Sanborn — More Affordable Homes

As of August 1 there were 1,307 residential homes on the market in the twelve communities covered by this Lakes Region real estate market report. The median asking price came in at $275,000 and there were over 400 homes under $200,000 available. This inventory level represents almost 16 months worth of inventory on the market.

Another new month and many more affordable homes have come on the market. Here are my picks for some properties you could check out if you are in the market. A new offering at 129 Belknap Mountain Road in Gilford should be a winner. This 1,200 square foot ranch built in 1968 has three bedrooms, one bath, two fireplaces, a partially finished basement, and a two car garage under. The masonry construction of this home means it is low maintenance. It sits on a 1 acre lot with great mountain views and is close to the Gilford Village. Great house, great location and a great price at $199,900.

Over in Belmont at 169 Durrell Mountain Road there's another three bedroom ranch that has been updated. You'll find a new kitchen with stainless steel appliances and lots of granite, a large walk in pantry, refinished oak floors, living room, master, and three quarter bath on the main level. In the lower level there's a family room, two bedrooms, and full bath. Out front is a great patio and a white picket fence while two driveways lead back to a 40' x 30' heated garage with overhead crane for the gear head in the family. It sits on a .46 acre level lot. This home is priced at $185,000 and is already getting lots of activity.

If beach rights are what you are looking for, the house at 6 Anthony Drive in Laconia will get you onto a nice one on Opechee. This 1978 vintage raised ranch has 1,660 square feet of living space with three bedrooms, one and a half baths, living room with a wood fireplace, laminate and tile floors, and a large finished space in the lower level perfect for an exercise room, game room, or a place for those unexpected guests that come to use the beach. Out back is a large deck for barbecuing and there's a two car garage to hold the floats and water toys. The house sits on a third acre lot and offers some seasonal lake views. This property is priced at $215,000.

If you venture up to 19 Jennifers Path in Moultonborough, you'll find a 1,386 square foot saltbox built in 1998 on a 3.5 acre lot complete with fire pit and a place to park that camper you've always wanted. This house has three bedrooms, two baths, a nice open floor plan with vaulted ceilings, a large living room with a woodstove, and a first floor master. Upstairs you'll find two guest rooms along with a full bath. There's a full walkout basement waiting for a man cave project and there are two decks for grilling and entertaining. This home is offered at $214,900 and the low taxes in Moultonborough make it pretty appealing

P​ease feel free to visit to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others.

​Data compiled using the NNEREN MLS system as of 8/15/15. ​
Roy Sanborn is a sales associate at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-677-7012.

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 267

Susan Estrich - Carly rising?

Surprise. The one woman in the crowded Republican field, Carly Fiorina, turns out to be articulate and well informed, thoughtful and independent, actually the standout in the second-tier debate and really, if you're judging, the best debater of the night.

Actually, many of the reporters covering the debate did appear a little shocked at how well she "delivered her lines," which is not exactly how I'd describe it. She is the former CEO of a major Fortune 500 company. Donald Trump could not hold his own in a debate with her about the private sector economy — if she could get the chance, that is.

This is how the script should go: a little-known but articulate candidate turns in a strong performance, which gains her media attention as a potential contender, which then translates into financial support, which allows her to hire more organizers and build support in Iowa where finishing in the first tier would be considered respectable, given that Iowa, past the winner, is all about meeting or exceeding expectations.

And as the field narrows, the candidate gets more attention, and becomes, at the least, a contender for the second spot. Getting from the very back to the very front is difficult, even if everything goes according to script, because the brutal primary schedule requires that you have money early enough to be organizing already in multiple states, and later requires even more money to pay for media, while momentum takes time to build.

So is the script working for Fiorina? Does the debate become a springboard to move her at least into the top 10?

I hope so, not because she is my personal choice for president, but because I want to see women achieve more power and influence in both parties, and all other factors being equal (which of course they never are), I'll always vote for the woman.

When I don't recognize the names of judge candidates, I pick out the women. How great it would be to have serious female candidates for president in both parties. An absolute first.
But not necessarily in the cards. Fiorina had a good ride for about 24 hours until The Donald took back the headlines with his asinine comment suggesting that the reason anchor Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions was because she was menstruating. The joke, of course, is that the questions weren't lowballs or unfair in the least. She simply repeated back to him some of the offensive things he'd said in the past. At the very least, candidates are usually prepared to deal with their skeletons. But the Republican "frontrunner" (sorry, Republican friends, but that's what the polls in Iowa say) was not.

So in the ultimate cruel irony, the one female candidate, who was poised to ride a wave of media attention for at least a few days more, has been knocked out of the story by the almost unbelievably anachronistic sexism of a competitor with no business in the race.

Which is really the bottom line. There are lots of reasons candidates run for president other than winning. Harvard Professor Larry Lessig has announced that after a lifetime of activism for campaign finance reform, he is considering running for president based on small donations to bring the campaign finance issue to the forefront — something that is difficult for candidates who are literally raising billions of dollars to do. So good for him. Gene McCarthy, for those of us who can remember, never had a chance of winning the New Hampshire primary in 1968, but his better-than-expected showing forced President Johnson out of the race.

But a candidate who doesn't have a chance to win should at least have some issue or cause that justifies distracting our attention and distorting the race. Ego should not be enough.

(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: 279

Froma Harrop - Trump playing in ballpark the GOP built

There's this great scene from "Law & Order" where Detective Briscoe shows a victim's picture to a prostitute. He asks whether she knew of anyone who had "dated" him.

"I didn't, but he's cute," she says.

"You've been at this too long, honey." Briscoe replies. "He's dead."

The political punditry seems unable to agree on whether Donald Trump's candidacy will survive the billionaire's latest barrage of rhetorical barbarities. We refer to his attacks on Fox News questioner Megyn Kelly and the infamous "blood" remark.

But all this presupposes that Trump is conducting a real, living candidacy rather than a mega-prank. By all appearances, he is using the Republican fringe's high tolerance of — nay, appreciation for — off-the-wall comments to expand the Trump brand at no cost to Trump. The billionaire also seems to be whipping up the right wing's hatred of establishments, including the Republican one, for fun and profit.

Face it. Some 24 million viewers didn't tune in to the Fox News debate just to hear Trump say outrageous things. They wanted to see him make the other candidates suffer.

Trump's performance led to his banishment from the subsequent RedState debate. Its organizer, Erick Erickson, explained, "I don't want my daughter in the same room" as Trump.

Sounds chivalrous, but Erickson's coat of armor is not without chinks. It was Erickson who attributed feminists' anger to their "being too ugly to get a date." And he called Michelle Obama a "Marxist harpy wife."

That armor evidently needs repair, for Erickson now seems hurt by the pro-Trump blowback. "I have e-mails from people referring to Megyn Kelly as a 'whore,'" he complained. "I have e-mails from people referring to me as 'gay.' I have e-mails referring to the president by the N-word and (saying) that Donald Trump is standing up to all of us."
Imagine such sensitivity coming from the man who writes such blog posts as "Is Obama Shagging Hookers Behind the Media's Back?" That's when he's not writing deep religious tracts.

This is the ballpark Republicans have been playing in. Trump may say things that are dumb and crude, but they're no dumber or cruder than the musings of the right-wing spokesmen whom party leaders routinely court.

Erickson can portray himself as a bulwark against indecency, but he's really been Trump's warmup act. Without his and others' normalization of lunatic statements, Trump would never have gotten as far as he has.

One feels for the respectable Republicans dragged into these environs. It was sad to see Ohio Gov. John Kasich pummeled at the Fox News debate for having humanely expanded Medicaid in his state. It was unfortunate but inevitable that someone (this time Rand Paul) would slam New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for having publicly hugged President Obama. The context, some may remember, was the president's visit and offer of federal help after the devastation of Superstorm Sandy.

On the other hand, Christie and other Republicans had no problem sharing the stage with the likes of Erickson.

The Huffington Post last month moved its Trump coverage to the entertainment section from politics. Jay Rosen, a well-known media analyst, praised the decision as "the work of fed-up and free-thinking adults."

But the move has irked political writers at The Washington Post. Are they merely defending their turf? Or have they been at this too long?


  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 235

Pat Buchanan - Taking down The Donald

If his Republican opponents will not take down Donald Trump, Fox News will not only show them how it is done. Fox News will do the job for them.

That is the message that came out loud and clear from last Thursday's debate in Cleveland, which was viewed by the largest cable audience ever to watch a political event — 24 million Americans.

As political theater, it was exciting and entertaining.

But what was supposed to be a debate among the top-10 Republican candidates turned into a bear-baiting of Donald Trump.

Make no mistake. The issues Fox News raised were legitimate. Trump's threat to run third party, his remarks about women who have affronted him, the bankruptcies that four of his companies went through as he built his real estate empire — these are all fair game.

What was wrong here was that it was not his Republican rivals raising these issues or taking on Trump. It was the Fox News "moderators" of what was supposed to be a candidates' debate. They came into the arena to do to Trump what his GOP rivals have been too timid or reluctant to do.

Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly came with their oppo research done and attack questions prepared — to sack Trump in the end zone and send him to the locker room on a stretcher.

When did that become the job of a "moderator" who is supposed to be more of a referee than a middle linebacker? Who decided to turn the first Republican presidential debate into a two-hour version of "The Kelly File"?

With the exception of Rand Paul on the opening question about Trump bolting to run as a third-party candidate, no Republican chose to follow up the Fox News attacks on Trump that were disguised as questions. They let Fox do the wet work.

The anger of Trump and his followers that he was being singled out and sandbagged is understandable, even if his reaction revealed that Fox News had drawn blood. Indeed, this debate will be recalled in political lore as the night Fox News tried to take down the Donald.

Did they succeed? What do the early returns tell us? According to an NBC poll, taken in the 48 hours after Cleveland, Trump has held first place and has risen a point to 23 percent. Sen. Ted Cruz had vaulted into second place with 13 percent. Dr. Ben Carson had risen to No. 3 with 11 percent. Carly Fiorina, who was not in the top 10 a week ago, is now fourth with 9 percent.
Together, these four outsiders can claim the support of well over half of all Republicans, while the beltway favorites — Marco Rubio at No. 5, Jeb Bush at No. 6 and Scott Walker at No. 7 — can together claim less Republican support than Donald Trump alone.

Who won the debate? According to the NBC poll, it was Carson, Trump and Cruz in that order.

With a real opportunity to capture the presidency in 2016, those leading in the race for the GOP nomination seem to be among the least likely to amass 270 electoral votes. But those most acceptable to the establishment seem, as each month passes, to generate less and less enthusiasm.

Yet, what is now clear is that the Republican establishment wants Trump out of this race, and, frustrated at his continuing strong support, is less and less willing to wait for him to implode.

Over the weekend, we heard talk of a Kasich-Rubio ticket, or vice versa. Yet, in that NBC poll, Kasich remains dead in the water after the debate, dropping from 3 to 2 percent, while Rubio is at 9 percent.

A real danger is emerging here of the split inside the GOP deepening and widening. For if it is seen that Trump has not been rejected by the voters, but driven out the race by the establishment and the elites, the value of the nomination will be vastly diminished.

Thus far in this presidential season, the rise of the Republican outsiders, insurgents, nonpoliticians and anti-politicians reveals how far the people of the United States are estranged and alienated from their political leadership.

In the Democratic Party, too, we have seen the rise of outsider-insurgent socialist Bernie Sanders to within single digits of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and the fall of Clinton to where she is underwater in the polls on issues of trust and, "Does she care about people like me?"

If there is one lesson to be taken from this run-up year to the presidential campaign of 2016, it is that a huge and growing segment of the nation does not want what the establishment of either party has on offer.

And as insurgent parties spring up all over Europe, and the two-party system disintegrates there, the Europeanization of American politics may be at hand.

(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.)

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 318

Bob Meade - By the way. . .

By the way . . . As part of their mantra we quite often hear our Democrat politicians tell us that we must reverse the Supreme Court's decision which is referred to as "Citizens United". That decision essentially said corporations are legal entities and, as such, have "free speech" rights. Democrat politicians act as one in their outrage over this decision. However, as the late commentator Paul Harvey would say . . . now, for the rest of the story. You see, as long as corporations were denied their "free speech" rights, they could not contribute to political candidates. By giving them those rights, corporations are now free to make lawful contributions just as any other citizen could. Essentially, those contributions may come out of corporate profits, or from PACs to which employers and employees could contribute. But those political contributions are not tax deductible, and the corporation must pay taxes on them. If anyone should have a complaint about those corporate contributions, it should be the company's shareholders. The Democrats have long had an edge with union sponsored PACS, and with untold numbers of "in kind" assistance from those same unions.

A look at "'s" top 20 political action committee contributors revealed that four are labor unions, eight are associations, and eight are corporations. The largest group of contributors is the associations, who contributed $21.5 million. Those PACs gave 44 percent to Democrats and 56 percent to Republicans. Next were the corporations, which donated $19.2 million, with 44 percent going to Democrats and 56 percent going to Republicans. Closing out the contributions were labor unions. They gave a total of $9.2 million, with 89 percent of that going to Democrats and just under 12 percent going to Republicans.

In total, the top 20 contributors gave slightly more than $26 million to Democrats (52 percent) and a little under $24 million to Republicans (48 percent). As the figures showed, associations and corporations contribute generously to both political parties while the unions give overwhelmingly to the Democrats. Perhaps our Democrat politicians can stop whining and acknowledge that the court made the correct decision.

By the way . . . Another group that has caught a lot of attention lately is Planned Parenthood. That organization has received over $540 million a year from the federal government. While Planned Parenthood is a "not for profit" organization, most often they end the year with a significant surplus of unspent funds. What's bothersome however is that Planned Parenthood uses part of that money to buy political support for their various activities. Most recently, the organization gave over $2.6 million in support of Democrat candidates, and not one penny was spent against any Democrat. They also contributed a whopping $13 thousand (not millions) to support a Republican candidate, and over $3.4 million "against" Republican candidates. Now isn't that nice, take money from the government and then use it against them if they don't support your every wish. Clearly, using taxpayer money to attack one political party while using other taxpayer money to support the other party is outrageous . . . it should be against the law. Money is fungible, meaning it can be used for a variety of purposes. So, while Planned Parenthood claims not to use any of the $540 million for abortions, that money is used to fund a variety of other expenses and that essentially frees up the money that would be used to support those other functions, to now be used to support the over 330,000 abortions they perform annually. Another deceitful bit of information from Planned Parenthood is that only 3 percent of their activities are abortion services. What is so outrageous is that they give equal weight to a test to see if the patient has an infection, or equal weight to handing out a box of contraceptives, or a number of other simple tasks, as they do for an abortion that takes the life of the unborn child. And, by the way, Planned Parenthood does not own a mammogram machine . . . they simply observe the mammary and, if they feel more testing needs to be done, they refer the patients to their doctor or hospital where a mammogram can be performed. We are giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year to support a deceitful organization. There are better ways to spend that money in support of women's health care.

By the way . . . We often hear our Democrat leaders telling us that we need a "single payer system" for our medical needs. What this really means, is that the Democrats want our entire medical system under their control, where they will decide what medical services you can get, when you can get them, and how much the doctors and hospitals can get paid. This raises a few questions. The first is, do you want some government bureaucrat deciding whether or not you can get the medical care you need; especially if you happen to be of a different political party than that bureaucrat? Another question is, if the government has many times broken up companies because they believed they were monopolies and therefore anti-competitive, why would it be acceptable for the government to create the largest monopoly the world has ever known by taking over our entire health care system? And, don't forget, the current Medicare System, according to the Heritage organization, has about $30 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)

  • Category: Columns
  • Hits: 252