When Rules Aren’t Applied Fairly — Understanding Selective Enforcement in New Hampshire Agriculture

(The content of this blog is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to reference any specific person, place, or entity. All examples are hypothetical.)

Selective enforcement occurs when a government or town official chooses to enforce rules or laws against one person or business while ignoring the very same issue somewhere else. This happens when discretion—the ability to decide whether or how to enforce a rule—is used inconsistently or unfairly. When that discretion is influenced by bias, personal preference, or political motivations, it becomes a threat to the rule of law.

(Definition source: Wikipedia)

Corruption, broadly speaking, is dishonest or improper conduct by someone in a position of authority. Accusations of corruption often arise when officials act inconsistently, retaliate against criticism, or impose rules unevenly.

I’ve only been accused of corruption once in my life, and ironically, it came from someone in a position of authority during a moment of emotional intensity. It was during a one-sided, highly charged meeting—one where I was told I shouldn’t share anything about the experience publicly. But I believe in free speech. Sharing my personal experience, my interpretations, and my own story is my right. That’s not corruption. That’s transparency. And transparency is what selective enforcement hates the most.

There’s a saying that when someone feels insecure about their own behavior, they often project—accusing someone else of the very wrongdoing they fear being associated with themselves.

Projection is a well-documented psychological defense mechanism. I’ll explore that topic more deeply in a future blog.

While every town has the authority to inquire about Site Plan Review, New Hampshire law requires that such inquiries be handled consistently and without retaliation, bias, or personal influence.

Selective enforcement occurs when one farm is targeted for alleged violations that are not applied to other similarly situated farms in town, raising concerns under the Equal Protection Clause. Likewise, when enforcement follows a disagreement with a town official, or when an official with a potential conflict participates in enforcement actions, it may give the appearance of retaliation or compromised impartiality.

New Hampshire statutes—including RSA 21:34-a (agriculture), RSA 431 (Right-to-Farm), RSA 674:32-b and 32-c (agricultural land use), and RSA 91-A (public transparency)—all emphasize fairness, consistency, and ethical governance. These protections exist because agriculture depends on predictable, even-handed regulation. When similar farms operate without issue but one is subjected to heightened or public scrutiny, the concern is not the regulation itself, but the unequal manner in which it is applied.

Another concern that arises in many communities is when a municipal official uses their position to publicly criticize, disparage, or single out a resident or business. While officials are entitled to express opinions, they are not permitted to use the authority of their office to intimidate, retaliate, or shape public perception of a private citizen, especially following a disagreement related to municipal business.

Courts have consistently held that government actors cannot engage in punitive or retaliatory behavior in response to a citizen’s participation in planning board matters, public comment, or other protected speech. When an enforcement action is accompanied by public accusations, inflammatory language, or online commentary by an official, it raises legitimate questions about whether the action is motivated by objective land-use concerns or by personal animus.

Public smearing by a government official—whether through social media, town communication, or public meetings—can erode public trust and may be viewed as retaliatory conduct under First Amendment standards, particularly when it coincides with the citizen’s exercise of their right to speak, question, or seek accountability from their local government.

Why This Matters to Farmers

Across New Hampshire, farms are increasingly caught in zoning gray areas. Towns differ widely on how they treat on-farm stores, farmstands, agritourism, farm kitchens, and even routine farm operations. At the center of these debates are questions like:

• When is a farm a commercial business?

• When does it require Site Plan Review?

• Why is one farm required to undergo the process while another is not?

The inconsistency — not the regulation itself — is the problem.

Let’s Talk About the Law

New Hampshire actually has strong agricultural protections, but they are often misunderstood, ignored, or interpreted differently from town to town.

RSA 21:34-a — The Definition of Agriculture

This statute defines agriculture broadly, including:

• keeping livestock

• producing eggs, meat, honey, maple, produce

• on-farm food sales

• educational farm activities

• agritourism experiences connected to the farm

Many farms report being told their activities are “commercial” even though RSA 21:34-a clearly defines them as agricultural.

Right-to-Farm (RSA 431:32–35)

These laws protect farms from unreasonable restrictions and complaints. They exist because selective enforcement has historically harmed farms.

RSA 674:32-b & 674:32-c — Agricultural Land Use in Zoning

These statutes say towns:

• cannot unreasonably limit agriculture,

• must allow agriculture in all zoning districts,

• cannot require special exceptions unless there is a direct threat to public health or safety, and

• must treat agriculture as a protected land use — not as a standard commercial enterprise.

Many farms do not know they are protected by these laws.

Agritourism (RSA 21:34-a III-b)

NH Supreme Court decisions have confirmed:

• Agritourism is a part of agriculture.

• Towns must evaluate agritourism in the context of agriculture, not as a separate business category.

Despite this, farms across NH experience wildly different interpretations.

What Selective Enforcement Looks Like

Here are fictional examples to illustrate the issue:

Example A:

John Deere operates a small farm store that is not located at his residence. It has expanded over the years. He builds a large barn with an attached apartment and hosts several events inside the barn. Site Plan Review is not required nor is what completed.

Example B:

John Doe also operates a small farm store located inside his agricultural barn on his own property. He sells products he grows or raises. After pulling a permit for a personal-use barn and attached apartment, he receives a Cease and Desist claiming he must undergo Site Plan Review for “commercial agritourism”, “significant expansion” and “agricultural activities”.

Similar operations.

Similar construction.

Two completely different outcomes.

That’s selective enforcement — not because of the activity, but because of who and how the rule is applied.

Why Farms Should Care

Selective enforcement:

• undermines trust in local government

• discourages agricultural entrepreneurship

• creates fear around innovation

• pushes farms into legal battles they cannot afford

• strains neighbor-to-neighbor relationships

Most farmers are not asking for special treatment.

They are asking for equal treatment.

Supporting Other New Hampshire Farms

Many farms across the state share similar stories:

• inconsistent enforcement

• confusion over agritourism

• unclear zoning language

• differing interpretations between boards

• demands for Site Plan Review for agricultural uses that state law protects

If you’re a New Hampshire farm dealing with these challenges, you’re not alone. These are systematic issues — not personal failures.

Consistency, transparency, and fairness are not optional. They are required for every thriving agricultural community.

And speaking openly about experiences — without naming or blaming individuals — is not only legal… it is necessary for reform.

Fairness shouldn’t depend on who applies for a permit.

It should depend on the written law.