GRA:


Dedicated to Securing A Truly Perfect Location for Goffstown's Future Kindergarten & Elementary Schools

To the Editor of the Goffstown News:

I tried as long as I could to stay out of the public fray with my comments, but based on the front page article in last week's paper, Charlie Carr's letter to the editor, and Amy Vellucci's Editorial, the time has come to express the facts as I know them. (Hopefully you will be able to print my entire editorial {1,000+ words}), and not edit it for content.

1. There are two main problems with the current Kindergarten site (map 5, lot 14). First, it appears that the original deed which transferred the title of the land from the State of NH to the Town of Goffstown was not consistent with the clear intent of the voters of Goffstown, the Governor, and the Governor's Council. (See item 7 below for more details on this.) Second, we all know that a third elementary school is needed in town, and in fact is on the current CIP matrix. The School District has not clearly demonstrated that the map 5, lot 14 site will adequately support a Kindergarten building, a future elementary school, and associated play fields. As taxpayers of this town, we, the members of the GRA, have asked the School District to review another town-owned parcel of land (map 5, lot 24), adjacent to the transfer station. The GRA has prepared a preliminary site plan showing the location of a Kindergarten/elementary school building, a full size soccer/football field, a full size softball field, other playground space, and more than adequate parking. The School District for some reason has opted to not even look at this parcel.

2. As a response to Charlie Carr's letter to the editor, the lawsuit filed by Collis and myself on behalf of the GRA was not "masterfully timed". The GRA has publicly voiced its opposition to this site since early February of this year, and at least two members of our association have been meeting and speaking with Dr. Lockwood since then to discuss alternatives. The lawsuit was filed as a last-ditch effort to stop what we believe is a development which is not in the best, long-term interests of either the taxpayers of Goffstown or their children. As far as Charlie's comment regarding the GRA claiming "that the money (for the lawsuit) is already in the school district budget for legal costs", that is totally unfounded. No such comment has ever been made, and it is foolish to believe that any member of the GRA thinks that.

3. As a response to Ellen Vermokowitz's comments in the lead story of last week, the GRA is not "working through the town conservation commission", and nothing we have done has slowed the issuance of any permits. The various state and federal agencies involved in permitting construction projects review and respond to those projects in the order in which they are received. If an application is incomplete, or if some errors have been made, the applicant is requested to provide additional information, or make revisions. This is exactly what happened on this project. Finally, Ms. Vermokowitz's statement that the "group is trying to overthrow the will of the public" is ludicrous. We are trying to ensure that the "will of the public" of 1977 is not overthrown.

4. As far as the Editorial written last week is concerned, I believe it would be in the best interest of all parties that the local newspaper at least have all of its facts correct before making comments in an editorial. First of all, the site in question is over a mile away from my house. I don't believe a project one mile away from me qualifies as "in my back yard". Secondly, the School District is NOT in any danger of losing the state funds for Kindergarten construction. On June 21st of this year, the State Senate extended Kindergarten construction aid until June 30, 2006. In order to qualify for this aid, the School District merely has to define a date by which the Kindergarten will be completed...there is no deadline. Finally, I find it interesting that Amy Vellucci suggests the public contact Collis or me (which is fine as far as we are concerned), yet I could not find Ms. Vellucci's home phone number in Goffstown listed in the phone book.

5. Collis Adams and I, and the rest of the GRA members for that matter, are NOT opposed to public Kindergarten. I have been associated with Kindergarten construction projects in this state for nearly 20 years, and I know better that most the long-term cost advantages of public Kindergarten as related to remedial education in subsequent grades. (It costs a lot less to properly educate a student at the Kindergarten level than to have specialists and aides helping a child "catch-up" for the next few years.)

6. I was on the original Kindergarten Study Committee in 2001, and in fact I personally prepared the conceptual drawings for the Kindergarten/elementary school building which the School District used in their June 10, 2002 Application for Public Kindergarten Aid. (I did this at no cost to the School District or Town.)

7. A quick history of the parcel in question (map 5, lot 14...located across the street from the Glen Lake boat launch). As far back as July 20, 1967, the parcel in question was intended "for the development...by the State for recreational purposes for the benefit of the people of New Hampshire". In a July 16, 1976 letter from the Water Resources Board to then Governor Meldrom Thompson, the WRB noted that, "The town proposes to use the area for conservation purposes and as a community park and playground". The WRB sent a letter to Bernard Streeter of the Governor & Council's Office stating, "It is our understanding that funds for the aquisition of this land will be largely Federal funds and the reason for the purchase is for conservation and not development uses." The minutes from the March 12, 1977 Town Meeting state, "ARTICLE 10. The article was read by Moderator, moved and seconded. (Selectman) Mr. Elmer Nickerson explained availability of State Funds for such land to be permanently green areas for no motor vehicle reacreation." The September 20, 1977 deed states only that the land "shall be used for public purposes only". We are not sure how or why the wording in the deed was so written, but clearly, it is NOT consistent with the will of the people who approved the land transfer of this parcel.

I trust the above has been helpful to all parties concerned, and I encourage anyone with questions to call me. My number is in the book.

Kurt Lauer