Well, we certainly were warned - and when people say something, I tend to believe them:
McLaughlin said before he and his wife came to Gilford they lived in Massachusetts on a 13-acre plot of land. When they left, they hadn't put the land into a conservation plan, and now it is developed, he said.
"I have learned a lesson and I am not going to let the same thing happen here. Not on my watch, if I can help it," said McLaughlin (Citizen, November 18, 2006)
Essentially, he has said that he will not stop putting parcels of land off the development "table" that otherwise be used to provide housing in Gilford off of the development. Yet, in his hunger to keep Gilford "rural" and
Flush from his push at the last election to have the Bean property kept from development with taxpayer money, he is now using taxpayer money to once again to "save" the Person's Farm. While it was said that it would be done privately, when one gets (from adding up the numbers in his Sun Letter to the Editor (Sun, 12/14, pg 5)
$352,500 Federal Natural Resouces Conservation Service, Farm and
Ranchland Protection
$44,250 NH LCHIP
$115,000 Gilford Conservation Commission
$511,750 Not a small amount of tax money
$300,000 Persons "gift"
$811,750
$31,410 Pledges from 25 families (only 20 from Gilford)
$843,160
Yet, I was under the assumption that this was being done privately? My definition of private means "no public money". $511,750 is a whole lot of non-private money - more than half raised is actually taxpayer money.
I also take a wee bit of umbrage to parts of his letter:
And now, all they want to do is to continue to give to us by conserving their farm forever. It is time for Gilford residents, especially, to reciprocate and really show Dick and Betty that we care and that they have our gratitude and support.
and laments that:
Only 20 wonderful families out of the more than 6060 voters in this town have contributed. Dick and Betty didn't want to burden the Gilford taxpayers with a bond issue to fulfill their (and our) desires to protect their farm. Instead, they elected to rely on the generosity of townspeople and local business for supprot.
Er, with over half the money already coming from tax revenues, how can this be deemed "private funds"? Regardless of not wanting to burden GILFORD taxpayers, it IS taxpayer money, as if other taxpayer money is being used here, you can be sure that our taxpayer money is being used some where else.
And doesn't the fact that only 20 families here in Gilford say something? I just point out that persuading a few gatekeeppers of the taxpayer Treasury to let some shekels out seems to be a whole lot easier than persuading those that earned the shekels in the first place, eh?
Only 20 families? It's not like this project is brand new either.....perhaps the fervor of the conservationists burns far brighter than those that wish to spend those shekels on other things. Certainly (and admittedly, I'm a bit biased here LOL) there seems to be a bit of guilt being used here.
Besides, even with his statement, Everett is already setting the stage for Gilford Taxpayers to take up what he believes is the slack:
But if this were a 20-year bond issue, how much would you be willing to pay in taxes? $10/year, for a total of $200? How about $5/year for $100? Yet, if only 74% of those 6060 taxpayers contributed $35 just this once, we'd not only meet our goal, but equally important to Dick and Betty would be the wonderful Christmas message that a much larger number of people share and support their dream.
Once again, with large projects looming in the near future (Police addition, a new building (perhaps) at the Meadows, development and maintenance of the Meadows playing fields, switching to a new fiscal year), is this a good use of taxpayer money just so that Everett can continue to lock up land from development? Frankly, any of these projects would be higher on my priority list than on Everett's. And no, I do not consider this a "Christmas message"
Remember, as land is taken off the market, we that are already landowners benefit as the value of our property is artificially raised. The flip side, however, is that it makes it all that much harder for young families to come in and purchase their home. And in doing this, the Law of Unintended Consequences may be deciding that we are making it harder for our sons and daughters to make their homes here to enjoy the quality of life we have in Gilford. Indeed, it is a double edged sword that must be wielded with caution.
When is enough, enough? At what point does one person's mission, obsession, and hobby stop costing taxpayer dollars?
Has he stopped to ponder WHY only 4% of his support has come from private donations (excluding the Person's "gift" of $300,000)? Given the length of time that this "need" has been known locally, doesn't this send a message in and of itself?
Or is it just easier to raid the taxpayer piggybank?
I have no problem with the Persons trying to keep their farm the way it is after they are gone - what they do with their private property is their family business. As with the outside agency debate, I have a problem with the current trend of using taxpayer monies to solve all perceived ills and problems.
Save it if you wish, but please use private money. If you cannot, ponder on what that message says.
