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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


In the end, it's about what the voters of Sanbornton want

To The Daily Sun,

By the time this letter is printed, the amendments for senior housing in Sanbornton will have already been decided. This letter, however, is to correct Mr. Whalen's statement that I had my "facts wrong again."

My info was correct! He notes that he was not noted as a member of the Planning Board in 2005. Preparing amendments for the ballot are done in the previous year. They are put together to be ready for the hearing or hearings that are required by the state statue. There is also a time frame required. So just as the current board prepared the amendments for this year in 2015 so they are on the 2016 ballot, the repeal amendment would have been prepared in 2004 and voted in March 2005.

Mr. Whalen says look in the 2005 Town Report. I say look in the 2004 report. He is listed in the front of the 2004 Town Report as chair of the board. In the board's report for 2004 it states, "In September, Chairman Purple resigned due to other commitments and William Whalen was elected chairman,...." so he was chair for the board in the period that the repeal amendment would have been being worked on.

He notes that I was one of the six members who resigned in 2004. My letter stated that. It said the six of "us" resigned. It was not and is not a secret nor am I ashamed of having done so at that time.

I must give Mr. Whalen credit for two things in his letter that are correct. I have been advocating for putting senior housing back on the books since 2005, and I called and told him so when he asked the question in one of his earlier letters. He is also correct that I should have noted that I am the current chair of the board, even though I did not represent the board in the previous letter nor am I in this one.

(We now know) whether the voters approved or disapproved. For it doesn't matter what Bill or I want, it is what do the voters want.

Evelyn Auger


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 300

Don't be misled about community center project; vote 'no' on article 2

To The Daily Sun,

It's time for Moultonborough voters to get past the propaganda and ask the real questions about the proposed community center.

— Has this project been reviewed by the town planner, land use boards and commissions, and does it meet requirements of voter approved ordinances?

— Has there been a village traffic impact study and input from the state Department of Transportation on the anticipated periodic bursts of cars and buses turning in/out from Route 25?

— Has this project been reviewed by the Village Vision Committee or Master Plan Steering Committee.

— Has consideration been paid to recent voter survey results?

The answers to those questions are all "no."

— Has this project been reviewed by the Capital Improvements Committee and vetted against other critical projects for our town?

— Have less expensive options to this $6.5 million facility (plus nearly $2 million in interest) been considered and presented to taxpayers?

— Has the resulting impact on three other town buildings (Lions Club, Taylor House, Recreation/Community Center) been studied including associated costs?

— Has funding from private sources been solicited, received, or mandated?

Again, all "no."

— Is it fair that snowbirds and taxpayers unable to attend Town Meeting are excluded from voting on this enormous expenditure and drastic change to the village?

— Is Moultonborough's population increasing and able to support a 20,000-square-foot facility, staffed 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily, plus year-round maintenance costs? (A similar 25,000-square-foot facility at the Lions Club for $5.5 million was voted down in 2008. It was too big and expensive.) Is this version more appropriate?

Again, all "no."

Meredith has 1,079 students vs. 511 in Moultonborough. The Meredith facility is smaller, underutilized, and more costly to operate than was projected.

— Is our chance of success better than Meredith's?

— Has the Moultonborough school superintendent asked for another gym, in the face of declining school enrollment?

— Has a need been demonstrated that justifies an expensive new building that will increase taxes, bypass other town priorities, and require high maintenance expenses?

Again, all "no."

I ask Moultonborough voters to use common sense and not be misled about this project. Vote "no" on Warrant Article 2 at Town Meeting.

I was a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Today all the dots have not been connected. This project will cost over $10 million during the life of the 15-year bond. We are in times of a "new normal" declining population. This is a want and not a need.

Donald J. McGillicuddy


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 482