O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
Governor Kelly Ayotte’s veto of HB 451 was not an act of fiscal discipline—it was an act of political deference that ignores both the needs of our communities and the realities of responsible environmental stewardship.
Let’s be clear about what this bill actually did—and what it did not do.
HB 451 was not a sales tax. It was a targeted, self-funded user fee—a model New Hampshire has long embraced. If you buy paint, you help cover the cost of safely recycling or disposing of it. If you don’t, you pay nothing. That is not taxation—that is responsibility.
What the Governor reduced to the phrase “No sales tax!” was, in fact, a bipartisan, common-sense solution to a real problem facing cities and towns across New Hampshire.
Right now, the cost of managing leftover paint falls on municipalities—and ultimately on property taxpayers. Local public works departments and transfer stations are forced to absorb the expense of collection, storage, and hazardous waste disposal. Many communities can only afford limited collection days, leaving residents with few options.
HB 451 would have changed that.
It would have created a statewide, convenient recycling system, allowing residents to return unused paint to retail locations and designated sites—year-round, not just on occasional hazardous waste days. That means fewer trips, less confusion, and more participation.
And the benefits go far beyond convenience.
For communities:
- It would have reduced municipal waste management costs, easing pressure on local budgets and property taxes
- It would have expanded access to safe disposal, especially in smaller towns that struggle to fund hazardous waste programs
- It would have relieved public works departments from handling a complex and costly waste stream
For the environment:
- It would have kept hazardous materials out of landfills, septic systems, and groundwater
- It would have significantly reduced illegal dumping and improper disposal, which can contaminate soil and waterways
- It would have ensured that up to 80% of latex paint is recycled and reused, turning waste into usable product instead of pollution
- It would have supported a circular economy model, where manufacturers take responsibility for the lifecycle of their products
This is not speculative. This model is already working successfully in more than a dozen states, including our neighbors Maine and Vermont.
So the real question is not whether there is a cost.
The real question is: Who should bear it?
The person who purchases the product—or every property taxpayer in New Hampshire?
Because when we refuse a user-funded system like this, the cost does not disappear. It simply shifts—onto municipalities, onto local taxpayers, and too often, onto the environment itself.
What is most troubling is how this veto came about.
The Governor did not engage during the legislative process. She did not weigh in as the bill was debated or as bipartisan support emerged. Only after national political organizations—groups with no stake in New Hampshire’s communities or environmental health—raised objections did this suddenly become a “tax” issue.
That is not leadership. That is outsourcing decision-making.
And when a “no-tax pledge” prevents us from distinguishing between a broad-based tax and a targeted user fee that actually reduces taxpayer burden, it stops being a principle and starts becoming a barrier to practical solutions.
New Hampshire has always prided itself on doing things differently—on embracing local control, fiscal responsibility, and common sense.
HB 451 did exactly that:
- It reduced costs on municipalities
- It placed responsibility where it belongs—on product use
- It protected our environment and public health
- And it did so without creating a broad-based tax
Instead, this veto preserves an inefficient system—one that is more expensive, less accessible, and more harmful in the long run.
All to protect a slogan.
New Hampshire deserves better.
We deserve leadership that understands that fiscal responsibility includes reducing hidden costs, that environmental stewardship is a core public responsibility, and that real solutions require more than political catchphrases.
A user fee is not a tax.
Protecting our communities is not optional.
And safeguarding our environment should never be reduced to a talking point.
David Preece represents Manchester in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is a longtime urban and regional planner who previously served as executive director of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? You can DIY your submission to The Soapbox here.