The Tower, the Sequel to the Sequel to the Sequel

Yes people, the long dormant TOWER issue is back again! But THIS time it is being pushed as a revenue generator behind the fire station. The "official" story line goes something like this; Cell companies will pay to lease space on a 160' tower in the pristine center of town, OH, AND if our petulant police chief gets his way (he was thwarted the first two tries) he can get his communications equipment up there as well. This time there is no mention of who will pay the $260,000 cost of building the tower, or the equipment to be housed there. But you know who will ultimately be on the hook.... YOU GOT IT! THE TAXPAYERS! This is the regurgitation of the very same debunked arguments from two and five years ago. Five years ago, the police dept. did not put a warrant article forward for the tower, but Billy Baldwin was circulating at town meeting a prospectus for the project which would have been billed as a public safety issue, and an emergency need later in the year. It called for a $260,000 tower, and $510,000 of equipment to go along with it. And NONE of this would have addressed the communications issue of the PD which was low power transmission outages for the shoulder held radios. Experts stated at the time that vehicle repeaters were the most cost effective means of solving this, but Phil would have none of it. You see, with vehicle repeaters the shoulder radios only needed to transmit to the car. The higher power radio in the car, would then connect with the PD to facilitate communications. Phil admitted the cars have no blackout problems. These are used by police depts. across the country and chiefs in those communities swear by them. WE COULD HAVE INSTALLED VEHICLE REPEATERS IN EVERY CAR FOR A TOTAL OF $27,465.00! Not the $770,000 it would take to erect Phils phallic symbol in the center of town. By the way, no one has ever ID'ed or found the communications equipment that the chief got through Plaistows grant 6 years ago, and was certified to have been installed on a tower in Atkinson when in reality it was stored in a closet somewhere. So many question, so much wasted taxpayer dollars, all to feed one man's fragile ego, When will it all stop?

Electioneering, the sequel to the sequel of the sequel.

As it does every election season, this Issue once again rears it's ugly head. And, as always the prime practitioner of this lost art is our Chief of Police! Yes, the very man charged with UPHOLDING THE LAW.....(chuckling).... sorry, could not contain myself at that phrase applied to that man. Many will remember the Chiefs admission that he had petitions signed in the Elderly Affairs cruisers, and that he had people come down to the Pd to sign petitions for his warrant articles. Many more will remember that the Chief of Police owns a private non profit corporation, that although it is not affiliated with the town, and is not accountable to the town for its contributions and spending, is housed in the PD, uses PD personnel, equipment, time, space, and the Elderly Affairs customer list to do it's fundraising. These are valuable town funded resources unavailable to other non profits in the area. Well word has it that another non profit in town has petitioned the selectmen for "equal access to town resources". So far the selectmen have declined to either grant this request or acknowledge the chief's use of his official status for personal political purposes as well as for his own non profit's success. Surely if any other business in town used taxpayer funded town resources for their own gain, there would be an uproar, and the selectmen would put an immediate stop to it, but somehow when the transgressor is the Chief of Police, the public and the selectmen are unusually quiet. So much for their fiduciary responsibilities. It is high time that these quasi illegalities stop. The Chief has spent decades driving a truck through loopholes in the laws, and crowing about this immoral ability of his. This column would admonish him to act honorably, but it has become apparent over the last decade that this unappointed, unqualified, interlocutor has no understanding of that term.

Town wins against Osborns, but THEY win TOO!

Article submission please. Supreme Court Decision of Osborn Appeal . The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Rockingham No. 2011-085 TOWN OF ATKINSON v. MALBORN REALTY TRUST & a. Argued: June 13, 2012 Opinion Issued: August 17, 2012 Sumner F. Kalman, Attorney at Law, P.C., of Plaistow (Thea S. Valvanis and Sumner F. Kalman on the brief, and Mr. Kalman orally), for the petitioner. McGrath Law Firm, P.A., of Concord (Peter McGrath and Jason Beecher on the brief, and Mr. McGrath orally), for the respondents. CONBOY, J. The respondents, Malborn Realty Trust and its trustee, Daniel Osborn, appeal an order of the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) that enjoined Osborn from occupying property in Atkinson because he lacks an occupancy permit and that imposed a civil penalty for this violation. See RSA 676:15 (2008), :17 (Supp. 2011). The petitioner, Town of Atkinson (Town), cross-appeals the trial court’s failure to award it attorney’s fees. See RSA 676:17, II. We affirm the trial court’s issuance of the injunction, modify its imposition of civil penalties, reverse its denial of attorney’s fees, and remand. The trial court found the following facts. Before 2007, the subject property was a seasonal camp. In June 2007, the Town’s zoning board of adjustment granted Osborn a variance to convert the property to year-round use and to construct a new three-bedroom home. One condition of the variance was that access to the property had to “meet the requirements of the Police and Fire Departments.” In 2008, Osborn applied for a building permit. The Town’s fire chief reviewed the application and recommended that the building permit be conditioned upon the installation of a sprinkler system because the property had poor access to a class V highway. See RSA 229:5 (2009) (setting forth highway classification system). The building inspector adopted this recommendation, and, in May 2008, issued the conditional building permit. On September 30, 2008, Osborn’s wife, Margaret, met with the Town’s fire chief to discuss the Osborns’ plan to improve access to the property by constructing a new driveway. The fire chief agreed that a satisfactory driveway could eliminate the need for a sprinkler system. In October 2008, the Osborns submitted a proposed plan to build a driveway with a 23% grade, which the Town immediately rejected. In subsequent meetings, the fire chief told Margaret that although the required grade was 8%, he would accept a driveway with a 10% grade. The Osborns never submitted a satisfactory driveway plan to the fire chief. Ultimately, without the fire chief’s consent, they installed a driveway with a 13.7% grade. They did not install a sprinkler system. Because the home lacked the required sprinkler system, the Town declined to issue a certificate of occupancy for it. Nonetheless, the Osborns moved into the home on November 30, 2009. According to the Town’s building code, it is unlawful to occupy a building without a certificate of occupancy. On or about December 14, 2009, the Town served Osborn with notice that occupying the home violated the Town’s building code. The notice stated that the Town could bring an enforcement action under RSA 676:15 and an action for civil penalties and attorney’s fees under RSA 676:17. In March 2010, the Town filed such an action. Later that month, following a hearing on the Town’s request for a preliminary injunction, the court ordered Osborn to vacate the premises. He and his family did so on July 1, 2010. After conducting a bench trial and a view of the premises, the trial court: (1) permanently enjoined Osborn from occupying the premises without a certificate of occupancy; (2) ruled that no certificate of occupancy could be issued until a sprinkler system is installed in the house; and (3) imposed a civil penalty of $109,725. The trial court also ruled that the Town was the prevailing party and was entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to RSA 676:17, II. Although the court originally awarded the Town reasonable attorney’s fees of $20,000, it later vacated this award in its entirety in response to the respondents’ motion for reconsideration. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. The respondents challenge the trial court’s decision to issue the requested injunction and, alternatively, its calculation of the civil penalty. In its cross-appeal, the Town challenges the trial court’s denial of its request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. We first address the respondent’s appeal. For those of you unfamiliar with this case, here are the headlines. The Osborns bought 3 small lake lots up on Valcat ln., and combined them to build a McMansion on the property. Originally they were approved for a 1,400 sq.ft. house because of the lot size, and it's inaccessibility to fire emergency equipment. They PROMISED to install a sprinkler system in exchange for approval for a 2,600 sq.ft. home. ONE condition was that they had to have direct access to a Class V road. They CLAIMED they did, not mentioning that they had to destroy Carol Davis property to lay it across her land to comply. They did, and Mrs. Davis sued, won, and they lost their pretty new illegal driveway. In the mean time, they CHANGED the plans they submitted to get their building permit, hiring Silverlake associates to design a 4,000 sq.ft. McMansion. In spite of the fights with the town, as they tried to wiggle out of their promise to install the sprinkler system, they built the current 4,000 sq.ft. home, while building their driveway across Mrs. Davis' land. Although the town refused to give them an occupancy permit without reducing the grade to comply with their permit (8%), the town later relaxed this to 10%, NEITHER of which they met, They MOVED INTO THEIR NEW HOME! They cut down the top of the ridge along Valcat ln, by approximately 10 ft. in their quest to reduce the grade, but the closest they could come was a 13.9% grade. Not enough for fire trucks to make it up. So to summarize; They applied and got a permit to build a 2,600 sq.ft. home with a sprinkler system, and direct access to a Class V road, with no more than an 8% grade. They then redesigned the home to approximately 4,000 sq.ft., with NO sprinkler system, NO direct access, NO 10% grade, and they DESTROYED their neighbors land to do so. AND they have been living illegally in the house for most of 3 years! They lost their case with Mrs. Davis. They Lost their case with the town. but here is the sad part. The Town SHOULD have received a fine of $275 the first day they were living in the house illegally, and $575 every successive day. BUT, because of how Sumner filed this, and the notification of this fine system the town was shorted this money, only being eligible for $50,000 in fines, and $20,000 in legal fees. Had the town PROVED they were living in the house illegally all that time, the fines would have been around the $500,000 mark. Corruption lives and thrives in Atkinson. As does Crappy Neighbors!

Obama's Green Energy Debacle

President Obama has chosen not to work "diligently" to create jobs, in his first three years. Getting his health care plan passed was of paramount importance to him. He chose instead to "advance green energy" which "will create millions of new quality high paying American jobs". So far this dream has been an economic nightmare. While the Heritage Foundation has done yeoman's work on this issue, here are some details the general public may have missed, as details are the victim of the President's daily lies. Through various programs the President has dedicated over $90 billion dollars to his "green initiative". Under his stimulus plan, there were the various loan guarantee programs(remember Solyndra?, the 1703, and 1705 programs. Under the Dept. of Energy there was the now infamous 1605 programs. Under these programs, initially 26 companies got taxpayer monies. An Additional 13 companies got monies through various spending bill amendments. Out of these companies 80% of them were run, founded, or connected to Large Obama Donors, and bundlers. Most of them are now bankrupt. As to the bankruptcies, 26 green energy companies received $42B, in total. here are the bankruptcies; Solar Trust of America:Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 Bright Source:Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Solyndra: Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology. LSP Energy: LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012 Energy Conversion Devices: On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy Abound Solar: Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now. SunPower: SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling. Beacon Power: Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all. Ecotality: ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term. A123 Solar: A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M. UniSolar: Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help. Azure Dynamics: Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK. The Amonix Solar: manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened. Evergreen Solar: Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money. Ener1: Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt. Add to this, the rest of the energy loans, and grant from the DOE; Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology. Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011 Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol. Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009 Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes. Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing. Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer. Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation. The president likes to tout his green energy street crd, but this is the dirty underbelly of his economic capriciousness, that he will not tell America. This is what happens when Government chooses winners and losers based upon Political considerations, rather than economic analysis.

More Atkinson Accounting Abuses

ARTICLE SUBMISSION: From the Eagle Tribune; Anonymous said... June 6, 2012 Atkinson audit shows need to separate funds By Cara Hogan chogan@eagletribune.com The Eagle Tribune Wed Jun 06, 2012, 01:50 AM EDT ATKINSON — An audit of the town's books turned up a problem in the financial reporting of two different nonprofit funds. The town's yearly audit report, conducted by Tim Greene, partner at accounting firm Roberts and Greene, came out this week. Greene said the audit found the Police Detail Fund and Recreation Revolving Fund were not separated correctly in the town's financial reports. "It has to do with internal reporting," he said. "They report both in one fund. I'm recommending that they track the funds separately. It's two separate activities, so you want to keep them separate." He said the finances of the two funds are not mixed up, but it's an internal issue that needs to be fixed so there is no mix-up in the future. Selectmen's Chairman Fred Childs said the board plans to fix the issue. "We'll change it; it's very simple," he said. "That will be done right away." This is not the first time Atkinson has had an issue with two different town funds being connected in some way. The state Attorney General's Charitable Trust Unit investigated the joint accounting between the Elderly Affairs Department and the Police Department in 2008. The state ruled the two groups had to separate their funding because of a conflict of interest. Childs said the past issues make the board eager to alter the finances of the two funds now. "This is sort of similar to the Elderly Affairs and the Police Department," Childs said. "It's two different accounts, so they can be looked at separately." Police Chief Philip Consentino said he was concerned to hear there was any confusion in that fund, but glad to hear it will be quickly resolved. "It's classified under one fund, where there could be 10 or 12 individual funds," he said. "They want the police department separate from everything, which is absolutely fantastic. It will be rectified and nothing has gone astray. My money is safe." The Police Detail Fund is money that comes from every officer who works an outside detail job, he said. "Every time an officer goes out on detail, X number of dollars from each hourly wage goes to the special fund," Consentino said. "So ,whenever a cruiser is used, $10 goes into the account. That special account can only be used for capital expenses for the police department. It has nothing to do with recreation." Otherwise, the town had no financial problems, according to Greene. "We had no other significant comments," he said. NOTE TO PHIL: IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY! IT IS THE TAXPAYERS, YOU ARROGANT.........

Time to Honor Those who sacrificed for us.

MAcciard said... ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE: On this Memorial Day, when we have young men and women from our town standing in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still more serving around the world, I would like to take a moment of reflection out of our beach and bar-b-que times to remember and honor those who have ensured that we have this time. A military member is someone who at one time in their life wrote a check to the rest of us; men, women, children, democrat and republican alike, liberal and conservative, black and white, rich and poor, to stand up and do for us what we can not do for ourselves. They wrote a check that stated; "I will pay any amount up to and including my own life to protect and defend the rights and freedoms of the people of the United States of America." Memorial day was originally May 30th and it was called decoration day. That was the day set aside to place wreaths, flowers, flags, and other decorations on the graves of our fallen heroes. Some 40 or so years ago, a compliant Congress at the behest of a strong labor union lobby moved it to the "Monday following the last weekend in May" to effect a long weekend that signaled the start of summer. In that move the meaning of Memorial day has been obscured. I hope that we all take a moment out of our day, today, to stop and think of those men and women who are serving currently, and those who have made the ultimate gift to the rest of us. To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and most of all Marines, I want to take a moment to say, Thank you. Mark R. Acciard

Search for new superintendent will cost Timberlane $30,000

From the eagle Tribune;

Search for new superintendent will cost Timberlane $30,000

PLAISTOW - The Timberlane Regional School District will be starting a national search today for a new superintendent, hoping to find the right candidate by July 1.

At a meeting last night of the SAU 55 Board, 15 Timberlane and Hampstead school board members voted to pay the New England School Development Council $30,000 to search the country for the right person to replace superintendent Richard La Salle, who announced two weeks ago that he will be leaving this summer for a new job at an educational nonprofit center. La Salle makes $138,679 a year.

Chairman Gregory Hoppa explained the board had four options to search for a new superintendent and they debated each one.

"We can perform a national search for around $30,000," he said. "Next is a regional search by the New Hampshire School Board Association that would cost $10,000 and take 12 to 16 weeks. The next process is an in-house search, which would cost about $2,000. I don't consider anything a coronation, but we do have the option to select an internal candidate if we have someone of merit."

Business director George Stokinger said the district budget could absorb the cost of any of the four search options without a problem. But Hoppa said the real issue for the district is time, since they need a new superintendent to start well before the next school year.

"Other districts have had five or six months to do this," he said. "We have a start date of July 1 and this affects the talent pool. But I'm opposed to putting in someone as an interim superintendent. You gain more time, but that person does not have the authority to do what needs to be done."

Board member Peter Bealo said the board shouldn't shy away from paying more for a thorough search.

"It will cost us more in the long term if we don't make a good decision," he said. "I have great difficulty with this committee doing all the work to hire a candidate. No one on the Timberlane board are seasoned HR pros that can hire executives. I don't believe we can do all of this ourselves."

And Jaye Dimando said it might be possible to get the done more quickly than they might expect.

"Derry started their search for a superintendent in January and had a new superintendent in March," she said. "We could give a deadline."

But some board members did not believe the search process was necessary at all.

"I'm a proponent of hiring from within," Judy Graham said. "Existing employees generally require less training. They're familiar with the staff, the facilities and the culture. They know the people on the board and they can hit the ground running. It will save money. I would not feel bad about making a decision tonight."

She did not name assistant superintendent Winfried Feneberg as her preferred candidate, but did imply that he should have the job,

But other board members urged caution, including Nancy Steenson.

"I don't think anyone here would buy a car without doing research first," she said. "This is so much more important. It would be irresponsible to make a decision without doing research and getting resumes. If we get resumes from in-house candidates we can give them an edge for those reasons. But we need to at least open this up regionally."

Though La Salle is leaving, he also gave his advice to the board.

"As you go through this process, there's a lot of optimism in the beginning but you're going to run into some realities," he said. "The state of New Hampshire pays about 40 percent less than Massachusetts and less than many other states in the country. There is a critical shortage of district administrators. If you look at searches done by local districts, the number of candidates is relatively modest. It's the same short list of candidates applying to the same jobs."

PARTIAL ARTICLE