Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Atkinson Selectmen mull selective rule application again

Atkinson selectmen demonstrate, once again the very behavior that has brought them so many lawsuits in the last 6 years, selective enforcement of policy.

From the Eagle Tribune;

May 4, 2011
Atkinson selectmen cautious about sprinkler requirements
By Cara Hogan

ATKINSON — Selectmen are cautious about approving construction on two properties that require sprinkler systems to meet code requirements, in part because of past lawsuits.

Sue Killam, chairman of the Planning Board, came to the selectmen Monday night with a request from the owners of 35 and 37 Boulder Cove Road.

"The two properties are side by side," she said. "At 35 Boulder Cove, they want to put a foundation around a year-round dwelling and add an addition. At 37, they want to raze a seasonal cottage and replace it will a year-round dwelling."

Selectmen's Chairman William Bennett said the two properties need approval from selectmen, according to RSA 35. The projects are on a Class Six road, which is a private way and not accessible by fire trucks.

Fire Chief Michael Murphy said he recommended the owners either install sprinklers or build a fire access road that meets building code requirements.

"It's paved on the way in, but does turn into a gravel road," he said. "Even the paved road gets narrow in some places, making it hard for trucks to get in."

The issue of fire access roads and sprinklers is a sensitive subject in Atkinson. Margaret and Daniel Osborn refused to put sprinklers in their home back in 2008, leading to a long legal battle with the town. In December, the court ruled the Osborns had to pay the town $122,375 in civil penalties for living in their home without a building permit.

"I think we are going to be more cautious about this because of the Osborn case," Bennett said. "We want to make sure all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed, so we don't end up in another situation like that."

Murphy said he, too, is treading carefully because of the Osborn case.

"We certainly want to avoid any type of litigations," he said.

Murphy said the cost of installing sprinklers varies, depending on the size of the house and the access to water, but is usually around $10,000.

Bennett said he has to look into the matter more carefully, before approving the construction.

"We're probably going to vote on this next Monday," he said.


Anonymous said...


If the houses REQUIRE sprinkler systems or changes to the road to get building permits, no vote is needed. Just enforce the law equally.

Why is this request going to the Board of Selectmen anyway?

Leon Artus said...


Since the Atkinson Factor Blog seems to no longer be in publication, I request the letter be removed by the administrator, if it should ever come back into existence.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Leon Artus

Anonymous said...

What's Up And Down And Black And Blue All Over?

Thumbing through the Monthly Expense Reports from the Town of Atkinson, one stumbles across the line item: 40.41969.520.00.

Here we have the Property Liability Insurance expenses for 2011.

It jumps right out at you.

The Town of Atkinson budgeted $55,336.00.


Last year the Town of Atkinson spent all $70,348.00 it budgeted as well as another over budget $369.99 for liability insurance.

So why the sudden drop in liability insurance in a contentious hamlet like Atkinson?

Could it be something like the old Cold War Peace Dividend?

That has to be it.

An Atkinson Peace Dividend, of sorts.

Here is my guess.

Last year, Atkinson did not suffer the personal peccadilloes of the banty rooster now known as former Town Moderator Frank Polito, who mercifully resigned from his perch.

It must have come as a relief to the town’s insurance company that one of the most insufferable public officials in town called it, no mas.

Here is some municipal math.

Back in 2005 liability insurance for Atkinson was only $11,800.00.

In 2006 Atkinson spent $19,233.74 with change to spare from the budget.

Then in 2007 liability insurance for Atkinson hit the $49,598.84 mark with a subtle re-naming of the line item to “Other Insurance.”

And our not so Way-back Machine shows 2010 insurance in the same line item to be $70,717.99.

Ouch! Think of how many Elderly Affairs cruisers the Town could buy and support for the police chief’s vote buying scheme.

In any case, I would venture the departure of one of Atkinson’s biggest liabilities, the former moderator/banty rooster, may have caused a drop in the 2011 budget.

Let’s hope more good things are to come.

Out with the expensive old - in with the affordable new.

Ed Naile

Anonymous said...

Here we go again!!!! Are the Osbourne's STILL in their house??? Bill Friel is the only selectman who has the gumption to stand up to people (like S. Killam) & say "NO" The law is the law....just enforce it!!!

Anonymous said...

They can't enforce the law in Atkinson because it goes against town policy to enforce the law! I finally understand.
Bos is lost. Killiams is rude, doesn't play well with others, Bos voting on sprinklers? You got to be kidding me. Nobody knows the rules about sprinklers or fire codes? What the &$@/-6? does "tread lightly" mean, Chief Murphy? You just sort of make stuff up to suit WHO? The Osborns? That's nuts. New legal fees go up, up, up


Anonymous said...

Hey Leon:

Since you have to ask for a publicly available document to be removed from a taxpayer website it must be you don't control the website. Phil must really hate websites and blogs exposing the truth. Good luck with your request. Now I really gotta read the letter !!!!!!!!!

Jus mah opinyon

Anonymous said...

Aren't sprinkler systems covered under the zoning ordinance? nd aren't all zoning ordinances put on the ballot to be approved by the voters? And if we did, wouldn't that affect the ligitimacy of the requiremets?

Anonymous said...

Didn't the Selectmen go out to bid on insuranc4 rates. I've heard them comment on the "savings" this year.

Anonymous said...

Since when is any of the blogs a 'taxpayer site'?

Just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

Thanks Leon. I wanted to read the letter. Now I can find it.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson paid $70,000.00 for one years insurance premium for what. Is it true what I read? That means our insurance co is paying out a whole lot more money than that to fat cat attorneys. Why are big payments secret and I learn here what boggles my mind.

I get the name change to other Insurance. I dont like it when hide and seek goes on. The BOS can explain it to me TV Monday night. I want details from the selectmen about this scandal and what's the plan to get our spending for attornies in line with other towns. Get our fiscal house in order. I am pissed and I want facts. Who is responsible for this.

Anonymous said...

Re: the settlement agreement between Leon Artus and Consentino:
(May 4, 2:l7 p.m. blog post)

Only Consentino would be so thin-skinned and insecure that he would want as part of a settlement that information critical of him be removed from the blog.

He hates it when he is revealed for the out-of-control jerk that he is.
I just read the Jan. 30, 2009 posting that has Phil peeing his pants. Thank you Leon, for listing the date so I could go back in the blog archives and find it and read it before it is removed.

The Jan. 30, 2009 blog posting simply reveals the truth about Consentino. It reveals him for the abusive, vindictive, intolerant-of-criticism ass that he is.

Anonymous said...

Is this the letter?

January 28, 2009

Board of Selectmen
Town of Atkinson
21 Academy Avenue
Atkinson, NH 03811

RE: Notice of Suit – First Amendment Violations

Dear Board of Selectmen:

This office represents the legal interests of Leon Artus, in relation to violations of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government, by Atkinson Police Chief Philip Consentino and the Atkinson Board of Selectmen.

The purpose of this letter is to place the Town of Atkinson on notice, pursuant to RSA 507-B:7, that Mr. Artus and other citizens will be filing a civil rights lawsuit concerning Chief Consentino’s intimidation and harassment of Atkinson citizens who signed a warrant article petition circulated by Mr. Artus, and the Board of Selectmen’s actions in enabling and permitting Chief Consentino to bully and intimidate residents who have the temerity of criticizing him or taking a political stance against his personal interests.

Mr. Artus obtained signatures of Atkinson residents for several citizen-petitioned warrant articles in early January 2009. Two of these warrant article petitions concerned offices currently held by Philip Consentino – Police Chief and Director of Elderly Affairs. The petitioned warrant articles were turned in to the Town Clerk on the morning of January 13, 2009. Within approximately one hour of the petitions being delivered to the Town Offices, Chief Consentino had obtained copies of the petitions, and was calling elderly signatories to demand an explanation as to why they had signed petitions which might impact his long hold on the Police Department and Elderly Affairs Office.

Shortly thereafter, the citizens who were contacted by Chief Consentino began attempting to withdraw their signatures as a result of his intimidating communications with them. Gail Spellman requested that her name, along with the names of Dorothy Goldstein, Thomas Spellman, and Robert Spellman, be removed. Mr. and Mrs. Everitt Smith went to the Town Offices, and apparently received assistance from Town Officials in writing a letter to the Selectmen requesting that their names be withdrawn from the petitioned warrant articles concerning the Police Chief and Elderly Affairs positions. The Goldstein family received a call from Chief Consentino, who demanded to know “what is your family doing signing this shit?” The next day Dorothy Goldstein was among those seeking to remove her name from the petition.

Chief Consentino’s use of his authority as Police Chief and director of the Elderly Affairs office to intimidate Atkinson citizens into remaining silent on issues in which he has a personal interest constitutes an abuse of his office and a violation of those citizens’ and Mr. Artus’ civil rights. His conduct with regard to the citizen-petitioned warrant articles filed in January of 2009 would be alarming enough if it were the first time it had ever happened. However, as the Board of Selectmen is well aware, Police Chief Consentino has a long and well-documented history of abusing his position to silence his political opposition. What is arguably worse is the equally long and well-documented history of the Board’s complicity in the Chief’s tactics of intimidation and bullying. The Town of Atkinson has a nearly three decades old record of allowing Chief Consentino to engage in abuses of power and coercion of citizens who dare to stand up to him.

Anonymous said...

For instance:

• In 1981, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against Chief Consentino by Wayne Peak, alleging that the Chief had engaged in a plan to discredit, disgrace, and coerce Mr. Peak by repeatedly charging him with baseless motor vehicle and criminal complaints, resulting in Mr. Peak being forced to move out of state to avoid Chief Consentino’s harassment. The harassment began after Mr. Peak filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Chief Consentino to account for monies collected by the Police Department. Upon information and belief, this lawsuit resulted in a significant monetary settlement in Mr. Peak’s favor. Despite that, the Town of Atkinson did nothing to change or eliminate Chief Consentino’s propensity for retaliating against political opponents or abusing his power as police chief.

• In 1999, the Public Employee Labor Relations Board ruled that Chief Consentino had engaged in a pattern of harassment, intimidation, and coercion against members of the Atkinson Police Department who sought to unionize. The PELRB’s Order of December 23, 1999, stated that “[s]uch fears, interference, domination and coercion must be abated. The Town’s conduct, through its agent and employee is, taken as a whole, violative of RSA 273-A:5.” Despite this documented finding of overt bullying toward even his fellow police officers, the Board of Selectmen continue to this day to allow Chief Consentino to go on abusing his position of power and trust.

• In 2000, Atkinson resident Steve Lewis circulated a petition for a warrant article to have a full-time police chief appointed. The warrant article in question was much like the one that Mr. Artus circulated earlier this month. Chief Consentino responded by visiting Mr. Lewis’ office in his Chief’s uniform, leaving his cruiser running outside with its blue lights flashing for over an hour. Inside the office, he loudly and abusively castigated Mr. Lewis for having the audacity to initiate the petition.

• In 2005, Chief Consentino flagrantly violated Orders of the Rockingham County Superior Court in a case initiated by Mark Acciard that required him to leave Selectmen’s meetings at any time the agenda turned to matters involving the Police Department or Elderly Affairs Office. He was found to be in contempt of court by Judge McHugh. Chief Consentino retaliated against Mark Acciard by charging him with trumped up traffic offenses and contacting vendors for Mr. Acciard’s business to tell them that Mr. Acciard was “under investigation by the Atkinson Police Department.” Chief Consentino’s retaliatory behavior against Mr. Acciard resulted in yet another defamation and civil rights lawsuit being filed against the Town, which is currently pending.

• In 2006, former Selectwoman Carol Grant filed a petition to have Consentino removed from his position as Chief of Police. Her petition cited a lengthy history of rogue behavior which would have justified removing Chief Consentino from the position which he so frequently abused. Among other things, Chief Consentino unlawfully taped Ms. Grant during a conversation, in violation of New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute, and then destroyed the evidence of that illegally taped conversation. Despite these serious violations of the law, the Selectmen have taken no meaningful action to curb Chief Consentino’s flagrant abuses of his official position. A lawsuit filed by Ms. Grant resulted in the Town being forced to pay out another settlement because of the Chief’s outrageous conduct, yet he still holds his position and continues to abuse it with the knowledge and apparent complicity of the Select Board.

Anonymous said...

• Also in 2006, Chief Consentino angrily erupted during a Board of Selectmen’s meeting when a citizen, Brian Kaye, read a prepared statement concerning his opposition to Chief Consentino’s plan to expand use of a communications tower near his property, and Consentino’s rude and belittling responses to Mr. Kaye’s concerns. Chief Consentino then followed up by sending Mr. Kaye two threatening letters, on police department stationary, demanding that Mr. Kaye provide him copies of his prepared statement. This is yet another example of the Chief abusing his position to intimidate a citizen who dared to speak out against him. After a death threat Mr. Kaye moved to Maine.

In addition to the above-described examples of Chief Consentino’s abuses of office, he has also succeeded in making Atkinson’s police department a “family affair” in contravention to any reasonable standard of nepotism. His wife Jody is director of dispatch, and his son David is a patrolman. Supervision of a wife and son is obviously different from supervising other employees. In addition, he uses Jody to screen calls seeking to complain against him, and insulate him from accountability to Atkinson’s citizenry by having her defer to “a superior” who puts up a smokescreen when people seek to file a complaint.

Throughout all of this well-documented history of aggressive, intimidating, and coercive behavior of on the part of Chief Consentino, the Atkinson Board of Selectmen have refused to take any meaningful action to put a stop to it. The refusal to remove Chief Consentino has clearly emboldened him over the years, to the point that he now is willing to personally confront simple townsfolk who sign a petition for a warrant article to intimidate them into removing themselves from the political process, which they should enjoy a constitutional right to participate in this Saturday. The Town’s inaction constitutes an established pattern and practice of ratifying and complying with Chief Consentino’s flagrant violations of Atkinson resident’s civil rights.

Mr. Artus’ lawsuit will name Chief Consentino, the Town of Atkinson, the current sitting Selectmen, and former Selectmen Jack Sapia and Francis Polito. He will be seeking damages and injunctive relief against both Chief Consentino and the Town.

Please have the Town’s litigation counsel contact me if there any questions.


Charles G. Douglas, III

Anonymous said...

Wanna know what the sad part is? This is the short list. A LOT of other harmed folks not mentioned.

Disgusting. How our BOS sleeps at night I have no idea. I can only conclude they must be afraid of him too cause no normal person elected to the BOS would let such a flaming #4%$^&!@#! keep their job. It's all documented and on the website at

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

What !! and have the selectmen fear for their own safety as do the the many others in town. Oh Gee! ,my mistake I forgot that once the Conman is out of his position[s] in town he wouldn't dare to do any thing like he has done and has been responsible for in the past. Look at all the savings in the many future costs the town would have if he were gone . Just add up the towns costs from his antics and I don't just mean money.

Anonymous said...

To my knowledge Phil Consentino has not been appointed or elected to the position of Police Chief.

What happens when he causes a very serious law suit to be filed against the town?

Is the town left holding the bag because he was allowed to illegally act as Police Chief by the BOS?

Anonymous said...

Leon: What you're asking for is nothing short of censorship. Welcome to Atkinsonburg, Germany, circa 1940.

I don't give a rat's a-- about any settlement between you and anyone else.

I'm so fed up with all the BS from Phil and our lack of action BOS. It's just sooooooooooo bizarre its frightening.

Anonymous said...

RSA 35? Either Bennett is wrong or the Tribune is wrong.

RSA 35 referenced in the article has nothing to do with BOS authority over the issue in questions. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!

MAcciard said...

To 9:36;

Phil's last appointment as chief was made on May 1, 1992 for a period of seven years. It expired on May 1, 1999. Even though successive BOS have been apprised of this situation, and all they had to do was re-appoint him, they have refused to do so.

He has served without valid appointment since May 1, 1999.

Anonymous said...

So they are paying him with taxpayer funds illegally.

Anonymous said...

Now that we know that the LT.'s job was not funded by the taxpayers either, this will get interesting.

I say, hire one FT cop to do both jobs. Look at all the money we'll save between the LT.'s pay and the Chief's pay plus no more law suits. 'Cause there will be more, in my opinion.

MAcciard said...

Of course the Lt. job was funded by the taxpayers, it was just created improperly, if not illegally. The selectmen can not create a new full time position in town by themselves, it has to go to the voters. The Lt. job did not. Consentino, Sapia, and childs, I think was the third selectman, created it.

tim dziechowski said...

"RSA 35? Either Bennett is wrong or the Tribune is wrong."

If the Tribune bothered to edit articles or the reporters bothered to check facts, they might someday actually deserve to be called a "newspaper".

A buiding permit may not be issued for anything on a class 6 or private road without a vote of the selectmen or appeal process through the ZBA.

See RSA 674:41

Sprinklers are a completely separate issue. The selectmen could vote to allow a building permit for a house without sprinklers a mile down a dirt road. The homeowner would be required to file a waiver of municipal liability before they could get the building permit. Because of that waiver, if the house burned down the town has no liability in a lawsuit.

The reason sprinklers get dragged into the mess is that the NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association) has been trying to force sprinkler systems on homeowners by adding residential sprinkler requirements to fire codes which are incorporated into the state building code by reference. We are required by another RSA to follow the state building code. Our live free or die legislature doesn't like this and so far has been successful in fighting back.

What further complicates the sprinkler issue is that the current fire codes incorporated into the state building code have requirements for fire lane access. Many Class 6 and private roads are too narrow to meet the fire lane requirements. The local fire marshal (Chief Murphy) is allowed to waive some of the fire lane requirements for one and two family houses if and only if the house is sprinklered.

So if the selectmen want to wait a week and doublecheck with Chief Murphy on exactly what the fire lane requirements are before voting on a permit, there's a term for that.

Due diligence.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, where is the due diligence making it a requirement for a homeowner to have sprinklers, to get a building permet and then ignore your rules and thumb their nose.

If I want to build or keep my new addition I will just ignore you as I know I can do whatever I want as you let your friends go against your rules and build how they want. I will turn my lawyer loose on you and I will win.

Anonymous said...

"Because of that waiver, if the house burned down the town has no liability in a lawsuit."

So the husband and wife die in the flames trying to save their children! The house is reduced to ashes and the dog is so badly burned the fireman has to kill it with his spade.

And the only thing the Board Of Selectmen care about is if they are sued or not?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Can't understand why all these people quibble over 10,000 dollars to install sprinkler systems. The State does encourage this for the building codes. You want to build a house, get it inspected, that the heating, electrical, gas pipes, plumbing are all to code so your house is safe, but all of you must think that your house could never burn down, because the Fire dept can't get there in enough time? Its not their fault, they volunteer to save lives. Have you ever considered looking at the reponse time of a fire depts, well add another 10-20 minutes when the truck can't get in. A volunterr dept takes longer to get there, so Hampstead Fire would probably get there first.Dont be so stupid to put your lives in jeapardy at a monetary cost. New houses burn down too you know. The State code is there to SAVE your LIFE, especially when access to a property is restricted. GROW UP!!!!

Anonymous said...

The town does what they want. Interprets laws as they please, misquotes them, intimidates citizens. Makes rulings against citizens that are wrong. Here's why-- they can make a phone call to any attorney anywhere in the country, even a very very expensive one from New York City and the town insurance company must pick up the bill. The average citizen of the town doesn't stand a chance, have the money to fight back. Gives up fighting for their rights that got taken away.

The BOS spent $70,000.00 for a years insurance premium. NICE. Tell us BOS. When will you stop covering your mistakes and harming citizens using taxpayer dollars.

It is my opinion there should be a special town meeting to discuss this outrage and start to recall town officials and their employees who do not follow the laws of the state.. Then the insurance will drop from $70,000.00 taxpayer dollars back to the normal $11,000 taxpayer dollars. That's what will happen when the insufferable problem town officials are gone and sent packing. Then we can live in Atkinson without fear.


Anonymous said...

By CNHT | March 8, 2011
by Ed Naile

I have four pygmy goats, Moxie, Snyder, Gordon, and Clyde. They are perfect practice for understanding New Hampshire’s traditional Town Meetings.

They live in two adjoined stalls in the winter – 20’ x 10’. That is their little town, Barnville, with a school of sorts within its own boundaries.

They mill about and climb on things like their dog crates. Each has one of their own.

Clyde is new so even though he is a large neutered male pygmy he gets picked on.

Gordon is about as smart and sneaky as a goat can get. He likes to stare in your face like a dermatologist would. He is a neutered male.

Next is Snyder. She has horns and a fluffy, downy coat. She avoids controversy and stays to herself as much as she can in a small town like Barnville.

Moxie is the smallest of our pygmies. Her stubby little legs can’t be more than seven inches long. She is a talker – and a fighter. No other goat wants in on a head-butt competition with Moxie.

When I open the Barnville doors, the tiny town comes to attention – like I am the Moderator or something. And they are pretty well organized into their locations near a feed trough, gate, or dog crate.

But all I have to do is show them a bag of cheese doodles and panic sets in – they behave like midget wild beasts.

They love cheese doodles – Moxie not so much, pretzels are her weakness, but she gets caught up in the frenzy as most of us would.

Gordon head-butts Clyde and Snyder, Snyder climbs on Clyde’s dog crate and bites him on the top of his head if he tries to come out, after Gordon chases him in. And Moxie stands her ground and intimidates anyone coming into her space.

I would have to say that the cheese doodles are almost like a town budget or warrant article brought before a human town meeting.

At town and school meetings you have the same personalities in humans as you do with goats.

You have your typical pygmies, neutered males, and passive aggressive types slamming heads over some free treat.

Next, I plan on installing a microphone in Barnville and check the goats for insatiable egos. If Moxie parks herself in front of that microphone and bleats a blue streak for two hours then I will have proven Town Meetings evolved from more civilized animals.

Anonymous said...

On sprinkler systems:

Sprinkler systems don't save lives, smoke detectors do. Sprinkler systems save property. Smoke detectors save lives.

Requiring sprinkler systems is a ridiculous burden for property owners. As long as you have smoke detectors in all the right places and be sure they are working (check battery regularly if not hardwired), you will get sufficient warning to get out. By tht time the temperature gets hot enough to set off a sprinkler, odds are you're already dead. Plus you get plenty of water damage from the sprinklers.

While sprinkler manufacturers and installers assert that residential fire sprinklers add a necessary measure of safety for a home's occupants, there have been no studies demonstrating the efficacy of fire sprinklers with smoke alarms versus smoke alarms alone.

These advocates do agree that fire sprinklers should be not installed without also installing smoke alarms – because the most important thing to do in a house fire is to get out of the house.

The sprinkler argument is BS. We don't need sprinklers for residential homes. I say we draft a warrant article and put it to the voters to settle it once and for all.

Read this one:

Anonymous said...

According to the NHAB, the National Association of Home Builders:

While they should remain an option for home owners who choose them, fire sprinklers in single-family homes are expensive to install, can be difficult to maintain and do not represent a cost-effective safety improvement over smoke alarm systems. For that reason, NAHB does not support measures to mandate their use.

Tradeoffs are a false incentive.

Fire sprinkler manufacturers state that the net cost may be very low per household and cite the possibility of development tradeoffs, like narrower streets and fewer fire hydrants. However, negotiating for those tradeoffs is difficult because local ordinances and planning rules are not consistent from community to community. And there is no demonstrable savings in infrastructure costs for the jurisdiction – when as little as 3 percent of a fire fighter's time is spent battling house fires, installing fire sprinklers in new homes will not have a significant impact. Furthermore, if reductions in fire safety provisions can be permitted in other areas if sprinklers are mandated, then why require sprinklers if no net benefit is gained? Tradeoffs verify the argument that current fire safety provisions in building codes and planning already are adequate.

Anonymous said...

There is a lot of concepts of why one should have a sprinkler system. Narrow roads access, smoke alarms not functioning, time of fire fighters arrival and etc.,etc. One thing comes to my mind in any given panic situation when running out of a burning home before help arrives. Any person ,young or old, can fall and go unconscious ,break a back ,leg[s], etc.and not be capable of exiting a burning home and die in the fire. In the case of the Osborns and any others with a similar situation I'd rather see a sprinkler system in the home[s]than a crisply burnt body that would be in a closed casket. The town would be wise to enforce the use of sprinkler systems in the hindered road ways that prevent fire apparatus to respond as quickly as possible. Even if there is no loss of life a sprinkler system can be a saving feature of the property and most if not all contents of the home involved . Please do not change any thing as it stands now!

Anonymous said...

"Omg, omg!!! The smoke detector is blaring. You lazy bum, wake UP. Omg, omg, Tina is not in her bedroom. Call the firemen. What do you mean the wires are already melted, DO something! No, the garden hose will not work, the electrical panel is out, can't you tell it's the flames in the hallway now and we can't get out... you moron! Look out the windows, see our neighbors, they will rescue us. We are a wonderful, warm and fuzzy. What do you mean they are sitting on lawn chairs putting franks on sticks!! Omg we should have put in the sprinklers. Listen to Chief Murphy next time???? What do you mean next time? There is not going to be a NEXT time."

Anonymous said...

All these rules are useless if the selectmen don't enforce them. Selectmen ruin lives when they don't enforce the rules on the books. Selectmen use rules to gain power and punish taxpayers. That's the long and short of it, so don't vote for anymore rules that take your right away.


Anonymous said...

The same tribe of residents that wanted the $800,000 communications tower in the center of town now wants sprinklers in every home. $$$! Where does it all end? Only issue that's even more ridiculous is Plaistow and Atkinson getting together to build a 25 million dollar train layover on the border. Plaistow is ready to negotiate. Have our leaders lost their minds?


Anonymous said...

AMEN !!!

Anonymous said...

While we are debating issues that our selectmen won't answer questions for, they are setting another fire to further take our money away from us. Why are we not taking their power away from them?

People rule but not unless we get the crooks out of our government.

USA, USA, USA..............

Anonymous said...

5/9 @ 6:17, I think your mistaken when you say every new/old home in Atkinson would have to have a sprinkler system. The train layover issues haven't been resolved nor near any reality . If you knew what was really going on you wouldn't have made the mistakes you have on either issue. Before you write get your facts straight and stop trying to put everyone on a merry go round of your own fear driven turmoil. And that is not just my humble opinion , its fact.

Anonymous said...

Well, good old Osborns were required to have sprinklers installed to get their building permit. Then they don't put them in the walls. Then violate poor Ms Davis land. Then live night and day in the fire trap!

Ok, now that we got our facts straight, who are not doing their jobs here?

Is there anybody in town who can bleat at the microphone and explain WHY the fire codes, laws and rules are not enforced in Atkinson? We simple townsfolk would like to know.

Seems you could get the sprinklers IN or get them OUT but please do something to protect them from themselves soon.

My opinion

Anonymous said...

Does anyone even know when the last accidental fire death happened in Atkinson? Come on "First Responders", you must remember. I do! And how many accidental fire deaths have there been in NH over the last 10 years. Sorry sprinkler-ists, the 5 to 10K cost to have new homes "sprinkled" would be better spent on cancer, lung or heart research.

Anonymous said...

5:10 @ 2:47 - I agree with you about your sprinkler response ,however, the real issue here is that fire apparatus can't get over unpaved to narrow muddy roads in time to extinguish a fire. It is a known fact that they can get stuck with the heavy water load they carry. To expect a fire truck to pass over an unpaved surface safely on a narrow unpaved roadway is outrageous . Any home owner who has a driveway or unpaved roadway leading to their home should have thought about the potential fire hazards before signing for ownership. The town should have had sense enough to enforce the RSA fire laws long before any ones home occupancy is given. The banks and credit unions are not paying attention to their mortgage investment monetary profit returns to say the least. It appears that safety isn't an issue by the town and the lenders when it comes to fire loss because of failing to enforce fire safety laws. Like it was said earlier by some one that wrote about crispy results from a fire ,its not a sight to see. One human or animal death from a fire is more than enough at any time any where.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns have it worked out correct. There are no fire deaths. So no need for sprinklers. No need for fire station firetrucks, firemen, fire chief. And since no crime don't need no police station, police cars, policemen, police chief. My property taxes just went down a bundle. Thanks Maggie for pointing the way.

Anonymous said...

Listen to all the safety purist, hypochrites. What a bunch of wind. As soon as someone asks you to open your checkbooks or do something in the name of public saftey that inconveniences you, you'll be first in line to loudly object.

You'll never convince me we need sprinkler systems. Create whatever images you like, you sound like media hype bullship. Someone's making money off our backs and it ain't me. Follow the money trail for the truth. Who's installing all these systems?

We desparately needed a $700,000 communications tower too according to our town experts. Lives were at stake every day remember?

Write a warrant article and vote on it. Apply the same rules to all. Then the debate can end.

Anonymous said...

Easy. No crime, no problem, no tower.

Anonymous said...

Sure Atkinson has less fire death's than most towns. I am sure the family that grieves that death wouldn't like that comment. 1 death in 10 years is enough. I guess if people want to build their homes without sprinklers than they should sign a waiver of liability that the Town services would not be responsible if their were devestating fire to a home. Smoke detectors do save lives, and sprinklers can give time to save lives and save the property. If you have properties that are non accessible to fire trucks, then go ahead and take your chances. Who are we to question your suicide attempt.

Anonymous said...

So the lack of sprinklers constitutes a suicide attempt? You sound like the media hype I see no network tv.

Your position is extreme. By your standard, there are thousands of properties around the state owned by suicidal people then.

Smoke detectors save lives. Sprinkler systems do not. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

Anonymous said...

When you make the agreement you keep it. To put in sprinklers you keep your agreement. PERIOD. It is the condition ZBA allowed you to build at all.

You gotta keep your word. Or you can't be trusted. No credibility if you break your agreements. Still living in the house with no permit? That embarrass the town. You make our board of selectmen look rediculous like they can't enforce the law or do anything. You damage the selectmens reputations and the towns reputation by your selfishness. The selectmen and ZBA deserve more repect and for you to keep all the agreements you make with them. And the selectmen must follow the law. They swore an oath with one raised hand and the other on a bible.

My opinion

Anonymous said...

Whose bible? Gods or the devils ? If it be the devil has one?