While I saw and heard of the strong turnout for the vote in Lebanon on Tuesday, I am, once again, disappointed by the failure of this community to support the renovations to our schools. I have supported upgrades and renovations over the years while my kids attended and graduated, and had hoped the third proposal would have been the charm. Our schools need them and our community would reap the benefits. How to help entice families, homeowners, professionals, etc., to this area and keep them here? Offer good schools.
The quality of our school employees is high, but the facilities remain lacking. Such upgrades to our schools’ facilities should have been done years ago, and likely at a lower cost. Though not every proposal is perfect, and we can all address New Hampshire property taxes and the shifting population size, the general need to improve these facilities remains critical to the future of this area.
After this year, we will no longer have a student in the system, but I will continue to consider the needs of this community and its future and will continue to support the ideas for providing the best education system we can. The investment is worth it and we deserve it.
ROBERT TICHNER
Lebanon
Local farms like Walhowdon in Lebanon are a community treasure, and in a nation where farmers are giving up every day, multi-generational farm families like the Patch family are a gift (“City, family at odds over Class VI roads,” March 3). They need to diversify in order to survive, and they need to be supported by their communities in whatever way possible.
Common sense over the importance of these unused roads should prevail. Should they suddenly become indispensable to the local economy, deal with it then. But in the meantime, let the Patch family have the peace of mind and the confidence in their future to use the land as they see fit.
ROSEMARY FIFIELD
Thetford Center
The collapse of numerous Democratic presidential campaigns since Super Tuesday is nothing less than amazing, especially as most of the former candidates have endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden over Sen. Bernie Sanders. It remains to be seen whether Sen. Elizabeth Warren will climb aboard the Anyone But Trump bandwagon or endorse Sanders, with whom she is more ideologically aligned.
I would love to know what promises (or threats) may have been employed to get almost all of the Democrats to coalesce around Biden. It has the makings of smoke-filled rooms of bygone years, except this time the smoke emanates from fire and brimstone as, like Jabez Stone in Stephen Vincent Benet’s short story, the Democratic Party appears to have sold its soul to the devil. However, this time when Old Scratch comes to collect, there will be no Daniel Webster to plead the party off the hook.
A possible scenario places Mayor Pete Buttigieg as Biden’s running mate, probably with the promise of being the heir apparent in 2024. An even more likely scenario involves invoking the 25th Amendment early in Biden’s term, thereby creating the ultimate bait-and-switch scheme for a gullible Democratic electorate. Such sleight-of-hand is par for the course and fair game for a party determined to control the White House and Congress regardless of cost to the American people. The mantra of the Democrats seems to be not “Power to the People,” but “Power Over People.” And where does Sanders fit into all this? Maybe he doesn’t. The question is whether he will set aside his ego and follow the other lemmings over the cliff, or go on his own as a third party candidate, maybe with Warren as his running mate. Regardless of what happens, in the words of Buddy Ebsen’s character in Barnaby Jones, the American people are guaranteed a scenario that will become “curiouser and curiouser” at the convention, as the most credible candidates such as Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are out of the running.
WILLIAM A. WITTIK
Hartford
President Donald Trump’s relentless attack on science continues. Now, he wants Andrew Wheeler, his pro-polluter EPA chief, to have the power to decide what science is and isn’t.
Trump and Wheeler want the Environmental Protection Agency to base its scientific findings only on publicly available data. While seemingly reasonable, in truth many scientific studies rely on private, confidential data — clinical reports, personal health data and medical studies — which can’t be made public. Wheeler claims that this would promote “the highest-quality science.” But as is usual with Trump and his lackeys, the truth is the opposite. For example, without medical data showing the harmful public health impacts of polluters, the EPA will have to rely on industry-backed research — conducted by the same industries it should regulate. In addition, the rule empowers the EPA to reopen and weaken existing air, water and public health safeguards, or sabotage them when due for renewal. It also enables political appointees to pick the studies regulators can consider and to approve rules that favor businesses and industry while putting the health of marginalized and disenfranchised communities in even greater danger.
The true goal of this “restricted science” rule is to expand polluters’ freedom from environmental regulations, allowing them to damage air, water, health, lands and climate with impunity. Wheeler’s predecessor at the EPA, Scott Pruitt, tried to do much the same thing but gave up because of public outcry. The public should express its outrage again — to Wheeler and to Congress — to protect our environment and our health.
STEVE GEHLERT
West Newbury