YourNeighborhoodNews.com: The Hooksett Banner

When residents are upset to the point that they create a petition to strip selectmen of their power to make spending and other decisions, you know a town has a serious problem on its hands. Candia has that sort of serious problem.

Residents of Brown Road are not happy at all with the prospect of a large garbage processing plant on their road. Such a transfer station could bring a half-million dollars a year into Candia on top of eliminating the costs associated with getting rid of trash, but it would also bring traffic, noise and odors, say opponents.

We’re willing to sit back and let this fight play itself out. The good of the many vs. the the rights of the few is always an interesting battle.

However, the petition to strip Candia selectmen of the ability to make spending decisions is pretty severe. Why even have town officials? And the idea that Candia residents would have to come out to vote on every decision the selectmen would normally make strikes us as absurd and unworkable. Do the petitioners really think a representative sample of Candia residents will take the time to check out the selectmen’s discussions and then vote on the decisions every week? Heck, you already can’t get a majority of voters to attend a selectmen’s meeting or even the annual Town Meeting. (And where would you put them if you did?) Not to mention the cost and hassle to have the town moderator and supervisors of the checklist oversee the votes.

We can’t imagine this petitioned warrant article doing any good. But it certainly is a wake-up call to Candia officials.

How about new people running for office instead? -Ginger Kozlowski, Editor

On behalf of our family, we wish to thank The Hooksett Banner for recognition of the frustration our family has suffered since July, 22, 2002. We are not responsible for the death of any horses, and when the truth comes to be, we will be vindicated.

Also, our sincere thanks to all our friends and family who continue to support us during these harrowing times.

To the Editor:
Would you like to know more about protecting your land? About preserving it for your children and as a permanent place for wildlife to exist and flourish? Would you like to find answers to questions such as: How does a conservation easement work? Is there money available to help with the financial aspect of conserving your land? How does land protection affect ownership and property values?

To get answers to your burning questions about land conservation, plan to attend the educational workshop “Nuts and Bolts of Land Conservation” on Tuesday, Jan. 25, from 7 to 9 p.m., at the Candia Town Hall. No charge. Light refreshments. All are welcome!

To register contact Sharon Hughes at the UNH Cooperative Extension at sharon.hughes@unh.eduor 862-1029.

To the Editor:
We moved to Hooksett just before Christmas in 2002. After extensive research and planning, we had our home built in the Briar Court development, off of Hackett Hill Road.

We just recently learned about the future land use plans in the master plan. We were shocked to learn about plans to rezone almost all of the remaining land, approximately 800 acres and more than four miles long, west of I-93 from residential to industrial zoning! This would also include a bridge to connect the east side to the west side, dumping upwards of 30,000 additional cars a day on to Route 3A. This is a complete flip-flop from the vision outlined in the current master plan, which reads “In the Hackett Hill area west of I-93, the existing residential development pattern is typical of the desired long-range image of this rural setting.” What good is a master plan if people can’t rely on it when making the largest investment in their lives?

The plan goals state that “The Town of Hooksett should attempt to maintain the rural character of NH 3A where appropriate and possible.” Other parts of the plan call for major development along 3A. Do we want or need another Route 3 or S. Willow Street on the west side of town?

Another issue is that our neighborhood has been proposed to be included in an economic development zone! Why would the town propose that our two-year-old residential neighborhood be included in a zone that could potentially accommodate anything from a gas station to a super Wal-Mart?

The overall master plan 2004 is a good one. However, to rezone a brand new neighborhood from residential to industrial and to have it included in an economic development zone is poor planning. Especially when the current master plan envisioned the entire area as a rural residential neighborhood. This could potentially result in lowered property values, not to mention quality of life issues.

I hope that every Hooksett citizen is aware of what is being proposed in the new master plan. I also hope that as citizens, we can work together with our town administrators to do what is best for us all now and in the future.

To the Editor:
Last Thursday I received a postcard from John’s Hallmark in Hooksett stating they would be closing their store after many years of serving area residents.

I have patronized this store for many years and have gotten to know the sales girls on a first name basis. Whenever you go into John’s Hallmark, you receive a cheery “Hello.” I have had many occasions when I needed a special card, and all I had to do was ask one of the girls and they would point me in the right direction so I could get the card I needed without looking at hundreds of cards.

There is no other store in this area that sells good, quality items like John’s Hallmark. Many people will stop in at John’s Hallmark to purchase that special gift for a birthday, anniversary, wedding or baby shower, Christmas, Valentine’s Day – I could go on forever with the variety of gifts that John’s Hallmark carries.

I asked why they were closing the store. They said it was a lease problem with Shaw’s. I also heard Olympia Sports Center was also closing because of a lease problem.

If you look at that side of the plaza, there are not many stores left – I think four would be a good number.

I heard Shaw’s wanted to enlarge their store, but I didn’t realize it was going to mean that John’s Hallmark and Olympia Sports Center would have to close their doors. What a sad day that will be.

I think I’ll have to do my shopping in Concord or Manchester now. I can’t patronize a store that has taken the liberty of making other stores close so they can prosper.

To the Editor:
Welcome to the new industrial valley, formerly known as the rural town of Hooksett. I say this to the residents of Hooksett after reviewing the proposed master plan for 2004. I have lived in this town for two years and have seen it change from a town focused on the development of a strong community with families, to the commercial and industrial valley.

Now the town has handed over the plan to Mr. Charles Watson of Concord (in charge of commercial development). His proposal is to allow industrial zoning to abut residential communities. Why? Because then the town will need someone to be in charge of all the development. Who better than Mr. Charles Watson of Concord. This change of town philosophy will open the flood gates to destroy all residential areas for further industrial development.

So the question of why this is occurring must be asked. The response so far is to stabilize the taxes. All impact studies to date demonstrate that commercialization and industrialization increase taxes more than town acquisition of open spaces. It appears that a rush to make changes are someone’s “agenda” versus what is right for the town.

When I asked Mr. Doug St. Pierre if any impact studies were done, he replied that they were not, but they hoped this might work. This statement follows after the citizens just received a tax increase, allowing the new “Hooksett Mall” to be built off Exit 10. Do the people of this town not understand that commercialization does not work? Currently, Hooksett has more commercial and industrial zoning than that of surrounding towns, but that does not seem to be enough. When will it be enough? Once Hooksett has mills and is developed to the extent that Manchester Elm and Canal streets are?

I hope the people of Hooksett really look at the master plan and notify their counselor that they oppose these changes before the end of January – or else.

To the Editor:
A letter to the editor published in the Jan. 13, issue of The Hooksett Banner, and sent in by an alleged taxpayer named G. Deeper of Pembroke, has left me confused.

First of all, a check of all property owned in Pembroke does not list anybody named Deeper, so the name must be a pseudonym. The writer seems upset with school utilization policies and contends that the school belongs to the taxpayers and not the superintendent.

As a resident, taxpayer, and school board member, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, it is the school board and not the superintendent who create policies which allow local groups to use the schools. Those uses range from sport competitions like youth basketball to corporate sales rallies and include religious services on Sundays. Those who use the facilities must obtain permission from the school board and comply with the requirements in the board’s policy.

As the writer insinuates, those who apply to use the facilities are charged a fee to defray costs so that it doesn’t cost the taxpayers anything. The issue of where the money goes, which is collected from any group, is a matter of public record. Those revenues are audited annually by an independent outside auditor whose report is made public.

The writer also has a beef with the annual parking fee for students who drive their cars to the academy. Given the impressive year and condition of many cars which students drive, the small annual fee used to control the parking situation and to raise revenue to help maintain the lot seems better than sticking that cost on taxpayers too.

I can understand questions such as these but what really confuses me is why I never see these people at school board meetings where they could ask me face to face and get an answer instead of writing to the editor.

To the Editor:
I stand corrected. There was a more perfect solution for Mount Zion, the Department of Transportation has extended the lease in Bedford for another year! Thank you for praying, it worked.

Now, if you would pray that the Auburn Planning Board would let “us people” build our school, I’m confident that prayer will be answered as well. Sending them letters and making phone calls would help too. God does allow and expect us to do some of the work. I find it annoying, but not unusual, to hear public servants act as if they are empowered rather than entrusted.

First, the “straw dog” of safety concerns is ridiculous. Most schools have truck traffic passing by. The location in Bedford has many more tractor-trailers and vehicles of all types passing by at far greater speeds than could ever be reached at Wellington. For 21 years, the Bedford location has housed a K-8 school without any students being injured by tractor-trailers.

Next, trying to “interpret” or re-define the zoning law now to prevent this school is blatantly discriminatory. If the intent was for a day care center, then it should have been written that way before the voters approved it. If it was to be only for the benefit of the people employed at the business park, that should have been stipulated as well. It wasn’t and isn’t and should have no bearing upon their decision.

To say “I have nothing against you people” certainly caused me to feel chills. Their attorney properly recused himself due to conflicting interests. The man who referred to us as “you people” more than once, should be more than just recused. Had he used that term toward some other group, with more litigious minds, Auburn would have some legal problems, I’m sure.

Private schools are a win-win for New Hampshire. The families still pay school taxes while not sending their children to the public schools. Contrary to rumor, most of us are not wealthy, just committed and sacrificial. It’s not easy to be a Christian. Of course, The Lord never said it would be.

To the Editor:
This week, the House of Representatives opened the first session of their work for the year 2005. By doing so, it made me realize how much this action had become a part of me and that it has been a privilege and an honor to have served as Hooksett’s representative for Hooksett’s residents for the last 12 years.

When I first entered the House and sat in the seat of a representative, I wondered how I could make myself useful to the town. For two terms I worked under the instruction of a committee chairman and learned the steps I should follow. I learned and listened to the representatives during some of the county meetings, and when the chance came, I became the clerk of the Executive Department and Administrative Committee.

This committee is one that works constantly. I planned to work three days a week, and I did. It covers anything that affects all parts of state government; it covers any bills that affect the state retirement system; it covers any changes in the licensing systems of any profession in the state. If that wasn’t enough, we were assigned anything that was unusual and not assignable to another committee.

I worked at the job for four years (two terms) and then came into a position that made me eligible to be vice chairman of the committee, but because I was experienced as clerk, I was assigned to that position again. Then the good Lord made up my mind for me, gave me a stroke and made me work to hold the clerk’s position, which I did. I held this position for another two terms and am thankful that I did.

I worked for the town: first voting for bills that affected the town of Hooksett, second that affected the state of New Hampshire, and third for the United States. I worked as chairman of the retirement committee for the employees of the state of New Hampshire, and as chairman of the County Executive Committee the same time as I was clerk.

As you can see, my efforts were enough to make a lasting impression on me. I thank the residents of Hooksett for giving me a chance to work for them and the state of New Hampshire.