It would appear that, for reasons unclear to me, someone on the 2008 Charter Revision Committee decided to eliminate the ability of qualified non-resident taxpayers paying $1000 or more in annual taxes to vote in local elections involving any referendum, much less local candidates. In my opinion, it would also appear that this was accomplished in a manner not likely to draw any attention to what was being done.

I make the above remark as a result of reviewing Charter Commission minutes, which included the attempted removal of the word “voter” from “Definitions,” as well as reviewing other documents. There is no clear cut statement actually denying the non-resident property owner the right to vote.

As a result, it is clear that Groton has chosen to eliminate the right of non-residents to vote on these local matters, despite the fact that many of them pay high taxes and would normally be allowed to vote per state statute. This constitutes unfairness and relates clearly to “taxation without representation.” As a US citizen, and Groton Resident Taxpayer, I feel this problem should be corrected as soon as possible.

Additionally, in my review of the Charter Commission minutes, the subject of Groton Taxpayers being unable to vote directly on an annual Budget Referendum remains an ongoing major concern. There still needs to be a fall-back safety provision for a Referendum allowing taxpayers the right to directly vote on the budget if the proposed increases by the Council and RTM go above a certain level. The criteria for this in the Charter needs to be established as soon as possible.

I also had the opportunity to review a GOSA map which includes property lines along Flanders Road. One large section caught my attention. If one drives North on Flanders Road from Rt 184, before reaching the Rt 95 Northbound traffic overpass, there is a large section of vacant land on the left side which is apparently not privately owned. It appears to be owned by the Town itself.

Personally, I am still opposed to the Flanders Road project for reasons of cost with insufficient return. However, I do remain curious about the use of the above existing TOG property and how that would relate to this project.