Category: Berlin NH

Where is everybody?

I went to the public information meeting about ATVs last night. Where there were no more than 20 people, and most of them were AVATV club members who already are familiar with the rules. It reminded me about the fire information meeting earlier this year, where again almost no one showed up. At city council often it’s just the daily paper’s reporter and me, and everyone else is at home.
Was it always this way, or did more people come out to these things at one time? I looked at the turnout statistics for municipal elections, and in 2005 it was about 15 percent. That isn’t a lot of involvement in community government.
Some people are obviously frustrated by that level of investment, though I wonder if that is significantly lower than other cities around the state.
City government allows people to vote in representatives, essentially so they don’t have to show up to meetings. Granted that might work if everyone read the newspaper or if the meetings were televised, but currently there are lots of people that are uninformed. I’m not sure what anyone can do about that.

I’ve covered the burned out buildings on Main Street pretty extensively, with several in depth stories. I saw the Vote Jobs ad in the daily that caused such a stir, and I’m not sure exactly what to get out of it. The process is one dictated by state law, and there isn’t anything any councilor could have done different about it. But if people aren’t informed and didn’t read my other articles about RSA 155B than its unlikely they’ll read the next one.
There will be lots of unanswered questions in this election. Councilor Landry pointed out a great question about Mr. Grenier’s stance on Clean Power. Mr. Grenier pointed out a great question on municipal finance, whether the budget should be balanced with a bond. Both of these issues came up to me Monday night, when the paper is essentially done and headed to the printer for Wednesday, and the next paper comes out the day after the election. Would I like to see these questions answered? Yes. Will I be able to do it before the election? No.

I’d like to say the Reporter has the tools to filter through all the election rhetoric to provide a clear view to residents, but it doesn’t. Four editions of my paper come out after the closing period before the election, and with the closing period being a Monday night that essentially rules out any good reporting for that Wednesday’s paper.
So I’ve got three papers to paint a clear picture, while not ignoring other news, like ATV trails and new businesses opening and PUC hearings. I do what I can, but it won’t ever be complete.

Couple that with low newspaper readership and it seems likely the paper has little influence in the discussion. I spend my days going around Berlin and talking to people, and what I find is many don’t understand the issues. People are mad about the buildings on Main Street, and they blame the council for taking them using immanent domain laws. Not possible, but they’re mad anyway. They blame the council for Laidlaw not moving into town. According to Councilor Mark Evans, who is not opposed to the project, the council hasn’t slowed Laidlaw down at all. But the council receives the criticism.
The same will be true of any future council, whether the incumbents stay in office or the challengers win. The council will get blamed for the city’s flaws, regardless of their ability to fix them. In many ways its remarkable people are ever reelected, considering how easy a target the council is.

If more people showed up I think they would have a different view. The council, the police department, the fire department, the city departments all work diligently to preserve, protect and improve the city. It’s not hard to realize that when you’re there every day. There are people who work primarily for their own interests in the community, but mostly its selfless sacrifice. If people showed up they’d see it. What I put in a paper only a small minority of the city reads doesn’t matter; how involved in the community people are does.

I get frustrated by this. I started this blog, and I’ve worked hard for the Reporter, because I want to see Berlin flourish. But these things don’t decline overnight, and it won’t return quickly either. There is hope for Berlin. The frustrating has been fading into the past, and it will continue to do so. The signs of new blood that I’ve been trying to point out in the Reporter haven’t disappeared just because it’s election season—they have increased. The ATV trail will be open in another week, and there are several new stores opening on Main Street. The pizza place that was closed for so long is opening again, and the southern burned out building is scheduled to be cleaned up in the next few weeks. In all, it’s a progressive, creative, revitalizing time for Berlin.

The fact is, no candidate is going to turn around Berlin’s job market in two years. That’s a hard truth campaign signs can’t fix. Because of that the next election is likely to be as fraught as this one.

I have had hold back flashes of despair for Berlin when the world seems aligned against it. I’m no more immune than anyone else to those feelings. It isn’t my city, but in covering it I’ve come to care about its future and its people. It deserves more than to be the butt of statewide jokes.
And I see dedicated people working to improve it, quite skillfully, without the support of residents. Many have lost the drive to pay attention to what goes on at city hall, but that can’t affect the people working there. The city needs those people, with passion and ideas and new ways at looking at things, to move projects forward and helping the city evolve. A few empty seats, I pray, won’t be enough to dissuade people who care.

Update: There was a good turnout tonight to the debate between candidates Mr. Grenier and Mr. Bertrand. It was a worthwhile exercise, and it did more to inform the public than a dozen newspaper articles. It speaks to the value of showing up. A fair portion of the city did tonight, and I hope many more do so again on Tuesday.

NHPR News

I got my script approved for my Berlin ATV story. Going to record it tomorrow and send it to them. It should play sometime near the end of the week. Working to fill the rest of the state in on what’s going down up in Berlin.

So donate to NHPR—maybe a small part of that donation will come back to me.

Update: Just finished mixing the final audio and uploading to NHPR’s server. I’ll try to keep people posted as to when it airs, but often I get a call half an hour before hand telling me to listen in. Usually they play around 5:45 p.m. and then 7:15 a.m the next day. I would expect it either today, tomorrow or Friday, so make sure to listen.

After it plays I’ll be sure to include a link here for anyone who misses it.

Update: The story aired tonight at 5:45-ish. Let me know if you heard it. I caught it, and a friend who owns a house in Berlin gave me a call about it. It will also be on tomorrow morning. I’ll do a fresh post with the story shortly and a link, but I don’t want to try to overshadow the debate video with good press about Berlin. I pitched it with a Berlin versus it’s past perspective, so there isn’t a lot of controversy about the trail in the story. The fact is at all the public hearings and discussions about the trail I only heard one person opposed to it. So I think it’s a pretty accurate reflection of the situation. I hope you get to hear it.

Is it over yet?

I know, election season is supposed to be fun, but I’m looking forward to it ending. In many ways it did for me tonight, though I know it hasn’t.
I live in a parallel world where anything that happens after Monday doesn’t matter. I won’t be reporting on the election next week because by the time my paper comes out the election will be over. Sure, I’m partial sponsor of a debate Wednesday night, but I won’t cover it in the paper. In reality I’m off the election ride, while Berlin has a week left to go.
The council meeting tonight was basically one stump speech after another, but the only people who heard it were Mel Liston, Bill Gabler, Barry Kelley and Jon Edwards. Sometimes I wonder if all the rhetoric is just for me and daily paper reporter, or does everyone like hearing their opinions supported by the group? The council is annoyed with the county commissioners. OK. They don’t like what PSNH is doing. Fine. They are more favorable to Clean Power than Laidlaw. Great. They go around and around saying the same thing over and over again, each backing the other one up. Honestly, it might be nice to have a strong pro-Laidlaw voice on the council—at least then there’d be someone to disagree.

I have been trying to visit entrepreneurs while reporting for the Reporter. I like pointing them out because they often get missed in this downtrodden city. As a result I am often surrounded by people who see Berlin’s future 30 years down the road, with creative ideas and amorphous plans. The city will be completely post-industrial, they say, without any of the squabbles now flying around city hall.

That leaves out what the heck people will do for work for the next 25 years, a time-frame city leaders will likely have a hard time making so blissful.
Mr. Grenier might win the election. His signs are crap, but his experience and dedication to the city is real. He disagrees with the current council, and his tactics have raised some eyebrows, but as I understand it this has been a clean fight by Berlin standards. He is advocating for the unemployed and the underemployed, by talking to them instead of by talking about them. In an election, being able to communicate with constituents is key, and Mr. Grenier does an excellent job of it.
I would think this council would get that. They hate the way Laidlaw does everything in the dark, and they love the way Clean Power holds their hand every step of the way. But the council is running city hall more like Laidlaw, and Mr. Grenier has taken the CPD approach.
I don’t have any idea what’s best for Berlin. What if CPD never comes to fruition? Or Laidlaw? Or neither makes Fraser viable, or no light industry follows suit? The Vote Jobs crew is right, the city needs jobs, but it needs more than that for a future. It needs an infrastructure that draws talent back to the city, and I have yet to hear anyone mention a good method for doing that.

I read Norm Charest’s economic report for BIDPA the other day. I’m tired of the doom and gloom. I’m not sure how many of these reports I’ve read that mention we’ve entered a post-industrial economy. So what? Berlin has to change? No kidding. I wonder just what these are reports are supposed to accomplish. They make a good downer; other than that I’d say they’re useless.

I like Norm. He has some great ideas. His challenge is the same as the rest of Berlin—he knows the city too well. It’s hard to come up with possibility in the place that for too long has suffocated your best ideas.

The seed is in Berlin to move forward. It has anything to do with who is elected to city hall. It has has nothing to do with Laidlaw or CPD either. These are symptoms, traits of a city that is still learning to walk without a smokestack for a cane. The creativity is draining from Berlin like blood on the pavement, and no one knows how to scoop it up. But it will pool regardless.

You know who’s cool in Berlin? Pam Laflamme. Andre Caron. Corinne Cascadden. They look to the future. They have unique perspectives and creative ideas and a capacity for problem solving. These are the bureaucrats, and they blow most Berlin’s “creative entrepreneurs” out of the water! What’s wrong with this picture?

Berlin has the people it needs to be great. Interesting things happen where different words meet, and worlds collide in Berlin. Creativity breeds there. It becomes infectious. The city has to harness that energy, but that won’t come from city hall. If the current council isn’t the next council I won’t complain, because tonight’s meeting was nothing but politics. The game the council accused Mr. Grenier of playing last week was in full swing tonight in the chambers. Luckily the real Berlin isn’t contained within city hall. It’s in the streets. It’s on the pavement. It pools where you’d least expect it.

Undecided?

I just realized something I wanted to ask LPJ readers. I know this is a heated election, but are there any undecided voters out there? I was just thinking about the debate, which, if last week’s council meeting is any indication, will likely have some spirited discussion. But will people be there to make up their minds, or is it more just to see a little sport? I feel like most of the people I interact with have their minds made up already. For them, they could vote now without fear of changing their minds in the next week.

Are there any undecided voters out there? If so, please speak up.

Thanks.

Sign of the Times

I just wanted to post a quick comment someone made this morning. I drove into town and noticed that many of the signs were missing for Paul Grenier, Michael Rozak Beverly Ingersoll and Robert Danderson. Because they were put up in groups they were hard to miss, but now as you drive into town there are empty wooden stakes sticking up everywhere. My first thought was someone had pulled off the signs—maybe a Bertrand supporter got aggressive and took matters into their own hands.
That thought was wrong, though; it was the weekend weather that did them in. As I drove on upper Main Street I saw four of the Vote Jobs signs, only two still on the stake. The other two were laying on the ground. Someone told me there are signs strewn across the city. I haven’t noticed them, but I have noticed all the empty stakes. In fact, I only saw one three-pronged Vote Jobs flower with all its pedals intact.
The Bertrand signs are still up, however, and so are new ones for Ryan Landry. I don’t know when the Landry signs went in, but the Bertrand ones withstood the weekend weather.

Here’s the comment worth posting: Someone said this morning the election should be decided by the quality of the election signs. I couldn’t help but laugh. What an interesting version of democracy that would make. Its foundation is a little shaky, having no roots in the Magna Carta, but it would be one way to choose officials.

Another week of elections ahead. Make sure you don’t miss the debate Wednesday night, and if you’ve got questions for candidates please send them in. Thanks.

Update: As I left city hall last night I noticed a number of the signs had been repaired or replaced.

Councilor Evans Backs David Bertrand For Mayor

Councilor Mark Evans, the fiscal conservative from ward three, has announced his support for Mayor David Bertrand. The efforts of candidates Paul Grenier, Bob Danderson and Michael Rozek appear aligned to remove a number of the incumbents, and my conversations with these men indicate their politics run close to those of Mr. Evans. Both Mr. Danderson and Mr. Rozek called themselves fiscal conservatives, and Mr. Grenier was pushing to cut capital improvement spending at last week’s council meeting. Their political rhetoric seems like they would line up well with Mr. Evans, but apparently he doesn’t agree.
I have yet to get back to Mr. Evans to talk more about this. He recently emailed me with his endorsement of Mayor Bertrand. I will hopefully have something about it in next week’s Berlin Reporter.

An a side note, why do people feel they know which way the election will go? There have been a lot of comments on LPJ concerning how the former councilors and mayor are likely to sweep the election, and that it will be the end of forward progress from city hall. Is that based on some sort of polling? Or conversations with lots of people? Or the word on the street? I have spoken to a number of people, including candidates and city employees, who feel the race will be tight, but they don’t know which way it will go. I’m wondering what information people commenting on LPJ have that these people don’t have? Are you stating your fears, or do you have some reason to think the election will go one way or another?

Update: I just spoke with Councilor Evans. Look for a story in next week’s paper.

Taxes, Improvements, Politicians and Papers

I am supposed to meet with Ron Goudreau and Paul Grenier (separately) to talk capital improvements and taxes. Mr. Grenier said the bond will result in at least a $1.67 increase in the tax rate, which currently is $29.82. Mr. Goudreau said the $29.82 includes the first year’s repayment on the bond. There won’t be a tax increase, he said, because the bond payments are already figured into the tax rate.
I minored in economics, so hopefully I have enough financial understanding to sort this out for the voters. I don’t think it’s enough for a reporter to write down what people are saying; they have to dig into the numbers and analyze what’s really there. There were sharp words at Monday’s meeting, and I reported them as well as I could. Now it’s time for me to look into the numbers behind the numbers.
So expect that in next week’s Berlin Reporter. I’m glad there are still people out there willing to pay the 50 cents. It keeps me in a job, doing what I love.

Side notes:

  • Mayoral debate at the Berlin city hall auditorium, Wednesday, October 28, at 6:30 p.m. Come see who you’re voting for and learn their positions.
  • It is constructive remarks like those LPJ has received recently that convince me to allow anonymous comments. Glad to see the discussion stay clean. I appreciate people posting, no matter the viewpoint, as long as their goal is to build a better Berlin. So thanks.
  • I bought the domain lastprintjournalist.com. I just put in a placeholder because I haven’t built the site yet, but I feel like I’ve got a fairly consistent thing going here, and I’d like to build it out. Journalists have to have websites these days, and I’m no exception. I’m not looking to move on from the Reporter, but I’m always looking for freelance opportunities, and if I’ve got a website to direct people to so they can see some of my work, it helps. Eventually I hope to have the the blog there, to house everything in one place, but for now I’m just saving my spot.
  • There’s a public hearing next Tuesday about the ATV trail.
  • It’s time to donate to NHPR. I freelance for them occasionally, and I’ll be reporting on Berlin’s ATV trail sometime in the next few weeks. They need money to pay me, so please, help me out by helping them.

I reread my story about Laidlaw investors saying they intend to send Mr. Grenier campaign contributions. It’s funny, but by the time stories come out I haven’t looked at them in a week. When I received calls and criticism about it, I hadn’t looked at it in a while. But after reading the story today I realize how off base those comments are. I thought maybe I’d screwed something up and been unfair to Mr. Grenier. But no, I was right on, and if I had to do it again I’d write the same story. I represented Mr. Borowski fairly, including his ties to the area and his good reasons for wanting to see Laidlaw succeed. I represented Mr. Grenier fairly as well, including his hesitation before he said he would reject any money from outside the city.
I thought maybe I’d left those things out. I thought maybe I’d been too worried about length and edited the story down. But no, I didn’t, I represented the various parties fairly and accurately. And in the end, no one in the story looks all that bad.

Sometimes accurate reporting makes people look like crap. That sucks, but that’s what I’m there for. Maybe there is some meeting going on in Berlin that, if made public, would make everyone look like jerks. I hope to be there. A few phone calls and complaints aren’t going to scare me off. My goal isn’t to make anyone look bad. In fact, no one has to answer to me. They are answering to the residents of Berlin. And of Gorham. And Milan, Dummer, Randolph and Shelburne. I’m asking questions for those people, because they don’t have the time to. It takes more than calling a fair story biased to make me stop. Or a page full of numbers.

P.S. Ryan — You don’t want to buy the paper if you stay in city government, because I won’t be able to curb my reporting for your sake. Sometime you’ll make an asinine comment that I’ll put in the paper, and you’ll want to fire me, and I’ll only have been doing my job, and it’ll be a great big mess. I agree, I’d like to see more people reading the Reporter. But the paper doesn’t come with the printing press. The daily owns their press. It’s in Conway and it prints three other daily papers; that makes their business viable. The Reporter is owned by Salmon Press, which owns 10 other weeklies around the state, which makes their business viable. Buy a press to print one paper and you’ll lose money at the speed of sound. Launching an online paper cuts that cost, but the advertising revenue online is negligible, not enough to pay for quality reporting. Berlin is struggling with the same challenges the rest of journalism is: how do you support quality reporting in the Internet age? Luckily community papers are successful enough to continue surviving. As far as I know, our market isn’t growing yet. I hope my reporting will change that, but in a world where people live more and more online that may not be realistic. There are blogs, yes, but few places online for high quality local news. Residents don’t need to read people’s opinions about what is going on in Berlin—they need the facts about what is going on in Berlin. There is not, at this time, a good model for how to provide that. I’m trying to resurrect a dinosaur here, singlehandedly. Berlin has a shot at rebirth, and it’s much greater than that of newspapers.
And Jon, thank you for the compliment on LPJ as a news destination. I’m glad people come here for news and to share their opinions, but there is 10 times as much news in every Reporter than goes on here and more in depth analysis. My story about shareholders didn’t break here, remember, it broke in the Reporter. We all come here talk about it, and people add value to my work by commenting here, but the fact is this is a side project that doesn’t pay for groceries or pay my rent. The real news is in the paper; this is just the 21st century water cooler.

I wish I had an answer for newspapers. They are so valuable. I love my work, and I think it is integral to maintaining democracy. I’m lucky to have a community and an employer that supports me. What the future holds I don’t know. Will Berlin support two papers when everyone gets high-speed Internet and starts posting their ads on Craigslist? I doubt it. Which paper will fold, or will both? I don’t know. But right now, at a time where Berlin needs quality reporting so residents can make important decisions about their future, the two papers are still there. Hopefully a new model will be created before the old one dies. Otherwise there won’t be anyone out there to find out who is giving money to what causes or who’s numbers about the tax rate are accurate.

So buy a paper. Maybe a subscription for your mom for her birthday? I don’t know, but I hope everyone reading this realizes the value of quality journalism. We need it, and the fact is, it isn’t free.

Anonymous Posters

I’ve had several people tell me I should restrict comments from anonymous people. I don’t want to do that, because I don’t like imposing restrictions on ideas. during tense debates, however, like are occurring this election season, commenters call people liars and thieves without signing their name. That is a sad. Everything I write has my name on it. Matt Borowski and Jon Edwards stridently disagree on politics in Berlin, but both men have the decency to sign their posts. The Internet has given people anonymity, which doesn’t help improve the discourse. Don’t be a coward and post without signing; stand behind your convictions and let us know who you are. Mr. Borowski has, and so has Mr. Edwards. Mr. Grenier has, and so has Mr. Bertrand. These people are willing to attach a name to their comments, whether they are online or in city hall. Before you jump to criticize their beliefs ask whether you’d be willing to do it publicly. If not, don’t do it, either out in the world or online.

I feel like a middle school teacher who has to occasionally quiet the class. There are great debates going on in Berlin. I’d like to have them go on here too, without the dead weight brought by a few individuals.

To everyone engaging in the great discussions: thank you.

Election Season

Last night’s city council meeting could have filled a paper. There were more public comments and back and forth than I’ve ever seen there. I had 600 words to capture the entire meeting. That sucks. 600 words is enough to cover one issue in depth, or two issues briefly. I chose one issue in depth, which of course meant I left a lot out.
The city needs to start videotaping the meetings. I, and no other print reporter, could capture the energy of last night effectively. But I could make residents aware something worth noting happened, and then they could watch for themselves to see what really went on.
To me, last night’s meeting was almost entirely political. Both sides made their stand, their appeal to the voters. Paul Grenier, Bob Danderson and Mike Rozak could be accused of provoking the politicization of the evening, but Mayor David Bertrand’s written mayor’s report was not a reaction to their comments. Both sides were taking advantage of the opportunity.
But there were some really interesting developments. Councilor Ron Goudreau’s challenge of Mr. Grenier’s numbers was great, if for nothing else than to clearly portray the differences in the two camps. Councilor Ryan Landry passionately urged Berlin to reject Mr. Grenier’s and Mr. Danderson’s ideas. His comments were emotional, clearly rejecting the return to the past these two men represent. They would resonate with some residents, but whether they represent the views of the majority of voters is unclear.
I couldn’t imaging a more interesting meeting. The entire city should have been there to watch. The next two meetings should have even more fireworks, particularly the one the night before the election, on November 2. That will be the public hearing for the capital improvement plan resolution, which, despite the candidates’ comments, the council moved forward. I can’t wait for that one.

But I didn’t even have room for the resolution the city did pass, to allow the police department to get a $10,000 grant. And I didn’t have room to talk about how the city decided to file for interveener status with the PUC in the Clean Power/PSNH affair. I didn’t get to talk about Jon Edwards’ comments, or Barry Kelly’s comments, because I was so pressed for space.

The newspaper is a tool, but it is no substitute for civic engagement. For the next few weeks, I hope people put down the paper, shut down the computer, and come to the meetings. See what these people are really saying. Try to understand it better. The Berlin Reporter or the daily paper are a horrible filter for what happened last night. So is the opinion of almost anyone who was there, because it’s nearly impossible not to have an opinion on these issues. But if you are there you can make up your mind, without having to rely on anyone else.
I am going to meet with Mr. Grenier to try to better understand his numbers to see if what he said last night was true. I am also going to meet with representatives from the council to see if their numbers for the capital improvement plan make sense. That is the job of a paper—to try to find the truth, not just print what people say. But the two different groups have such different visions for the city, it almost doesn’t matter what they say. Their views for Berlin are worlds apart, it seems, and Laidlaw is only part of it. The community needs to make an informed decision, and it needs to make sure its city council reflects their vision of the city’s future. What does that mean? Citizens need to show up. They need to learn what these people stand for. They have to hear the arguments for themselves. No amount of mediation from the media will do it justice. Their words are more powerful than mine, and I implore Berlin to come out and hear them.