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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Overwhelming size & impact of the proposed buildings is the issue

To The Daily Sun,

In response to your article of Nov. 4 regarding efforts by Shep Brown's Boat Basin to store more boats in large buildings and treat boat-wash water, the thrust of the neighborhoods' concern has certainly not been the necessary and desirable treatment of wash water, but, the overwhelming size and impact of the buildings proposed.

Already, Brown's has three enormous buildings out of scale to the surroundings, visible from the islands and from miles away on the lake.
It is this concern for those surroundings which are cherished by the residents that we have called for, among other remedies, a comprehensive review of the proposed buildings under the mandatory requirements of Meredith's Architectural Design Review Ordinance.

Once a 38-foot high, 80-foot long box building is on the ground and so highly visible, that genie cannot be put back in the bottle as the current enormous buildings on the site demonstrate.

We would hope that all our New Hampshire residents would want sensitivity from their Planning Boards when the aesthetic effect on their homes, the value of their property and safety of those using the roads is being unnecessarily compromised.

Bill Wuester
Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 279

Our selectmen took away from us the opportunity to 'reuse'

To The Daily Sun,

Last week Sanbornton residents and selectmen experienced, together, some real democracy-in-action. People were not at home on their couches with their clickers for the evening. We came to a rare, public hearing. We will come to a resolution of our Transfer Station/Recycling Center's problematic, new changes, I am confident.

Hopefully, all parties realize the sincerity we have in common. Our selectmen give up enormous chunks of personal time to do the job we elected them to do, and we can be grateful. On their part, where so many voice that our selectmen have erred in their recent Transfer Station/Recycling Center decision, the selectmen should find it in their hearts to honor the testimonies of our public hearing attendees, who took time out of their busy lives to do their democratic duty and not sit by passively.

To buttress the "argument of the people," I want to stress that both the EPA's recommendations for solid waste management and our state level's prioritize "reuse." Reuse does not break something down for use in re-manufacture — that's recycling. Reuse maintains the item in its current form and extends its use. In our swap area's instance or former metal pile's instance, a perfectly good pair of blue jeans or a parka can be used by another. It's hand-me-downs in a family. A walker can be passed on to another needing a walker. A wheelbarrow can continue use as a wheelbarrow. Parts from one snowmobile can be reused to repair another. A book finished with by one can be taken home by another for entertainment or information. Toys that are outgrown, but unbroken and clean, can remain useful. Kitchenware and appliances can have extended life. Someone just no longer needed them.

Our Selectmen's Sept. 16 decision took away from us the "reuse" opportunity that so many want and many count on, being resourceful New Englanders.

Lynn Rudmin Chong

Sanbornton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 238