Q & A’s

---

Absolutely. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and believe in responsible gun ownership. I am in favor of background checks, but a registry or any initiatives seeking to confiscate guns from red-blooded Americans is a non-starter. I would oppose non-sensical efforts to restrict firearms rights.

Free speech is essential to democracy. I believe in creating an environment where people feel heard, even when opinions differ. We can debate strongly and disagree while still treating each other with respect. Censorship in open forums is, in my opinion, a violation of free speech. In private groups, there may be rules that should be followed. I do not personally approve of engaging in negative campaigns or speaking ill of other people publicly.

That's ultimately a state-level decision, but I would support legalizing recreational use. Obviously, I don't advocate for allowing potentially dangerous scenarios such as operating heavy equipment or driving our school busses while under the influence of a substance, but if you're in the privacy of your own home, I don't see the problem. Live free or die.

No, but I've made plenty of mistakes in my life. I believe people can change, learn, and grow. They shouldn't be forever tied to their pasts if they've made significant efforts to improve themselves.

This is something I’m proud to say I’ve changed my position on as I’ve become more educated about it. I believe parents have the right to send their children to any school they want, but public funds should go to public schools only. Private and religious schools aren’t public schools - and our taxes shouldn’t be used for them. Charter schools are considered public schools by definition, but they siphon money from the public school system and don’t have the same level of accountability.

Parents absolutely should have a say. They have a choice to send their children to public schools, so they should have a say in what their children are being taught. Ultimately, the objective is to provide an adequate education. So long as recommendations lead to that outcome, I believe the school board should listen to parents and keep their practices transparent.

I supported both the CTE and the default budget, though I was very vocal in expressing my understanding for why many voters did or could not do so. Property taxes are ridiculous and for many, voting in favor of the increases simply wasn’t doable - it doesn’t mean they don’t support our schools. I have children in the school system and am financially secure enough to accept an increase to fund their education, but ultimately, the towns voted both down. I have trust and faith that the school board will make the right decisions on necessary cuts while not undermining education or support services. 

I'm eligible to run for president at 35 - I'll be 40 in April. No. I have a vested interest in ensuring the decisions I make affect this community in a positive way for decades to come. I plan on being around to see the seeds I plant today grow into trees that yield favorable outcomes for the next generations. That aside, nearly 60% of the town is my age or younger, and they deserve representation in our executive leadership. Right now, two of our Selectmen are in their 60’s, and one is in his 70’s. 

This comes up a lot. At the time of my running, a little over 3 years in Rindge - but that's not the whole story. I've been a NH resident since I was 13 - went to high school in Salem, NH. I spent my childhood summers and Christmas's here. My family has had roots in this New England since the mid-1800's. Often the point of this question is to engage in gatekeeping tactics that undermine values and potential based on longevity. I believe my value should be assessed on the merit of my ideas and demonstrated commitment to making this town better. 

Absolutely not. Police officers have one of the toughest jobs in society, and I fully support funding our police department to ensure they have the resources they need to keep our community safe. That doesn’t mean carte blanche on department spending, but smartly and adequately staffed, trained, and equipped to handle their call volume. 

I envision a Rindge that is self-sufficient. Can we provide enough jobs for our working age residents? Can we support young families with amenities for raising children - childcare? Can we support our senior residents with all the medical, transportation, and social resources they need? Can we offer our FPU students options for recreation, leisure, or physical fitness? The answer is no. We outsource a preponderance of the things necessary to sustain our population. Access is key, and we need to create that with smartly planned growth.

First is by zoning reform and design standards. We can’t attract businesses to Rindge if our zoning ordinances make it unrealistic to set up shop here, but we also can’t allow businesses to change the look and feel of our town. We can amend zoning requirements in our commercial districts to better appeal to what business owners looking to expand can fit into their budgets and needs. It must be a profitable investment for all parties.

Second is by addressing our infrastructure challenges; roads, utilities, and broadband access. We have limited sewer and water systems, inconsistent high-speed internet and cell service, and no clearly established commercial hub. This leads to higher development costs, missed opportunities, and stifled tax base growth, jobs, resources, etc. 

And third is by curtailing residential development - at least until business growth can sustain what we have. Increasing populations put strains on our town services, infrastructure, local businesses, and increase equalized property value. All of these come with associated costs that, without a broadened tax base, are levied solely on property owners. When we talk about avoiding overdevelopment, we seem to ignore residential growth, but it’s equally important.