Published DateTo the editor,
I take exception to the article I read in the Winnisquam Echo written by Patsy Wells. In the article one item concerns the land that was purchased by the town of Sanbornton behind the town buildings. Patsy says that she "does not want to see a modern office building smack dab in the middle of that".
Patsy was selectman in 2006 when the town voted by town warrant (article 9 purchase of land) to purchase the land "for the purpose of protecting the horizons behind the three historic buildings and PREPARING A SITE FOR A FUTURE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING. Our assessing assistant had to jump through hoops to remove the land from current use, which actually protected the horizon. I voted in the affirmative because I thought it a good idea for the town to have the option of land for its town building future growth. One thing that I did not know until last year was that a hidden part of that purchase was a grant giving away a right of way to another parcel of land abutting the purchased piece. The given right of way was over the town hall septic system and nearly over the front steps of the town hall itself. Last year the town purchased the abutting piece which negated the possible future threat of construction on that land and the resulting traffic over the septic.
If Patsy does not want a building on the parcel, why was the article to purchase for future building presented to the town? Why was the information about the right of way not in the article? And, who says that any proposed office building would be "modern" in appearance and not fit in with our historic buildings?
Another point in Patsy's article is the subject of the sidewalk from the school to the library. The past Selectboard and the Town Administrator have worked on the sidewalk construction. The Winnisquam School District was asked if they could contribute to the costs. The school district would not agree unless they were presented with DES and engineering studies. Our highway department, under John Thayer, had estimated that they could do the work for around four thousand dollars, but the school district said no. DES and engineering studies are terribly expensive.
Now I'm wondering if I should have voted yea on article 9 in 2006.