"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Alexander Hamilton

Monday, December 14, 2015

Master Plan on Target for 2016 Town Meeting. Food Pantry Moving into the Grange Building?

Town Planner Bruce Woodruff  told the Planning Board last week that the new Master Plan should be in draft from by the end of January and suggested that the Master Plan Steering Committee and the Planning Board meet to validate that all bases were covered and it is on the right track. After that, it will be ready for review in February. This may seem like a last minute effort, but the process to rewrite the Master Plan actually began close to three years ago. Meetings. surveys, and speak out sessions all played a part in the development.
Also discussed at the last PB meeting was a rumour that the Food Pantry and the Historical Society had discussions about the pantry moving into the Grange building. Bruce Woodruff reported to the board that the parties involved were not ready to take action on moving forward. The board did express concern about the condition of the building and lack of  a septic system. It would seem that any adaptive reuse ( or any use for that matter)  of that property would require a very serious financial investment. I like the idea though of the food pantry utilizing this space if it can be done. The Grange after all "...advocates for rural America and agriculture." A good fit to maintain our rural character. 


Joseph Cormier said...

The Lakes Region Food Pantry is an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) at 977 Whittier Hy. It is also a thrift shop.


According to town Gis/Tax maps the Grange is at 973 Whittier HY. and is owned by the Historical Society. I've heard unfounded derogatory comments about it, calling it the Hysterical Society.

Looking at the following links, it would seem a good deal of work/money would be needed. Someone might ask, what are the "condemnation" rules?

Personally, I support efforts to remake the Village image. My concern is, who is going to pay for any enhancements to Moultonborough's image (property, not politics). I, even, might make a donation!

With the local scuttlebutt and rumors, being talked about, even before permit requests are submitted, this (rumors, not the blog) isn't a ploy to grease the skids for taxpayer money, is it?

The BoS are/will be formulating warrants articles. Maybe "recusing" may be in order, by those too heavily involved.

2012 Grange Building Assessment


Grange winter stabilization


Please, no more rescues said...

Why is it when property becomes available taxpayers are expected to be part of the deal? Taxpayers are still on the hook for a half million dollars for the Lion's Club. Word is the town this thinking of selling it. Question, in this market who will buy it and who will pay a half million dollars for it?

It was taxpayer money that bought the Taylor property. By the way it's been almost 2 years, what is the status of the Taylor Scholarship Fund?

Taxpayers narrowly dodged a bullet when the former Town Administrator recommended the town purchase the property on Mud Pond. Presently the The Conservation Commission is negotiating to purchase a parcel on Lee's Pond. If they're successful in reaching an agreement, the Conservation Commission will most likely be looking for taxpayers to be part of the deal.

Should the town even be in the business of buying and selling real estate? Other towns fund raise if they feel a property is worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

Lees Pond Preserve is mostly private fund raising if it ever occurs.

Anonymous said...

"Mostly?" Where are the rest of the funds to purchase Lees Pond Preserve coming from?

Anon said...

The Taylor property will be abandoned by the town until the building inspector states that it is inhabitable.
Then it will be torn down for safety reasons.
All the while the town has multiple committees seeking to preserve the character of the downtown.
How many antique farmhouses will be torn down before someone wakes up?
The farmhouse next to Fullers.
The farmhouse next to Aubuchons.
The farmhouse next to the town library.
The list goes on.
And we all let it happen.

Anonymous said...

Forgot all about the Taylor Scholarship Fund. Anyone know what is happening with the fund?

Joseph Cormier said...

"The Taylor property will be abandoned by the town until the building inspector states that it is inhabitable."

Did you mean uninhabitable?

Maybe "the Town" never should have bought it! However, that may have put a cramp in building the gym ... oooppps ... community center. Maybe some of us would vote for a community center, leaving the Rec. Center where it is; with a $300,000++ budget, notwithstanding "self-supporting" programs. Personally, I favor pay for your own damn recreation. If your willing to pay it ... great ... do it without town property. Have we forgotten about the two or three kids at school, that need recreation on town-owned school property?

"How many antique farmhouses will be torn down before someone wakes up?"
"And we all let it happen. "

Maybe "all" can be defined, or "all" don't care?

Regarding town owned properties ... say a prayer for Walter. He's been assigned by the BoS to review, and I suspect, bring recommendation to the BoS. Just go to the town Gis/tax map on the town website and search "Moultonborough, town of" in the "owner" space, and watch all the red pins pop-up on the screen. Looks like a mushroom bed ... probably the hallucinatory type. Reality in MoBo!

Here's the 2014 Annual Report, page 47 & 48 for a sampling:


Bah Humbug! (didn't want to spoil my MoBo image!)

ConCom Bill said...

Great discussion about town owned property! Some believe the town should not own any excess property, but in my opinion, each opportunity should be evaluated without a preconceived conclusion. Land conservation is important and the town can play a valuable role in encouraging easements, helping to acquire high priority sites and providing long-term stewardship. The 2016 update to the town's Natural Resource Inventory will clearly label high priority sites based on co-occurrence, using the town's GIS system. Value can be weighted on items like surface water, wetland, steep slopes, drinking water, wildlife, agriculture, forest, views and historical sites. If a property comes for sale with value in enough of those categories, maybe the town should own it. Moultonborough is in good shape when it comes to conserved land, but there are gaps in contiguous corridors and unprotected wetlands that should not fall victim to future build-out pressures. In my view, the whole Red Hill River watershed, including the Lees Pond Preserve, has high conservation value, but welcome other opinions.

Sick and Tired said...

Oh Pleeeeeze, Con Comm Bill,
All this is about is your team buying useless land that nobody will buy anyway and build upon. Folks are sitting on land they cannot sell and they come running to the Government to bail them out. It's now this great thing called CONSERVATION. Are you kidding me? So we the taxpayers are left holding the bag to pay for worthless land. Take it off the tax rolls. It's a joke and a shame. Some folks look for any angle to be bailed out by the Government. Who pay's the bill? That's me. My family. My neighbors. It's got to stop.

Great, now we have an expanding Food Pantry in the center of our Village. How wonderful. Are we going to put that on the front page of the propaganda to get folks to move to this town? Wonderful.

Happy Holidays.

Terence C. Jatko said...

Hey Sick and Tired: Here's another capital idea. Let's have the town buy the Berry Pond Inn and the former Country Fare building. Then we can take in 50 or so Syrian "refugees" and house them for free. It's just a short walk to the welfare office to pick up their "paychecks", and then another brief cruise down the new sidewalk system to the Post Office for their SSI checks and their"free food" at the food pantry, all courtesy of the Great Satan. If they have children, which is a remote chance since they all appear to be male between the ages of 18 and 40, we can send them to the schools. We'll need to hire interpreters, of course, but there's plenty of money; just stick it to the taxpayer again. The Country Fare could be turned into a clubhouse where they can plot their jihad, oops, "public service" programs to pay back the community.

Apocalypse now said...

I watched the debates last night and it was pretty scary. The apocalypse mentality on stage sends a shudder up and down my spine.
The rampant cynicism personified by Mr. Jatcko is proof positive that people on the right are not interested in solving problems.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Sick and Tired- you are very wrong in that the government is bailing anyone out. The ConCom sees this property as worthy of preservation and the cost to taxpayers was proposed to be about $50,000. The remainder, about $250K, would be private fundraising. To my knowledge, no deal has yet been struck and the owner never sought out the ConCom to buy this land. Your insinuation that the land owner was seeking a government bailout could not be further from the truth and is frankly quite insulting to a person I know to be of high integrity. You owe him an apology.

Joseph Cormier said...

This thread is interesting!

I'll come to "Sick and Tired's defense .. a bit.
I'll also agree with Blogger ... but not in toto.

I agree that MoBo ... wait,not MoBo ... certain operatives in this town want to cloister it from any development. No qualms about free internet or DLS lines or lock-up the land, anything that fits their agenda.

How many of you have gone to the Town website and viewed what the town already owns? Personally, I view Sick & Tired as a plea to expose the agendas of those a few influential folks have been able to perpetrate.

Blogger's point is well taken about ConCom, but not all of us share the view of a few members of ConCom. I also know a bit about the property. I walked it when it, when it was offered as a town event. I've had casual conversation with the owner regarding the property, consider him a friend, and the "deal"/deals offered. My MBA kicked-in, and I started laughing.

I don't think Sick & Tired was attacking the owner. Only venting ... and justifiably so, in this poster's opinion.

The owner is an honorable man, and is offering the property at bargain-basement pricing. That doesn't mean town operatives have to saddle the town with more land for "conservation" purposes. How about development purposes. Oh ya ... we need to market the town to get younger folks ... in your dreams! How about waiting for Walter's assessment of what the town already is saddled with. ConCom has got that town land inventory already out on RFQ, or whatever.

"I watched the debates last night and it was pretty scary. The apocalypse mentality on stage sends a shudder up and down my spine.
The rampant cynicism personified by Mr. Jatcko is proof positive that people on the right are not interested in solving problems.

I guess this where we are supposed to start the liberal/ conservative fighting, again ... huh! You weren't only one to watch last night's debate and the development of your view is "interesting". At least there were more than one debating. Can't wait for the other side's debate. Always did like watching someone debate themselves, and then be able to deny it.

Terence C. Jatko said...

I see my somewhat over-the-top sarcasm got someone's attention. Good. Let's start with this comment: "The rampant cynicism personified by Mr. Jatcko is proof positive that people on the right are not interested in solving problems."

Here's recent example of the problem solving abilities or our current "Homeland Security" team. The female shooter in San Bernardino made obvious references to her plans for jihad on social media. This was done BEFORE she entered the country. Apparently current DHS guidelines prohibit inspecting social media accounts because of First Amendment concerns. The exception, of course, is for Americans living in this country, who can, and have been summarily arrested for comments made on social media.

This kind of "problem solving" we can live without.

Nancy Wright said...

Land conservation in Moultonborough is worthwhile but should be left to Conservation Trusts and private groups. It should not fall to Moultonborough taxpayers. The town already owns a good many properties, all of them are off the tax roll and some of these "deals" were duds.

The town bought the Lion's Club property a few years back. Town's people were sold a bill of goods. Voters at Town Meeting that year were told it was the last best piece of property in town and we'd better buy it. If it's such a good property why is the town now thinking of selling it? The original purchase price was close to a half million dollars. It's doubtful the property is worth that today. Who's going to bail taxpayers out on this one?

ConCom Bill said...

Nancy, the ConCom agrees with you, to a point. The land inventory and priority project for 2016 will show the highest priority area that should be protected from development. Private easements are the best way to do that, followed by current use tax rates, then conservation trusts and private groups and finally, local tax payers. We only disagree about that last point and voters get to have the final say.

Terence C. Jatko said...

OK, the feds have now changed their story.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Sick and Tired - your second comment was not published as your information is grossly inaccurate. None of your three " weren't we" are correct. I repeat: no one is bailing anyone out. The Taylor Property was on the warrant and the legislative body approved it. Same with the Lions Club. I voted against both. Lastly, " we the government" is not the voters. It is the BoS. The voters are the legislative body and they give the BoS it's marching orders. You may not like the outcome, but the people have spoken.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

To Terence- the feds never changed their story. There has never been a restriction on any government agency searching social media as many candidates last night claimed, but there is also no requirement that they do. It stands to reason that the various agencies do just that often posing as someone else. Any teenager can figure it out. As your link correctly states, neither of the San Bernardino terrorists had posted any concerning messages on any public social media platform. It wasn't missed because it wasn't there. The claims by many on the stage last night claiming otherwise were not accurate. Just because it was reported on the news, doesn't make it true.
“Those communications are direct, private messages,” Comey said during a news conference here. “So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”

Merrimack Valley said...

Yes. Correct.
But it is a "bag" job as this town does not have SB2.
Only a few vote for massive spending in Moultonborough.
Buy. Buy. Buy. Full speed ahead.

Terence C. Jatko said...

“So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble."

Is that so? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malik-facebook-messages-jihad-20151214-story.html

Joseph Cormier said...

WWHHHHOOOAAAA ...... who P.O.'d the blogger!

The wife and I just got back from the BoB House (she's designated driver). Not early dinner ... nachos, chicken tenders, and drinks. Change of pace. Beer and wine, still great!

I can still read the 10 pitch font and thought I'd jump-in!

Based on blogger's comment, "Sick & Tired" may have to review the difference between a democracy and a republic!

Terence however:

Here's a Dec. 14 Los Angeles Times article stating :

"San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik sent at least two private messages on Facebook to a small group of Pakistani friends in 2012 and 2014, pledging her support for Islamic jihad and saying she hoped to join the fight one day, two top federal law enforcement officials said Monday."


If the debaters, or anyone else, qualified their statement by Saying: " The L.A. times reports ..." then they are correct!

The claim last night, as I remember it, was also, the present administration's refusal of the search of social media for terrorist. They also mentioned Facebook. What was going through my feeble mind at the time was ... it's a public forum ... no privacy issue. Private email on Facebook ... sure, right, but the Feds. know/knew about it, and they should probe and pursue, in my estimation.

It reminded me of the Carroll County meeting where one of the delegation was grilling the Registrar of Deeds about privacy issues and the potential for lawsuits. The registrar explained that $18,000 had been spent on "redacting". I had to go pee on that one, but leaned over to Commissioner Ahlgren on the way out, and whispered ... THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, and have been for years. They are only being made available online, what is available already, there! I was more concerned with the redacting. What the hell were they redacting ... social security numbers, OK, but ... how many of those are on deeds?

What blows my mind is the pissing contest on whether Facebook was used. The fact is, correspondence was had. Was it used? Facebook or private email, shouldn't, and thank God (there she is again) doesn't make any difference to the FBI!

The debate issue was, in my purview, the administration refusal to utilize social media for searching out terrorists.

The post:
"John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said officials are reviewing the K-1 visa screening process in light of the gap exposed in San Bernardino. Applicants must provide fingerprints and pass multiple checks of U.S. criminal, immigration and terrorism databases, as well as a consular interview, to get the visa approved. The investigations don’t necessarily include every applicant’s social media history, however."

My statement would be: The L.A.Times reports that John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, ...

Spokesman ... like Susan Rice ... maybe there's another video!
The State Dept. is part of the administration ... is it not, Hillary

Does anybody care, people who kill us, use private email or Facebook entries?

Should have ordered another ... Shirley Temple.

Anonymous said...

For a rundown on last nights debate fact or fiction:


Joseph Cormier said...

"For a rundown on last nights debate fact or fiction:"
"... included misleading claims on terrorism, immigration and foreign oil."

From the experts!

Misleading to whom? Most, me included, haven't a clue, nor does it matter, which gnat's ass is covered.

Watching, and paying attention to body language, blinking eyes, etc. will tell more about the verbal joust, than some picayune piece of minutia from politicians, renown for not telling precise statements.

The politicians should just initiate a disclaimer, and claim poetic license.

Can't wait for the next debate, Democratic, on Saturday. Great night for a debate ... Saturday night ... sure, not planned that way ... greatest visibility night!

Wonder if the fact finders will be able capture all the untruths? Got enough time!

Got to go pee again.

Fact or Fiction said...

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:


Anonymous said...

Could you leave national politics out, please.
I don't really care that you listen to Fox News, read some right wing blog, or subscribe to some right wing magazines.
Let's keep the conversation to local items.

Anonymous said...

ya, right. You don't like the facts so you dis the source by calling it phony. Another conspiracy thought up by the great minds on the right so that they can continue to lie to the public.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @5:26 AM. I'm with you. One correction to your post - you left radical out before each right wing. Yes, there are radical conservatives as much as radical liberals.

Nancy Wright said...

Bill on Dec.16th you said " We only disagree about that last point and voters get to have the final say." To be clear, it's only voter who attend Town Meeting that have the final say.

Because Moultonborough has Town Meeting as its form of government only a fraction of voters, 5 or 6%, have the final say. Warrant Articles, like land purchases, sidewalks and capitol projects, such as gymnasiums, Community Centers, etc. have a good chance of passing if small, well organized, vocal groups, with a dog in the fight, "pack" Town Meeting.

With SB2 ALL Moultonborough voters would have the opportunity to vote yea or nay at the polls from 7am to 7pm or by absentee ballot. Instead only those who attended Town Meeting have the privilege, leaving 90+% of Moultonborough voters disenfranchised.

In essence WITHOUT SB2 you are allowing a very small minority of voters to make financial and other important decisions for the other 90+% of the electorate. If you vote at the polls or by absentee ballot in the local, State and Federal elections why would you not want to do the same for important local issues? SB2 lets you do so. Unless you physically attend Town Meeting and are willing and able to sit for 6 or more hours you don't have a final say.

I believe if more of the electorate had the opportunity to vote, especially on some of the more contentious issues the outcome would be better accepted that it's the will of many not the will of a few?