Nursing home vote: Does Strafford County care about elderly and homeless people? Letters

Does Strafford County care about the elderly and homeless populations?

To members of the Strafford County delegation:

I appreciate both the support and questions regarding the new nursing home and transitional housing project. This plan helps two sectors of the population that are often overlooked. And if Strafford County doesn't make the investment, then who will? If the great Nursing Home Administrator Ray Bower supports the project, then it is what the residents of the nursing home need. His years of experience and dedication to Strafford County make his recommendation worth voting to move forward.

Previous story: $170M Strafford County nursing home falls short, for now. Here's what is next.

Further, Commissioner George Maglaras understands the countywide needs of the homeless population. Clearly, the state has no plan to address homelessness, and the county has an opportunity to set the standard for New Hampshire. The  vulnerable population needs help if we are going to make change. Without this project, I have no doubt homelessness will increase and no other action will make change like this project.

The question becomes, does Strafford County care about the elderly and homeless populations? If so, the project must go forward knowing that this expense is part of a long term solution. This isn't the time to cut costs on the project. I believe we will regret it later when we are further behind serving our community and the cost will only be higher.

It is with the upmost respect that I urge you to please approve this and let's take care of the folks who need us.

Chris Maxwell

Somersworth

Write a letter to the editor: Email to opinion@seacoastonline.com

On Sept. 6, Strafford County delegation must focus on needs of the people, not politics

Aug. 25 — To the Editor:

On Aug. 24, the Strafford County delegation met to vote on the county commissioners' proposal that we approve a bond, with a ceiling of $170 million, to move the nursing home into the twenty first century.

Perhaps all of you might not know that each county legislative body, referred to as the county delegation, is made up of the New Hampshire House representatives from that county.

After almost four hours, the delegation recessed, not having been able to muster the necessary 2/3 vote.  We will meet again on Sept. 6 to revisit the issue.

I left the meeting sad that the future of the nursing home was turned into a political issue.

Aging is not influenced by political factors. The delegation members had many questions. I might have had more than most. I asked my questions and hoped to work through the answers in conversation with the commissioners, other knowledgeable professionals and the delegation members. Instead, my Republican colleagues asked for a caucus. They subsequently returned with a prepared and coordinated  presentation outlining their opposition.

There was no opportunity for any of us to discuss the disparate views through an open discussion.  We moved quickly from the Republican presentation to the vote. Two-thirds majority was necessary for passage and the vote was two short of the necessary two-thirds.

There were some county residents in attendance, and the meeting was on zoom so that interested citizens could observe the meeting. The public certainly did not see a free and open debate on an issue that effects every family in the county.

I don't expect everyone to agree, but I do expect differences to be based on analysis of the facts, life experience, judgments about economic projections, realities of an aging population, and related factors.  Partisan politics as demonstrated by calling a party caucus right in the middle of the hearing, had no place in a careful, responsible process to reach consensus.

I hope that the meeting on September 6 will focus on the future of all county residents, not based on political persuasion.

State Rep. Marjorie Smith

Durham

Elect reproductive rights champions to like Katharine Harake to NH Executive Council

Aug. 26 — To the Editor:

Our state has the lowest rate of unintended pregnancies and teen pregnancy rates in the country and some of the best maternal health outcomes. The New Hampshire Family Planning Program is part of the network of care that supports these positive measures, but in the past year, four members of the Executive Council have jeopardized these positive public health outcomes by defunding family planning providers.

Councilors Kenney, Stevens, Gatsas, and Wheeler voted against routine contracts with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Equality Health Center, and Lovering Health Center because of their anti-abortion politics — not once, but four times — even though state officials have confirmed on numerous occasions no family planning dollars cover abortion care.

Councilor Stevens’ votes are incredibly disappointing because two of the reproductive health providers she voted to defund are in her district. Both Lovering Health Center in Greenland and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s Exeter health center are in District Three. Why does Councilor Stevens want to jeopardize access to birth control, STI testing, cancer screenings, and more for her low-income and uninsured constituents?

Well-funded access to preventative reproductive and sexual health care is essential to the public health of New Hampshire. New Hampshire needs to elect strong reproductive health champions to the Executive Council this November.  It’s clear Councilor Stevens does not understand this. I’m urging you to vote for Katharine Harake to represent us in District Three on the Executive Council.

Maria DiCesare

Portsmouth

I do care about the alleged misdeeds of Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton. Here's why

Aug. 25 — To the Editor:

I do have to respond to Jay Lieberman’s very recent letter to the editor. I do agree that many of my responses in my letters may well appear, at least to you, tired and repetitive. And, yes, I do bring up Hillary and Hunter as perfect examples of misdeeds, criminal or otherwise, that the left and the media tend to gloss over as if to say “nothing happening here." To me, at least, it appears that you may well approve or just don’t care about what these two have done or have been involved in. Well, I do care. I do care when people, particularly high profile people, get off the hook because the justice system either protects them or merely looks the other way. I’ve always said there are two systems of justice, one for the elite and well protected, the other for everyone else. If you or I were caught up the shenanigans of Hillary or Hunter, we would never again see the light of day.

What is also quite apparent is that our Justice Department, and perhaps other governmental agencies, have been weaponized and are targeting conservatives and, as we have seen, regular parents that may be at odds with how are children are taught in schools. This is a very dangerous road we are on and it only reminds me of Germany in the twenties. Lady justice should be blind and no one should be considered to be above the law. This should apply to Hillary, Hunter and Trump. It is not right to be able to cherry-pick who is to be prosecuted and who is not and, at present, this is not the case. In closing, Mr. Lieberman stated that Trump lined his pockets while in office. I would ask you to provide any evidence of this that you may have or did you just throw that statement up against a wall hoping something would stick. If it is the latter, then all credibility you may have had just went up in thin air.

Dan Hurley

Dover

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Does Strafford County NH care about elderly, homeless people? Letters