Regarding “NH Legal Perspective: NH’s economy depends on affordable housing for workers” by Greg Chakmakas Of Sheehan Phinney on January 19 in the Union Leader.

When it comes to “affordable housing”, developers are not philanthropists. If they were, they’d put smaller homes on each lot, for example, cape-style homes that are partially unfinished upstairs. These could be sold for a reasonable price, to be later expanded as owners could afford. These crony capitalists would rather build unsightly, multi-storied, multi-unit behemoths for higher profits, with no regard for the established community.

No one cares what price people pay for these subsidized (or not) high-density units, or who might live in them, but the appropriateness of the buildings for the location. The eyesore at the corner of Rtes 101 and 114 in Bedford is a perfect example of the visual assault. What is the ecological benefit of squeezing behemoth apartment buildings into areas where they would despoil the landscape, further poison watersheds such as Riddlebrook, increase traffic on existing roads that already cannot handle the flow, and reduce the desirability and value of the single-family residences around them? We are being told the opposite of what we always learned to be true — how can it be that 120 units are more “sustainable” than 15?

The assertion that a lack of affordable housing is a detriment to the economy, or preventing younger people from moving here, is weak. NH has the 2nd best economy in the country. Let’s not use false statistics to make excuses for disrupting the way of life many communities have chosen for themselves, just to serve some foreign agenda that thinks cities are the only way people should live. In fact, more young people are moving to NH from everywhere else.

The Chakmakas article states “An innovative planning process that incorporates innovative land-use tools, like dense village centers, conservation subdivision design and inclusionary zoning, will allow municipalities to meet the requirements of the statute without sacrificing the appearance or composition of the community.” Really? This mantra came straight from the UN/APA/RPC playbook.

And so goes the agenda of the “regionalists” who have devised the ridiculous “Master Plan” system, often used to push the goals of the “new urbanism” movement. Urbanists seek to create human settlements in globally connected networks of cities, with cities being the “most important” for governance, using government run transportation, encouraging the abandonment of cars, with the end result of the usurpation of town and county authority. Upscale, established towns where single-family homes are the majority, and whose residents do not want to be part of this, are the first to be attacked by the “equalizers”. If housing is to be planned “without sacrificing the appearance or composition of the community” then the people of that community should have a say. Indeed, they are, because they note that the part of the law itself provides that the town should have the final say, taking into consideration the wishes of the community.

The origins of this urbanist movement are internationally-bred, with socialistic underpinnings. We’ve gone down a slippery slope when federal and state governments are allowed to dictate what types of housing a particular town can, or should have. It is the vision of a utopian society where government would control all housing, modes of transportation, and methods of communication, and people are discouraged from living in suburban-style communities. The very language used in the article is a carbon copy everywhere. Specifically, the intent is not to make “more livable” the already “most livable” towns in NH under the pretense of caring about the well-being of people, but to change the demographics of any one community by diluting it socioeconomically, and eventually, politically. It is totally confounding when a town is no longer considered “livable” because it doesn’t meet the standards of the urbanists. The idea that HUD considers Bedford to be part of Manchester as a “region” (there is no such thing as a legitimate regional government) in order to dictate housing needs, is a testament to this preposterous agenda. Should I be angry that there are no affordable options for me to live in Beverly Hills, CA if I were to go there and take a job in a coffee shop?

A truly free people do not allow the government to tell them how and where they must live. The whole “live, work, play” mantra was never about improving your health or happiness, but about control.

Lawyers should keep their opinions about housing to themselves.

State legislators should work hard to repeal the workforce housing law, and do everything to preserve what remains of the authority of local government by rejecting regionalism.

“Live, Work, and Play” in Freedom, or Die.