A+ A A-

'No' means 'no'; we don not want wind turbines in Alexandria

To The Daily Sun,

We do not tolerate schoolyard bullies, cyber bullies, workplace bullies, domestic bullying, and even siblings that bully each other. We believe when someone says, "no", their objection should be respected. One definition of bullying is: a dominating, overbearing person or entity who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. Bullying can be described as health-harming, mistreatment of one or more persons by one or more perpetrators. Bullying is considered abusive conduct that threatens, humiliates, or harms another.

I live in Alexandria, and our town has been repeatedly approached by corporate industrial wind developers that want to "set up shop" here on our pristine ridgelines in our very rural community. These corporate developers are global, multibillion-dollar companies with a well paid staff of corporate lawyers, that are looking to protect their investment and those of their stakeholders, not the people or ecosystems that thrive here.

Alexandria has repeatedly said, "no" to corporate industrial wind turbine projects in our town. We had a resolution vote in March 2013 expressing the people's sentiment against industrial wind turbines here. In March 2014 we adopted a binding ordinance that prohibits the siting or operation of corporate energy systems controlled by state and federal energy policies — such as corporate industrial wind — within the town of Alexandria. Our town Master Plan speaks of maintaining the rural aesthetics of the town. Public meetings have revealed over and over again the overwhelming voice of the people saying, "no" to corporate industrial wind projects in Alexandria.

Yet, Energias de Portugal Renewables (EDPR), a global Portuguese corporation with far more money and power than the people of Alexandria, continues to force the Spruce Ridge wind project against our objection. They are corporate bullies that even went so far as to file suit against the town because our selectmen listened to, and represented the objection of the people to grant a conditional building permit for a MET tower needed by EDPR to gather wind and bat data for their corporate project. The town of Alexandria was counseled to grant the permit because we had no legal basis to deny it. We were forced to comply against our will.

Now, EDPR has filed with the FAA for 29 turbines spanning five towns including Alexandria, and even stated they intend to move forward with a state application that could permit them to construct the project. The SEC would have the final say — not the community affected by the project, but a conglomerate of state agencies known as the Site Evaluation Committee.

EDPR claimed they listened to the people Alexandria and that is why they reduced the number of turbines within our town. But "no" means "no."  We don't want any industrial turbines here. Is it okay to bully so long as you reduce the bullying? Generally speaking, we find it unacceptable to tolerate bullying to any degree in society. It should be unacceptable for EDPR to be dominating, overbearing, habitually badgering, intimidating, and threatening, towards the people and ecosystems of rural Alexandria. EDPR, stop bullying the people of Alexandria.

Michelle Sanborn

Alexandria

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:37

Hits: 95

Our government is increasingly antogonistic to religious freedom

To The Daily Sun,
In response to L.J. Siden's letter of Nov. 18. Mr. Siden should write about things he knows something about. L.J. writes, "it is virtually impossible to argue that he (Jesus) was anything but a progressive liberal thinker." It seems that Mr. Siden has only a most superficial understanding of who Jesus is, and the meaning of what He taught.

I'll digress a bit, for I think my digression will be instructive. I like to listen to informative CDs while I drive. I usually get them from the public library. They often have CDs put out by the Teaching Company. They're usually college level course lectures. Being that the lecturers are from colleges like Harvard and Princeton, they usually come from a pretty liberal point of view. Well this one I listened to was about the impact of Christianity on Western culture. I really struggle listening to to these, because I have to listen to so much error to glean the little usable knowledge that they pass on. These are college professors. The one who was assigned to cover the Gospel of John, in 40 minutes of lecturing couldn't outline the theme of this gospel. He was clueless. I'm a Bible teacher and I wouldn't let this guy teach in our Sunday school class. He seemed to think that the main show in the Gospel of John is numerology, not the revelation of Jesus as God the Son and the confrontation and crucifixion that arose as a result of this, and the salvation we can now receive as a consequence of these things. I offer this as an introduction to liberal understanding of the Christian Church.

Jesus is in no way what we call a progressive. If Mr. Siden had understood the scriptures he would have never made such an ignorant and arrogant statement. An originalist maybe, a fundamentalist, but not a progressive or a liberal as what those terms have come to describe.

As to originalist — in the Gospel of John Chapter 8 in response to the Jews questioning Him as to who He is, Jesus answers in verse 58 "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." The Jews knew what He meant. It is why they wanted to kill Him. Abraham lived some 2000 years before Jesus. This was a claim that He was God the Son and that He preexisted Abraham, before He became a man in Mary's womb.

As to fundamentalist — In Matthew chapter 5 verse 17 Jesus says, " Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." You should read through to verse 20. Jesus mission was to clean up the corruption that had occurred in Judaism, and to show the nature of God as He has always been. Us gentiles were to be added in latter.

Wisdom from the Book of Proverbs, many of which are lessons in diligence, industry and wisdom, and a biblical understanding of human nature were instrumental in the founding of our nation and we prospered as a result. To ignore these and pick and choose Jesus' teachings in the service of a godless regime, as Mr. Siden does, is a humongous error. It is to say that a government — that is increasingly antagonistic to religious freedom, that forbids exercises of prayer and Bible reading in public school, forbids the teaching of creation, indoctrinates our children in the theory of evolution as the truth, forgoes supporting the church's teaching against sexual immorality - that this government redistributing wealth is the same as the early church devoting themselves to prayer and the Apostles' teaching, being lead by the Holy Spirit to sell their possessions and lay the proceeds at the Apostles feet.

Make no mistake about it, progressives are following in the footsteps of Marx, Engels and Lenin, not Jesus. Are some Christians being duped into following them? Yep.

Every Christian is indeed admonished to have a genuine good deed inspiring concern for the poor and I do believe that the government can and should have some kind of roll as a reflection of that concern, but not the major thrust of it, and certainly not to spend money that it doesn't have and that it has no hope of ever paying back, on policies that encourage indolence, discourage diligence and divide rich against poor, black against white, mother against child, that encourage our children in sexual deviance, and increasingly take away our religious liberty.

Mr. Siden also labels Jesus as a pluralist. "Hear oh Israel the Lord thy God is one." "All who came before me are robbers and thieves." "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it." These are just a few quotes from Jesus concerning this. How is it that you say He is a pluralist. Or is it that, that is what you liberals do, is to rewrite history, and you expect to get away with it.

John Demakowski
Franklin

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:33

Hits: 139

Thank you for all your efforts on my behalf; I was treated kindly

To The Daily Sun,

The elections of 2014 have come and gone and we all have our thoughts about the outcomes.

All races have their particular demands and surprises, but nothing is more rewarding than the help and support of volunteers and voters. Without you our democracy would suffer and our diverse voices would not be heard.

During this race I had folks encourage me, put up signs, create palm cards, prepare postcards for mailing, stand on corners, transfer stations and polling sites holding signs, contribute to the costs of the race, prepare food for volunteers, knock on doors and vote.

Our elections need to be more than mailboxes stuffed with printed material. The outreach of candidates makes a difference and acknowledges the value of individual participation. It is important that the candidates who won continue to reach out to their constituents. The more informed we become the more participatory we might be. Citizen participation is what will keep our democracy strong.

I thank you for all your efforts on my behalf and thank all the folks I met along the way who greeted me kindly despite our possible differences.

Deb Chase

Gilmanton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:28

Hits: 96

Taxpayers of city cannot be forced to be 'partner' of Belknap Mill

To The Daily Sun,

An open letter to Laconia City Manager Scott Myers:

First: For a reason unknown you have responded to my request which was properly directed to the council's clerk, who records minutes. Moreover, council minutes are retained in the City Clerk department.

Second, you confirmed that that two non-public meetings took place, in October, in which the Belknap Mill Trustees participated.

What is not stated is the date of those meetings, when and where those two meeting notices were posted or under what exception the meetings were held out of public view?

Third, the subject matter for those meetings clearly was the "resources" to maintain the Belknap Mill.

Fourth, As a result of those non-public meetings, decisions were made, otherwise the mayor would not have been able to make a public announcement "that the trustees have decided, declared, that they no longer view themselves as viable owners of the building."

Fifth, in your reply to my RSA 91-A request you provided no dates for either meeting. I have a right to know the place, date and time the non-public meetings took place. A public record shall exist as to when the council convened the time it voted to enter non-public meeting and furthermore, if any decisions were made.

Sixth, a decision to delegate the mayor as spokesperson for the Belknap Mill Society's Board of Directors had to have taken place. Otherwise, the mayor divulged privileged information, placing the City of Laconia in harm's way for making public information that was unknown to Belknap Mill Society members, of which I am a member. The general membership was never informed of the financial plight. To my knowledge, the "members" have taken no vote directing the directors to take any action regarding the sale of the Belknap Mill located at 25 Beacon Street East.

In fact the day prior to the mayor's announcement, the president of the board of trustees, "said that the society is concerned for the future of the mill and is "looking for a partner to work with us to preserve this iconic and historical gem."

Moreover, the mayor or the president of the Belknap Mill Society said nothing about the sale of the building.

Therefore, the exception RSA 91-A:,II (d) (Consideration of the acquisition, sale or lease of real or personal property which, if discussed in public, would likely benefit a party or parties whose interests are adverse to those of the general community) is not applicable.

Neither is RSA 91-A:3, II (e) (Consideration or negotiation of pending claims or litigation which has been threatened in writing or filed against the body or agency or any subdivision thereof, or against any member thereof because of his membership in such body or agency, until the claim or litigation has been fully adjudicated or otherwise settled) applicable.

I find no exception per RSA 91-A: II for negotiation regarding a "partnership."

Accordingly, the three non-public meetings on Oct. 14, 2014, or Oct. 27, 2014, could not have been with regards to the Belknap Mill building.

Your response does not rise to the level of an acceptable reply. What is the date of the "private" meetings with the Board of Directors?

Furthermore, for the mayor and council to schedule a public hearing regarding any public building for any non-profit organization, base on "private information," is simply wrong. The taxpayers of the city cannot be forced to become a financial partner. If the intention is to encumber tax dollars, as it did with the Colonial Theater, this endeavor is simply wrong. If any decision based on the two non-public meetings leading to the public hearing, that decision shall be a violation of the Right-to-Know law.

Thomas A. Tardif

Laconia

Last Updated on Monday, 24 November 2014 10:36

Hits: 90

Why do some deny the values upon which our nation was founded?

To The Daily Sun,

Just a word or two about L.J. Siden's protestation as to this nation not being a Christian nation. He quotes "Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, argued that religious freedom is itself a Christian principle. Any attempt to establish a "Christian Nation," therefore, always has been and always will be unjust, dangerous and profoundly un-Christian." He and Roger Williams are in error to assume that we shouldn't be, are not — as they say religious freedom is itself a Christian principle. Therefore that this nation's First Amendment establishes religion freedom, first and foremost — which as they point out is a Christian principle — we therefore are indeed a Christian nation. Our form of government is a constitutional republic and its first principle of the rights of its citizens is a Christian principle one would commonly agree our foundation is Christian.

For what reason one must argue time and time again to deny the values upon which the nation was founded I really find to be sad, just the fact that one may so argue publicly should alert one to appreciate those values.

Our founding Fathers were not radical liberal progressives, they were in one word "conservatives" — sorry Siden.

They fought to preserve their rights of common law and the Magna Carta which the liberal progressive king and his Parliament were seeking to strip from the English colonists.

G.W. Brooks
Meredith

Last Updated on Monday, 24 November 2014 10:31

Hits: 130

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

Login or Register

LOG IN