GilfordGrok

On June 15^th the Gilford Planning Board held an informational meeting regarding the School district’s plans to develop an athletic field complex on the land known as the Meadows which is located behind Sawyer’s Dairy Bar. The Meadows Committee, appointed by the Gilford School Board, presented their lofty plans and made a couple of interesting promises to several concerned residents in attendance. They agreed to provide a study on the need for more athletic fields in Gilford (For school use or otherwise). The need for a study was the result of several residents asking why we even need these fields. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to note that the existing athletic fields are not even close to capacity but that inconvenient fact isn’t going to faze the Meadows committee one bit. What do you think the outcome of the study will be when it’s conducted by the committee that is bent on shoving this athletic complex down our throats?

Despite the news reporting of no opposition to the project, there wasn’t one non committee person in attendance that supported the athletic fields. In fact, every speaker raised huge concerns over future costs of maintaining such a complex of fields. The committee did a great job of “dancing” around the many questions asked about resident input or a final vote from the citizens. Unfortunately, the voters gave up their rights for input when they approved the Warrant Article for a Meadows Trust fund which was created by the committee for the sole purpose of By-Passing any voter input. Simply put, they don’t need, want or care about any input from you pesky citizens; they can do what they want. Not to be deterred by any further opposition, Meadows Committee member and School Board member, Sue Allan made this lofty promise “This will NOT cost the tax payers any money for the implementation and ongoing maintenance of these fields.” Who is she kidding? How does that old saying go? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Residents of Gilford should be asking several questions about this project. Let’s start by asking what kind of community gleefully invests in a multi-million dollar athletic complex but won’t support a much needed police station? The primary thrust for the committee to develop this athletic complex is based on the belief that the Meadows “gift” should not be wasted. Apparently, it never occurred to them that the land was only given to the school district after many failed attempts to develop it. The attempts were ALL denied for environmental reasons. Sounds like the previous owners made a very sound business decision to donate the useless land they were paying local taxes on and then benefit from a charitable donation deduction on their federal taxes. This is so obvious to the average citizen that the committee is going to have to produce a study to create the illusion of “need”. Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that scenic vistas are only a matter of selective and convenient importance to the community. A large percent of this project is on a flood plain. If it floods and sends all the new imported material downstream, who will be responsible? The illusion of simple grass fields is the sham we are being led to believe. The serine pasture like meadows we now see will be gone FOR EVER! It will be replaced by five groomed playing fields, multiple large bleachers, a large concession stand in the middle of the meadow, big orange cones everywhere, white chalked lines all over the place, a massive variety of practice nets, various scattered playing equipment, backstop fences along with other required fencing and a parking lot for some 180 cars. These things belong at the school grounds like any other school you’ve ever seen. Once this monstrosity is built it will simply have to have lights for night time use. They acknowledge lights cannot be installed due to the airport but as we’ve learned from the past, what they say today has NO bearing on what they want tomorrow. How can they guarantee the residents of Gilford anything related to costs or intent? They know they are a sovereign body of government that is not required to keep promises. The promises made today are only a means to get what they want today.  Once this project is started Gilford residents will have few options. The only remedy is to elect new officials, however they are still not bound to kep past promises.

At this point there is only one way to halt this project. A Warrant Article needs to appear on next year’s ballot to eliminate the Meadows Trust fund which we now know was created to completely strip away the citizens control of how the Meadows is developed. Whether you want to see fields at the Meadows or not, we should all agree that we, the citizens, should have control over our property.

Posted by Terry S. at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had to chuckle while reading Mark Corry’s jab at John Goodhue in yesterday’s Laconia Daily Sun. He is obviously a new face on the political scene with no clue of the mine field he’s stepped into. Mr. Corry, having been soundly rejected at the polls, has been very quick to align himself with the people that will say and do anything to forward their agenda of spending growth at the tax payer’s expense.  His cheap shot at Mr. Goodhue only stems from the fact that Mr. Goodhue deeply opposes an issue that Mr. Corry is advocating for. I have had a few run-ins with Mr. Goodhue myself but I would never say that he isn’t a strong and loud advocate for the environment. Isn’t that what we elected him to the Conservation Commission to do? The Gilford Meadows definitely needs strong and loud advocates for its environment, given the political landscape. We know for a fact that any private entity wishing to develop the Meadow’s would be quickly denied however the rules change when it comes to big government. The School District knows that it has an easier ride to develop the Meadows but it still has to satisfy the wet land issues to a lesser degree. What is clearly in dispute is what happened to all the wet lands that were present when the Carye’s tried to previously develop the land? The Conservation Committee has repeatedly asked Mr. Fluet to clarify the wet lands maps that were used to define the project. They have also asked for well monitoring during the growing season to be clarified. Finally it appeared that Mr. Fluet and the Meadow’s Committee, which Mr. Corry sits on, answered those long evaded questions. But did they answer those questions accurately???? Is it possible that the information Mr. Fluet presented might not match anything previously deemed accurate? Let’s be clear, I too was ready to submit to the environmental issues after hearing Mr. Fluet’s revised plan. Andy Howe and others agreed that the plans were “much improved” over previous plans. Our revised positions were based entirely on the questionable information that was presented at the meeting. This is why there is an appeals process. To determine if the information submitted for the permits was accurate. Once again, if the permits to rip up the Meadows were issued to Wal-Mart based on the wrong information, Mr. Corry would probably be screaming at John Goodhue to do something about it and he’d most likely volunteer to deliver the appeal himself. I’d even volunteer to give him a ride under that scenario.

 Selectman Hayes stated that he hoped that people weren’t “opposed to development at the Meadows at any cost and were using the issues raised by the Commission to scuttle the project.” He should be equally concerned that far more people are fudging the environmental process to develop seven athletic fields that no one has yet to show the need for in a declining student population. The cards are clearly stacked against the environment in this case. The School district is going to easily mobilize parents to their cause in the name of “the children”. In doing so, will anyone ask; at what cost to the environment and diminishing open spaces??? Shouldn’t everybody care about the environment? What Mr. Corry neglected to say in his politically convenient speech is that Andy Howe also said that he “will always be philosophically opposed to this use, of this land”.  I share his concerns and have many concerns about this project; the environment is just the beginning of a long list. Does anybody care what this project will cost for capital outlay and then ongoing costs into the future? What about student transportation safety and traffic congestion issues?

The Planning Board meeting scheduled for June 15^th isn’t intended for the public’s input. I’m sure there will be input allowed but that is not its intention. The meeting is simply a legally requirement to hold an “information only” meeting for the public. There won’t be any need to debate these issues. The School District will simply build it and we’ll simply like it.

Posted by Terry S. at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have been very critical of the School Board in the past. I speak out when I think they get it wrong and, to be fair, when they get it right they deserve praise.  I applaud their recent stance on refusing to allow outside program advertisement flyers into the school. If the policy allowed the Library and Park & Rec. to advertise programs, why not allow advertising for things like gun safety programs. One could easily argue that such a course is very educational and could potentially save a child’s life. There is also a case to be made that the funding source for such a course is not that far removed from the schools. The NH Hunter Safety course is primarily a firearm safety course and welcomes children 12 years and older. The course is under the umbrella of the State of NH and supervised through the NH Fish & Game. Volunteers here in Gilford teach this course twice a year and it is accentually free to anyone interested. For the record, these volunteers are the kind that work for free and not the kind that require annual stipends. This alone might be considered a reason to reject the program. The school district simply can’t accept “free” volunteers. That would compromise the quality of the volunteers. It is standard school district procedure to pay the same volunteers that once happily worked for free.

 As exciting as all this sounds, there will be outside programs that aren’t going to sit well with all parents.   Clearly the effort by the library is based on a belief that they are somehow special.  According to their rhetoric, their growth is due to a massive demand. If the demand is so massive then why do they need to advertise? Aren’t people beating the library doors down to get in? Have we reached a point where Gilford has too many programs for the population of kids? At last count we have Parks & Rec., after school, summer school, library, the community church, plus an array of outside agency programs for kids. We can never seem to have an intellectual discussion on consolidating the departments that offer similar services. That might compromise the insatiable appetite of the growing empires throughout the town’s government. Regardless, the school shouldn't have to be the advertising meca for any of them. Espeically where they may be competing for the same children's time.   

Wake up Terry! This isn’t about “the children” or making government more efficient. This is about protecting high paying and high profile positions.  It’s all about creating more ways for the wealthy to enjoy services at the expense of others. It’s about getting a library named after you or how about those new playing fields at the Meadows. Any bets on who they’re named after?

Posted by Terry S. at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)