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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

Is the message that people shouldn’t grow old in Sanbornton?

To The Daily Sun,

Recently Bill Whalen has written letters to area newspapers regarding senior housing. In both he has failed to tell the whole story, thus misleading people. Here is the accurate story of senior housing in Sanbornton.

In 1996/97 the Sanbornton Grange recognized there was a need for housing for seniors to allow them to remain in the town where their friends and families lived. They took a telephone survey of 102 town seniors over the age of 65. Result: 91 percent were in favor of senior housing. They shared their information with the town boards, and at the joint land use boards meeting it was discussed. The decision was for the Planning Board to create a Senior Housing Ordinance.

In 1999 the ordinance was presented to the voters in two amendments on the ballot. Amendment 1, definition, passed 471 yes and 118 no. Amendment 2, the permitting ordinance passed 463 yes and 121 no.

In 2000 the Sanbornton Senior Housing Corp. Inc. was formed. This was an independent group and not a town entity. They received several grants and one was for a market study which indicated there was a definite need for more senior housing. That year the town voted to sell the group a piece of town-owned land for $1. When drawing up the deed, the Board of Selectmen put in a restriction that if the senior housing project failed, the land reverted back to the town. This proved a problem for the developers getting funding. So a special Town Meeting was held in 2002 to see if the voters wanted the restriction removed. They did not and the first try for senior housing failed.

In 2003 two town planners resigned, and six of us board members all resigned on the same night. When the next senior housing request came before the board, all but one man were new to planning. The case went to court and the project was ended.

It seems that many of the new members did not like the Senior Housing Ordinance as it was on the books. Whether they felt they didn't have the experience to change it, or that they were just against senior housing, I don't know. But in 2005 they put it on the ballot to get it repealed.

Mr. Whalen was Planning Board chair during this time, so he worked on getting it repealed. He thinks the fact that people voted it out tells him they did not and do not want senior housing. I disagree. When an ordinance that was put on the books by a board, and then the same board asks the voters to repeal it, voters trust the board's reason, especially when the last line for the amendment is "The Planning Board supports the adoption of this amendment." The vote was "yes" 396 and "no 339."

Last year there was a petitioned warrant article to form a committee to get senior housing back on track. I spoke against it saying that it is the Planning Board's duty to put the ordinance back on the books and another committee was not needed. The result was a sign that voters didn't want another committee, not that they opposed senior housing. At this meeting there was also a handout which had a question about senior housing. It was filled out by 92 people and only 12 of the 92 opposed it.

Not having a senior housing ordinance is thus prohibiting it here. Is the message we want for Sanbornton that you can live and pay taxes here, volunteer and serve on boards and committees here, have friends and family here, but don't grow old here. I don't think that is how most of us feel, so I hope we can get senior housing back in our zoning ordinances. It may not get built for years, but at least we have the ability to accommodate it if it does come.

Evelyn Auger

Sanbornton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 166

Don’t think water shortages can’t happen in New Hampshire

To The Daily Sun,

Please vote "yes" on Belmont's Article 2 on Tuesday, March 8. This article further protects our shallow, stratified drift aquifer by stopping the most noxious industrial development over the aquifer. Light industry is still welcome. All industrial development currently allowed can continue in those areas of the Industrial Zone not over the aquifer. Article 2 makes the possibility of accidental or thoughtless contamination less likely.

It is time to move aquifer protection in Belmont to a higher level. The town has done a good job of protecting its water and land over the years, but this is not the time to rest on laurels. A global water crisis is at hand and a "big picture" viewpoint needed. Global water shortages are worldwide. The culprits are global warming, evaporation, aquifers drying up from overuse and aquifer pollution from fracking, pesticides, and contaminants.

Iran and the United Arab Emirates state, "Water is more important than oil." The Horn of Africa is drying up. California is in a four-year drought; their groundwater has vanished. Speculators worldwide are buying up water rights. Water is the new oil.

Please do not think water shortages cannot happen in New Hampshire. Most of our high-yielding public water supply wells tap into stratified-drift aquifers. Of the state's registered groundwater withdrawals, 33 million gallons per day come from stratified-drift wells. The state Department of Environmental Services writes that there is a lack of high-yielding wells for existing or future municipal water systems.

"In many areas of the state there are so many existing water withdrawals that it is increasingly difficult to identify a new large-capacity withdrawal site that would not have an unacceptable impact on existing water uses."

In our country, water contamination abounds: Flint, Michigan, of course, and now Hoosick Falls, New York, where families line up to have their blood drawn and their wells tested. Banks stopped giving out mortgages. The public water supply is tainted with high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, used in the manufacture of Teflon.

Neighboring wells in North Bennington, Vermont, and Petersburgh, New York, are also contaminated: water travels.

Central Minnesota last week reported 60 percent of groundwater samples had unsafe nitrate levels. Contaminants of emerging concern will remain a moving target as new chemical compounds are continuously being produced.

NASA predicts a coming major drought in the U.S. with accompanying severe water shortages. On it goes.

In New Hampshire, Milford, Merrimack Village, Jaffrey, Barrington, Peterborough, Seabrook, Londonderry, and more have experienced contaminated aquifers and groundwater. Local papers last week carried the story of state Department of Health and Human Services blood-testing of citizens as water at the former Pease Air Force Base is contaminated with perfluorochemicals. Children who lived on the base are especially at risk.

Should Article 2 pass, truck terminals, treated soils businesses, solid waste facilities, petroleum and propane gas bulk storage facility, and heavy manufacturing would not be allowed to over the aquifer. (Light industry would continue to be allowed.)

Truck terminals use contaminants including waste oil, solvents, gasoline, diesel fuel, and automotive wastes. States including Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Alabama disallow truck terminals over aquifers. In 2013, a truck terminal in Woolwich, New Jersey, was added to the EPA's Superfund hazardous waste sites for groundwater contamination.

A solid waste facility is already in operation over Belmont's aquifer and would be grandfathered in. No new solid waste facilities could be started up.

Soil treatment facilities remediate petroleum or chemically contaminated soil and sump solids from vehicle service shops and car washes. Soils are washed or incinerated. The EPA provides a 184-page guidebook on the prevention of transfer of contaminants at soil treatment facilities. Not something you would want over a stratified drift aquifer.

Bulk storage of petroleum and propane is again not a wise business over an aquifer as it deals in bulk storage of contaminants. It is disallowed over aquifers in other states.

Heavy manufacturing includes automobile manufacturing, mining, petroleum, chemical, and steel industries. Most heavy industry is now overseas.

Chemical plants would again be a poor choice over the aquifer. We have no mining or oil resources in Belmont. Light industries, prevalent in New Hampshire, would continue allowed over the aquifer.

When writing about possible water shortages, NHDES concludes that one of the tools available to citizens to protect groundwater is "to pass new laws or change existing laws." Hopefully, aquifers will be held to a much higher standard by state law and local ordinance in the near future. Bureaucratic wheels turn slowly, however.

In Hoosick Falls, nearly a year and a half passed from the time the chemical was discovered in the water — by a concerned resident who paid to have his water tested rather than wait for the authorities — to the warning from state health officials that residents should not drink it.

Article 2 is a grass roots effort to protect our precious drinking water, now more valuable than ever in the face of the global water crisis. Please look to the future and vote "yes" on Article 2.

Ginger Wells-Kay

Belmont

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 460