My own reaction was “love to have Cabela’s ... but don’t ask us to pay for the privilege!” Over weeks and months of rolling it around in our minds, the council decided that the opportunity was too significant to dismiss it out of hand ... that we should put it before you, the voters, in order to get your feelings on this proposal.

We knew that two issues would likely be critical to the success of the proposal; first would be the dollar value of the bond (since this proposal would be bigger than any previously undertaken, a measure of reluctance would be natural), and second would be “quality of life” issues (the neighbors could naturally be expected to express concerns about traffic and other localized factors). A major project of this scope and size would need to be thoroughly debated.

Furthermore, we also realized that this TIF would be different from the Exit 10 TIF.

That TIF district had far fewer issues than does the Exit 11 TIF.

Exit 10 was initially thought to have two infrastructure needs; a sewer collection system and a series of traffic improvements.

Ultimately, the decision to use onsite sewage disposal precluded the sewer collection aspect; leaving $2.6 million for roadway and signalization work. Given the limited scope of the funding required, it was evident that that TIF would be producing revenue quickly. It has performed as planned, translating to a 52-cent benefit to this year’s tax rate.

Recognizing that the Exit 11 TIF would not likely generate excess revenues for a number of years, we looked for ways to provide some immediate benefits to the taxpayers. That led me to propose that we wrap in some additional infrastructure improvements which would otherwise need to be funded by the taxpayers. In this way, Cabela’s and new businesses within the TIF district would pay for your needed improvements in addition to the improvements needed to develop the Exit 11 area.

Among the additional projects included in the expanded proposal are:

• Sewer plant improvements which had already been proposed by the sewer commission to be added to this year’s warrant.

• The Lilac Bridge reconstruction.

Those of you who were involved in the Village Charette and the Community Profile phases of the master plan will recall that the Lilac Bridge reconstruction was an integral part of the Hooksett Heritage Trail. Incidentally, the eastern bank of the river is also planned as part of the Heritage Trail not housing or commercial development (as alleged by opponents of the TIF). We can get that now.

Secondly, the bridge also carries the only sewer line servicing the western sections of town. If there is any doubt in your minds about the condition of the bridge, please take a close look at it the next time you stop by Robie’s. The state report has given the bridge failing marks across the board. It was closed to vehicles 30 years ago and has been subsequently closed to pedestrians.

• Fire Station No. 3 proposed for the west side of the river. With these benefits, plus the Route 3-A and Hackett Hill traffic improvements, plus the sewer line and water system upgrades, which are to be included in the TIF district, the project began to show real promise.

Additionally, we considered what having the Cabela’s facility at Exit 11 would mean to Hooksett. Cabela’s is a first-class retailer in the sporting goods field. It is comparable to landing a Nieman-Marcus or Nordstrom’s on that site. Contrast that with current uses on and adjacent to that site: a contractor’s yard, a gravel pit, an asphalt plant, highway maintenance facilities and warehousing facilities.

Quality, well-planned developments get better with time.

This is a museum-quality facility which will enhance the town and the region. Quality also requires investment. We have a unique opportunity to make that investment at Cabela’s expense.

That investment will pay dividends for them and us over the long run. We already know what comes on the cheap! We have miles of it; used cars, oddlot retailers and metal storage buildings. All have a place, but we have an opportunity to take a step up.

The investment at Exit 10 yielded spectacular results; firstclass retail facilities and an economic home run for the taxpayers.

We have an opportunity to repeat a winning formula. Some advocate that we conduct business as usual; while they hope for a different result!

Is that rational?

In this instance, your self-interests coincide with the best long term interests of your community.

Please vote yes on Article 5.

Michael DiBitetto
Hooksett Town Council

The wolf comes described as a sheep, so no one is alarmed and concerned about its presence or danger.

Has Cabela’s come to our small town to solicit millions of our tax dollars for its own corporate advantage, by telling us what we want to hear? Are they also only telling us what is in their best interest to say, or for us to believe? Why do they not provide facts and evidence to support the inaccurate, incorrect and misleading claims they make in their newspaper ads and in their printed material that they are passing around town?

So, I went to Tilden Township, also Hamburg, Pa. – the last Cabela’s store built – and met and spoke with local government officials, business owners, professional people and citizens of both communities. And now, the rest of the story:

This is what the good people in Pennsylvania had to say about their experience with Cabela’s and what they wanted us here in Hooksett to know. Independent of each other, they all expressed two major points:

1 – Get everything in writing from Cabela’s before voting the bond. (They did not.)

2 – Slow down the approval process. They felt that they were rushed (pushed) into making quick decisions before all of the details were known and/or had been resolved.

In a transaction of this magnitude – $18 million – the devil is in the details. For instance, a guarantee is just a promise to do something in the future. That promise is only as good as the company making it or their ability to keep it. A bond attorney advised the task force (subcommittee of the town council) that it would be prudent to collateralize (secure) the guarantee with a letter of credit or treasury notes, or by pledging the bond. To date, Cabela’s has resisted doing any of these. Again, one small detail of many, many, many, details still not resolved and agreed to in writing before voting this huge bond.

Please visit the new Hooksett Web site www.hooksett-nh.comand see for yourself.

This $18 million bond is not good for Hooksett, and will be paid for by the Hooksett taxpayers (no matter what you are being told). Also, property taxes that provide most of our schools’ financing will be diverted to reimburse a billion-dollar corporation. The net result will be higher property taxes for individual taxpayers.

Please join with me on May 9 at the Cawley School, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and vote no on Article 5.

Mike Sorel

The board believes that the continuance of public/private partnerships (such as Exit 10) is an important step in the development of commercial and industrial properties.

Throughout the country and the state of New Hampshire, there are many examples of successful public/private partnerships.

One only has to look to our neighbors in Manchester with the Verizon Arena and the Fisher Cats ball field to see examples of these relationships.

The planning board is working diligently on a new growth management ordinance to manage the residential growth within the community, but it is important that, as we slow down residential growth, we increase our efforts to attract good commercial and industrial development to establish a strong tax base. The TIF District at Exit 11 will go a long way towards bringing in such development.

In addition, the bond issue will pay for infrastructure improvements that have long been needed in the village area.

In a recent letter to the editor, there was a comment that the land owned by the town (30+ acres) and the land along the Merrimack River (owned by Manchester Water Works) should not have been included in the TIF district. This is really a non-issue since this is publicly owned land and cannot be developed without the vote of the taxpayers. A TIF district does not change the underlying zoning of the land; i.e. the land within a TIF district can only be used for those uses for which the land is zoned.

The planning board urges all of the voters to support the development of a strong tax base and asks that they support the TIF bond warrant article.

Richard G. Marshall
Chairman
Hooksett Planning Board

Most, if not all, of the growth on the west side of the Merrimack River was gutted out of the master plan. Some would argue that it was hijacked by a small group of self-interested individuals.

This group hid behind the words “It’s for Hooksett.” The draft master plan called for a number of economic development zones designed to create a broad business tax base to help lower your taxes or at least hold them at bay for sometime.

As a result of intense lobbying, the economic development zones surrounding Exit 11 on the west side of the Merrimack River were significantly scaled back so as not to upset the neighbors, so to speak. A portion of this economic development zone is – yes, you guessed it – where the proposed Cabela’s complex wants to build in Hooksett.

Again, we are seeing an assault on this new proposal, by the same people who did not want any change or economic development zones in their neighborhood in the first place.

This development could help all of us by holding back some of the tax increases that we all know are going to come.

If this development was going to happen on your side of town or in your neighborhood none of these people would be upset because it would not be near where they live. Yet they would love the income this would generate.

The north end of town is the most historic part of our town and with this development the town would reap upfront improvements that you and I would otherwise have to pay for in added taxes.

I guess some people in town have enough money to pay higher taxes and let Hooksett stay just the way it is. Do you? Or do you need commercial growth to help you out a little with your tax bills. Don’t be fooled by thinking that this group of naysayers have your best interest at heart.

They didn’t when they fought against the economic development zones in their neighborhood and they don’t now.

Vote for your interest ... vote yes for Article 5.

Our State Rep. David Hess has become a major disappointment in regards to this Cabela’s proposal. He expressed no objection to the financial aspects of this TIF proposal until his effort to remove a couple of parcels from the district failed. I wonder how close they were to his home? Now all of a sudden, he has discovered this is a bad deal.

Does anyone else find it strange the Hooksett senior state representative is complaining of the state of New Hampshire’s lack of financial involvement? Why can’t the senior state representative get the funding? Is he helping Hooksett or undermining our interest?

Douglas St. Pierre
Hooksett