The otherwise excellent editorial “Hartford Speaks” (Jan. 5) was marred by the claim that the survey had a “tepid response rate.” Not exactly: It appears that well over 40 percent of those likely to vote in town elections responded.
In recent years, turnout for the March voting day has been around 1,800; 785 of the 931 respondents can be classified as likely voters. Of the 785, 698 identified themselves as owning their home, in other words, those most directly affected by property taxes.
I think it’s fair to say the survey did a good job of plumbing the opinions of those who vote on what the tax collection is going to be, and understanding that body of opinion is critical to town leadership.
Could those of us on the survey committee have helped get more responses? Sure. Our publicity was tepid. The design of the mailer cover had many interpreting it as junk mail and tossing it before leaving the post office. The survey was distributed using the post office “every door direct mail” service, except for 400 or so folks on the checklist with mailing addresses outside of town; they were mailed individually, same as we do with the Town Meeting reminder postcards every February.
Some of those getting one with their name on a label thought we’d track their answers when all we were trying to do was to be sure they got one. These were all good lessons and the next time we do a survey, we’ll do better.
F.X. Flinn Quechee
Embrace the Bubble, Dartmouth
Dartmouth is considering challenging the Hanover Planning Board’s ruling to deny its application for an oversized indoor practice facility next to an established residential neighborhood. Dartmouth officials have been quoted in the paper saying this is the only option for them.
However, they have not fully explored the option of putting an inflatable seasonal air structure, aka bubble, over the football stadium during the winter months, enabling year-round use of an existing field. Dartmouth officials have said in public meetings that the bubble’s foundation would ruin the track that runs around the perimeter of the football field. This may be true relating to the manufacturer they met with, but it is not true of all such manufacturers. Neighbors to the proposed facility met a manufacturer, the same one who installed a bubble over Harvard’s football stadium. They met a representative who looked at Dartmouth’s football stadium through the fence. This manufacturer said in writing, “I saw absolutely no concerns at least on the surface, with putting a dome over the football field at Dartmouth.” The bubble manufacturer even said the track around the football field would be a great place to store snow as it sheds off the bubble. The cost for the seasonal air structure? Under $1 million. The cost of the indoor practice facility? Almost $20 million.
Dartmouth’s football stadium is much closer to campus than the proposed indoor practice facility location. A bubble extends the use of an existing field, rather than creating a whole new building, a building proposed to function mainly during winter months.
All the Ivies are going bubble. Harvard did it. Columbia’s doing it. Yale’s doing it. Please, Dartmouth, explore the bubble option again.
Sally J. BoyleHanover
Consider the Town, Dartmouth
I have lived in the town of Hanover for almost 50 years, and I have seen the town change quite a bit. Dartmouth College is behind some of these changes, for better and for worse. When the town was redesigned along South Main Street and South Street several years ago, the college seemed very sensitive to the idea of maintaining a lived-in town. Obviously, the college’s sense of responsibility toward the town’s residents has changed, as evidenced by its suggestion to build an athletic field house, a huge industrial building, so close to a residential neighborhood even though other locations were available.
Personally, I cannot comprehend why the college’s mission, that is, providing the best-possible liberal arts education, is served by allowing a few football players to practice punting during the days when no outdoor practice is feasible. The proposed building is projected at a cost close to $20 million. If this amount was put into an endowment, and considering the yearly maintenance costs, it can be said that roughly $1 million per year could alternatively be spent on scholarships, faculty research terms, reduced class sizes, etc.
The town’s residents cannot decide how the college spends its money.
Also, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that could have prevented the project from being built, since no one could have imagined such a monstrous building being built that close to a residential neighborhood. But the Planning Board did reject the college’s proposal. The board tried very hard to mitigate the building’s impact by discussing various conditions, but in the end, four out of five members rejected the proposal. The decision is based on Hanover Site Plan Regulations that require the board to consider “the relationship of the project to the harmonious and aesthetically pleasing development of the town and its environs.”
It would be a slap in the face of reasonably concerned Hanover residents if the college now tried to overturn the board’s decision by appealing to Superior Court.
Gert AssmusHanover