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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


Ray Cunningham (3-9) WIND TURBINES

To The Daily Sun,

Are we loving Newfound Lake to death?

Newfound's natural state is a peaceful one. Carving up its beautiful wilderness surrounding it's shoreline is not the answer. Keeping it enjoyable for everyone is. Isn't the goal of the New Hampshire Tourism Board to promote our lakes, mountains and seashore? In essence — the entire state. So far it's been working, however, we are now learning that enjoyment has a different meaning for different people.

For instance, when I visit Newfound Lake, I truly enjoy the scenery from the water, from the trails and from our home. As much as I love it myself, I see others loving it for themselves. And they come back ... year after year for more of the same. It's not a bad thing. However, the problem is "our wilderness" is about to shrink. You see, the additional development of industrial wind turbine plants will lead to more restricted areas, more scenic concerns and more annoyances that vacationers typically try to avoid.

Newfound Lake is small and quaint. On a quiet day, you can almost hear someone across the lake. While we don't quite see the level of vacationers as Lake Winnipesaukee does, our waters are cleaner, our views are equal and our community is like family. Everyone knows everyone. And yes, our views are more than worth it.

So, what should our state do about our industrial wind development issue? Are we to become New Hampshire's renewable energy destination? Will new businesses form? Allowing wind turbine tours or rides? Will their grounds become zoo's, parks or destinations for buses to drive though? Is this what the "different people" want?

This is what I do know: both tourism groups and businesses alike are spending their advertising dollars to get people to visit, to have a good time and to return. This business model has been working for many years.

Residents understand and they've all officially voted against industrial wind development in the Newfound/Cardigan region! Every town opposes industrial wind development in their town. Remember, they promised they would go away if the community didn't want them. Yet they won't leave...

Ray Cunningham


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 480

M'borough taxpayers being rushed into multimillion-dollar decision

To The Daily Sun,

The Moultonborough Candidates Night was held Sunday, March 6. Article 2, a $6.4 million bond that is for a proposed gym/community complex to be built on Route 25 was discussed. Previous bond hearings discussed 10- and 15-year bond options.

On Sunday, I mentioned the 15-year-bond would cost over $7 million (actual is $7,726,390) over its term, the number including interest as provided to the residents at the bond hearings.

I offered my opinion that the true cost on the 15-year bond is closer to $11 million at the end of the term. Taking the $6.4 million bond and interest and adding the town's projected annual operating expense of $162,050, for 15 years, amounts to $2.4 million.

The $6.4 million plus interest equals $7.7 million, plus $2.4 million operating costs equals $10.1 million over the 15 years. This does not include increases in staff costs (health care and raises), plus ongoing increases in utility, maintenance and repair costs at the 20,000 sq ft facility. It is not unreasonable at the end of the 15 year term to cost taxpayers over $11 million.

The equivalent true cost for the 10-year bond would be nearly $9 million; $6.4 million plus interest equals
$7.2 million plus $1.6 million operating cost equals $8.9 million over the 10-year period. (That's) significantly higher than the $6.4 million in Article 2.

With so many unanswered questions: 10- or 15-year bond? Finished design? Test boring results? Impact on aquifer and wetlands? Traffic impact on the Village? Declining population/actual need? Taxpayers are being rushed into making a multimillion-dollar decision without enough facts.

Jim Leiterman

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 462