Debate over the bill became one of local control issues on one hand, against business issues on the other.
Senators who opposed the repeal said that if the state went back on its word to the developers, it would send a message to all business to be wary of relying on legislative promises.
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, said the company has spent just over $4 million so far, much of it based on action the Legislature took last year.
"How can we shut that businessman out after he has spent that money? To stiff somebody out of $4.1 million, we should be ashamed of ourselves," he said. Barnes noted that selectmen from the town favor the project, which would create about 50 jobs and new property tax revenue.
Those who favored repeal said the town deserved the right to control the track just as it does any other racetrack.
"This is not just about Tamworth," said Sen. Carl Johnson, R-Meredith. "It's about many other cities and towns waiting to see what we're going to do." Others said the company asked lawmakers to referee its dispute with the town over what kind of conditions should be imposed on the track.
The House passed the repeal in HB 90 on a 273-76 vote last month.
CMI went to the Legislature last year after the town, which has no zoning, passed what it considered to be an overly-restrictive ordinance controlling the development off Route 25 near Mount Whittier.
Last year's measure changed the definition of a track to leave out paved loops of two miles or more in length used for amateur competition. It was passed by the House and the Senate and was signed into law by Gov. Craig Benson on March 9, 2004.
"Anything signed by the governor in March is either an emergency or a fast-tracked bill," said Maura Carroll of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which pushed for repeal.
Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield, whose district includes Tamworth, said he was disappointed the Senate did not heed his argument to pass the repeal.
"This was a special-interest issue, and that's what your up against sometimes," he said after the Senate session.
CMI spokesman Scott Tranchemontagne said the Senate was right to leave the existing law in place. "Voting against this bill was indeed voting to support new business," he said.
Kate Thompson of Focus: Tamworth, which opposes the track and wanted the bill repealed, said the town is left with a noise ordinance that it hopes will leave it with a small measure of control over the operation.
"Obviously, we're disappointed," she said. "This is by far the largest development project Tamworth has ever seen, and it sits right on top of the largest aquifer in the state — the Ossipee aquifer."
If the law was repealed, the town's 22-point ordinance on dust, lighting, noise, hours of operation and more would have taken effect, she said. "Now we're left with a noise ordinance."
CMI prefers the term "sound ordinance" and refers to the development as a "road course" instead of a racetrack.
Tranchemontagne said the town still has regulatory powers and pointed to the fact its voters in March passed "a very restrictive sound ordinance — at the same time they're telling the Senate they have no local control."
Focus: Tamworth said its efforts to regulate the track will continue.
"We're grateful to the legislators and others who fought hard for this bill," said Charles Greenhalgh, a spokesman for the group. "Our Tamworth (state representatives) Harry Merrow and David Babson, Dover Representative Peter Schmidt and Judy Silva of the New Hampshire Municipal Association worked hard to convince the Senate to follow the lead of the House, but in the end, corporate money and interests won out over the principle of local control."
Greenhalgh said CMI has yet to receive its U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit and has not applied for the special-use permit it needs under the Tamworth wetlands ordinance.
Focus: Tamworth has appealed the water-quality certificate recently granted to the project on the grounds that CMI did not provide sufficient information about its handling of hazardous racing fuels containing MtBE.
