Letters to the editor for July 25, 2007

A tale of two cities

To the editor:

In one city, the local economic development corporation is evicting its children’s museum. In another city, the City Council is getting ready to spend $650,000 to bring a children’s museum to town.

In one city, the children’s museum goes broke paying for capital improvements to a space that the landlord/president of its economic development corporation “doesn't expect to have any problems filling … once the museum is gone.” In another city, the council is voting to fund the repairs to the building caused by flooding in the spring to enable the museum to move to their city.

In one city, last year’s council chairman and current sitting councilor says, “The closure might have a small ripple effect on downtown businesses ... You're always going to see comings and goings, new businesses and businesses leaving.” In another city, the mayor “sees strong majority support for the spending (to keep the museum) ... (And) hopes councilors will see past the short-term impact the project would have on the budget and look at the long-term gains the museum would bring to the city.”

The two cities are real. You know the first one. It is Derry, N.H. The other city is Dover, N.H. Dover is a somewhat smaller community with about 6,000 fewer people, a per capita income less than Derry and a total town property valuation less than Derry.

The landlord/president of the economic development corporation/evictor is Jack Dowd. The economic development corporation is the DEDC. Derry’s previous council chairman/current sitting councilor is Brian Chirichiello. The mayor of Dover is Scott Myers.

All of the quotes are from newspaper articles written over the course of the last week.

How can things be so different only 49 miles away? Why is Dover so progressive, while Derry takes such a backward attitude? I really hope we can write a different ending to this story.

Kelly Mahony

Derry

Work to keep 'the Met' from leaving

To the editor:

It’s hard to believe that the town of Derry and the Derry Economic Development Corporation have reacted so nonchalantly to the closing of the Children’s Metamorphosis ("the Met"). Brian Chirichiello, who has often advocated himself as a champion of downtown businesses, has been quoted as saying, “You’re always going to see comings and goings, new businesses and businesses leaving.” The fact that the Met is not just any other business seems to be lost on the veteran town councilor.

Here is what I do know. I do know that, had the Met not been open, our family would not have spent many days downtown spending money. We would not have gone downtown to the Met, and then gone to the Firehouse restaurant with our three children. Instead, we would have driven 45 minutes away and gone someplace with a children’s museum (like Portsmouth) and spent our money in that town rather than in Derry.

Perhaps Brian Chirichiello sees the additional money invested into Portsmouth businesses as being positive for Derry, but I cannot really follow that logic.

As far as the DEDC’s position on the Met leaving, perhaps they have never heard of marketing and public relations. Were I in charge of a business looking to relocate, I would consider Derry a rather hostile business climate if the DEDC, the very organization tasked with “promoting responsible economic development in the town of Derry,” could evict a children’s museum. Also, it is probably no secret that the DEDC is currently going through a rather tough time with public image and relations. It would seem to me that you would have to really try hard to be any more Scrooge-like than evicting a children’s museum.

This is a prime opportunity for the Community for a Better Derry. Neil Wetherbee and Steve Falconer should energize their grass-roots organization to keep the Met in Derry.

It can hardly be disputed that the mere existence of the Met within the downtown of Derry has made Derry a better place, and that Derry will not be a better place without the Met. If ever there were a time for a grass-roots organization to make itself felt, it is now.

Greg Ingersoll

Derry

Fairbanks right to ask questions

To the editor:

Neil Wetherbee's recent letter to the editor has brought to light certain inequities on how the town acquires conservation land. He criticized Councilor Fairbanks because of questions she asked about how the town acquires conservation land.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't she supposed to represent her district? When councilors have questions, aren't they supposed to ask them to better understand how things work? If she sees something that she doesn't feel is right, doesn't she have an obligation to find out why?

The answer is obvious: It is her job to ask questions and represent her district. The people who say it is petty politics are the very ones who want to mislead the public. The reality is that they don't want to hear questions because they don't want people to know what's going on.

I have to agree with Councilor Fairbanks on this issue. Conservation land should be distributed equitably among all the neighborhoods of Derry. As a resident of East Derry, the present system certainly benefits me, because I spend a lot of time outdoors and take advantage of the conservation land. It's good for me because I'm five minutes from two or three great places to go hiking. But what about the residents in the western part of town?

I think the issue could be settled very easily without everyone taking it so personally. Just add another criterion that states, "Conservation land shall be distributed equitably among all neighborhoods in Derry." They don't need to change any of the other criteria, and it benefits all the neighborhoods.

This letter is not intended to take anything away from the hard work that the people on these boards do. I appreciate their work, as I am sure Councilor Fairbanks does. Sometimes policies just need to be reviewed and updated for the benefit of all of the town's residents.

Tom Cardon

Derry

Councilor's comments divisive

To the editor:

It’s all about process and procedure. Checks and balances. We need and have these in our town government. There is no problem, nor do I take issue with Councilor Fairbanks' request for the council to have a more “hands-on approach” with the Conservation Commission. It is part of the process, and she is well within her duties to represent the interests of her district and make such a request. If that was all that had happened, it would be a non-issue.

Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. The councilor did not make a simple request and then allow the process and procedures set forth take their course. As she has done so many times in the past, she felt a need to go well beyond a request, and escalate the issue into being both personal and political.

It’s curious that in Ms. Fairbanks' rebuttal, she mentions the efforts of two of her most avid supporters, Maureen Rose and Donna Thompson, and their endeavors regarding the Sybiak Property in what she still considers “West Derry.”

The fact that these constituents’ properties abut, or are in very close proximity to the Sybiak Property, seems to be the exact same issue she has attacked the Conservation Commission on. And yet she praises their efforts. Sounds a bit like a double standard to me. But so is her claim that she has “repeatedly” asked the commission about conservation parcels in “West Derry,” while complaining that she has only met with them twice in 16 months.

I would also remind the councilor that the wonderful increase in property values that members of the commission are supposed to be getting by having these properties nearby can also result in a considerably higher tax burden for them. I wonder if the majority of her constituents would rather have higher tax bills or drive for five minutes like the rest of us?

The fact is no land purchases are made without Town Council approval. Ms. Fairbanks acknowledges she has known that these properties have been under consideration for months. She has known about conservation’s 12 criteria since she became a councilor. Yet rather than work within the system to try to make changes, she has chosen to hurl false accusations about the integrity of members of a town board and its procedures.

As to her not being apprised as to what the Conservation Commission is doing, as with Town Council meetings, there are no special invitations sent to anyone. We meet in public twice a month, the meetings are televised, the agenda is posted in advance of the meeting, and members of the public who wish to speak may do so. The commission welcomes any interested residents to participate in the process.

However, there is a process, and there is a system of checks and balances that Councilor Fairbanks has yet again chosen to try to circumvent.

The truly sad part of this nonsensical bickering is that rather than recognizing some of the true gems we have as far as conservation lands, Councilor Fairbanks has taken something that everyone in this town should take pride in, and turned it into a petty and contentious debate over who lives where. I fail to see how this can benefit the residents of either the councilor's district or anyone else.

If this town is to move forward and realize its potential, the cynicism that has become part of the political landscape, both in residents as well as our elected officials, must end. There are procedures. There are checks and balances. Let’s all try to work within the system, and let the system work.

Neil Wetherbee

Conservation Commission alternate

Derry

Fairbanks' accusation lacks merit

To the editor:

As a resident of District 1 in Derry, I witnessed on TV Councilor Janet Fairbanks’ accusation regarding the Conservation Commission and this publication's entire coverage of the matter. It does indeed require comment.

It strikes me as very odd that any publication would write a story touched off by comments from anyone without offering the comment itself. For your readers' benefit, at the July 10 Town Council meeting, in response to the council chairman’s explanation of the criteria for conservation land acquisition recommendations, Councilor Fairbanks said, “It’s a criteria that they have created based on properties that abut the conservation members’ homes.”

I have read the actual criteria; there is no requirement that prospective properties abut conservation members’ homes. In that light, your headline would have been far more accurate if it read, “Councilor Fairbanks makes false accusation.”

On another level, Councilor Fairbanks did not offer any basis for the intended and implied accusation that conservation members have sought out personal gain in their recommendations.

In fact, assuming that this dark conspiracy is accurate and that property values go up when nearby land is conserved, a property owner would have to sell in order to reap that personal benefit. To my knowledge, none of the people she has personally accused have sold their property | as such, their windfall has simply been paying higher property taxes for many years.

Most importantly, the two letters published on July 18 by Councilors Brent Carney and Janet Fairbanks presents a stark dichotomy. While Councilor Carney made a plea for people to become involved in Derry, Councilor Fairbanks, in my opinion, was discouraging the same.

Perhaps Councilor Carney can take a leadership position and call out those who discourage community service through false and disparaging accusations of dedicated volunteers.

Mark Grabowski

Derry

Obama's the real deal

To the editor:

Are you sick and tired of listening to our elected officials and so-called “political activists” engaging in petty bickering, instead of working to solve problems and govern effectively? It seems like this is the mode of politics in Washington and closer to home, despite a strong message from the American people that we want statesmanship, competence and leadership rather than bickering, inaction and attempts at one-upmanship.

There is a bright light on the horizon, and that bright light is Sen. Barack Obama. Known for respecting others and showing the type of statesmanship that we are looking for from our leaders, Sen. Obama has recently broken all of the records in his campaign to become president of the United States.

While raising a record amount of money this year, incredibly, more than 250,000 donors from all walks of life and all political persuasions have supported his campaign. The explanation is clear: Sen. Obama is a different type of candidate who inspires people and who is willing to work with all stakeholders, regardless of their politics.

A quarter of a million American citizens have contributed more than $58 million to his campaign. PACs and federal lobbyists have contributed zero.

Now, more than ever, we need a president who really is a uniter and a statesman. Keep your eyes open for Sen. Obama. He’s the real thing.

Robert Spiegelman

Londonderry

Opinion

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us