Cars are not going away. New developments must provide parking. Letters

Cars are not going away. New developments must provide parking.

Nov. 2 − To the Editor:

In his 23 years of getting around the city by bike and scooter, it seems to me Mr. Sandberg has clocked a lot of miles but only in a small radius.  His perspective on parking spaces for new residents downtown reflects the limitations of his own experience. What about downtown residents who work elsewhere?  What about downtown residents with families?  What about downtown residents with disabilities?

What about a simple task like grocery shopping? How many bags can you haul on a bike or scooter?  How far away are the myriad stores and services unavailable downtown? What happens when it rains or snows, or is very hot or cold?  How do you get to the C&J Bus Terminal or the Amtrak Station?

For all of these reasons and more, residents who own bikes or scooters typically use them as their second vehicle. Their first is automotive. Cars are going electric, but they are not going away.

The waiver of on-site parking requirements for new housing downtown is occurring at the same time as new buildings are, or will soon, replace many existing parking spaces. Therefore, city officials should be devising plans right now for additional parking that is at least half paid for by developers that don't provide their own on-site parking. Willful blindness is not a strategy or a policy, nor is wishful thinking.

Elizabeth Mooney

Portsmouth

Books like 'Boy Toy' can help teen victims of sexual abuse

Oct 31 − To the Editor:

I would like to remind all people of Comstock Laws that were passed back in 1873 that banned the trade and circulation of obscene literature. This law was a direct attack on both individual freedoms and rights that were protected under the first amendment constitutional right of freedom of speech.

There was no regulation from either congress or states that indicated what was considered “obscene” or “lewd” and instead just a blanket ban of all literature that was deemed “unsafe” for the general American population. As Americans, we have the right, no matter the age, to view material, considered obscene or not, and allow us and our children to have a better understanding on what is right and wrong with the world. We do not need government or higher officials telling us what is considered right or wrong and that the individual holds that right and said individual shall not have that right suppressed.

The story “Boy Toy” teaches kids and children alike that even mentors can violate you. It teaches children and teenagers, for whom this story was written, that it is okay not to trust people who are supposed to be close to you. The story teaches children that it is okay to report misconduct, even if it comes from someone who is supposed to teach and care for you. This book is a life lesson, and removing it from library shelves does nothing but harm our children.

Julie Porter’s own inability to come to terms with teaching kids safe sexual practices is her own oversight. Porter tries to argue that “This book encourages/promotes sexual abuse, underage alcohol use, pedophilia and rape”, but in reality, this book does the exact opposite and allows teenagers the ability to gain a glimpse into the life of someone who is a survivor of sexual assault and allows teenagers to understand and gain the experience on when something is wrong and when it is time to report something to avoid the events that unfolded in “Boy Toy” to be experienced in their own life.

Porter in the past and currently is trying to ban all books that discuss talk of puberty, safe sex practices, and current LGBTQ+ issues.

“Boy Toy” is meant to make the reader uncomfortable, and the fact that this book is on the target for removal, shows that this book is really doing it’s job.

I ask school board officials, city of Dover citizens, New Hampshirites, and all Americans, to keep this book on school shelves, and allow children the ability to learn and grow in a safe environment.

Hunter Peters

Dover

Biden's economic success far exceeds public perception

Nov. 1 − To the Editor:

Regarding Dave Bickford's LTE on Otober 31 ("You don't need to like Trump to like his policies"), Mr. Bickford is, unfortunately, grossly misinformed as to the effectiveness of both Trump and President Biden.

According to journalist Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark, "most voters are disconnected from reality". In fact, "Trump raised the national debt by a record $7.4 trillion in just four years - a leap of more than 33 percent. He left office with the unemployment rate at 6.3 percent, the economy in free fall, and more than 90,000 American dying of Covid every month and with no real plan in place to distribute vaccines."

In contrast, under Biden "unemployment is down to 3.8 percent, average wage gains of 4 percent are outpacing inflaction, and the Dow is at 33,000 - 14 percent higher than at any point in Trump's presidency. Median household wealth is up 37 percent (!) since Trump left office."

According to economist Paul Krugman of the New York Times, "Almost all the available evidence suggests that the U.S. economy is achieving what many economists had thought impossible - a soft landing in which inflation returns to acceptable levels without a recession. Yet polls suggest that the public remains very down on the state of the economy. ...we know that views about the state of the economy are marked by huge partisan differences. This in itself tells us that what people say about the economy is to an important extent driven by what they see on TV and what they think they should say. Economists...are almost giddy over the speed with which inflation has come down..."

Unfortunately, public perception does not match reality as many people would prefer to parrot misinformation and complain rather than check the facts.

Karen Saltus

Kittery Point, Maine

Don't like the direction of the country? Remember to vote.

Nov. 1 -- To the Editor:

Please remember the 5th of November. Folks may not realize that November 5th in England may bring some similar thoughts of January 6th in the United States. The difference is that the British Parliament was not attacked as planned in 1605 by Guy Fawkes and his crew.

There is much history behind November 5th, but it may be one factor behind the Founding Fathers deciding that separation of Church and State was a good idea. Whether it was Catholics fighting Protestants, or other religious groups fighting each other, having a nation align itself with a strict religion is not ideal, just ask Iran. In addition to causing wars, it is not very good for international trade historically. So with some members of one political party wanting to make the USA a religious nation, let me suggest a viewing of the 2005 film, V for Vendetta.

The political party in charge is the Norsefire Party with the motto of Strength Through Unity, Unity Through Faith. Rewatching the film more recently, is it a bit chilling seeing how many themes have actually come to pass 18 years later. They include, violent rhetoric from a conservative politician/network, a conservative network misleading the public (e.g., Dominion Voting Systems), religious leaders behaving badly, companies/individuals profiting from a viral outbreak, militarized police, and controlling citizens through fear.

The difference between V for Vendetta and our current state of affairs is that we don’t have to resort to any violence to walk our democracy back from the influence of the extreme religious ideologues in our government, we just have to vote. As for better labeling political parties for the next election, perhaps Norsefire would be more accurate for some candidates, if it applies. Please remember the 2024 election, currently scheduled for the 5th of November, and vote.

Don Cavallaro

Rye

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Cars not going away. New developments must provide parking. Letters