-413-grafton-county-towns-are-rallying-toward-community-rights-based-ordinances To The Daily Sun, Rep. Vincent Migliore, from Grafton District 9, recently hand-delivered letters to the selectmen in his towns, encouraging them to act quickly to explore Rights-Based Ordinances (RBO) which assert local authority to defend against projects that violate the inherent and inalienable right of residents to protect the health, safety and welfare of their community. Time is extremely short for towns affected by Northern Pass to get organized and place an RBO on the town warrant, but where there is a will, there is a way! When it comes to your quality of life and that of your community, it’s never too late to make the effort to enact an RBO. In fact, that is exactly what Plymouth residents are doing. Joining them in educating themselves about community rights are Ashland, Bridgewater and Bristol. The Selectboard of Ashland voted unanimously to have an RBO drafted for their consideration at Town Meeting and the Selectboards of Bridgewater and Bristol agreed to host educational workshops for their community residents. The Ashland Community Rights Workshop — Why an RBO? Is scheduled for Saturday, Dec. 16, at 1 p.m. at the Common Man in Ashland. Bridgewater is holding their workshop on Wednesday, Dec. 20 at 6 p.m. at the Bridgewater Town Hall, and Bristol is holding their Protect People & Places workshop on Saturday, Jan. 6 at 1 p.m. at the Bristol Town Offices (with a possible alternate location of the Old Town Hall if we exceed capacity at the town offices). You can find details of these events on the N.H. Community Rights Network (NHCRN) Facebook page. This grassroots Community Rights Movement has inspired an effort to unite state legislators across-the-aisle to recognize community rights within our state constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rep. Migliore is one of the bi-partisan co-sponsors of the resulting N.H. Community Rights Amendment, CACR-19. His endorsement of this amendment directly supports the towns he is encouraging to explore RBOs, and those dozen that have already done so across the Granite State. We have the right and a duty to protect the future of our children, our communities, and our natural environments. I am ready and willing to assist any community interested in recognizing, securing, and protecting their right to determine the kinds of futures they envision. Contact me via email at michelle@celdf.org, or by phone at 603-524-2468. Learn more about the N.H. Community Rights Amendment by visiting www.nhcommunityrights.org. The time is now, and the who is US! Michelle Sanborn N.H. Community Organizer for CELDF and volunteer Coordinator for NHCRN Alexandria www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx/local-news/109956-ashland-looking-at-ordinance-to-stop-northern-pass
By THOMAS P. CALDWELL, LACONIA DAILY SUN ASHLAND — With some questions remaining as to the legitimacy of such actions, the Ashland Board of Selectmen has voted to pursue a rights-based ordinance, or RBO, in an effort to stop Eversource from bringing its Northern Pass hydroelectric transmission lines through the town. Selectman Tejasinha Sivalingam made the motion during this week’s selectmen’s meeting, saying it is a good step to take for addressing both current issues and future ones. “It empowers the community, protects the health of individuals, and advocates for a greater sense of local, democratic control,” he said. Chairman Fran Newton acknowledged that Ashland voters have twice said they did not want Northern Pass in Ashland, but she noted that the town has filed as intervenors before the state Site Evaluation Committee, which has the authority to rule on the plan to bring direct-current transmission lines through the state. “I haven’t seen the specific wording of the rights-based ordinance,” Newton said. “When we get it, we can certainly discuss it.” Sivalingam said, with the possibility that the SEC will rule in favor of Northern Pass in February, it is important to get the ordinance in place. Michelle Sanborn of Alexandria, representing the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, has offered to help the town draft an ordinance that reflects Ashland’s specific needs and concerns. “There are several steps, and we’re coming to this late in the game,” Sivalingam said. “Tonight, we really have to consider the largest steps possible.” The discussion came at the request of Grafton County District 9 Rep. Vincent Paul Migliore of Bridgewater, who is urging all of the towns he represents to hold RBO workshops so residents and town officials are familiar with the option. “I am not asking anyone to adopt an RBO,” he said. Migliore has co-sponsored legislation seeking a community rights constitutional amendment, CACR19. Currently, rights-based ordinances have no legal standing, and an amendment would embed those rights in the New Hampshire Constitution. To make the case for that bill, Migliore said, it would be helpful to be able to say that his constituent towns had adopted rights-based ordinances. His own town, Bridgewater, has agreed to hold a workshop, but did not yet set a date. Ashland Selectman Harold Lamos said they owe it to the town to move forward with such an ordinance. He said he owns land in Danbury and was seeing his property values declining in the face of a proposal from Iberdrola to build wind towers. “Days after they passed an RBO, Iberdrola withdrew, and now property values have gone back up,” he said. Sanborn told the selectmen that 11 communities in New Hampshire have adopted rights-based ordinances, and no one has challenged them. Addressing worries about the potential legal costs, Sanborn said the only potential cost is if an entity views the ordinance as an obstacle and challenges it. The community then has the option of not enforcing the ordinance if it wants to avoid litigation. “We can draft into the ordinance the potential to challenge it legally,” she said. “Then the RBO takes the conversation out of zoning and land use and into a less expensive argument.” Sivalingam said there are members of the community interested in supporting a rights-based ordinance and his motion to seek the free legal help from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund also included working with citizens. The motion passed unanimously, after which the selectmen also passed a motion to hold an RBO workshop on Saturday, Dec. 16, at 1 p.m., at a location to be determined. www.fosters.com/news/20171201/to-editor-recognizing-right-of-self-determination
Posted Dec 1, 2017 at 2:41 PMUpdated Dec 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM To the Editor: The proposed New Hampshire Community Rights state constitutional amendment, CACR19, has faced criticisms that community rights don’t exist and that upholding these rights blindly blocks development. I respectfully refute these assertions. The community’s right to local self-determination has existed prior to, throughout, and since our nation’s founding. Recognizing this right within our NH Constitution is necessary because, in New Hampshire, state preemption and Dillon’s Rule determine what happens in our communities. If a project approved by the regulatory system and validated by state law threatens the health, safety, and welfare of a NH town, it creates a sacrifice zone of residents and ecosystems whose pleas against the project hold no effective weight. Therein, Article 1 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares that government of right originates from the people and is founded in consent. Article 2 declares that we have natural, essential, and inherent rights. Article 10 declares that we have a right and duty to reform the old or establish new government: “The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” Therefore, resisting projects that would harm a community is not ‘tyranny of the majority’ but lawful protection of inherent and inalienable rights affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and in our State Constitution. Supporters of these rights seek both robust economies and thriving, uncontaminated ecosystems. Crossing demographics of age and politics, they challenge and encourage industry to innovate projects that balance profit with protection of people and nature. To quote Institute of EoLonomics founder Dennis Weaver, “We don’t have to sacrifice a strong economy for a healthy environment.” To learn more about the NH Community Rights Network, visit www.nhcommunityrights.org. To learn more about the NH Community Rights Amendment, contact info@nhcommunityrights.org. Monica Christofili, Newmarket "I recently helped the Colorado River sue the State of Colorado in a first-in-the-nation lawsuit — Colorado River v. Colorado — requesting that the United States District Court in Denver recognize the river’s rights of nature. These rights include the rights to exist, flourish, regenerate, and naturally evolve. To enforce these rights, the Colorado River also requests that the court grant the river “personhood” and standing to sue in American courts."
nationalcommunityrightsnetwork.org/2017/11/20/colorado-river-v-colorado-will-falk/ http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20171115/amendment-would-recognize-right-to-self-government
To the Editor: We are writing in support of the recently proposed State Constitutional amendment CACR19. This amendment would secure N.H. citizens’ right to self-government, thereby guaranteeing local communities the authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of individuals, communities, and ecosystems. While this right and authority is already supported in Articles 1, 2, 8, and 10 of our N.H. State Constitution’s Bill of Rights, it is not yet specifically recognized. Such recognition has been a long time coming to strengthen and restore “We the People’s” right to self-determine the future of the communities we live in. This right has been all but suffocated by corrupt corporate privilege that has been woven into law and upheld by judicial precedents. Together with state preemption, this weakening of citizen rights at home has left us with no defense when corporate projects come to develop or to extract resources in our towns--much less when these projects contaminate where we work and live, often with toxic waste. We’ve seen this happen all across our state. We should be able to have a recognized right to local decision-making authority to determine whether or not we want these projects in our communities. By empowering people with authority to use this self-determining voice, CACR19 would reinforce the viability of our civil rights by supporting our democratic right to cultivate communities founded in peace and civility in which no person or entity has free pass to violate the health, safety, or well-being of another person or of nature, and certainly not for profit. Each day that our government denies us full participation in determining this cultivation, we are discriminated against--blocked from accessing and engaging in our rightful democratic process to protect our basic and inalienable rights that are not limited to but which include our right to clean air, water, and healthy ecosystems. These inalienable rights were the ideals that birthed this nation’s experiment in democracy. And what is democracy if it is not the civic employment of people’s inalienable right to have democratic authority over what happens in their communities? When we cannot protect ourselves through the self-government so integral to the principles of our Revolutionary ancestors, then we are not living in a democracy. We must not let this right to self-government go un-championed by a disengaged sense of civic duty, nor can we afford to lose it amidst the animosity found in our divided political aisles. Now is the time to unite both community and bi-partisanship solidarity and action to recognize our right to self-government. Sharing these sentiments is Ellen Read, NH Representative of Rockingham District 17 and the proposer of CACR19: “I truly hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Community Rights Amendment because it means doing exactly what we came to Concord to do--protect the people and ecosystems of NH. This Amendment places the power back into the hands of the governed, the very thing our Revolutionary ancestors fought for.” What the Revolutionaries of this country fought for was not something they could buy. It was the right to pursue a self-determined life of honesty and goodness. For our legislators to deny us an enlightened path to access this self-determination is for them to admit doubt in their constituents’ ability to reason over and to trust in the goodness that is in ourselves and in the ecosystems around us. CACR19 will secure our right to protect this goodness for a new future honoring people’s and nature’s natural right to sustainability. The NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) , of which we are board members, supports Representative Read’s call to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of local community self-government. NHCRN is a non-profit, grassroots organization that seeks to empower communities and elected officials with education and authority about our individual and collective right of local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all inhabitants of New Hampshire to economic, social, and environmental justice. For more information about the NHCRN or the proposed constitutional amendment, contact info@nhcommunityrights.org or visit www.nhcommunityrights.org. Respectfully submitted, Douglas Darrell of Center Barnstead Monica Christofili of Newmarket www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hydro-quebecs-reservoir-management----a-planned-catastrophe-655842663.html
PESSAMIT, QC, Nov. 7, 2017 /PRNewswire/ - The Pessamit Innu First Nation accuses Hydro-Quebec of failing to uphold its obligations and responsibilities by filling its hydropower reservoirs to near capacity despite the "Precaution Principle" and various laws and regulations applicable in Canada. Hydro-Quebec's procedures in managing its reservoirs do not take into account any potential damage to communities, the environment, and wildlife resulting from the discharge from reservoirs of exceptional volumes of water. These management procedures have recently caused an environmental catastrophe involving 43.4 miles of the Betsiamites River (Northeastern Quebec), and also is jeopardizing the safety of those using the waterway. Total loss of the Unikamit site, managed by a Pessamit company called Mashkuss Aventures. (CNW Group/Conseil des Innus de Pessamit) Kim Picard and Jean-Luc Kanape, owners of Mashkuss Aventures, saw their dream washed out by the flow. (CNW Group/Conseil des Innus de Pessamit) The Bersimis-2 hydroelectric dam discharged exceptional volumes of water. (CNW Group/Conseil des Innus de Pessamit)Following last week's heavy precipitation, Hydro-Quebec discharged large volumes of water into rivers downstream of its installations, increasing water levels and flows to unsurpassed heights, according to Innu tribesmen whose ancestors have occupied the territory for thousands of years. At Hydro-Quebec, the situation is attributed to "exceptional" autumnal flooding resulting in abnormal levels of water in the reservoirs. Spillways on the Bersimis-1 and 2 hydroelectric dams (on the Betsiamites River), those on Manic-5, 3, 2 and 1, on McCormick, Toulnustouc and Outardes-2, were opened one after the other, causing devastating impacts on the environment and wildlife, and creating a catastrophic situation that has not occurred since the Manic-Outardes complex was built in 1978 and Bersimis was completed in 1962. A total loss In the wake of these "exceptional" measures, the Betsiamites River, the principal access for the Pessamiulnut to their traditional territories, over-flowed its banks into wooded areas made up of centenary trees that had never before been inundated. Debris of all sizes, including a great number of whole trees, were driven into the river. Clay embankments were also washed out by the flow, creating foreseeable damage to Atlantic salmon spawning sites (spawning season being about to begin). Furthermore, at least six traditional camp sites located in wooded areas were greatly damaged or totally destroyed, including the total loss of the Unikamit site, managed by a Pessamit company called Mashkuss Aventures. Why? The Chief of the Pessamit Innu Band Council, Mr René Simon, has no doubts as to the actual causes of this situation: "Hydro-Quebec can go on forever about an exceptional seven day downpour occurring in October being the sole factor in the discharge of large volumes of water from the reservoirs, but it's a lie! 2017 precipitation data for this period, compared to normal precipitation data from October 25th to 31st, do not justify releasing so much water at such a time. While it is the case that precipitation was above average during this period, overall precipitation for the summer and fall of 2017 was less than average. In fact, it hardly rained at all in the Quebec North-Shore region during this summer and fall. Why then were Hydro-Quebec's reservoirs filled to such a level that they were ready to overflow after only seven days of rain?" The smoking gun The answer is simple: in its frantic race to attain new contracts, Hydro-Quebec has assured its potential clients in New England that its hydropower reserves would be increased beyond the Province of Quebec expected requirements (reminder: New-England's decision is expected in January 2018). Solution: maintain reservoir water levels as high as possible in view of increasing energy producing capacity upon request. The problem is, such a procedure doesn't take into account strong and unexpected periods of rain, as occurred in October 2017. Result: reservoirs overflow and spillways are opened, whatever the consequences. Clean Energy? "This is the type of management we are up against," says Chief René Simon. "While Hydro-Quebec is discharging its reservoirs, it's also abandoning all precautions. Damages sustained by members of our First Nation, those inflicted to our Nitassinan (traditional territory), to various animal species and fish in the Betsiamites River, are only part of the story. When our non-Native neighbours discover the damage inflicted to territories they use for work and recreation, they too will experience the fallacy of Hydro-Quebec's Clean Energy concept. Hopefully, the citizens of New England will do the same before January." http://www.pessamit.ca/ SOURCE Conseil des Innus de Pessamit 11/3/17 by Michelle Sanborn, NHCRN Board of Directors
NOTE: This piece was submitted to newspapers statewide, and to the best of our knowledge, no one ran it. Local elections are deeply connected to local control and local control is deeply connected to direct democratic decision-making. Therefore, state election officials who are determined to deny local control are in fact working against the people's right to direct democracy. According to a Union Leader article, Bill gives state power to postpone local elections, published on October 30, 2017, “A House-Senate committee created to resolve conflicts that surfaced last March unanimously agreed to draft a bill that settles the matter in a way more satisfactory to the secretary of state than to the N.H. Municipal Association.” Where is the voice of local people and the town moderators the people elected? The secretary of state was not elected by the people, he was elected by the state legislature. The nor’easter that created blizzard conditions during the 2017 local March elections created more confusion among state elected officials than local. Local election officials from almost 80 towns saw the value of protecting the health, safety and welfare of voters when - with input from road crews, emergency departments, and weather reports - they used common sense and postponed local elections. It was logical and sensible for the public to accept postponement of town elections; however, our elections, our votes, and the legitimacy of our local election officials were cast into doubt by state officials who appeared offended that the central government apparatus didn’t get the final say over who made the call to postpone. The solution? a House-Senate committee was created to “resolve conflicts” over who has the authority to decide whether or not local elections get postponed and what constitutes an acceptable reason to postpone. The state committee decided that the non-citizen elected secretary of state now holds authority over citizen-elected town moderators and other local election officials to have final say regarding the health, safety and welfare of voters in their own local communities. Local election officials can weigh in with their opinion and make a request for postponement, but the state gets final decision-making authority over whether or not it is “safe” for you to vote. The same Union Leader article quoted Senator Jeff Woodburn as saying, “I cannot imagine the secretary of state saying ‘No’ if a town has a legitimate reason for wanting to postpone”, yet that is exactly what happened during the statewide weather emergency on election day. Almost 80 towns expressed a legitimate reason to postpone elections, yet the secretary of state was opposed and insisted towns keep the polls open. Pray for good weather forever and always on election day because you may have to risk your life to vote if Mother Nature sends us another election-day storm. At least the N.H. Municipal Association sees the value of local elections being determined locally. The association's Executive Director, Judy Silva, was quoted in the Union Leader article as saying, “Inserting a state official into that decision-making process violates local control, is unnecessary and unwieldy.” The NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) wholeheartedly agrees and supports a call to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of local community self-government. Representative Ellen Read of Rockingham District 17, has introduced a State Constitutional amendment that would guarantee local communities the authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals, communities, and ecosystems. Representative Read states, “I truly hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Community Rights Amendment because it means doing exactly what we came to Concord to do – protect the people and resources of NH. This Amendment places the power back into the hands of the governed…the very thing our Revolutionary ancestors fought for.” NHCRN is a non-profit, grassroots organization that seeks to empower communities and elected officials with education and authority about our individual and collective right of local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all inhabitants of New Hampshire to economic, social and environmental justice. For more information about the NHCRN or the proposed constitutional amendment, contact info@nhcommunityrights.org or visit www.nhcommunityrights.org. indepthnh.org/2017/10/26/environmental-community-campus-leaders-tell-yale-stop-northern-pass/
News Release: NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Dozens of activists from New Hampshire and the Yale community on Thursday delivered an open letter to the Yale University Investments Office calling on the university to stop the controversial Northern Pass powerline project. Yale controls 24 miles of the proposed route. With this open letter, major organizations from New England and Quebec are calling on Yale to Stop Northern Pass. The letter brings together a coalition of environmental, conservation, community, and governmental organizations including the Appalachian Mountain Club, the New Hampshire Sierra Club, the Yale Student Environmental Coalition, Beyond Extreme Energy, the Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust, the Ammonoosuc Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the New Hampshire Community Rights Network, and two New Hampshire Select Boards. Indigenous groups and advocacy organizations, including the Council of the Pessamit Innu and the Association of Native Americans at Yale, also signed the letter. “Opposition to Northern Pass in New Hampshire is fierce,” said Rick Samson, District 3 Coos County Commissioner. “Nearly all the communities along the proposed route have voted against it.” According to the petition, Yale is a 98.8 percent owner of Bayroot LLC, which has leased 24 miles of Northern Pass’s proposed route to the developers of Northern Pass. Yale argued in a June 20 statement that it has limited power to influence decisions about the management of the Bayroot land. The letter responds, “Yale owns this land, and cannot shield itself from the consequences of this investment by hiding behind the decisions of a contracted investment manager.” The letter’s signatories cite environmental and social consequences in New Hampshire and Quebec. “Northern Pass would add more than 1,100 new transmission towers up to 165 feet tall cutting through the heart of New Hampshire’s iconic natural landscape, marring scenic vistas and harming our vital recreation and tourism industry,” said Susan Arnold, Vice President for Conservation at the Appalachian Mountain Club. Qubec’s Pessamit Innu First Nation tribe has sued Hydro-Qubec for displacing their members with no input from or compensation to the Pessamit themselves. “There are 13 hydroelectric power stations located and operated illegitimately on Pessamit’s traditional territory,” says Rene Simon, Chief of the Pessamit Innu. “Twenty-nine percent of the electricity that Hydro-Quebec intends to transmit with Northern Pass has been forced on us without our agreement or compensation. By agreeing to allow the project to cross its land, Yale University in effect joins in these violations of our rights and those of nature.” Elizabeth Wyman, a graduate of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who recently returned from a visit to Pessamit lands, said “The energy produced by Hydro-Quebec’s massive dams is not green energy. The sprawling reservoirs release methane and mercury into the environment and have compromised the culture and livelihood of the Pessamit.” The demonstration coincided with a talk at the Yale Forest Forum by Dan Hudnut, Vice President of Wagner Forest Management, which signed the lease with Northern Pass on behalf of Yale. www.conwaydailysun.com/opinion/columns/here-is-how-to-prevent-water-contamination/article_a3887960-b5d8-11e7-9d09-8feb81ad5260.html
Oct 20, 2017 Updated Oct 20, 2017On Wednesday, New Hampshire Public Radio reported that the state is poised to spend millions of dollars to improve drinking water quality in communities across the state (www.tinyurl.com/nhh2o). The projects will target MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination, in part by connecting residents who have polluted private wells to municipal water supplies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers both MTBE and PFOA to be possible carcinogens, but there is uncertainty about the levels of exposure that produce elevated risk of illness in humans. According to Robert Scott, commissioner of the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, Atkinson, Derry, Hampstead, Litchfield, Plaistow, Salem and Wyndham are among the towns most affected by the groundwater contamination, although there are others. Certainly, residents in these communities deserve help. Although the money for these projects will come from a settlement with ExxonMobil over MTBE groundwater contamination that began in the late 1970s, the multimillion-dollar initiative highlights a fundamental vulnerability in our approach to environmental problems. Too often, we react to environmental degradation after it has already occurred rather than preventing it from happening in the first place. Why is this the case? In part, the current system is designed to facilitate profit-making by powerful corporate actors who have little interest in protecting the rights of nature or the rights of citizens. State regulations and the permitting process may attempt to limit environmental harms, but they inevitably concede that some environmental harm will occur by setting allowable limits for chemical contaminants, cleared or paved land, particulates released into the air, wetlands impacts, or water pumped from community groundwater supplies. When businesses exceed these limits or when health, environmental, or infrastructure problems develop, the typical approach is to launch expensive, multiyear remediation efforts well after the damage has already been inflicted. More broadly, this is not just about a vulnerability in our approach to environmental protection. The degradation of nature highlights a more fundamental vulnerability in our democratic system. Residents in Atkinson, Litchfield, Plaistow and elsewhere are dealng with health and environmental threats generated by the routine operation of business and the routine operation of the state. But the citizens of these communities could not prevent the activities that produced these unwanted outcomes. State preemption subordinates community priorities to the goals of state agencies and elected officials. A growing number of New Hampshire communities are addressing this vulnerability, along with towns and cities across the nation, by passing local Rights-Based Ordinances. RBOs give voice to local concerns by defending the rights of nature before harm can be inflicted and by delineating the scope of corporate activity within municipal boundaries. The New Hampshire Community Rights Network (NHCRN) supports these efforts and has worked to return power to people and their local governments. The NHCRN is also working with Rep. Ellen Read (Rockingham, District 17), who has sponsored a state constitutional amendment to protect New Hampshire communities’ authority to defend the welfare of their citizens and the rights of nature. Interested citizens can obtain more information about the work of the NHCRN and the state constitutional amendment by going online to nhcommunityrights.org or by emailing info@nhcommunityrights.org. Cliff Brown is a member of the The New Hampshire Community Rights Network from Portsmouth. Grassroots non-profit supports state constitutional amendment to guarantee Community Rights10/11/2017 indepthnh.org/2017/10/13/opinion-grassroots-nonprofit-supports-state-constitutional-amendment-to-guarantee-community-rights/
Grassroots non-profit supports state constitutional amendment to guarantee Community Rights Concord – Representative Ellen Read of Rockingham District 17, has introduced a State Constitutional amendment that would guarantee local communities the authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals, communities and nature. The Community Rights amendment was drafted by New Hampshire Community Rights Network (NHCRN) with assistance from Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). Representative Read said she is proud to sponsor the amendment to “ensure protections for the people and ecosystems of the Granite State that currently do not have governing authority over decisions that directly affect them.” The legislation grew out of the frustration of many New Hampshire residents who have been thwarted in their efforts to protect their local identity, ecosystems, unalienable rights and individual property rights. Towns are preempted by state and federal governments, in partnership with corporate special interests, without Towns’ consent and with no regard for their welfare. Proposals including gas pipelines and compressor stations, high voltage transmission lines, industrial wind ventures, water extraction projects and other harms, have threatened New Hampshire people and ecosystems. These projects are approved by many state elected officials and state agencies. A growing number of communities have acted to protect themselves by passing Rights-Based Ordinances (RBOs) at their town meetings. RBOs, developed by people in those communities with CELDF’s assistance, are grounded in the unalienable right affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the New Hampshire State Constitution: our individual and collective right to self-govern. Representative Read said that when NHCRN brought the amendment proposal to her attention, she immediately saw the need to step up and set an example for other elected officials to follow. She stated, “I truly hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Community Rights Amendment because it means doing exactly what we came to Concord to do – protect the people and resources of NH. This Amendment is needed to reestablish the inherent and inalienable rights of individuals, their communities, and nature. Too often, big out-of-state corporations, that come in looking to profit off of Granite Staters and our land, are given MORE rights than our own people and ecosystems! This amendment places power back into the hands of the governed...the very thing our Revolutionary ancestors fought for.” Michelle Sanborn, volunteer coordinator for the NHCRN and community organizer for CELDF, stated, “This amendment would empower communities to enact local laws that protect health, safety and welfare for residents and their natural environments by recognizing, securing and protecting rights greater than those afforded by existing laws. That means authority to prohibit harmful corporate activities that seek to threaten local community rights.” NHCRN was founded in 2013, with supporters from across New Hampshire. This includes Alexandria, Barnstead, Barrington, Danbury, Easton, Grafton, Hebron, Jaffrey, Nottingham, Plymouth, Sugar Hill, Swanzey, Thornton, Newmarket, Merrimack and Durham. Other states are also involved in the community rights movement including Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania and Maine. NHCRN advocates for change that begins at the grassroots level. For more information about the NHCRN or the proposed constitutional amendment, contact info@nhcommunityrights.org. Additional Information www.nhcommunityrights.org www.celdf.org About NHCRN – New Hampshire Community Rights Network NHCRN is a non-profit, grassroots organization that seeks to empower communities and elected officials with education and authority about our individual and collective right of local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all inhabitants of New Hampshire to economic, social and environmental justice, including the rights of nature. When former Superbowl quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem over a year ago, I don’t think anyone could have predicted what would happen next. Whether that would have been one of the singers of the anthem taking a knee a couple of weeks ago, a Houston high schooler sitting during the pledge of allegiance, or high school football players imitating professional ones, Kaepernick’s stance just keeps on giving.
Of course, the four African-American students deciding to sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, had no idea whether the time was ripe, or whether it wasn’t. They did it for the same reasons that Kaepernick did – because they had given up hope that anyone else would. READ MORE http://www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/107418-michelle-sanborn-9-5
To The Daily Sun, They say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but what about freedom? What was freedom to those that colonized the New World in comparison to the freedom experienced by those that were stewards of the land before white man arrived? The freedoms we experience today are not the same freedoms our parents or grandparents might have fought for. We’ve seen the interpretation of freedom change over generations, but we are experiencing an unprecedented threat to our basic natural freedoms with the current administration. Freedoms fought for by women, labor, LGBTQ and civil rights movements may become a thing of the past for the next four years — or more. These hard-fought freedoms have been chipped away at by corporate elitists and governments that serve them prior to Trump becoming president, but his presidency is proving to be the most racist, elitist, homophobic, misogynistic, corporate-stacked administration this nation has ever seen. Freedom may have different applications to different people, but freedom is basically the state of being free, civil liberty; the right to enjoy all privileges or rights of citizenship. Essentially, the power to exercise choice and make decisions; autonomy; self-determination. If you haven’t noticed, we ain’t free. Sure, we’re are free to roam around within the “cage of freedom” defined by special interests, secured by governments and enforced by the courts. Restricted to the “free speech zone” when words of truth, inspiration and justice are spoken, but manipulating social propaganda is all over the nightly news. Carry signs of protest downtown, but don’t take any real action that generates rights-protecting systemic change. Go ahead and write countless pleading letters to elected officials and appointed positions that have been bought and paid for by the very industries that are the subject of our pleading letters; you’ll get a formulated response if you get any response at all. What about whether our food is genetically engineered or not, watered with frack waste, or fertilized with pharmaceutical-laden human waste? What about knowing if the meat available in the store is from some country with absolutely no safety regulations or whether there is mercury in the seafood? This is the kind of information that seriously affects our choices because it motivates our decision to spend or not to spend. These limitations on our freedom to know and therefore our freedom to choose, are limited because they affect the bottom line profits of industry. Freedom isn’t really freedom when it is confined to a set of limitations defined by those profiting from the limitations defining our choices. Food isn’t the only area our freedom to decide is limited. When an industry is seeking to use a natural resource in our community, who decides whether or not that industry is a good idea for the area? These decisions are made by state and federal governmental agencies with appointed committee members considered experts in the fields of the industry they represent. The real experts that truly know how a project is going to affect the area are those most affected by the project — real human beings that live in those communities and the ecosystems that will be the subject of the development. We have political party limitations as well. You “get to choose” between a Democrat or a Republican — if you want to have any part in the political process. If you are an Independent or support the Green Party, well, that’s nice, but they don’t get the media coverage or the big funders backing their cause so in essence, they don’t get to participate and therefore, neither do you. Where is the freedom to simply run for an office as an elected official based on what you actually believe and what you really plan to do for those you represent? Where is the freedom for voters to have a legitimate process to choose and elect who represents them? We should all be alarmed about how future administrations will define our future “freedoms.” Trump is a corporate elitist who is now in a powerful position to serve the corporate elite in ways no other president has been positioned to do. Now, more than ever, we need to stop spinning our wheels in a system designed by corporate elites to deny We the People our freedom to decide what happens where we live. We need a people’s movement that will mobilize across party lines, across social divides, across regional separations that will stop giving consent to illegitimate and unjust laws that serve the corporate-state. How often have we heard the question about whether the Democrats in Washington will work with the Republicans, or the other way around, or whether they will fight each other every step of the way? It is time we fight freedom-robbing policies every step of the way at the local level. Stop giving consent to this elitist-serving system that stands in the way of our freedom to create local sustainable energy, transportation solutions, sustainable agricultural systems, social acceptance, free and fair elections, livable wages, protections for ecosystems and local self-governance. Stop accepting restrictions of freedom as for the “greater good.” The greater good of whom? The local community, or the corporate industries that will profit from using the community as a human experiment or a resource colony? We must challenge illegitimate and unjust laws by returning to the very freedoms the revolutionaries fought for — our freedom to exercise local self-governance. Hundreds of communities across the nation have begun to dismantle illegitimate and unjust laws by partnering with Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) to draft new local laws that include a Community Bills of Rights recognizing the right to local community self-government and elevating the rights of people, communities and nature above the “rights” currently claimed by corporations. These communities aren’t waiting for permission to exercise their inherent and unalienable right to self-govern, they are exercising their freedom to create local laws that protect the health, safety and welfare of both human and natural communities because our very survival depends upon it. Freedom to make choices about social acceptance, economic, political, or environmental sustainability is already ours. We just need to believe it and act on it. Now is the time. NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) partners with CELDF to build CELDF’s organizing framework to the state level with a constitutional amendment to recognize, secure and protect community rights. Learn more at www.nhcommunityrights.org, or email info@nhcommunityrights.org. Michelle Sanborn NHCRN Board of Directors Alexandria September 25th 6:30pm - 8:30pm
The Stone Church 5 Granite St Newmarket, NH 03857 Join us for a screening of Tree Media's We the People 2.0, a documentary featuring the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund's work to support communities across the country enact Rights Based Ordinances to protect their quality of life by way of protecting the rights of nature. Stay for the Q&A with CELDF's NH Community Rights Organizer Michelle Sanborn to see how she, CELDF, and the NH Community Rights Network can help you establish RBOs in YOUR town! Such RBOs have been passed in communities right here in NH by people who have decided to take hold of their constitutional right to assemble to legally confront and block the revolving door of permitting and regulation that continues to allow industry to pollute our air, waters, and lands. Growing across the nation, the Community Rights movement is working toward amendments to state constitutions that will establish the rights of nature cross the country, thereby setting precedent to amend the Federal Constitution so that it protects not commerce and the rights of corporations but our quality of life, which necessarily means recognizing and protecting the rights of the environment. |
Archives
April 2024
|