GilfordGrok

I am nearing the end of my two week journey in China. We have left the green pasture land of Liuzhou and landed in the city of Shenzhen, home to some six million Chinese. Shenzhen is just north of Hong Kong. I’ve been here twice before and each time I come here the construction multiplies exponentially. For our last meal together, my hosts treat me to another domestic dinner. They give me a choice of either sashimi (Japanese) or fresh fish cooked (Chinese). I had eaten sashimi for the last two dinners so fresh fish was the dinner of choice. When they say fresh fish here in china, they mean “fresh” fish. Ever wonder why all those Chinese restaurants have fish aquariums in the lobby? Well, actually it’s for two reasons; Chinese believe the fish will bring them good luck and this is where you choose your dinner. We choose a lively fish and a worker immediately catches it with a net, kills and weighs it. Additionally we select some fresh clams, snails, squid topped off with some fresh broccoli and rice. Within minutes it’s cooked and on your table! There are no western eating tools here so the neighboring tables enjoy some entertainment as I struggle to master chop sticks.

Today, I am visiting a factory that makes electronic power supplies. They are a 500 billion dollar company and the last time I visited, we succeeded in selling them U.S. made equipment. This will simply be a courtesy call to thank them for their business. After our visit I’m off to my original airport, Shanghai. This is where I’ll hunker down for the night and catch my flight home on Thursday.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I thought I'd take a break from the China Diaries to opine on some local news. 

Okay, imagine that you are preparing to fund your child’s college education. School policy requires your child to pay them directly and up front. You ask your child for a budget. Your child has been down this road before and makes sure that the budget is going to cover every possible situation; even some situations that may or may not materialize. You, the parent, have also been down this road and have no problem with cautious planning because you expect any unspent monies to come back to you. After all, it is YOUR money. Your child informs you that the budget is $25,000 and you graciously give your child the money and send them off to learn.

The school year is nearing an end and your child over estimated the cost of books and meals. It was believed that this cost would rise sharply during the budgeting process but fortunately that never happened. The college refunds a nice fat check for $5,000 to your child for the “surplus”. This unexpected windfall is like candy in your child’s hands and begins to think of all the ways it can be spent. That cell phone Mom and Dad pay for works fine but wouldn’t a new Blackberry with a data plan be so much more fun? Mom and Dad wouldn’t spring for the expanded version of cable TV in my dorm room and it’s time for movies on demand. Speaking of rooms; what better time for an upgrade!

Next year the parents are anxiously awaiting the budget for their child’s upcoming school year. Unfortunately those book and meals costs did rise sharply and suddenly the parents discover the additional costs of the Blackberry, data service, expanded cable and upgraded room. The new budget has risen sharply to $30,000 which your child argues the $5,000 increase is “in pace” with past year increases. Your investigation quickly finds out that the actual budget for the previous year was $20,000 and even given the rise in books and meals, the new costs would only be $25,000 if not for the added ongoing upgrades. Your child has spent your money without your approval and now you are in the difficult position of returning the budget back to normal. The college did its job by keeping cost down however your child did not fulfill their obligation to return the excess money back to its rightful owners.

Tax payers everywhere could find some reality to the above parable when observing how the government grows and grows. Some government entities actually look like heroes because it “appears” that they’ve saved the tax payer money and are even returning “some” of it back to you. In reality, tax payers should find little comfort in the fact that some of this wind fall was spent on pet projects (PORK) that completely circumvented the budgeting oversight process. To add further insult to injury, this “pork” will be added to the department’s budgets and become a “new” baseline for the next budgeting cycle. This is how it appears that the budget growth is so “small”. It is no surprise that this process creates a climate of mistrust and when it’s confronted the accusations of “negative tone” are soon to follow.

During last year’s Gilford budget debates, I pointed out that if the price of fuel remained around $2.50 per gallon then Gilford would see a huge surplus in money. By the time budget season ended for Gilford, the price of fuel was down to $2.50 per gallon. Combining the cost savings of both Municipal and School District fuel budgets would yield well over half a million dollars. I was told that any savings would be returned to the tax payer however if the price of fuel climbed beyond the budget it would require “special appropriations” to seek those funds. This sounds like a catch 22 but unfortunately that is the legal process and like the parents in the above parable, we are left to simply “trust” those in charge of spending our money. 

It is not the fact that the Gilford School District spent the money that bothers me. It’s the fact that they spent the money without going through the normal budgeting process and they knew it! If the items purchased with the “surplus” money were absolutely necessary then it would have easily passed the normal budget process wouldn’t it? Perhaps all but the sidewalk project would have easily passed. I believe the sidewalk project should have been heavily debated given the fact that it was so grossly over budget. Is this the lesson we wish to teach our children? Is it okay to proceed with a purchase eve if your budget is way off? I give Paul Blandford kudos for questioning this wasteful spending. Maybe there is more to the story but I guess we’ll never know since it was done outside the normal budgeting process.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday was a very busy work day. Looking for a sales office in one of the many Beijing high rise building can be quite a challenge. What’s this? Did Kevin Roy take a wrong turn? No, it’s just one of the many Western Icons that have arrived in China.

Posted by Terry S. at 06:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am staying at a hotel in Beijing about 3 blocks from Tiananmen Square where the infamous protest event will celebrate its 20^th anniversary in two weeks. Tiananmen Square would be equivalent to our nation’s capital. This is where the Chinese government officials meet. The Square also encompasses Chairman Mao’s Crypt and the Forbidden City where the Emperor once lived. China hasn’t had an emperor in over 50 years and still has a Chairman as its leader. Life here in the major Cities of China is not much different than in the U.S. (aside from the fact that they eat with chop sticks). People work hard and receive pay that is taxed about the same rate as ours. Some companies offer benefits and some do not. Health care is a problem and although they have social medicine to “some degree”, it isn’t that different than our system. Ironically, and not surprisingly to a conservative, the system here is more socialized and as a result the sick and poor get little treatment and the terminally ill are left to die. If you have money you can get treated. Sounds like the direction we’re headed actual.

I find it very interesting that China, like most countries I visit are pushing (sometimes revolting) to achieve the protections and freedom of the U.S. Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers. While we on the other hand are pushing to move in the direction these social societies came from. As I listen to Obama’s words of how he thinks the constitution should be; providing more social support to the “needy”, I can’t help but think that is exactly what got these people in the trouble they are in. Sure they too want to help the needy. But who are the needy and what is the best way to help them? This is the fundamental difference in the political direction of our country as compared to theirs.

China has been forced to make some very hard choices because of the pressures of their growing population, especially their elderly. More responsibility is placed upon the young workers to care for their parents and families at home. This is opposed to the new direction the U.S. is taking and redefining “responsibility” as one’s ability to pay the government to “take care of people”. That definition here in China is exactly what led to an oppressive government that eventually only takes care of itself. We are starting to see this in the U.S. with the growing cost of government benefits. Benefits that the government demands regardless of economical conditions! These are the events that led up to the Tiananmen Square protest that led to the death of many at the hands of that oppressive government. The very fact that I am able to be here and write this to you is proof that they are making progress.    

Posted by Terry S. at 05:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For all you folks that are interested in keeping the Gilford Meadows just the way it is I have provided a copy of the letter I wrote to DES Commissioner Burack. He has already sent me a response letter that thanks me for my letter and states that my concerns will be heard during their consideratrion for reviewing the application process. 

I encourage anyone that shares my concerns to PLEASE write commissioner Burack a letter of concern before the May 20th review date. Send your letter of Concern to the following address; 

Commissioner Thomas S. Burack

NH Department of Environmental Services

PO Box 95 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03302-0095

RE:  Alteration of Terrain Permit Application #081230-06

        Gilford Meadows in Gilford, NH

Dear Commissioner Burack,

I’m writing this letter to express deep concerns to the reference application for a permit to alter terrain at the Gilford Meadows. This project is wrong on so many levels it will be hard to organize them in a coherent fashion but I’ll try.

1)      I have attended a few of the public meetings involving this project. The most recent Conservation Commission meeting was enlightening to say the least. The engineering firm, Fluet Engineering Associates, has been hired by the applicant to design athletic fields for the site. There was a lot of discussion as to exactly what map needs to be used to determine where the wet land boundaries are.  According to the Commissioners, incorrect elevation and wet land definitions may have been used to develop the proposed drawings. The commissioners told the engineer four times that he used the wrong information to determine his set back lines. The Gilford Conservation Commission sent a letter to the applicants, dated 1/7/09, stating several concerns that have NOT been answered.

2)      During a Conservation Commission public meeting (March 17^th) Mr. Fluet, of Fluet Engineering, told the Commissioners that they haven’t even come up with a plan to submit yet. They were simply submitting the application to alter terrain under the January 1^st deadline in order to use the old Shoreline Protection Act regulations. This may be entirely legal but they are so unprepared that it just seems like a gross abuse to the intent of these regulations.  

3)      The land in question is mostly defined as flood plain. The applicants claimed that it only floods during a once in a hundred year flood. We had two of those in the last three years and there are plenty of pictures available that show these fields flooded in 1938, 1942 and sometime around 1955. Considering the elevation for this land is slightly higher than a neighboring lake, it’s easy to understand why it floods on a regular basis.

4)      The Applicants, Gilford School SAU 73, have been asked to explain the need for new fields given the fact that student population has been declining for the last five years with no signs of reversal. They have never supplied any evidence that supports the need for any new fields or support why a new field should be placed on this fragile flood plain. The school is situated some 5 miles away with playing fields on it and It is believed that additional playing fields could be placed there. The “Gilford Meadows” site was donated to them because the previous owner couldn’t get approval to put anything on it. When asked why they need to alter this meadow, the prevailing answer is “we were given this land so we need to do something with it.” This is certainly their right if it could be done without destroying the environment as much as this plan intends to do.

5)      One of the property’s abutters, Andy Howe, spoke at a public meeting to express his concern for the proposed plans to develop this property. He owns and operates a business known as Beans & Greens which sells the produce that is grown on the abutting property. He believes the meadows are soils of “prime agricultural importance” and should not be disturbed. Additionally he has grave concerns of where all the water is going to go once the land is permanently altered.

6)      The disturbing part of this application resides in several statements made in a letter to NHDES, Amy Clark, and dated 12/29/08. On page 2 there is a reference about the area to be developed as currently having open fields. On page 4 they are requesting to add under drain pipes to the “poorly draining soils”. In other words; the open fields are WET!

7)      The Gilford Meadows has a football field on it now and a practice field in the questionable area.  The practice areas are only usable in the fall and only if it remains dry for a week or more. When there is a rain event the entire area is essentially a mud pit. This entire field leaches into a nearby river (40 yards) and then into a major body of water (300 yds). Aside from the proposed fields themselves, the presence of hundreds of people on the soil only adds to the mess downstream.

8)      The applicants have been asked repeatedly to monitor “wells” that were placed there years ago for the purpose of monitoring the soil. They were specifically asked to monitor those wells during the “growing season” which has already started. It appears the request is been  ignored or purposely delayed to allow monitoring when things dry out more.

9)      During the spring and fall hundreds of Geese use these fields as a stopping point. Deer come from the nearby hill to graze in these fields as well. Rare open space and excellent, if not prime, agricultural land will be forever destroyed. The earth and wildlife are going to pay a high price simply so the SAU can “put something there”.

10)   During the most recent Conservation Commission public meeting, a resident asked “Why can’t the fields just be used as they are?” “They play football and practice now so why risk this?” This is an excellent question that has yet to be answered.

I would like to urge you to deny this application based the above concerns. I find it extremely hard to believe that anything would be allowed to be developed in this flood plain.

Sincerely,

Terry Stewart                                              Mailing: PO Box 6030

Gilford, NH 03249                                                      Laconia, NH 03247

Cc: Gilford Conservation Commission, Gilford School Board SAU73, Gilford Board of Selectmen, US Army Corp of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NH Executive Council, NH DES Wetlands Bureau, Gilford Planning Board

Posted by Terry S. at 08:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)