Endorsements begin arriving for Portsmouth elections: Letters

Vote for Becksted, Huda, Trace, Whelan, and Kennedy to save Portsmouth

Oct. 3 − To the Editor:

The most compelling issues facing Portsmouth today are quality of life and taxation.

Throughout the ten years that Rick Becksted has been involved in public life, these have been his top concerns.  He has passionately fought for these causes, whether in or out of office. Former Mayor Becksted has always had the backbone to stand up for the forgotten taxpayer against city management and to oppose overbearing development. Portsmouth needs someone like this now more than ever because our city is at a crossroads.  One more onerous, tax-busting budget or one more oversized, monstrous development could bring Portsmouth to its breaking point.

As mayor, Becksted  led a council that was not error-free, but it had the distinction of giving us the lowest rate of tax increase in a decade (during a pandemic, no less).  In contrast, the current council gave us the highest rate of tax increase in a decade. The way this council spends money, our city should change its nickname from the City of the Open Door to the City of the Open Wallet. Rye's property taxes are about half of what Portsmouth's are, and Kittery's rose less than 1% this year. Changed leadership can reduce our tax burden.

Rick Becksted is his own man. He is not in the pocket of any special interest groups like restaurant owners or developers. He will not try to impose the agenda of the bureaucracy on unwilling residents. Rick Becksted will be a voice for the people because he is one of us.

We need Petra Huda to help Rick Becksted advocate for the taxpayer. Her financial credentials outshine those of anyone else running or serving. Petra Huda doesn't have to blindly follow the City Manager's budget because she knows more about budgeting than the Manager does. When on the council, Petra (with the help of Esther Kennedy) reformed our city's bonding system to save our city enormous amounts of money for years to come. Petra still faithfully attends budget meetings, as does her fellow former Councilor Peter Whelan, both trying in vain to stop the extravagant spending of this council.

When on the council, Paige Trace benefited the taxpayer by maximizing parking revenue and by putting the best interests of the city ahead of special interests.  (What a contrast to this council.). Paige's background in antiques aided her in becoming a forceful champion for preservation on the Historic District Commission. She excelled in constituent service. Just ask the mothers who can now walk their babies in strollers on safer sidewalks thanks to her.

A perfect example of the work done by these former councilors to enhance Portsmouth's quality of life is the successful culmination of their efforts to obtain sound walls for Pannaway Manor as just reported by ex-Councilor Kennedy.  All of these candidates share the same passion for helping the overburdened taxpayer and for preserving Portsmouth's unique architectural heritage and the integrity of its neighborhoods.  Our current city council has been insensitive to protecting Portsmouth's scale and character, and it has imposed too high a tax burden on us. Remember that it takes five council votes to block the excessive spending that leads to tax increases.

More importantly, voting for all five of these candidates makes it less likely that our beloved Portsmouth will lose its soul.  Vote for Becksted, Huda, Trace, Whelan, and Kennedy.

Christina Lusky

Portsmouth

Mayor Deaglan McEachern is a champion for all residents of Portsmouth

Oct. 16 − To the Editor:

I am writing to wholeheartedly endorse our mayor, Deaglan McEachern, in the Portsmouth municipal election on November 7th. As a small business owner and long-term Portsmouth resident, I am deeply committed to our city's growth andprosperity and I can say without hesitation that Deaglan is a leader above the rest.

In a time when our city faces numerous challenges, it is essential to have individuals like Deaglan who possess the dedication, vision, and tenacity to make Portsmouth an even better place to live and do business. I have had the privilege of working closely with Deaglan on various community initiatives including his extensive work and dedication to helping our city through COVID.

Deaglan is a strong supporter of small businesses, understanding that we are the backbone of our local economy. Deaglan has consistently advocated for policies that foster a thriving small business environment, making it easier for entrepreneurs like me to grow and succeed.

Moreover, Deaglan is not just a champion for business owners but for all residents of Portsmouth. He listens attentively to the concerns and aspirations of our community, always striving to find common-sense solutions that benefit everyone. He has been instrumental in addressing issues such as affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, and environmental sustainability, making Portsmouth a more livable and inclusive city for all for many years to come.

What sets Deaglan McEachern apart is his unwavering dedication to fighting for our city's best interests. He remains steadfast in his commitment to Portsmouth and its residents. Deaglan is a leader who acts with integrity, transparency, and a genuine passion for making our city a better place. His door is always open for issues big and small and I am thankful for all that he does for so many of us.

I urge you to join me in supporting our mayor, Deaglan McEachern, in the municipal election on November 7th. Together, we can ensure that our city continues to thrive and that the voices of small business owners and residents are heard and respected.

Marianne Janik

Portsmouth

Congress and the American people must continue to support Ukraine

Oct. 7 − To the Editor:

On the anniversary of Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time” speech after England’s agreement to permit the Nazis’ annexation of the Sudetenland at the Munich Conference in 1938, Congressional Republicans agreed to fund the government and avoid a catastrophic shutdown of government jobs and service, so long as the Continuing Resolution did not include aid to Ukraine.  Funds for “Ukraine’s war effort” – and it must be understood that this phrase means the Ukrainian people’s survival as a nation and a national identity – are still available, and may well be continued in the coming months, although the dismal stasis created by the chaotic situation in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives may impede it.  Congress and the American people must continue to support Ukraine.

Since the Continuing Resolution, the war criminal in charge of Russia, in an October 5 interview, said that “if Western defense supplies are terminated tomorrow, Ukraine will have one week left to live as it runs out of ammunition.”  Russia’s and its Czar’s intentions of clear: complete subjugation of a recognized nation-state, and the potential – likely – brutal assimilation of its citizens into a renewed Russian empire. For World War 2 buffs, this initiative makes the Sudetenland look like a local boundary dispute between crotchety neighbors.

Support for Ukraine’s independence and survival as a nation is the most important issue and foreign policy goal of most of our lifetimes. A sovereign state, freed in 1991 from the yoke of an autocratic overlord, is attacked by Russia, and its existence, independence and the self-determination of its people is threatened with extinction. Americans are bombarded with right-wing media and GOP Congressmen and Senators bent on withholding any more aid, and using the “America First” slogan to do it. They reduce the issue to dollars – money that, they say, needs to stay at home and be used here or somehow returned to the taxpayers.  And the messaging advantage of this neat little slogan is that it creates a feeling that Americans are being harmed by Ukraine aid, and deprived in favor of a faraway conflict that has no effect on the United States and isn’t our business.

Aid to a far-off country in peril of its destruction seems abstract; Ukraine’s survival is not a “kitchen table issue” or one which the benefits of our support is immediately and easily demonstrated.  That is because the issue is so very large, so very important that it is, literally, hard to get one’s head around, particularly to a citizenry now decades removed from the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and World War 2.  The fight for Ukraine’s survival is both philosophical and real.  It is real in the sense of the brutality of the Russian invasion; in the destruction of civilian centers, schools, hospitals, theatres and apartment buildings; and in the kidnapping and removal of Ukrainian children from their parents and transport to Russia.  But even in the face of these documented horrors and almost unimaginable suffering, the long-term implications of a Russian victory are worse.

The war for Ukraine’s survival is a war over whether an increasingly small, deeply interdependent world can have order, and whether war criminals win or lose.  The outcome of the war will have drastic and likely decades-lasting implications for the rules-based order which has largely maintained the peace since 1945, for the rule of law, and for democracy and self-determination as a political matter.  The NATO Secretary General has summed it up: “…the biggest risk of all is if Putin wins.  If Putin wins in Ukraine, the message to him and other authoritarian leaders will be that they can force us to get what they want.  This will make the world more dangerous, and us more vulnerable.”  A world knit carefully and painstakingly together by rules that respect borders and sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples will cease, really, to exist except in form, not in substance.  A world that condemns in numerous treaties and international agreements the very types of crimes against civilian populations committed by Russian armed forces will, if Ukraine loses the war, have to admit that those treaties and agreements are vacant lip service.

A moral question is being asked of all Americans, Europeans, Australians and others whose governments are asking for them to support Ukraine.  Let us look at it this way:

Many years ago, the cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead was, the story goes, asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilization in a culture.  The student probably anticipated that Mead would talk about settlements, food supplies, sharpened hunting tools and clay pots. But Mead replied that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur that had been broken and healed.  She explained that in an uncivilized society, a broken leg is a death sentence: if you break your leg, you die.  A person cannot run from danger, cannot hunt, cannot get to the water for drink, and cannot flee from danger.  In pre-civilized society, a person will a broken leg is meat for predators.  No person or animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. The broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has provided aid and comfort to an injured person, has moved that person to safety, bound up the wound, and tended the person through recovery.

Our aid to Ukraine is support for civilization; through no fault of its own, Ukraine’s leg is broken.  The leader of the “free world” has to be the leader and architect of a civilized order, in which the fallen can heal and recover, in which a lawless predator is brought to heel.  Our failure to do so, to ardently and uncompromisingly do the things and provide the supplies that knit together the broken bones of the rules-based order is one of the highest callings of our generation, and the mark of our essential belief in humanity, democracy and the rule of law.

Christopher Cole

Portsmouth

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Endorsements begin arriving for Portsmouth NH elections: Letters