Freedom to read in NH

Granite Staters pride themselves on respecting individual freedoms and liberty. That is why it is very concerning that those who wish to censor and suppress speech and information used their bully-blitz emails to bombard Gov. Sununu and members of the Executive Council with disinformation and unwarranted concerns about the nomination of Mindy Atwood for state librarian.

This action is part of a strategy to attack professional, non-political librarians and civil servants, then replace them with chosen ideologues who are more than willing to censor and silence minority voices, sustain inequalities and distort and redefine democracy and free speech. They target books including some you may recognize: “The Diary of Anne Frank,” “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “the Bluest Eye,” “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” and “Nineteen Minutes.” A radical group says these books are offensive, scary, and “unAmerican.”

This action by Gov. Sununu and the Executive Council is not simply about denying promotion to a highly qualified candidate for state librarian or parental rights. Parents have the right and responsibility to decide what is appropriate media for their child. But they do not have the right to deny access to certain books and media for all children and adults. No group of individuals should have the power to dictate what authors, stories, media and ideas have a right to be heard or read.

It is time to confront these attacks on public institutions of democracy like the press, public libraries and public schools. This is a call to you to take action. Stand up for democracy to protect free speech and intellectual freedom. Make your voices heard. Call, email or write your representatives, senators, executive councilors and the governor. Support the nomination of people who are highly qualified and not those with extremist political agendas. Let them know New Hampshire citizens support our public libraries and the right to a free press, education, literacy and intellectual freedom.

Linda Tanner

Georges Mills

Hartford tax plan remains unclear

The proposed 1% local sales tax raises significant concerns about its fairness, economic impact, and long-term implications for Hartford residents. While proponents highlight potential property tax relief, this tax disproportionately burdens lower-income households, exacerbating economic inequality. Studies show that sales taxes, even with exemptions for essentials like food and clothing, are regressive. Families earning less than $27,500 pay over seven times more of their income in sales and excise taxes compared to the wealthiest Vermonters. This tax would further strain already struggling households, many of whom are renters unlikely to benefit directly from property tax reductions.

Moreover, this tax risks harming Hartford’s local economy. Retailers on the Vermont side of the Connecticut River already face challenges from New Hampshire’s tax-free shopping environment. Adding a local sales tax could discourage spending in Hartford, driving consumers and businesses elsewhere. The argument that Hartford’s retail sector is already diminished does not justify policies that may further erode it.

The lack of thorough analysis is troubling. Questions remain about who truly benefits from this tax and how its burden will be distributed across income groups. Second homeowners, for example, may gain property tax relief while contributing minimally to local sales tax revenue. Renters, already squeezed by high housing costs, may see little to no benefit.

Additionally, Hartford voters previously rejected this tax proposal. Reviving it without addressing these concerns undermines trust in the decision-making process. Instead of imposing a regressive tax, Hartford should explore alternative revenue sources or focus on reducing unnecessary spending to alleviate the property tax burden.

This proposal is not the solution Hartford needs. It risks deepening economic inequities, harming local businesses, and alienating residents who deserve thoughtful, equitable governance. Let’s prioritize smarter, fairer ways to balance our town’s budget and support our community.

Patrick Danaher

Hartford

Old forests are essential

In the letter titled “Forest preservation isn’t conservation” printed in the Forum on Dec. 14, the statement “a totally old-growth, mature forest does nothing to support wildlife” caught my attention. Really? Could it be true that earth’s forests could not support wildlife if they weren’t actively managed by humans? I’m afraid this is a line that’s been given by logging — sorry, forest management — for so long that it has become accepted by many.

Here’s what science says about old-growth forests (since the 1970s “old-growth forests” has been used to describe multi-species forests that have been left alone for at least 150 years): “The trees that live in old-growth forests are the oldest, tallest, and largest living life-forms on earth.... They are the preferred habitats for numerous wildlife, including a high proportion of rare and endangered species. Serving as irreplaceable genetic banks, they preserve life-forms that achieve the greatest longevity, size, and survivability. They are scientific and educational resources, providing pristine outdoor laboratories” (Bruce Kershner, Robert T. Leverett, preface to The Sierra Club Guide to the Ancient Forests of the Northeast).

Moreover, ecologists now have proof that the greatest carbon sequestration in trees comes after many years of age: rather than planting new trees, we would do better to let existing forests grow old (“Why Keeping Mature Forests Intact is Key to the Climate Fight,” Fen Montaigne, Yale Environment 360, Oct. 2019).

These are all persuasive reasons for protecting large forests whenever we can. This definitely fits the definition of conservation. Kudos to Donna Goldberg for her work in Orange County, and to my neighbors Peter Martin and Lynn Freeman for protecting 480 acres in Meriden for proforestation — letting the forest grow old for the benefit of wildlife, and for our benefit too.

Anne Donaghy

Plainfield