To The Daily Sun,
This is response to Robert Heinrich's letter in the April 12th Sun.
I understand his passion in regards to the Kimball Castle and its present state. I do not disagree with the points he's brought up. However, there is one suggestion he made that, as interesting as it is, is a non-starter, that being using the power of eminent domain.
After the disastrous Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision in 2005, a number of states changed their laws or amended their constitutions to prevent another Kelo eminent domain disaster. New Hampshire is one of those states that amended its Constitution, doing so in 2006.
Part I, Article 12-a states: (Power to Take Property Limited.) No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.
Taking the Castle by eminent domain and "selling" it to the Wildlife Forest Committee could be construed as violating the section of the state Constitution quoted above because the committee is not a public organization, meaning it is not part of the municipal or county government, but a private one. It might not matter that the committee will make the property open to the public. It would still be private property.
Then there's the matter of how much would the town compensate the present owner of the castle and for how much would the town "sell" the property to the Wildlife Forest Committee. Would it be a one-for-one price? Or would Gilford taxpayers have to make up the difference should the "selling" price be below what the town paid to the owner of the property taken? As it would apply here, eminent domain would take the town someplace it shouldn't go, despite the good intentions.
Dale Channing Eddy
Last Updated on Monday, 14 April 2014 08:37
To The Daily Sun,
I've got steam coming out of my ears on this one.
Let me quote what I read in The Daily Sun on April 12. Judge Jim Carroll ruled that the Franklin man who allegedly burglarized a elderly couple's home in Belmont can be freed on reduced bail in he enters an out-patient drug treatment program.
Let me stop there before I puke. According to Channel 9 News and the papers, this punk — hold on ... I have to use the word allegedly — was robbing this elderly couple's residence. They come home, pull in their driveway blocking the not-too-bright punk's car in. In desperation the punk attacks the old-timer, steals his car and takes off down Interstate 93 with a stolen car and jewelry with a multiple-police chase that ends on I-93.
Judge, you don't have to be Arpian Saunders to figure out this punk is a threat to our community.
Maybe the next Belmont resident who comes home to find a stranger robbing them was out at the Belmont gun club instead of out shopping.
Last Updated on Monday, 14 April 2014 08:34
To The Daily Sun,
As soon as the ACA went into effect, I was working on my application for a policy. Granted, it had its teeth-gnashing moments, but my spouse and I were delighted to enroll with a reasonable monthly rate on Jan. 1 of this year. We had not had health-care coverage for years because it was truly unaffordable, even for a catastrophic policy.
Now we're insured, Now we've had our first check-ups in a decade. Now we can buy pharmaceuticals at a reduced rate. Now we have the peace of mind of knowing we would not lose everything should disaster strike.
In time, the cost of health care should go down nationwide. With more people insured, the hospitals will be less burdened. Fewer people will go bankrupt when they have an illness. More people will have access to preventive care. The insurance companies will be better regulated — in favor of the policyholder.
And it seems that the GOP is beginning to come around. Recently in Washington they supported a bill (HR-4302) — a small fix to ACA rulings — to make it easier for small businesses to enroll their employees in the ACA by offering higher-deductible plans. Tellingly, the House did this with a voice vote, rather than a written vote, so that there would be no paper trail showing the GOP members support for Obamacare, but it's progress, nonetheless.
We've turned the corner. It's time to drop the toxic rhetoric about Obamacare and agree on its merits.
Last Updated on Friday, 11 April 2014 10:51
To The Daily Sun,
After reading Russ Wiles' most recent letter to the Sun it finally dawned on me who Russ really is. Russ is the equivalent of a modern-day Don Quixote. Like Don Quixote, the mythical literature protagonist who saw monsters and giants in windmills, Russ sees similar monsters in Western medicine and Big Pharma.
Armed with only his lance, Don Quixote attacks only to be rudely rebuffed. Russ armed only with his computer is equally rebuffed by truth and scientific reasoning. While Don Quixote rides into battle on his trusty steed Rocinante, Russ rides into battle sitting on his you know what. You get the point. Don Quixote announced himself a knight, likewise Russ in a recent letter proclaimed himself a "chiropractic warrior," both kind of delusional.
The world viewed Don Quixote as insane, defeated by common sense and reality, I take a similar view of you, Russ.
But I did find something that Russ and I can agree on. In the aforementioned letter, Russ has this to say about Crossroads and Awakening Chiropractic wellness centers." They offer a variety of health inspiring workshops, ably assisted by some of the most cheerful, upbeat, well adjusted staff this side of Disneyland." I wonder if this quote is what is wrong with Russ?
Russ, you do know that Disneyland is a fantasy world, right?
I wonder if Russ is aware of the recent ruling by the Chiropractic Board of Australia, which announced all registered chiropractors would be required to remove anti-vaccination claims from their websites and offices. "We will not tolerate registered chiropractors giving misleading or unbalanced advice to patients or providing advice or care that is not in the patients best interest," claimed chairman Phillip Donato. While some may view this a violation of chiropractors First Amendment rights, I view this as the moral equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater — for public safety, not allowed.
Or the writings of two chiropractors, Stephen Perle and Randy Ferrance, who said this, "We are not aware of a single well-controlled study which found that chiropractic care prevented any infectious disease or reduced the severity of such a disease" claiming that it can they charged is either "scientific misconduct, error or willful ignorance." Willful ignorance or scientific misconduct, which one is it?
In his letter he channels George Will in talking about the treatment of TB. I venture that neither George or Russ have ever treated TB. Streptomycine only cured 1-3 percent of TB patients, proclaims Russ. Not only was the Nobel Prize in Medicine given for the discovery of streptomycine, some of the first good validated studies were done with this medication, as it was the first drug available to treat TB.
The studies did show that the success rate was low, as Russ states. But this had more to do with the particular properties of the TB bacteria. From those initial studies, Western medicine found out that to treat TB you have to be on three to four drugs because of the bacteria's ability to develop resistance. It was not the failure of Western medicine as Russ seems to imply, but rather it speaks to Western medicine relentless pursuit of studies to validate and develop proven therapies, something chiropractic practitioners should strive for.
It is not government's responsibility to waste money trying to prove anecdotal evidence. If there is, as Russ states, centuries of anecdotal evidence, let the chiropractic community do the studies. In this they have fallen far short. Even to this day streptomycine is used throughout the world as part of some common drug regiments in treating TB. Tilting at windmills once again, Russ. Mainstream medicine uses anecdotal evidence to develop studies to validate or disprove hypothesis scientifically, and once done, if the studies show benefits, incorporate this into treatment modalities.
India declared itself polio-free last week. With 800 million people, with many millions living in slums, with poor water, poor sanitation and close living conditions, it is quite clear that the use of the polio vaccine is responsible for the eradication of polio. If not, then given the living conditions, by our reasoning, polio should continue to flourish.
Finally, you channel Russel Blalock, MD. Question Russ, what do Jillian Whitaker, Mercola, and Dr. Blalock have in common. They all left medicine to sell products to susceptible people like you, making millions.
Let's talk about vaccines. If you gave 200 people a vaccine and one person had a severe reaction, the rest had no reaction, would you stop the vaccine to save one person. How about 1,000 to 1 ratio, 100,000 to 1, or 1 million to 1. Which one Russ? Would you sacrifice the million people who will get the benefit for the one severe reaction?
Yes, we have a vaccine injury fund, because with most vaccines severe reactions are in the 1/600,000 to 1/1 million dose given. If one million can take a vaccine and one has a severe reaction is it the vaccine or that patient's genetic makeup that is responsible?
By the way, the ratio of 2/200 is the incidence of peanut allergy in the general population. Should we stop the sale of all products containing peanuts to protect this one person?
Finally Russ, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to continue to get my point out. Please continue to attack me with your rants, it is quite amusing.
Mirno Pasquali PA C
Last Updated on Friday, 11 April 2014 10:47
To The Daily Sun,
It seems that the Town of Gilford is prepared once again to violate the intent of a property donor.
Selectmen have gone on record stating, "the Board of Selectmen is unanimous in its desire to allow Kimball Castle to be torn down safely with a goal of allowing this privately owned property to remain on the tax rolls and that the land be developed as one single family home...."
The selectmen have absolutely no business offering assistance to the current property owner by helping eliminate a residential deed restriction on the property, thereby enhancing its value. The Town of Gilford was given the castle and its property with specific instructions on its use. These intentions have been violated once before when the town pushed to get approvals for a restaurant and inn many years ago. Charlotte Kimball made it clear the property was not given for residential use and I have been told by the town administrator that there is a deed restriction prohibiting residential use of the castle property in place at this time.
Any negotiations between the Town of Gilford and the castle wwners to allow a residence on the castle property must be terminated out of respect for the donor.
The owner is not without options. He could always build the proposed inn and restaurant he fought to obtain from his limited partners. He could also honor the order requiring a fence or demolition of the castle he watched erode during his ownership.
Perhaps if he just fences it in, it may have more value to the Kimball Wildlife Forest Committee that is seeking the property. So what is it really worth? Since the buildings are worthless, I submit to you that the current assessment for the land, with its deed restriction in place, is fair. That number is $190,090.
This is fair market value for a single parcel with limited access and a residential deed restriction.
The Town of Gilford should be supporting the Wildlife Forest Committee not the castle owner. The town should take the property by eminent domain and soon after with the help of limited grants and private donations, sell it to the Wildlife Forest Committee for its real value. If the wwner fences it in (which is less expensive than proper demolition), the castle will remain eligible for Historical Register status. This may preserve some value of the castle property.
Remember, the Town of Gilford holds a mortgage for a large percentage of the real value. Accordingly, the capital outlay should be both nominal and temporary while the Wildlife Forest Committee raises the funds to support the purchase of the property at a realistic and appropriate value.
Last Updated on Friday, 11 April 2014 10:36