Jim Kenyon’s recent column about the cost of housing in Norwich addresses an issue that resonates across the whole Upper Valley (“Same Debate in Norwich,” Feb. 5). While seeking permission to build modestly priced homes in Lyme, we have learned that Lyme’s zoning ordinance discourages anything except single-family homes on large (and therefore expensive) lots, which usually translate to expensive new homes. Not only does large-lot zoning leads to high-cost housing, it can lead to higher property taxes.
Towns with excellent schools are attractive to families with children, and national and state figures show that larger homes tend to bring in more students per home than smaller homes do. High housing costs and property taxes have the practical effect of making it hard for: 1.) teachers, nurses and others to live close to their work in a costly town; people to minimize their energy use, because they have to commute long distances for work, shopping, etc.; older people to downsize and stay in their town where they raised their own families, because of a shortage of modestly priced homes, and because it is hard to pay increasing property taxes.
We are part of a group in Lyme that has proposed a zoning amendment to allow pocket neighborhoods that allow the development of smaller homes. This is the latest step in what has been an 11-year-long effort to get permission to build homes that reflect today’s needs — improving aging in place and fostering community, while minimizing energy use, climate disruption and building costs. Pocket neighborhood development encourages smaller/less-expensive housing that is attractive to older adults who do not have children living with them, and to smaller families.
As the Upper Valley Housing Coalition has said for years, it is very hard to find modestly priced housing in the entire Upper Valley. We hope the pocket neighborhood proposal will interest people in Lyme and beyond. If you would like to learn more, we have information on our website: PinnacleProject.info.
Rich and Lin Brown
Lyme
Faith Catlin
Lyme
Liz and Chuck Cole
Thetford
Jenny Littlewood
Orford
Selectboard Choices in Norwich
As a continuing member of the Norwich Selectboard, I want to thank all those who are running for the open positions on the board. It is healthy for the town to have the choices at the polls that they represent. I look forward to working with whomever the voters elect.
I want to call voters’ attention to John Langhus and John Pepper, who are running for Selectboard this election. Each has qualities rarely seen on the board. They are both parents of children in Marion Cross School, each has a strong business background, and they both understand the need to consult widely within Norwich and to act cautiously as the Selectboard considers any new initiatives.
I also want to thank outgoing Selectboard members Christopher Ashley and Dan Goulet, each of whom brought different insights to deliberations as it achieved the following during the past year: identified alternative projects for the FEMA funds that could no longer be applied to the Norwich pool; brought forward a bonding proposal for the Norwich public safety facilities that received strong voter approval; hired an architect to carry the public safety project forward; appointed a committee to investigate a replacement for the Norwich pool; brought forward a responsible town operating budget for voter consideration; worked with a citizen committee toward hiring a new town manager.
All these things occurred under the leadership of Linda Cook and Mary Layton, chair and vice-chair of the Selectboard. Lastly, I wish to thank Interim Town Manager Dave Ormiston, who picked up multiple initiatives that were underway and carried them forward very ably, while impartially balancing the different perspectives of board members.
Stephen Flanders
Norwich
Don’t Penalize Efficient Cars
Regarding “N.H. Bill Targets Efficient Cars,” Feb. 15: I was appalled to learn that New Hampshire lawmakers are considering an extra fee on fuel-efficient vehicles! Their reasoning is that drivers of fuel-efficient cars do not contribute their “fair share” to road maintenance since they spend less on gasoline and thus on the gasoline tax.
Such a shortsighted solution for funding road maintenance would have long-term negative consequences to public health, to the environment, and, consequently, to the economy of New Hampshire.
Research studies show that, when societal impact is taken into account, the true cost per gallon of gasoline is approximately $6.25, far more than we are paying at the pump. Instead of discouraging the use of fuel-efficient cars by imposing a special fee, why not simply increase the gasoline tax? There’s plenty of room between the current price of gasoline and the true cost to society. Or why not adopt the policy of many European countries that tax vehicles in accordance with their CO2 emission levels?
If one took the reasoning behind the proposed fee to its logical conclusion, we would find ourselves imposing extra charges on apartment dwellers and owners of smaller homes since they are not paying their “fair share” of property taxes to support the schools. We would impose a special tax on non-smokers since they do not contribute their “fair share” of cigarette taxes to the Education Trust Fund. Please urge your representatives to reject a nonsensical fee on fuel-efficient vehicles.
Carolyn Gordon
Hanover
Come to the U.S. Legally
Regarding Willem Lange’s column in the Feb. 22 Valley News (“Mounties to the Rescue … of Refugees”): When Barack Obama entered the White House, there were about 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. During his eight years, he removed about 2 million illegal immigrants, many convicted criminals (see ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016).
During these eight years, about 2 million entered with a visa and overstayed, or entered illegally by other means. Thus, the U.S. still has about 11 million living in the country illegally. Poor vetting prior to handing out visas and porous borders are at fault and need to be corrected.
If we did not have the Department of Homeland Security, and the resultant border scrutiny, etc., how many more buildings, in addition to the World Trade Center, would have been blown up by now? I came to this country in 1955, after a three-year vetting process. It was touch and go, because two brothers of my father had been card-carrying communists during the depression.
I was in the U.S. Army, as a volunteer, from 1956 to 1959. I became a citizen in 1962. I prefer people to come to the U.S. the way I did. I consider it a personal insult for someone to be illegally in my adopted country. I am all for the richness of cultural diversity and inclusiveness, but that has nothing to do with condoning and promoting illegality.
Willem Post
Woodstock
Bradford Seeks Oldest Man
The Bradford Historical Society is seeking the oldest male resident of Bradford, Vt., so that he may be awarded one of the Bradford Canes. We are seeking any man who was born prior to April 16, 1928, who has been a resident of Bradford for at least 25 years and is a registered voter of the town.
Two maple handcrafted canes or walking sticks were created in 1991 for the Vermont Bicentennial to be given to the oldest male and female citizens of Bradford. Phyllis Lavelle is the current holder of the women’s cane. If you have information about a possible male candidate, please contact me at 802-222-4423 or lccoffin@charter.net before March 10.
Larry Coffin, President Bradford Historical Society
Bradford, Vt.