Sanborn — Lakes Region Waterfront Sales Report, June 2014

Things are holding pretty steady as far as waterfront sales go on Winnipesaukee. There were ten residential sales on the lake in June of this year. The average price came in at $862,150 with a median price point of $748,750. There were also ten sales last June at an average price of $1,364,018. For the first half of the year there have been 48 transactions on Winnipesaukee with an average sales price of $1,103,389 and a median price point of $740,000 compared to 46 sales for the first half of 2013 at an average sales price of $979,300 and a median price of $792,500. So, it seems it is "steady as she goes" at least for now.

The least expensive sale on the big lake last month was at 13 Marlette Drive in Alton. This 1935 vintage, 1,650 square foot, three bedroom, one bath cottage has had some recent upgrades including granite countertops and new cabinets in the kitchen, a bath remodel, and fresh paint. It sits up high on a .08 acre lot across the street from the water so you have great views of the lake from the front porch. The big thing here is that you also have 50' of frontage across the street on the bay with a boathouse that holds a 24' boat plus two docks outside. Now this property did take a while to sell. It was first listed back in 2009 at $479,900, relisted twice in 2011 for $469,900 and then again for $459,900 with Michael Travis of Prudential Spencer Hughes. It was finally reduced to $399,000 and sold for $385,000 after a total of 1,726 days on the market. That's four and a half years, folks. Whoever said selling real estate was easy? This property is assessed at $256,900.

The mid-priced sale of the month was at 18 Sandy Shores Road in Tuftonboro. This bright and open home was built in 2000 and has a lot going for it with 2,328 square feet of space, three bedrooms, three baths, a large family room over one of the two heated 2-car garages plus it sits on a six acre lot with great views, 131' of level sandy frontage, and a dock. But this was no easy sale, either. It came on in June of 2011 at $1,395,000, in February of 2012 at $1,250,000, and then in March of this year at $995,000 with John Byers of Maxfield Real Estate. It was reduced to $872,000 and then sold for $845,000 after a total of 998 days on the market. It is assessed for $1,381,000.

The highest sale of the month was at 81 Timber Ridge Road in Wolfeboro. This Adirondack home was built in 2011 and has 5,888 square feet of space, four bedrooms, three and a half baths, a hickory kitchen, granite counter tops, the requisite great room with cathedral ceiling and fireplace, first floor master suite, finished lower level, and a family room over the three car garage. This home is extremely well done with attention paid to every detail. The home sits on a .57 acre lot with 101' of frontage, a sandy beach, and a 40' dock to sit on and enjoy fabulous sunsets. This home was listed in July of 2011 at $1.998 million, relisted in 2014 at the same number, reduced to $1.895 million, and sold for $1.81 million after a little over 600 days on the market. It was listed with Randy Parker with Maxfield Real Estate.

There were two sales on Winnisquam in June. One was a new construction, Energy Star certified, ranch style home at 589 Laconia Rd in Tilton. It has 2,048 square feet, three beds, two baths, custom cherry cabinetry, hardwood floors, granite counter tops and a walkout lower level. It sits on a .98 acre lot with 82' of frontage, and is permitted for a 40' dock. It was listed by Sandra Grace at RE/MAX Bayside for $359,000, was reduced to $349,000, and sold for $329,000 after 213 days on the market.

The other Winnisquam sale was at 54 Hill Road also in Tilton. This 1888 vintage, fully renovated lake cottage has 1,451 square feet with four bedrooms, two baths, knotty pine walls, cathedral and wood beamed ceilings, built-ins, stained glass, and lots of charm. It sits on a private .19 acre lot with 50' of frontage with a sandy beach and 33' dock. What more do you need? This property was first listed at $499,000 in September 2012, relisted in October of 2013 at $443,000 with Donna Royal of BHHS Verani Realty, was reduced to $415,00, and sold for $360,000 after at total of 636 days on the market. It is assessed at $370,000, These two sales bring the total number of waterfronts sold on Winnisquam this year to nine compared to five for the first half of 2013.

There was just one sale on Squam in June and that was at 12 Carl Way in Ashland. This cape style home built in 1953 has 1,897 square feet, four bedrooms, two and a half baths, a knotty pine interior, wood burning fireplace, a great screened in porch, and a large deck down at the water's edge. There's also a detached garage with game room above. The home sits on a 1.2 acre lot with 100' of frontage and a dock. This home was listed by Jerry Love at Peabody Smith Realty at $789,000, was reduced to $675,000 and sold for a little over the asking price at $680,000. It is assessed at $639,750.

Please feel free to visit to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Data was compiled using the Northern New England Real Estate MLS System as of 7/16/14. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-455-0335.

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 423

Jim Hightower - Their goal is to establish free-market plutocracy

Most of us celebrated July 4 by barbequing, doing a few 12-ounce elbow bends and setting off some fireworks. Some of us might have paused for a moment to reflect on that thing Jefferson wrote about 238 years ago: The Declaration of Independence.

"We the People" are faced — right now — with another of those "when in the course of human events" moments Jefferson wrote about. Not only is this a month to reconnect with our revolutionary heritage but it's also the appropriate time for re-declaring our independence, this time from "They the Corporations."

With little coverage by the mass media, and with the complicity of most lawmakers, domineering corporations have quietly but aggressively used the high court itself to write them and their money into the Constitution as our sovereigns. As legal scholar and Democratic activist Jamie Raskin said in testimony to the U.S. Senate judiciary committee this June: "In several recent 5-4 decisions, the wall protecting democracy from plutocracy has been crumbling under judicial attack."

Just one year after their Citizens United decision unleashed CEOs to be able to roll truckloads of their shareholders' funds into our elections (without asking those shareholders for permission or even informing them after the fact), that five assaulted our democracy again. Their 2011 verdict in the Arizona Free Enterprise Club case increased the volume of CorporateSpeak in elections by decreasing the speech of non-rich candidates. Specifically, they rejected the will of Arizonans who had voted to provide public funds for candidates who are willing to forego all special-interest money. This system gave the political ideas of the non-wealthy a chance to be heard when up against super-wealthy oligarchs. Public financing of elections was successfully widening public debate and freeing up political speech, so the same five corporate supremists stepped in to kill it, absurdly declaring that such laws give an "unfair advantage" to little-guy campaigns.

Next came this year's McCutcheon opinion, in which the same five blew the lid off the limits on money that an individual can pour on candidates during any given election cycle. The limit had been $123,000 — high enough that only about 600 people out of our 330 million reached that maximum in 2012.

The Court's narrow majority lifted the allowable total for one person's election-year spending to a stunning $5.9 million. That empowers a handful of the richest of rich donors — even fewer than 600 — to overwhelm the political voices of millions of common citizens, all in the name of free speech. Adding to this absurdity, this five-man wrecking crew blithely declares in its McCutcheon ruling that even transactions that appear to be obvious conflicts of interest are permissible (e.g., a CEO can give $25,000 to the head of a congressional committee — the same person who a week later can put a bill on the floor to benefit the CEO's corporation). Such corrupt transactions apparently "do not justify" putting restrictions on campaign contributions. Instead, the wily five ruled that the only donor-to-donee corruption that can be regulated is outright quid pro quo bribery.
And do not think that this is as far as the Court will go to empower Big Money. Already, corporate lawyers are asking the judiciary to strike down all limits on what each millionaire/billionaire can spend to elect or defeat any number of candidates, and they're pushing to reverse 29 state bans on campaign donations during legislative sessions (when lawmakers and lobbyists are in heat and most open to exchanging favors for money).

The unstated (but now abundantly clear) goal of the five co-conspirators is nothing less than the establishment of a free-market plutocracy over what used to be America. Eaten up with Ayn Randian dogma, they are using their judicial positions to commodify political participation, converting our elections (the ultimate public function) into just another private market for buying and selling. Why not just authorize the commodity exchanges to post the daily selling prices of politicians alongside the growing rate for pork bellies and Texas crude? Or why not rule that Wall Street can peddle derivatives based on bulk packages of subprime officeholders. But let's not give them ideas. With this Court's corporate quintet on the loose, absolute absurdity is no longer unimaginable.

But we can stop them. We need to treat the "free" in free speech as a verb, not an adjective. Let's join together around a Constitutional amendment to free up the people's rights from the corporate usurpers. Sixteen states and hundreds of cities, towns and municipalities have joined. For more information visit:

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 395

Froma Harrop - Hippies under the bed

On behalf of all liberals — living and dead — I'd like to apologize to Adam Bellow. In 1976, Bellow was at a Michigan State University writing workshop when a radical feminist publicly rebuked him for saying she had "balls." He says he meant that as a compliment.
Some formative experiences are forged in the hell of war, others in the crucible of writing class.
Bellow never recovered from his. In a recent piece for National Review, he recounts this 38-year-old hurt as exhibit A for why the right needs to launch its own literary movement to tell its own stories.
"I didn't see why I should be called out in front of the group and angrily chastised as though I were merely an embodiment of the white male heterosexual power structure," complains Bellow, son of the great novelist Saul Bellow.
I don't see why, either, but how about a larger picture? More recently, right-wingers disrupted town hall meetings, shouting down the elected representatives trying to address their constituents. Might that be "a bare-knuckled attempt to enforce an ideological orthodoxy by policing the boundaries of acceptable speech," an accusation Bellow chucks at the left?
Such examples would cloud the simple tale of mannerly conservatives battling the '60s hippies. So down the memory hole they go.
But the long-term memory still works fine. For boomer conservatives, the '60s remain fresh material. It matters not that most of today's students barely remember the '90s, much less the '60s.
Anyhow, Bellow complains that when he joined the culture war in 1988 as an editor, "conservatives had little to read." One of the rare examples he cites was "The Road to Serfdom."
"Serfdom" is a classic we all should read. I especially hope its conservative fans will review Chapter 9, where Friedrich Hayek advocates government-guaranteed health care. But I digress.
Bellow acknowledges that on the nonfiction lists, the right is doing OK. Actually, more than OK.
A quick check shows that No. 1 and No. 7 are by conservative movement authors. No. 8 is by an evangelical Christian, and No. 10 by a Republican strategist. The only liberal in the lineup is Hillary Clinton at No. 3.
The top book, "Blood Feud," was issued by Regnery, a conservative publishing house. "For the past 15 years," the publisher's website says, "Regnery has boasted one of the best batting averages in the business — placing more than 50 books on the New York Times bestseller list, including nine books at No. 1."
The author at No. 7 is Ben Carson, a hero of the right. He's published by Sentinel, a conservative imprint of the Penguin Group. Perhaps, just perhaps, the objective of the media conglomerates now publishing books is to sell books.
But their business interests don't reach into fiction, according to Bellow. In fiction, conservative authors are "embattled and excluded."
The only way to fight liberals' "thought control," Bellow insists, "is by turning their weapons against them and channeling the spirit of the Sixties counterculture."
Conservatives must bypass the establishment. They're already self-publishing their novels through digital technologies, though some are afraid to use their names. "Their resistance and courage are deeply inspiring," Bellow writes.
You've seen those midnight roundups of right-leaning novelists, haven't you?
The publishing houses must have been asleep at the switch when they let conservative Ayn Rand through the barricades. Her novels currently rank No. 1 and No. 2 on the Modern Library reader's list of 100 best novels.
Well, imagination is a good thing. And in that vein, I can almost hear the feminist meanie telling Bellow to "man up."
And don't anyone ask me to take that back. One apology per column.

(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)


  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 440

Pat Buchanan - Just a geographic expression?

Speaking to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Albuquerque in 2001, George W. Bush declared that, as Mexico was a friend and neighbor, "It's so important for us to tear down our barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States."

Bush succeeded. And during his tenure, millions from Mexico exploited his magnanimity to violate our laws, trample upon our sovereignty, walk into our country, and remain here.

In 2007, backed by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Barack Obama, Bush backed amnesty for the 12 million people who had entered America illegally. The nation thundered no. And Congress sustained the nation.

The latest mass border crossing by scores of thousands of tots, teenagers and toughs from Central America has killed amnesty in 2014, and probably for the duration of the Obama presidency.

Indeed, with the massive media coverage of the crisis on the border, immigration, legal and illegal, and what it portends for our future, could become the decisive issue of 2014 and 2016. But it needs to be put in a larger context. For this issue is about more than whether the Chamber of Commerce gets amnesty for its members who have been exploiting cheap illegal labor.

The real issue: Will America remain one nation, or are we are on the road to Balkanization and the breakup of America into ethnic enclaves? For, as Ronald Reagan said, a nation that cannot control its borders isn't really a nation anymore.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote, "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ... "

He called Americans a "band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties." The republic of the founders for whom Jay spoke did not give a fig for diversity. They cherished our unity, commonality, and sameness of ancestry, culture, faith and traditions.

We were not a nation of immigrants in 1789. They came later. From 1845-1849, the Irish fleeing the famine. From 1890-1920, the Germans. Then the Italians, Poles, Jews and other Eastern Europeans. Then, immigration was suspended in 1924.

From 1925 to 1965, the children and grandchildren of those immigrants were assimilated, Americanized. In strong public schools, they were taught our language, literature and history, and celebrated our holidays and heroes. We endured together through the Depression and sacrificed together in World War II and the Cold War.
By 1960, we had become truly one nation and one people. America was not perfect. No country is. But no country ever rivaled what America had become. She was proud, united, free, the first nation on earth. And though the civil rights movement had just begun, nowhere did black peoples enjoy the freedom and prosperity of African-Americans.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday that America is today in "a fundamentally better place than we were 50 years ago." In some ways that is so. Equality of rights has been realized. Miraculous cures in medicine have kept alive many of us who would not have survived the same maladies half a century ago.

But we are no longer that "band of brethren." We are no longer one unique people "descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion."

We are from every continent and country. Nearly 4 in 10 Americans trace their ancestry to Asia, Africa and Latin America. We are a multiracial, multilingual, multicultural society in a world where countless countries are being torn apart over race, religion and roots.

We no longer speak the same language, worship the same God, honor the same heroes or share the same holidays. Christmas and Easter have been privatized. Columbus is reviled. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are out of the pantheon. Cesar Chavez is in.

Our politics have become poisonous. Our political parties are at each other's throats.

Christianity is in decline. Traditional churches are sundering over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Islam is surging.

Our society seems to be disintegrating. Over 40 percent of all births now are illegitimate. Among Hispanics, the figure is 52 percent. Among African-Americans, 73 percent.

And among children born to single moms, the drug use rate and the dropout rate, the crime rate and the incarceration rate, are many times higher than among children born to married parents.

If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?

Neocons say we are a new kind of nation, an ideological nation erected upon a written Constitution and Bill of Rights. But equality, democracy and diversity are not mentioned in the Constitution. As for what our founding documents mean, even the Supreme Court does not agree.

More and more, 21st-century America seems to meet rather well Metternich's depiction of Italy — "a geographic expression."


  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 423

Susan Estrich - Sugar babies

The news that Google executive Forrest Hayes died on a yacht after being injected with heroin by a "date" he met on a website that connects "sugar daddies" with "sugar babies" has prompted not only charges against the woman, 26-year-old Alix Tichelman, and an investigation of a similar death (ruled accidental) involving Ms. Tichelman in 2013, but also questions about the website that brought the dead husband and father into contact with the woman who literally killed him.
While police have described the woman as a high-priced escort with an ongoing "prostitution relationship" with the executive, the website "Seeking Arrangements," denies that its site in any way condones prostitution. According to the site's spokesperson, "What we do know is that these were two adults that were involved in a consensual relationship that was ongoing. This appears to be a case of recreational drug use gone wrong."
Actually, it appears to be quite a bit worse than that. It wasn't just that Tichelman allegedly injected Hayes with a lethal dose of heroin. The security cameras show her injecting the heroin, and then watching as Hayes' body went limp. Instead of calling 911, as anyone with an ounce of humanity would do, Ms. Tichelman allegedly finished her wine, packed up her needles and heroin, and then stepped over his body to leave, pausing only to reach back and pull down the blinds so no one would see the dying man inside.
This is, of course, according to the police. Ms. Tichelman is innocent until proven guilty. But if the report of what was captured on camera is correct, she deserves to be charged not with manslaughter (the current charge against her, along with drug and prostitution charges) but murder. She may not have intended that Hayes die when she injected him, but her actions once she did so establish malice; to leave someone to die, much less pull down the shades, when they are potentially facing death is an omission that is as serious as an intentional act of killing. And the fact that another man — this one in Georgia, last year — died under similar circumstances while Ms. Tichelman was showering not only raises questions for Georgia police, but also is relevant to Tichelman's knowledge and intent on the night she injected Hayes.
In short, Ms. Tichelman has big problems, as well she should. The degrees of murder reflect the fact that not all killings are alike: The killer for hire, the killer who plans his act, are punished more seriously because they are, quite simply, more evil than one who kills in the heat of passion. On the "scumbag scorecard," a woman who would finish her wine and pull down the shades after killing the man with whom she was supposedly "involved in a consensual relationship" deserves to be in that same category.
And the website? They claim that matching a "sugar daddy" with a "sugar baby" for a "no-strings" ideal relationship for the daddy and financial stability, shopping sprees and exotic travel for the baby has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with prostitution. Meet "background-checked" babies, the men are promised. I wonder if Ms. Tichelman's background check picked up the man who died while she was in the shower? I doubt it.
Prostitution by another name is still prostitution. A website which facilitates prostitution is complicit in that crime, at least. There are so many sites like that on the web (to quote the song, "The Internet Is for Porn,") that it would be impossible to shut them down, even if anyone had the will to try. But when prostitution leads directly to death, there is a case to be made that all those complicit share in the responsibility for the death, if not under the criminal law, at least under the civil law, and certainly as a matter of morality.
(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 471