I was looking through an MLS spreadsheet to see what might be out there for bargains when I ran across an unusual listing in Center Harbor that had an assessed value of $713,300 and a list price of just $299,900. I thought to myself that this might be a steal on a waterfront until I saw the address listed as 41 Kelsea Ave. While Kelsea Ave may be close to the bay, if it were to become waterfront we would likely be praying for the rain to stop. It just so happens that this property would be the perfect place to do that because it is a church! So if you are looking for a truly unique residence at a great price, this might be it!
The property at 41 Kelsea Avenue consists of a quintessential white Catholic Church built in 1907 and an attached two bedroom, custom built home built in 2004. The 63' x 34' church hall features beautiful stained glass and woodwork while the home features a top-of-the line kitchen with Viking appliances, custom cabinetry, stone fireplaces, walnut flooring, and a sunroom that contains a 12' x 7' lap pool. There is a total of 5,600' of heavenly living space. The property is zoned residential/commercial so what would you run for a business here? I'm thinking of establishing a church for those who have faith in real estate. There must be a tax deduction in there somewhere.
This property is not new to the market and was listed by the previous owner for $917,000 back in March of 2010 and it was listed several more times and found no buyers even when reduced down to $695,000. It is now owned by the friendly Bank of America who could no longer wait for a miracle on earth and foreclosed on the property thus it is now offered at a mere 42 percent of the tax assessment.
Another property that appears to be a potentially good deal is at 869 Province Road in Gilmanton. This 1,286 square foot, open concept cape was built in 1994 and while it has just one bedroom and one and a half baths it has an unfinished second floor that's ready for sheet rock. The home features a large eat-in kitchen, master suite, a great four-season sunroom with cathedral ceilings and a gas stove, and a two car garage. The house sits on a 6 acre country lot. The home is on the market for $175,000 which is 80 percent of the tax assessed value of $219,800. This is a short sale so third party approval is required.
Another property worth a look is at 26 Mountain Vista Drive in New Hampton. This is a three bedroom, three bath, contemporary home with 2,464 square feet of living space that was built in 1986 on a 2.86 acre lot. This home is just minutes to downtown Meredith and features an open floor plan, lots of light, beamed ceilings, a master suite, fireplace, three decks, and some great mountain views. This home is also a short sale and is on the market for $189,900 or 70 percent of the tax assessed value of $270,700. Might just be worth a look?
Finally, if you are looking for a waterfront cottage on a great little lake, check out the property at 98 Upper Suncook Lane in Barnstead. This 40s vintage, two bedroom, seasonal cottage has 1,000 square feet of space and sits just steps to the water. It sits on a .19 lot with 85' of frontage that affords beautiful views of the lake and gorgeous sunsets. This property is offered at $199,000 or 62 percent of the tax assessed value of $318,900. Don't wait until next spring, it will be gone...
Please feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-455-0335.
Last Updated on Friday, 01 November 2013 07:56
The very fine public servant, Russ Feingold, cautioned against the steady slippage of our democracy toward autocracy back in October 2001, when he stood tall as the only U.S. Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Warning that its anti-democratic provisions would create a nation "where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications," Feingold rightly concluded: "That country wouldn't be America."
So here we are, having devolved from the founders' principled insistence on erecting the strongest palisades for the defense of the people's personal liberties — to now having a secret government inside our borders and inside our lives. The National Security Agency is running a labyrinthine, secret, extravagant, unconstitutional and out-of-control electronic surveillance operation that targets you.
Yes, you! And me. Its not just German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other head-of-state allies who are furious that this veracious nest of snoops has been listening-in on their private conversations for years, but also everyone living in our own Land of the Free. We citizens have been redefined by our government as suspects.
Not that NSA officialdom actually thinks that you, Mr. Upright or Ms. Doright, are terrorists or even "persons of interest" — but, then again, you might be. So, the spook bureaucracy has unilaterally chosen to create an elaborate, electronic Rube-Goldbergish spy matrix that (A) appropriates and agglomerates everyone's "metadata" — a geek term defined as data that provides information about other data — channels it into (B) banks of rapidly spinning supercomputers that (C) analyze your and my terrorist inclinations, based on (D) the phone calls we make and get, (E) e-mails we send and receive, (F) websites we visit and topics we Google, (G) Facebook friends and pages we like, and (H) credit card expenditures and bank transactions we make.
Even the code-names of NSA's array of electronic eyes are almost comically Orwellian: PRISM, Tempora, XKeyscore, and — my favorite — Boundless Informant.
But all this, and for what? To make you and me safe from terrorists, the hierarchy chants in unison. Constantly pointing to 9/11, the spies and their political henchmen solemnly assert that, hypothetically, bulk surveillance of every American might have, possibly could have, maybe would have stopped that horrific plot. But the phone conversations that mattered in that case were those that did NOT happen — the breakdown in communication between the CIA and the FBI, and between FBI headquarters and its local agents.
When the top brass of U.S. SpyWorld did a dog-and-pony show for the House intelligence committee on June 18, they claimed that "dozens" of terrorist attacks had been prevented since 9/11 by NSA's SuperVac programs. Dozens? "More than 50," clarified NSA's director. But wait, how many of those were plots for terrorist attacks on our soil? "A little over 10," he mumbled. That's it? Years of scooping up ALL metadata on EVERY American to find only 10 plots?
Moreover, he was able to name only four of those 10, and none were serious threats to do major harm to Americans. In fact, one involved a bombing in India, one is a questionable case of $8,500 ostensibly sent to terrorists in Somalia, one was actually uncovered by regular police work, and the fourth was not a plot to attack the U.S., but to send funds abroad to al-Qaida. For this, we should shred our Bill of Rights?
"We've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight," Obama said to a reporter on Sept. 13, then expressed exasperation that people don't have faith in the system, "And if people can't trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution, due process, and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here."
Well, yes sir, you do have some problems, BIG ones. Obama and the surveillance establishment are proposing a bit more "disclosure" to fix the agency's PR problem. But that's just warmed over B.S. We can't give him — or Congress — a pass on this. It's too big, too destructive of our values and self-respect. NSA's domestic spy matrix and the Patriot Act itself confront us as a multi-eyed, hydra-headed, democracy-devouring monster. Forget disclosure; the monster must be dismantled.
(Jim Hightower has been called American's most popular populist. The radio commentator and former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture is author of seven books, including "There's Nothing In the Middle of Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" and his new work, "Swim Against the Current: Even Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow".)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
The first reports in early May of 1960 were that a U.S. weather plane, flying out of Turkey, had gone missing. A silent Moscow knew better. After letting the Americans crawl out on a limb, expatiating on their cover story, Russia sawed it off.
Actually, said Nikita Khrushchev, we shot down a U.S. spy plane 1000 miles inside our country flying over a restricted zone. We have the pilot, we have the camera, we have the pictures. We have the hollow silver dollar containing the poisoned-tipped needle CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers declined to use.
Two weeks later, Khrushchev used the U-2 incident and Ike's refusal to apologize to dynamite the Paris summit and the gauzy Spirit of Camp David that had come out of his 10-day visit to the USA. Eisenhower's reciprocal trip to Russia was now dead.
A year later, President Kennedy would be berated by Khrushchev in Vienna. The Berlin Wall would go up. And Khrushchev would begin secretly to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from Key West.
Had there been no U-2 incident, would the history of the Cold War have been different? Perhaps.
Yet, while there were critics of launching Power's U-2 flight so close to the summit, Americans understood the need for espionage. Like us, the Soviets were installing ballistic missiles, every single one of which could incinerate an American city.
Post 9/11, too, Americans accepted the necessity for the National Security Agency to retrieve and sift through phone calls and e-mails to keep us secure from terror attacks. Many have come to accept today's risks of an invasion of their privacy — for greater security for their family. And there remains a deposit of trust among Americans that the NSA, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are not only working for us, they are defending us.
How long Americans will continue to repose this trust, however, is starting to come into question. Last week, we learned that a high official of the U.S. government turned 200 private phone numbers of 35 friendly foreign leaders, basically the Rolodex of the president, over to the NSA for tapping and taping. Allied leaders, with whom America works toward common goals, have for years apparently had their private conversations listened to, transcribed and passed around by their supposed U.S. friends.
Angela Merkel has apparently been the subject of phone taps since before she rose to the leadership of Germany and Europe. A victim of the East German Stasi, Ms. Merkel is not amused.
We are told not to be naive; everyone does it. Spying, not only between enemies but among allies, is commonplace. This is how the world works. Deal with it.
But why are we doing this? Is it all really about coping with the terrorist threat? Or is it because we have the ability to do it, and the more information we have, even stolen surreptitiously from friends and allies, the better? Gives us a leg up in the great game of nations.
U.S. diplomats say that one of their assignments abroad is to know what the host government is thinking and planning politically, economically, strategically. That this is an aspect of diplomacy. But relations among friendly nations are not unlike the NFL. While films are taken of rival teams' games and studied, scouts observe practices, and rumors are picked up of injuries, there are lines that most opposing NFL teams do not cross. The lines of unethical conduct and criminality.
To learn that an owner or coach of one NFL franchise had wiretapped the home phones of coaches and players of a Super Bowl rival would, if revealed, be regarded as rotten business.
What kind of camaraderie, cooperation or friendship can endure in an environment where constant snooping on one's closest friends is accepted practice?
In the Nixon White House, there were serious leaks that revealed our secret bombing of Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia to protect our troops, and of our fallback position in the strategic arms talks. Wiretaps were planted on aides to Henry Kissinger and White House staffers who had no knowledge of what had been leaked. Relationships were altered, some poisoned for a lifetime.
Why should we not expect a similar reaction among foreign friends who discover their personal and political secrets have been daily scooped up and filed by their American friends, and found their way into the president's daily intelligence brief?
The Cold War was a clash of ideologies and empires for the future of the world. Men took drastic measures to preserve what they had. At the end of the Cold War, the old tactics and measures were not set aside, but improved upon, and now are no longer restricted for use against the likes of al-Qaida, but against allies.
At the Cold War's end, the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick talked hopefully of America becoming again "a normal country in a normal time." Seems as though the normal times are never coming back.
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 08:37
As someone who has been deeply involved in New Hampshire health care delivery and financing for more than a quarter century, I have personally observed the health consequences and crushing financial strain of patients without health insurance coverage. People may forgo needed preventative care and treatment, go without needed medications, and often end up in emergency departments, the most expensive place to receive treatment. An established primary care relationship would have avoided any needless morbidity or mortality, all of which sap the strength of our families and the economic vitality of our communities. It is with this perspective that I 'd like to impress upon those pursuing a legislative solution to increased access to health insurance, how important it is to both craft the access and sustainable financing to ensure that an initial achievement remains a sustainable one.
In crafting the New Hampshire plan for expanded health insurance coverage, the saying that comes to mind is "measure twice and cut once." This saying also describes the challenge for the New Hampshire Legislature. We have only one opportunity to achieve this in a responsible and sustainable way, thus maximizing benefits for our state while minimizing any risks. It is vitally important to all of our fellow citizens that we get this right.
There appears to be a growing political consensus that expanded health insurance coverage represents the fundamental building block for improving health care for the citizenry. However, the benefits of such an expansion alone will prove illusory without a sustainable financing plan behind it.
As an individual citizen, I call upon our elected state leaders to expand health insurance coverage through a New Hampshire solution that adds to the New Hampshire Advantage. Other states have crafted state-centric plans and have sought and obtained the necessary waivers from the federal government on a speedy basis. From my perspective, the key elements of such a plan would include:
1. Strengthening New Hampshire's private insurance market for those currently with and without coverage, through use of private insurance to cover newly eligible (and those currently eligible where there is the flexibility and capacity to do so). We as a state are relatively small from a population standpoint, which makes it hard to support options in insurance coverage. Retaining individuals in the private market helps us contend with that challenge versus adding to it.
2. Promote the highest level of coverage continuity (i.e. avoid "churning") to promote health and the cost to individuals and the state. It is sensible to have continuity with your provider and insurer so that investments in health promotion can be more readily sustained.
3. Improve budget predictability for the state by financing premiums versus services. In financing premiums versus services, the state will have the benefit of fixed unit costs in the coverage it supports.
4. Ensure protection to the state from any potential financing changes from the federal level. Arguably, the more coverage that comes from tax credits and private coverage reduces future exposure to the state should federal policy shift.
5. Secure a federal match to finance this expanded coverage that is competitive with other neighboring states. Our state is in optimal position now to negotiate the parameters of expanded coverage that will drive the fed's and state's effective participation to support sustainable implementation.
The aforementioned saying expresses something considered to be a general truth. The truth of expanding coverage is that it represents a one-time opportunity to do it right to ensure a sustainable system that protects patients and taxpayers. We can and should come together to achieve a plan with these elements. Moreover, we should allow a relatively short-time, in the scheme of things, to secure the available beneficial waivers from the federal government, as some other states have recently done. That will prove the key "measurement" in the future level of success we get from expanded coverage as individuals and for the generations to follow.
My appreciation is extended to all of those in Concord who are working towards increasing access to health insurance for my home town and the state as a whole.
(Henry D. Lipman is senior vice president for Financial Strategy and External Relations at LRGHealthcare in Laconia. He also represents Ward 3 on the Laconia City Council.)
Last Updated on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 10:20
Danvers, Mass., is two towns away from where I grew up. I used to shop at the mall there. When I was much younger and stronger, I'd ride my bike that far. We played Danvers in football. I went to camp in Danvers.
If you'd asked me yesterday or the day before whether Danvers was a scary town, I would have laughed. Danvers? I live in Los Angeles. In Danvers, kids still ride their bikes at night.
Danvers should be safe. And I always thought it was — until I read about the murder of math teacher Colleen Ritzer, originally from Andover, one more town away, and only a year older than my daughter.
The alleged murderer was arraigned in the First District Court of Essex County. When I was a kid, my first job was at the Essex County Registry of Deeds, right next door to the courthouse, and for "fun" (would-be lawyer that I was), I used to go over at lunch and sit in on the trials. There was one family murder, but I never sat in on a case like this. Things like this didn't happen in Salem or Danvers or Andover.
Until they did.
Why does a 14-year-old murder a well-liked, dedicated, beautiful and talented math teacher just 10 years older than him? I'm sure his lawyers will come up with some excuse, mental illness or an abuse excuse, family troubles, diminished capacity, one of the long list of defenses and excuses I used to teach.
Is it wrong to say I couldn't care less what his excuse is? Is it wrong to say that if 14 is old enough to kill — and it is — then it's old enough to be responsible and to be punished as an adult?
Maybe I've lost my empathy. Or maybe I've just become very clear about who does and does not deserve empathy Not the alleged killer. The victim and her family.
Ritzer is the second teacher to be killed this week by a student (allegedly, of course). Two days earlier, in Sparks, Nev., another math teacher — this time a man, a former Marine and National Guardsman — was shot at school by a 12-year-old who also shot two other students before killing himself.
You can try to find a pattern. But really, what could it be? That teaching math is life threatening? Ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the gun-control laws in Massachusetts are tougher than in Nevada. So the 14-year-old used a box cutter, allegedly. The kid in Nevada reportedly got his gun from home. Some people are describing the kid in Danvers as "soft-spoken," whatever that means (like the "baby-faced" Marathon bomber, who was no baby-face), and others are speculating that he was infatuated with his math teacher. If every teacher of an infatuated student were vulnerable to murder, well, there would be no profession.
In all of my years living on the North Shore of Boston, as a student and as an adult, I never heard of a student killing a teacher. I certainly would remember. It just didn't happen.
So why now?
It's the sort of thing we need to talk about thoughtfully, not screaming at one another about gun control, but listening respectfully, trying to figure out what's gone wrong and what we can do about it. But we don't have those kinds of conversations anymore — about anything. There is no discourse. It's all just ideological prattle, screaming back and forth, talking heads competing to be outrageous enough to get their own shows. Meanwhile, decent people shake their heads, and parents and families mourn losses that are just unfathomable.
Two math teachers in one week. So wrong.
(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.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00