During this important election we are very lucky to have area publications such as The Andover Beacon which serves as a vehicle to inform our communities. I have appreciated the opportunity to share some of my experiences and views with readers, especially now when it is challenging to meet in person with folks. As a candidate I am engaging with residents through phone calls, learning what issues are most on their minds.
I believe that in order to solve problems we must first identify them and work to create a deeper awareness of all points of view. Once problems and issues are identified the solutions may take some time to develop as there are often many factors to consider. Making assumptions or decisions with an end result or solution in mind is not an effective way to move forward.
I read with interest some very strange assumptions about my thoughts and opinions in the October issue of the Beacon. One of these concerned special education. (I shared in the November issue of the Beacon, in another piece, my experience and views on how our public education system can work for a student who has specific special needs).
There is another controversy involving public schools, and that is funding. During my phone calls with residents I heard several times that high local property taxes, caused by our New Hampshire public school funding system, are a concern. I am not proposing one solution over another, at this time. As I state above, we must first agree that this is an issue that must be addressed. Let’s not put the cart before the horse.
The town of Warner, where I live, has created a Master Plan, with much community input, last revised in 2011. The plan states “Residents favor putting conditions on development, however, such as requiring design or performance standards, encouraging green building standards, protecting water quality and floodplains, and promoting local job creation.”
I share these details from the Warner Master Plan as reference to the vision of the Warner community. In 2017 there was a piece of property that was purchased with an intention of building a gun range. The property was adjacent to a multi-million dollar international business that was attempting to purchase that same piece of property for an expansion to add dozens of new jobs. The proposed gun range would employ only six people.
After months of public hearings with input from the business, the developer, and the community, the Zoning Board voted not to grant a variance for a proposed gun range. It is my belief that they voted this way because the gun range was not in alignment with the Master Plan’s vision of job creation and community prosperity. The fact that this was a gun range was not the determining factor in the decision, as some might want one to believe. There is often more truth to a story when one delves deeply and looks at all sides of issues.
I don’t know what the author of the October letter intended for the reader to believe in stating that I, or anyone else on the Zoning Board, was opposed to a gun range, other than to sway that reader to assume that specific individuals are opposed to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but I shall state right now that I support the Second Amendment. My husband has been a hunter and local Fish and Game Club member for over 35 years. I feel there is a place and use for weapons in our society today. It’s a huge jump to think opposition to a gun range would be tied to the Second Amendment without learning all the details of the issue.
Thank you readers for taking the time to learn a bit more about me. I respectfully ask for your vote on November 3!
Faith Minton