We were thrilled to see Candia choose the official ballot law, more commonly called SB2, for its method of voting. A full 60 percent of those voting on Tuesday, March 14, decided they want to let everyone vote on town issues, not just those willing and able to sit through day-long meetings.

It’s too bad the petitioners didn’t get their warrant approved for a vote on the school side, because that’s going to make for a pretty confusing time in Candia with a standard School District Meeting in March, but a deliberative session of Town Meeting in February. We can just imagine the vote next year: one petition to bring SB2 to the school side and another to repeal it on the town side. Perhaps we’ll be wrong. We’ll see. But Candia should at least give the change a try and see how it works out for them.

---

To the Editor:
I guess the Hooksett Budget Committee thinks all of the voters just fell off the turnip truck.

“Since property values are at 78 percent and New Hampshire mandates at least 90 percent, there will be about a 15 percent increase in everyone’s taxes.”

I don’t think so. When everyone’s values rise, the tax impact is negligible.

Phil Daley
Hillsboro

 

To the Editor:
The Auburn School Board would like to encourage the residents of Auburn to get out and vote. The Annual School District Meeting is Friday, March 17, at 7 p.m., in the AVS gym. There are five very important warrant articles that will be voted on.

The warrant articles are: To raise and appropriate funds for the AVS operating budget; to authorize the purchase of a 60-acre parcel of land for a potential new school; to raise and appropriate funds for engineering costs, surveys and land testing, if the land purchase is authorized by the voters; to raise and appropriate funds to replace the AVS gym roof; and to set aside unencumbered funds for the support of the special education trust.

Attending the meeting, listening to the discussions and getting your questions answered is extremely important to the school board. We hope that with all the information you receive, you are able to vote to support our initiatives. We feel that they are essential to the district for the 2006-07 school year and the future.

Elaine Hobbs
Kathleen Porter
Nancy Pelton
Robert Hayes
Robert Collins
Auburn School Board

 

To the Editor:
The question is, would you rather take it to a transfer station where it will then be trucked to a landfill, or rather, have it picked up at your curb? Either way, we will all pay (in more ways than one) to have it trucked to a landfill.

I went to the Solid Waste Committee’s presentation in January, and it was clear that they had worked hard in researching other towns’ transfer stations. They had details, numbers and even pictures. They deserve a big thank you, especially considering that this is a volunteer effort on their part. Indeed, if going with a transfer station is the best solution to disposing of our trash, they have an excellent proposal.

But, I am not convinced it’s the best solution. Not long ago, a traffic counter was placed at the dump; it recorded over 1,000 vehicles in one week. Say the average home is about three miles from the dump, that’s over 6,000 miles a week that we, as a town, have our vehicles’ engines running. That’s an awful lot of pollution we spew from our tailpipes, not to mention the cost of gas over the course of a year. Then there’s our time, which is valuable for all of us. Hence, there are hidden costs with a transfer station: pollution, our money and our time.

When I asked about curbside pickup at the presentation in January, there were very few answers. More importantly, I could not compare the costs of the proposed transfer station with curbside pickup because they hadn’t figured the operating costs of the new facility, except to say that they expected the operating costs would be slightly higher than our present situation (despite a recent statement to the contrary).

Let’s say we’ll save $75,000 a year with the transfer station vs. curbside pick-up. Even with the interest factor (on the bond) put aside, it would take 20 years to recoup that “savings.” Put another way, it doesn’t make sense to me to spend $1.5 million to save $75,000 a year.

As to the argument against curbside pickup (proffered by one committee member) possibly generating future price hikes due to a lack of negotiating leverage, keep in mind we will be trucking our garbage one way or the other.

So, in fairness, that criticism applies to the transfer station proposal as well. Besides, we could avoid this potential problem altogether: the town could buy its own garbage truck after, say, a five-year contract with a private hauler. It’s something to think about down the road. Lastly, I acknowledge there are some things we’d have to do differently with curbside? One might need to rent a Dumpster if they were to strip the shingles off their roof, or clean out their basement and garage, but the point is that these are not insurmountable problems.

Rick Zang
Candia