Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Don't be misguided into believing no one cares about the castle

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

I want to clarify a statement in the article written by Michael Kitch in Thursday's Sun. Perhaps it was a misinterpretation. However, it needs to be corrected. The information I am referring to appears in the last paragraph of Mr. Kitch's article. This information has appeared in other articles in The Sun and in other newspapers as well.

The paragraph reads: "Selectmen have extended the deadline to destroy or fence the castle until April 30 so the group of people who would like to save the castle can have an opportunity to create a plan to purchase the property and safely preserve the castle."

That "group of people" that first met to discuss the fate of the Kimball property included myself and Sandy McGonagle. After many meetings and many discussions and the involvement of Maggie Stier of the N.H. Preservation Alliance, we all came to the conclusion, that because of the short amount of time involved before the possible demolition of the castle, the swiftest and most logical way to make an attempt to preserve this property was to have the Kimball Wildlife Forest Committee proceed with this task by getting appraisal on the property and exploring the possibility of LCHIP funding. The forest committee was agreeable to all of this, and members of that committee expressed their interest in a possible addition to the conservation land they already oversee.

I think all those involved, then and now, will agree that this was the only way for this effort to move forward. Having another group, which is not already established, as the forest committee is, proceed with their own preservation effort is not a wise or a logical path for this preservation effort.

The public should not be misguided into believing that no one cares about the Kimball property, nor did anyone come forward to try to save it. That is completely incorrect. The focus should be on assisting the Kimball Wildlife Forest Committee in their work to preserve the Kimball property. They are "that group of people" that you speak of on a consistent basis.

Carol Anderson