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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


Residents will have zero control if Briarcrest is sold to Dark Force

To The Daily Sun,
Once upon a time, there was a very successful modular home park (Briarcrest) of 240 homes. One sunny day, it was announced by the owners that the park was to be sold to a small firm in Florida. Many residents went on the Web, only to discover that the proposed buyer was in no position to undertake a $10 million purchase. Soon enough, it became obvious that it was a "shell company" which fronted for a $1 billion asset real estate investment trust. This offer by the Dark Force was rejected and Briarcrest became a co-op, which is now successfully poised for its third year anniversary on
April 30.
But, the Dark Force has returned — with promises of hundreds of thousands of dollars for infrastructure.
One fact is paramount, a sale of Briarcrest would take a viable operation from 100 percent control by its residents to zero percent.
We would hope that the desire of the REIT to own Briarcrest will be overcome by the pride of the home owners to stay independent.
James Cowan

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 512

Town voters, not the selectmen, need to control sale of property

To The Daily Sun,

A former (thank God) Moultonborough Selectboard member, and blogger, had one term, and is all the town could take. He was just shown the door! He ran for state rep. and was rejected there as well. Thank God again! She is wise!

The blogger can't give it up. He was voted out because of his inane pontificating on his blog and his "I know best" posture. He only posts on his blog, those (mainly his) thoughts on subject matter he promotes, is the only one that is correct. Once in a while he'll allow some discord to appear to be fair.
I was sent one of his postings on his blog today and responded that it is just another inaccurate view on his comments about my activity at the Town Meeting.

I led a petition that legally became Article 15 on the town warrant. It was a petition to return to the town voters, not just three selectboard members, a town's vote in selling or buying town property. He mentions no logical reason for the petition. He must think I'm the only one who signed that petition. He apparently, although the article didn't pass, didn't see the many other cards raised to vote yes, at Town Meeting. What about those folks!

The petition is actually about the Taylor property and Lion's Club properties that the Selectboard has been using to pursue its own agenda about another gym. They were soundly trounced by the town voters last year on their quest for a $6.5 million boondoggle. Punturieri, the blogger, ex-Selectboard member, was the lead character. The Moultonborough Selectboard has been "threatening" to sell the Taylor property, if they don't get their way. Many in town want that property to become a town common. There's a lot of interest in a community center as well — not another gym. Even the School Board is on record, that it doesn't want another gym. The Selectboard, not all (four out of five) has been pushing that they know better what is best for the town. A quote from the piece sent to me from his blog: "That is how towns are run. Time now to move on to whatever the future of the two properties that were the real target of this article, the Lions Club and the Taylor Property, may be."

He mentions a serious legal error. I mentioned the legal error, and forwarded to N.H. legislators for correction. The error is that RSA 41:14-a conflicts with RSA 39:3. Not any error I made. The issue is, petitions for articles on an annual town meeting warrant need at least 25 registered voter signatures. Fifty registered voters can petition to call a special town meeting. There is more confusion when comments made by those, like bloggers, that distort facts. There is no need for a superior court approval for special town meeting, unless "appropriations" are brought up. The Superior Court will need assurance of at least 50 percent of the voters to show up to vote ... not going to happen. The reasoning is to not circumvent the process of annual town meeting, whereby voters get a chance to vote. The present legal process of three out of five Selectboard members selling the Taylor property was delegated at a town meeting. Whether the voters understood the ramifications is a different story. The same goes for this vote at this Town Meeting. The assurance by the superior court is similar to the purpose of the article 15; assurance that the town wishes, not the Selectboard, are followed.
I'm not an attorney, but have been college level certified as a paralegal for close to 20 years, been pro se in court and prevailed, and possess three business degrees, including an MBA.
The blogger has his blog, a biased personal social medium, to pontificate on the brilliance of his beliefs — facts, notwithstanding.

Joe Cormier

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 676