that should be enough to calm the fiscal conservative NIMBYs down.
Tell me you don't live in New Hampshire without actually saying you don't live in New Hampshire.
If the project's capital costs were 100% paid for by someone else, with the state's only fiscal responsibility being a $500k-$3M annual subsidy, people would still cry foul for any number of reasons:
- Why should I pay for something I don't use?
- As a corollary to the above, why should people in the north pay for something used by people from the south
- We're just one step closer to being Massachusetts north
- MBTA is a) corrupt and b) full of Massholes
- It's not useful to me, so I can't imagine how it's useful to anyone else
That list is only slightly hyperbolic, and while many of the concerns aren't necessarily specific to NH, they do have a very strong root there. It's a complex mix of things, but a limited tax base where the direct effect felt by most is in their property taxes, plus the state of school funding, makes nearly anything tax-related very contentious. There's very much a sense of opposition to "other people spending my money for the benefit of someone else".
Another compounding factor is that the nature of the legislature. In MA, being a state legislator is a full-time, paying gig. You're not getting rich, but something like $70k plus a travel stipend makes it possible. In NH, it's closer to $100 + mileage. Maybe you get free tolls, too. I'm not sure. It's also a huge legislature. There's 1 rep for every 3300 people, so things can get hyper-local. That's a great recipe for a high percentage of randos with an axe to grind and who don't particularly care about the "greater good" or long-range thinking. Again, issues everywhere but magnified in NH.
This is slowly evolving over time as demographics in the state shift, but it's a long, slow journey.