We've been here many times before. Nothing gets built. To me, the whole thing is a scam so that the politicians can hire consultants that are probably connected in some way to their supporters to come up with but another study. The thing has been studied to death and still they do more studies.

That's one of the biggest reasons I support the bill to kill this thing. The state and the two cities are incapable of pulling off a project like this.

Plus there's a housing crunch. Commuter rail might be used to lure people into the area, but there's no place to put them. The only people likely to use it are people that already have a way of getting to work or wherever. Seems rather pointless.

How many more studies you want to pay for for a service that won't actually get built?

On behalf of other property owners in the state.. please disagree with your own money. Thanks.

This scheme provides zero benefit to the people that will have to pay for it.

This is a form of corporate welfare, isn't it? If a new construction process is going to save money, builders will jump on it. Why do they need to be incentivized by people that already own homes? If anything, maybe it should be a temporary break on property tax payments to the state for the housing that's being constructed using those methods.

If the construction method has merit, home fabricators will use it themselves. Why are the property owners in NH getting fleeced for $5M to pay for this?

Like I said, at least it is something different. I'm not evaluating the value proposition here. There has been some interest in tiny homes in this sub, these are some tiny homes. Fine, they're rentals.. but it if this developer can get the ok to build them, it opens a path for others.

If space and materials were our primary motivators, we'd all be living in the equivalent of a jail cell. Own nothing, live in a pod, eat bugs.

Why should taxpayers be on the hook for the $5M appropriation? I'm guessing that's going to come from property tax, which just makes home ownership more expensive.

At least it's something different. Less of an eye sore than large apartment buildings.

>I’m an attorney.

Ahh, so I'm not alone in disliking you.

I'm not a freestater. I agree with them on occasion, but I'm not one of them. Strike one.

I'm an engineer, which is basically a career built around a person's critical thinking skills. So, strike two.

Now you're saying the stay-at-home mothers were all adulterers? Seriously, wtf? Strike three.

You're out!

Kind of seems like you hate women.

>A temporary boom brought on predominantly through stock buybacks, which is what most of the richest corporations used that extra money for.

What does that have to do with NH? How many of the "richest corporations" are headquartered here?

​

>But hey, defund our government, send tons of money to private schools and lets all watch our property taxes go even higher.

Property taxes going higher is the opposite of defunding the government. Your own talking points contradict themselves.

I'll give you a B+. You forget to throw climate change in there.

People that invest in business and take the risk that the investment might never yield anything ought to be able to earn money back without the government helping itself to it first. Same goes for the tiny amount of interest you can earn by letting a bank hold your money.

The end of the article had it right, this is just identity politics, and it's wrong.

Are you a moron? What an insult to everyone whose stay-at-home mothers used to watch neighborhood kids, or the moms themselves. You're seriously messed up in the head if that makes someone a child abuser in your mind.

Ever wonder why daycare is so expensive? Used to be that you could find someone in the neighborhood that would watch kids for pretty reasonable rates. Then regulation started and those slowly went away. Now they're all super fancy and super expensive.

It's an old colonial state. Maybe stay in OK and get yourself a nice fancy double-wide.

>I'm a MA native

We're full. Try Cambridge.

Milk, bread, eggs.

"Those crimes involved helping the notorious anti-government tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown in their highly publicized nine-month armed standoff in their Plainfield home."

And now a state rep. How special is that.

The two other threads weren't sufficient?

Those tend to be concrete and taller. As someone that lives in Nashua, I wish we had more of the old brick mill buildings for housing rather than the "modern" buildings that have been going up. At least they look right for a former mill town.

>There's plenty of evidence and charges showing that it was

No one was charged with treason or insurrection. A small number had charges of "sedition conspiracy", very few were found guilty of that. You can count them on two hands. I'd have to dig deeper, but I wouldn't be surprised if those were plea deals rather than the government actually proving it.

For the vast majority of the people that the FBI spent a fortune trying to find, it was relatively minor stuff. They didn't even try to burn the building down, unlike the "mostly peaceful" protests that had plagued the country. It's pretty hard to see the witch hunt as anything other than political persecution.

Yet again, the person in this article was only charged with trespassing. How could that be? If it was so obvious what everyone saw, why isn't everyone being prosecuted that way? Seems like the lies are on your side.

I saw a protest that got out of control followed by some incidents of assault and theft. Don't know what you saw.

The person this article is about wasn't found guilty of anything other than trespassing, phrased different ways. By modern reporting standards, this was a mostly peaceful protest.

So why wasn't this person charged with it?

Step out of the echo chamber.