A+ A A-

Why should I subsidize the islanders? The library? Parks & rec?

To the editor,
I am responding to an article appearing in Friday's paper that caught my attention — one that should catch EVERY Gilford resident's attention — entitled, "Gilford plans to increase trash hauler tipping fees in effort to trim taxpayer subsidy".
Let me first state that there are several items that, in my mind, are BASIC functions of a municipal society: police, fire, ambulance, roads and the maintenance thereof, and trash. Why? Because all of these items are beyond the ability of individual citizens. Speaking specifically to the topic of garbage — yes, there was a time when everyone had garbage disposals and small incinerators on their property, which took care of almost everything, and every town and city maintained its own landfill. Of course, those days are long behind us, thanks in no small part to environmental concerns and GOVERNMENT regulation. Thus, it only makes sense to handle this necessary task through the collective society, much like the other aforementioned basic public services. While it might seem on its face that the proposal to increase fees on haulers only affects SOME people, the reality is that EVERYBODY generates trash, and this affects EVERYBODY. To claim otherwise is not true. This proposal will affect everyone in town, whether you receive curbside pickup, or use a dumpster located within town limits.
Beyond this, however, is the more pertinent fact: this is a ploy by which the town will seek to raise our taxes without actually admitting it. Town Administrator Dunn is quoted in the article as saying, "In theory, people will pay more to their trash haulers and less in taxes." RIGHT — if anybody believes that, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale that I'd LOVE to sell you! Perhaps that's what the "theory" might be, but we all know what the REALITY is: Our taxes will stay the same, at best, but, as in most years, will probably go up — even if it's just a little. You see, what ending this so-called "subsidy" really means is that we, the hapless citizens of Gilford, will pay more for trash removal: a FEE, and the municipal budget will gain "as much as $100,000 during the balance of the 2013 budget year" to spend on something else.
Does anybody believe that by shifting this "subsidy" off budget that our taxes will go DOWN? This just gives them cover to INCREASE spending in some other area of the budget. Oh, and if paying for a basic municipal service like trash tipping is a "subsidy," what does that make the paying of, oh, say health insurance for town employees? Do we not "subsidize" THAT?
I have a great idea — if we want to "save" much more than a hundred grand of taxpayer monies, how about if we eliminate the school superintendent's position as decided by several votes of the people? Why must I continue to "subsidize" that particular job when I neither send students to the school from my home OR my business? In fact, if we start applying Mr. Dunn's logic as used in this instance, one could make a case for ending MANY "subsidies" here in town. The Glendale Docks? I don't own a boat. Why should I "subsidize" those? Dittos for the town-supplied dumpsters there. Why should I "subsidize" the islanders? The library? I have NEVER checked out anything from there. (I refuse to encourage them.) I prefer to PURCHASE the books I read. Parks and Rec? If I want to hike, or go to a Red Sox game, I'll do it on my own. My point is, do we really need to go down that road? What ISN'T a "subsidy" within our budget?
I ask my fellow residents to join me in attending the public hearing on May 8th and tell the Selectmen "NO. We don't need a hidden tax increase. We already pay enough!"
Doug Lambert

Last Updated on Monday, 29 April 2013 11:09

Hits: 352

You people can call it public tax money but you know it's not

To the editor,
In response to Carlos Cardona's letter of April 27: Thank you for the lesson in school board democracy. I've never served on a school board. But I know this, by law we have to send our school aged children to school. Many cannot afford to send their children to private schools. In your letter of April 24 you said, "parents have the right to send there kids to any school they wish." That is indeed what this discussion is about. The law which both you and Sen. Hosmer seek to overturn has been a beginning to make that a reality to those of lesser means. As you and Sen. Hosmer would have it, this "right" is actually a privilege for those who can afford it. Most can't. If you can't and you cannot home school your options are to go to jail or send your children to a school which the U.S. Supreme Court has thrown God out of. When you throw God out; all kinds of evil moves in. I've seen the product of this illustrious school system and it's not good. Here's the thing: our schools train our future generation.
The Education Tax Credit Program is not a voucher program as you call it. It was crafted so that it is private donations that fund the scholarships so it's not public money. The donating company gets a 85 percent tax credit. The truth is under this law that money never makes it into the tax system.
Many people for good reason want to get out of the public school system. You people can call it tax money. It's not. I haven't seen the results of the vote but I'm guessing you can probably get the Education Tax Credit Program repealed, but it would be wise to leave it alone. For those who passed this Education Tax Credit Program legislation did us a good deed. The public school system can muddle by with less money if need be, but if we repeal this, it will be to our own hurt. God is indeed over all, that is not a debating point. Its just the way it is. If we continue to raise a Godless generation, 9/11, the Boston Marathon, you ain't seen nothing yet. My hands are clean. I have put the warning out.
John Demakowski

Last Updated on Monday, 29 April 2013 11:06

Hits: 370

If we don't meet this challenge pay-as-you-throw will be reality

To the editor,
When Laconians voted in the tax cap, we decided that we wanted to explore alternative ways of solving our financial problems other than immediately hiking our tax rate. It has meant that tax bills have seen small increases in line with or below inflation rather than the double-digit increases in some of the years before the cap. Our councilors have worked hard and creatively to keep the city's budget within the constraints of the cap. Now it is our turn.
The decision of the council last Wednesday night to give mandatory recycling a try gives us the opportunity to prove that we are willing to do our part to help keep our taxes low.
The council has been faced with the continually rising costs of getting rid of the city's garbage. At the same time the State of N.H. has been "solving" its fiscal problems by telling the cities and towns they have to pay more. Unfortunately, the cities and towns have no choice in the matter.
But we do have a choice regarding trash. Though the costs have risen, we can control how much garbage we have to pay for by recycling more of it. Just like families reduce their electric bills by shutting off lights when they aren't using them or reduce their heating costs by dialing down the thermostat a few degrees, so we need to reduce our disposal costs by recycling.
Reducing our trash by recycling more of it is a win-win for all of us. It lowers costs, freeing up more money for the council to work with as they deal with bills they must pay, it keeps our taxes lower, and it's a responsible approach to our environment. Moreover, with single stream recycling, it's easy!
If we don't meet this challenge, Pay As You Throw (PAYT) will almost certainly come to our city. No other community has reached as acceptable level of recycling without PAYT. Last Wednesday evening our city council gave us the chance to be the first, to show other communities around us that we can meet this challenge. Let's do it!
Jenny Watson

Last Updated on Monday, 29 April 2013 11:02

Hits: 301

Does Senator Odell realize Groton wind power goes to Mass.?

To the editor,
New Hampshire State Senator Bob Odell, justifying his vote against the energy moratorium, recently stated that the government should not be in charge of "picking winners and losers in the production of renewable energy."
Senator Odell, the government has put itself in that position many times. Our government picks winners and losers by endorsing and subsidizing energy projects. Governor Lynch was part of a big celebration in Franklin when the Northern Pass was announced ballyhooing the perceived benefits of industrial hydro-electricity coming through New Hampshire. The federal government has handed out many millions subsidizing wind energy projects, underwriting their construction costs and guaranteeing profits for the corporations even if they never produce a kilowatt of electricity. It is absolutely the responsibility of our legislators to decide if an energy project is ultimately beneficial or harmful to our state. That is your job, Senator Odell, and a moratorium would have provided the time and facts to make good decisions.
Senator Odell lamented that the state will not meet its 25 percent renewable energy goal if we eliminate renewable energy projects before they are built. I guess the senator is unaware that all the electricity and renewable energy credits (RCIs) produced at the Coos wind project go to Vermont and the electricity and RCIs generated at the Groton wind project go to Massachusetts. Either New Hampshire has already met its renewable energy goal and can afford to ship these precious energy credits out of state or we have no intention of ever meeting this goal.
Senator Odell reported that 500 new permanent jobs would be created in Franklin if Northern Pass is completed. Even Northern Pass never made such an outrageous claim. Only five permanent jobs would be created while many other jobs have already been lost or are in jeopardy in the tourism dependent and second home areas of the state. Real estate sales have plummeted in the Newfound Lake area because of the three wind projects slated for that area and the Northern Pass project has had a chilling effect on home sales in the Campton/Thornton area already and NP is years away from fruition.
Senator Odell may feel very proud that he was part of the effort to squash the energy moratorium perhaps because he feels these projects won't affect the Monadnock area of the state. If he had taken the time to read testimony that was turned in at the SB-99 public hearing and looked at the ISO New England 2030 study, he would have noticed a 10,000 mw transmission line slated for the southern part of the state where his constituents live. Maybe if he looks at these maps he will have a little more sympathy for his fellow N.H. citizens around Newfound Lake, along the Northern Pass route, and the environmental agencies concerned for the beauty of the state.
Pamela Martin

Last Updated on Friday, 26 April 2013 12:57

Hits: 320

I bet they don't even know what's in the bill Ayotte voted against

To the editor,
It's great to see the local liberals writing letters because they are glowing examples of why the rest of us should reject their ideas. The recent barrage of anti-gun letters lacks any intellectual thought process toward solving the problems related to the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook and other gun related tragedies.
Chastising Senator Ayotte for voting against the proposed gun control bill is their latest senseless rant. For starters, even if Senator Ayotte discovered the cure for cancer these people wouldn't vote for her. Why? She's an evil Republican and if that's not bad enough, Senator Ayotte can read and make decisions based on logic. This simply doesn't work for liberals. According to them, it shouldn't matter that the proposed legislation wouldn't have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook. It shouldn't matter that the proposed legislation wouldn't save a single child from a twisted individual who is bent on killing people (with or without a gun). It shouldn't matter that we've had similar "tough" guns laws for years that failed to lower gun violence and in fact resulted in higher gun related violence. It shouldn't matter that the alleged 90 percent of "polled" Americans that favor back ground checks is proven to only be 49 percent, nor should it matter that few if any of them have actually read what was being proposed. It shouldn't matter that 94 percent of Americans do not see changing the gun laws as "important". It shouldn't matter that the proposed legislation includes provisions that would allow significant government intrusions that could go beyond the purchase of a gun.
No, facts and results are NOT important. Passing legislation that makes people "feel good" right now is the most important thing.
I'd bet that none of the clueless letter writers I referred to earlier have any idea what was in the proposed legislation that Senator Ayotte voted against. I'd also bet that representatives Shaheen, Kuster and Shea Porter don't know what's in it either but they would eagerly vote for it. Why? Because they blindly support Obama's failed "feel good" policies. One inescapable fact is that they are more responsible for putting more guns and ammunition on the street than the NRA or any gun lobbying group. Guns and ammo have been flying off the shelves in record numbers ever since the beginning of the push for tighter gun control (I can assure you that the NRA didn't start this campaign). You would think they would have learned a thing or two from President Clinton's push for gun control; he also created a huge gun buying spree when he too pushed for and achieved tighter gun laws which resulted in more guns on the street with no decreases in gun violence. When it comes to liberal Democrats, some things never change.
Terry Stewart
Alton Bay

Last Updated on Friday, 26 April 2013 12:49

Hits: 328

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register