Vote NO on Article 21.

Vote No on Article 21. This is copied and pasted from the Exeter newsletter (Not my work)Just spreading the word(showing the politicians are hurting the town not helping)

By Harry Thayer March 07, 2014 2:00 AM I write in opposition to Article 21 on the Exeter TownWarr ant: "Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to negotiate a long term lease with Great Bay Kids Company on Town owned property located on Hampton Road (Tax Map 69, Lot 4) with terms and conditions to be determined by the Board of Selectmen." I hold nothing against Great Bay Kids Company per se. I would be writing regardless of which private business was named as the beneficiary in Article 21. But, if the board of directors of Great Bay Kids had been doing their job, this would never have become our issue. Knowing they had several years of space downsizing and one-year lease extensions with the school district, they should have taken control of their destiny long before now. Let's review the history of the current property known as the Exeter Recreational Park. It begins in March 1973. A group of Exeter citizens submitted a warrant article to buy the 10-acre Elks' parcel on the south side of Hampton Road for use as a recreation park. The lead story in the March 15 Exeter News-Letter featured a page-wide headline "Exeter Purchases Recreation Property." The story begins: "Land for recreation use....; "The article was amended by its petitioner, Richard Burnham, to read...'to see if the town will vote to purchase the property on the northerly side of Hampton Road, optioned by Paul Holloway and William E. Gilmore, consisting of approximately 22 acres, to be used as a town recreation area, $12,000 to be raised through taxes and a sum not to exceed $48,000 from federal revenue sharing funds'...; The article as amended carried 356-256, the highest vote of the evening." Thus began a three-year endeavor to develop the property for recreational use. A citizen committee developed and outlined a facilities' plan to include a swimming pool, 10 tennis courts, three ball fields and a parking lot. A fund-raising program was designed so there would be no impact on the town property tax rate. Businesses, townspeople and elementary school children participated in raising $250,000 for the project, including matching federal funds.
Please note that throughout the town meeting vote, the design, fund-raising and the construction,th e intent was always a recreational facility. In later years, Planet Playground, was built on a parcel adjacent to the recreation park. More recently, land on the original 22 acres was available to build two soccer fields. Neither project violated the original intent. Now, the recreational-use intent may change by a selectmen's warrant article. We discover that "Tax Map 69, Lot 4" is in fact our recreational park. Map 69, Lot 4, behind the swimming pool, is the last prime undeveloped parcel remaining in the park. So much for the original 'intent.' Great Bay Kids is a private day care business in competition with at least two other day care facilities located on Hampton Road. Yes it would be nice to have them remain in Exeter, but not be on land owned by townspeople as a recreational park for over 40 years, or at the expense of Exeter taxpayers. This leads us to discuss the 'process' and 'transparency' of this proposal. I can only speculate that sometime during 2013 Great Bay Kids Company approached town officials with their proposal, selling it as a win-win for both entities. On Dec. 30 of last year we note that selectmen adjourned their regular meeting to go into a non-public session "as permitted under RSA 91-A under the exception of land acquisition and fee waiver...;" We later learn that this is where selectmen agree to sponsor the Great Bay Kids article. No vote on this sponsorship has been recorded and the minutes were sealed by selectmen. Furthermore, among the allowances for a non-public session we find but one relating to land. Section d allows: "Consideration of the acquisition, sale, or lease of real or personal property which, if discussed in public, would likely benefit a party or parties whose interests are adverse to the general interest of the community." I question how this particular proposal qualifies under the New Hampshire RSAs, unless a party or parties were trying to hide something adverse to the general interest of the community. So here we are, with an article to negotiate a lease with but one company. No mention until the Feb. 1 deliberative session of where this town-owned land is other than map/lot numbers on Hampton Road. During this process, neither the Planning Board nor the Zoning Board of Adjustment was consulted. So much for 'process.' And as for 'transparency,' Misters Clement, Chartrand and Quandt, I am very disappointed. Leasing this land is definitely not a win-win for both parties. It is a win-win for Great Bay Kids in having a recreation park in their front yard and a sweetheart-land-lease-deal similar to the Exeter Sportsman's Club. It's a loss-loss for the town and its' taxpayers, who forever will lose the ability to build out the 22-acre property for recreational use, and, like the Sportsman's Club, will see their tax dollars supporting another private entity. This proposed deal also is a violation of the trust, faith and energy of the businesses, townspeople and school children who 40 years ago had a dream, and raised a quarter-million dollars to make that dream a reality. I also would question how the matching federal grant application was written. If, as I suspect, it specifies federal dollars for a recreation park, then there can be no land-lease deal. Around the 1930s, Will Rogers advised: "Buy all the land you can 'cause they ain't making any more." Those words ring ever true today. I urge Exeter voters to soundly defeat Article 21 and send a clear message to this board and future boards that land in our recreation park is not for sale or lease. Harry Thayer is an Exeter resident and former editor of the Exeter News-Letter.