Let Portsmouth vote on 'Binnie plan' v. 'community plan' for McIntyre: Letters

Let Portsmouth vote on 'Binnie plan' v. 'community plan' for McIntyre

Dec. 11 — To the Editor:

For those that are still paying attention, the seemingly endless travails of the McIntyre federal building property in Portsmouth have taken yet another bizarre twist. Project estimates for the so-called “community plan” put forth by Redgate Kane could be as high as $150 million. In my opinion, the “community plan” is a bit of a misnomer. It was the result of the well-intentioned efforts of a special committee, under the direction of former Mayor Rick Becksted, that attempted to replace the first McIntyre plan that was overly reliant on luxury condos with very little public benefit. Unfortunately, the online voting scheme that put the “community plan” over other alternatives garnered only around 100 votes. This is not what I consider “enthusiastic public support." Nevertheless, it was an improvement from the prior plan, with a large hangar type structure in the middle of two building with 44 luxury condos and retail on the first floor.

The reason for this letter is to remind the residents of Portsmouth that there was another project submitted to the City of Portsmouth during Mayor Becksted’s tenure. This was the William Binnie proposal. In it is a beautiful and very tasteful urban park that runs from the back of the McIntyre building to Bow Street. The area would include a magnificent granite stairway from Bow Street to the park. Also of course, there would be plantings, trees, pathways, and seating areas. The east side of the park toward Bow Street would be a modern glass Faneuil Hall type of structure. With the river nearby, the park would be the perfect complement and gathering spots for all of Bow, Penhallow and Ceres Street. It would enhance, and not overwhelm, all the historic structures in that area. Lastly, Mr. Binnie has stated that he would fund the proposal totally by himself with no bank or private equity entanglements or taxpayer involvement.

The number one requirement of the federal government and The National Park Service for the City of Portsmouth to acquire a $50 million property for one dollar is that it must have a “compelling public benefit.” In my opinion, the Binnie proposal does this to a very high degree. I’m sure the “community plan” put forth by Redgate Kane will be of the highest quality and standards. It will be done very well, but questions remain. Which proposal has the most public benefit? What are the merits and drawbacks of each proposal? And probably most importantly, what will the cost be to Portsmouth taxpayers?

Why not have open presentations of each proposal followed by questions from the public at a suitable location on two different nights? Portsmouth residents can then vote at the next general election or even have a special election to resolve this very important decision. I have complete confidence that, given the opportunity, a fully informed Portsmouth electorate will come to a decision that will benefit future generations of our city for many years to come and they will do it better than anyone else.

Tom O’Leary

Portsmouth

Portsmouth does not need a market hall. It needs affordable housing.

Dec. 8 — To the Editor:

I’m pretty tired of reading about all the shenanigans and bickering over the fate of the McIntyre Building.Portsmouth does not need a Market Hall; Portsmouth needs affordable housing.

How much are the apartments above the retail space going to rent out for? Meaning, what will “market rates” be by the time they complete the project?

Why not develop the building as affordable housing for all the service workers who work downtown?

It seems that Redgate/Kane is willing to collect $2 million dollars to drop a lawsuit over their "previous design, which did not move forward.” Sounds like extortion. I would have submitted  a design for half that!

Stephen Zanichkowsky

Portsmouth

Stand up for yourself and your dog

Dec. 6 — To the Editor:

The next time that anybody tells you that any municipality’s animal control unit has no discretion when enforcing its dog control provisions, you can remind them of the Code of Conduct of the National Animal Care & Control Association.

Of particular importance are these two paragraphs:

• “An Animal Care & Control professional will use responsibly the discretion vested in his or her position and exercise it within the law. The principle of reasonableness will guide the Animal Care & Control professional’s determinations. The Animal Care & Control professional will consider all surrounding circumstances in determining whether any legal action shall be taken.

• “Animal Care & Control professionals must exercise a consistent and wise use of discretion, based on professional animal control competence, to preserve good relationships and retain the confidence of the public. When difficulty in choosing between conflicting courses of action arises, it is important to remember that education or advice, rather than enforcement action or arrest (which may be correct in appropriate circumstances), can be a more effective means of achieving a desired outcome.”

It does not matter who uses the “zero discretion” ploy with you — be it an animal control official, a member of the police department, a member of city council or town meeting, a neighbor, a stranger, etc. Their assertion is simply untrue.

All enforcement officials of all kinds virtually always have discretion. The only situations when they do not are, for example, when an active shooter is being confronted, when an actively vicious dog is being dealt with, when a reckless driver is at large, and so on.

Don’t fall for the ploy. Know what is and is not reasonable. Stand up for yourself and your dog.

Robert E. Newby

Portsmouth

Grateful to serve Portsmouth residents

Dec. 8 — To the Editor:

For the past six years, I have had the honor to represent the voters of Ward 3 in Portsmouth as your state representative in Concord. If you cast your vote at the Senior Center, you are a Ward 3 voter. I have attempted to make sure that the opinion of the majority of voters in Ward 3 was reflected in the way that I voted. During the years of my three terms, I served on the Science Technology and Energy Committee. This committee, in my opinion, deals with some of the most technically complicated issues faced by the legislature, e.g., utility issues, energy issues, climate change, electric vehicles, biomass and others. Sometimes the votes I was asked to cast prevented bad policies, in other cases I was able to support good policies. Since I see myself as a lifelong community activist and not a lifetime politician, I decided that six years was enough for me. It was definitely a learning experience and I now know more about how our state functions. I wish to express my gratitude to all of the voters who trusted me to represent them in the New Hampshire House.  Thank you.

As the result of the 2022 elections, Ward 3 will be represented by newly-elected representative Ned Raynolds, and by one-term representative Joan Hamblet. They are good and smart people who, I am confident, will do a good job.  I also join in congratulating the other elected Portsmouth representatives:  Robin Vogt, David Meuse, Rebecca McBeath, Gerry Ward and Kate Murray.

Peter Somssich

Former state representative

Portsmouth

Are you kidding me?

Dec. 9 — To the Editor:

I am writing in response to a recent letter to the editor from Cynthia Muse, Republicans focused on investigations, not solving Americans' problems, as well as all those media commentators who have the same message.

Are you kidding?

Where were you all when the Democrats in Congress spent four (4) years and millions of dollars on the Russian Collusion hoax? Before they were one year into the hoax investigation, these “investigators” knew that it was a hoax funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, but Democrat leaders continued to push the investigation, including knowingly lying to the American public that they had seen proof of collusion.

So spare me please, the hypocritical pleas that Republicans should not investigate something for which the FBI has verified the evidence, albeit late.

Frank Ferraro

North Hampton

Becksted 5 showed that zealotry leads to bad governance

Dec. 9 — To the Editor:

Regardless of their voter registration (Democrat, Republican or independent), the Becksted 5 city councilors quacked like misguided deep state conspiracy theorists, and they’re quacking like that again, claiming the last election got “stolen” from them. During their time in office, they demonstrated how destructive zealotry is to good governance. Goodbye and good riddance, again, to them. And welcome back to running again, current City Council, with your well informed, level headed civility!

Dixie McLean Tarbell

Portsmouth

Federal government and censorship of free speeh

Dec. 10 — To the Editor:

Installment 3 of Elon Musk’s releases of Twitter censorship activities reveals that the FBI, DNI, and DHS met weekly with Twitter executives resulting in election interference. Additionally, Mark Zuckerberg admitted publicly on the Joe Rogan Show that the FBI also approached Facebook to censor the Hunter laptop. In his presidential debate, Joe Biden utilized Deep State lies to support his deceitful statements to the American people. No matter what your political stripes, it is unconstitutional for government to interfere with free speech. George Orwell’s book, 1984, was intended as a warning—not a playbook. To those who characterize Republicans as “toddlers” for their planned investigations, you should pray those “toddlers” never grow up. The Democratic Deep State and DNI deceived the American people and are the real danger to our democracy. This government and big tech collusion must rise above party affiliation.

Cheryl Russell

Dover

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Let Portsmouth NH vote on competing plans for McIntyre site: Letters