YourNeighborhoodNews.com: The Hooksett Banner

Neighborhood News Inc. has moved into new offices in Manchester, and that's good news for readers and advertisers of The Hooksett Banner, because we're now closer to Hooksett, Allenstown, Pembroke, Candia, Auburn and Epsom if you need us, and good for our four weekly papers because we're more centrally located for all our towns.

It hasn't been the smoothest of transitions. Our e-mail problems have yet to be straightened out at press time, so we hope you will bear with us and have patience - and resend anything that we may not have received. If it's not in the pages, we probably didn't get your message. Computers and network systems apparently don't enjoy traveling and seeing new sights.

The staff is enjoying the new building, though, so we invite our readers and advertisers to stop by 1662 Elm St. in Manchester to say hi. We're renewing efforts to make these the best newspapers they can be, so we'd love to hear from you on how we're doing. Feel free to call me at 314-0447, ext. 28, or try to e-mail editor@hooksettbanner.com ... in a few days when our e-mail access ought to be back.

-Ginger Kozlowski, Editor

The voters already approved an article for the appropriation of $3.5 million in 2002. These two new articles simply allow us to change the way in which this money is borrowed.

In the original warrant article, the money was to be raised through the state of New Hampshire's Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). We have since discovered that due to many restrictions tied to the use of the use of the SRF funds, it would be in our best interest if we bonded some of the money through local bonding agencies for portions of the project, and use the SRF money for the rest of the project. By doing this, we would be able to "get the best bang for our buck."

As was the case with the original article, this money will not be repaid through taxes.

We would appreciate your yes vote on May 10. If you have any questions, please contact the Wastewater Department at 485- 4112 or 485-7000.

The town votes on May 10, and we are asking you to vote yes on Article 8, which is the budget article.

The library budget is part of the town budget and a yes vote on Article 8 is also a yes vote for the library. The library has always been known as a very frugal organization, pinching every nickel twice before it is spent. But we could be heading for big trouble.

If we have a default budget, which would be the third in four years, we will not have enough money to run the library without some very serious cuts in service. We risk losing incredibly dedicated and knowledgeable staff due to potential staffing cutbacks. That we are so thinly staffed now makes their dedication and cheerful demeanor all the more remarkable!

Utility costs have gone from $35,915 in 2002-03, to $43,930 in 2003-04, to a projected $58,970 in 2004-2005. This is a 61 percent increase – a $23,000 difference! Since our budget total has not increased in the last two budget cycles, this money is now coming out of salary, book and program line items. We have had to close the library on Thursdays this year in order to meet our bottom line.

Our utility costs next year are projected to be more than $60,000. Since we are sure that PSNH and Energy North will not take IOUs, if we have another default budget, we will have no choice but to consider even more drastic cuts in hours and services, including eliminating some story hours.

And it is not just the library that is looking at such a bleak situation. Many town departments are in similar dire straights and desperately need the funds in the proposed budget to provide even minimally acceptable service that our neighbors deserve. Please support the library by voting yes on Article 8 on May 10.

Anyone who frequents the current Town Hall can clearly see the need for more space, and with the impending growth Hooksett will see in the next 10 to 20 years, the new space will allow for this growth and for expanded services.

The remainder of the money will be used throughout the entire building. A sprinkler system will be installed, as well as new lighting, acoustical ceiling tiles, heating and ventilating, and electrical upgrades.

Since the town currently owns the building, this warrant article is a very wise expenditure considering it will cost the town approximately $100,000 a year to maintain the building in its current mothballed condition.

But all this is not the best part! The warrant article will also provide the town with space for the development of a community center, which, based on community surveys in 2001, 2003 and 2004, is overwhelmingly supported by the residents in town.

Currently there is a proposal from the nonprofit Community and Economic Development Corporation of Hooksett (CEDCOH) to aid the town in the development of a community center, a proposal that will take the burden off of the town budget to operate the center. Space will be available for community and civic groups, and groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, the Visiting Nurses Association and Meals on Wheels have expressed interest in utilizing space in the building. There will also be space for the Hooksett Parks and Recreation programs, including Fun in the Sun.

The increase in your taxes to pay for this project is estimated at $26 to $57 per year (and decreases every year) which is about as much as a monthly membership to a health club. This is money well spent to protect the historic aspects of the building, maintain the building as an asset rather than a liability and to provide a sense of pride in the community as well as a place for every age group to assemble for a variety of activities. I urge you to vote yes on Article 4.

The letters section was so one-sided that it seemed like another PR effort by the town, spending more of our money to get us to let them spend more of our money. Even the news items seemed lopsided.

The two sentences in Ginger Kozlowski's editorial that jumped off the page most were: "And just as important, a majority of citizens have expressed the desire to see the Village School building converted to a community center. Hooksett has 12,000 residents who would like to see recreational and educational programs run from that facility."

Did she actually talk to more than 6,000 residents who agreed? Do all 12,000 want to see this? Who are the "we" she refers to? Sounds like "Townie-Speak" to me. Most blatantly, the money is not for a "Community Center," but Town Hall offices, only. My "quality of life" will not be improved, I'll be poorer.

If you want to help the elderly and the poor, stop raising taxes. What good is it to me? None. I contend that most residents will gain no benefit, or even visit the place, except to register cars and such. Let's destroy a school building in a town still leasing portable classrooms.

The reason that Town Hall is a mess is because they are messy people, period. Now they claim crowding is why work is undone. Is that why it took five years to put up one School Zone sign, that fell down within five days? Is that why our police and fire departments have had personnel problems? I'll say it again, everything in a file cabinet can fit on one DVD. We could store every piece of paper in town hall in the nearby bonded document storage facility until the cows come home for far less money!

The Village School was an asset, turned into liability on purpose. It can be an asset once again if they don't continue to allow it to fall into disrepair and deteriorate further. The benefits would be instantaneous: no maintenance by us, income for us, high school students who may choose to be there instead of Manchester, saving us a lot of money. I have repeatedly informed all parties that this building is needed by more than 150 students and their families, willing to buy or lease it, as is!

No discussion was entertained. "No way," "impossible," forget it, scram. Belligerence in evidence again. Are we going to continue to act like sheep before the sheerer, still and silent? I'm not. Join me at the polls.

First, though only 535 voters turned out, myself being one of them, I do not agree that it was due to dangerous driving conditions. On the morning of March 8, I arrived at the polls at 8:45 a.m. and was greeted by an empty gymnasium. I was the only voter present at that time. The driving conditions that morning were fine and the approaching snow was well publicized so that anyone who intended to vote that day was well aware that they should vote early. The low turnout was not due to the weather; it was what it was.

Secondly, what does it matter that the budget failed by only five votes? Doesn't the simple majority rule in this instance? Should it matter if it failed by one vote or 1,000 votes? The majority spoke and their votes should not be dismissed because it was close.

Finally, I have no doubt that the default budget will have a negative impact on the education of Hooksett children. I understand and applaud the school board for advocating for the submitted budget. However, I also realize that the reason the default budget was voted for was due to the negative impact the higher taxes will likely have on those with limited means.

Oh, and what is the school board's justification for holding onto the leftover bond money for another try next year? Didn't the voters also speak on that issue?

Personally, I can afford the higher taxes and do support and advocate for Hooksett's children. However, I did vote once and I want my vote to count, whether I got what I wanted or not. When my children ask me why it is important to vote, how can I explain to them that hopefully their vote will count; unless someone disagrees with the result and decides to make you do it all over again? Budget shortfalls can be made up the next year, if the voters decide that is the right thing to do, but the very principles of the democratic process are at stake when we begin to tell the voters that their vote only counts - sometimes!