Category: Berlin NH

It’s a Dirty Job…

…but somebody’s got to do it.
Several members of the city council said they wanted to step aside before the election, that they didn’t intend to run again. I’ve had conversations with almost all the incumbents, and several told me they decided to run the evening the registration period expired. One councilor even said he was torn as to whether he wanted to win or lose because of the four-year commitment a victory would mean.
I have no doubt about the motivation of every person running for council: there isn’t a person there that doesn’t want to see Berlin improve. Paul Grenier might think Laidlaw is the way to do that, and David Bertrand may have a different vision, but both are fighting for what they think is right.
What I wonder though, is how do you make committed public servants and keep them interested in serving? At some point it isn’t about an issue; it’s about how you foster civic engagement.
Tim Cayer is running unopposed for the four year seat in ward four. That’s a shame, simply for the fact that people ought to have choices. If no one is willing to challenge a candidate, the result is weak democracy. Does ward four support councilor Cayer’s stances on the issues, or do they simply have no one else to vote for? In this election, we won’t know.
Councilor Ron Goudreau is running for ward three specifically because he wanted there to be a choice. His positions contrast Mike Rozek’s sharply, and so he ran to make it a race. He didn’t want to see in ward three what is going on in ward four, so he stepped up to the plate.
In a community that is a shell of its former self like Berlin, it is understandable there might be trouble finding candidates, but at the same time the passion of the people here makes me think there must be hundreds willing to sacrifice their 300+ hours.
I know council is a big commitment, but Berlin’s work ethic is legendary. I find it hard to believe the residents of this city, who prove time and time again they will not lay down and die, are unwilling to take on a part-time job for their city.

As I understand it, it’s better now than it was. At one time there were vacant seats on the council, I’ve been told. I haven’t verified the truth of those claims, but it seems Berlin is in too exciting a time to have people sitting on the sidelines. Laidlaw or no, there is a federal prison, ATV trail inter-connectivity, new businesses and new people coming to town. Millions of dollars is being spent to remove old houses. The burned out buildings on Main Street are about to come down. The Notre Dame school will soon be changing hands. There are signs all around pointing forward, upward, and there is no better time to be involved.
I get paid to sit through those meetings every Monday night, so I can’t claim to know how it feels. But I also don’t the investment in this community the residents do. I meet people every day who have lived in Berlin all their lives and would never consider moving away. They care about this city. How do you enlist them to start acting in one more way? How do you convince them to throw their hat in the ring?

David Bertrand’s candidacy is of the utmost importance to this city. So is Paul Grenier’s. With only one of these men, democracy would fail in Berlin. It takes both of these men to offer residents a choice. Having a challenger in a race may be a bad thing depending on which side of the issue you stand on, but in terms of the health of democracy in the city and the right of residents to have their voices represented it’s invaluable. If it takes an issue like Laidlaw to get people fired up and engaged in the discussion, I hope the fight goes on for a long time. It’s better than empty seats at city hall.

Update: What a city council meeting! Can you imagine they don’t videotape those? Real life drama for political science nerds; better than Lifetime. I’ll try to put something up tomorrow, but my writing is no match for being there. If you weren’t there, you missed one heck of a show.

Hole in the ground…

I wonder if communities really want to know what is going on. Do they have a real interest in journalism that looks past the bake sales and the town events to what is going on behind the scenes?
I am working to raise people’s awareness, or at least access, to what is going on in Berlin. I intend to incorporate video, audio and written reporting on the city, because every bit of openness is more information for people to make decisions from.
People like the idea of openness, just not when they are under the microscope. But it takes an informed citizenry for democracy to work.
I didn’t pick sides, but stories quickly become partisan issues. Last week I spoke to Paul Grenier about receiving money from out of town donations, and I wrote a story that quoted him as saying he would not accept such money. I also called Mayor David Bertrand to ask him the same questions, and I investigated reports he had accepted out of town money in the past. I challenged both candidates because that is what I am supposed to do as a reporter. Both stories appeared in Wednesday’s Reporter.
People didn’t like it. I received complaints and accusations that the stories were sensationalization. It makes me wonder what people would like from their paper. Do they want to become an informed citizenry, or do they want to have their views reinforced?

The big news, to me, was what Laidlaw investors were trying to do. NOT what Laidlaw was trying to do, because they weren’t trying to do anything, and NOT what Mr. Grenier was doing, because he was doing exactly what he should: he said he wouldn’t accept those contributions. So I started the article with what those investors were trying to do, and I included Mr. Grenier’s response that the mayors seat couldn’t be bought.

And yet someone posted on LPJ that Mr. Grenier was basically running for financial gain, while people who side with Mr. Grenier said I’d thrown him under the bus.
Maybe no one reads papers anymore. Maybe they get through the first paragraph and then make up the rest of the story themselves. Maybe they just read the headlines. The story I wrote quoted Mr. Grenier as saying he wouldn’t take money, and it quoted Lou Bravakis as saying Laidlaw hadn’t tried to give money to any candidate. It laid out the facts in a pretty clear way, which may not have made the investors look great, but it pretty clearly absolved Mr. Grenier and Laidlaw from blame.
And there was a story about Mr. Bertrand. No one cared that Mel Liston of Clean Power offered Mayor Bertrand money, which he turned down. Interesting.
I don’t get it. Maybe I need tweak my writing to better focus people’s attention on who they should get mad at. I don’t believe that’s the case, however: if you’re reading a newspaper, you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind. It’s my job to lay out the facts, not to interpret them.
Was it easy to assume Mr. Grenier was at fault for investors’ actions while excusing Mayor Bertrand for Mr. Liston’s offer? Maybe he inspires stronger feelings, and therefore stronger reactions? I don’t know. Did no anyone even make it down the page to the story about Mr. Bertrand?
How about both men acted admirably in the face of attempts by out-of-town groups to influence the election? That’s what I thought the stories said, while highlighting the flagrancy of the Laidlaw investors’ actions, but that’s not what people read. I must be making a mistake in my writing, or I’ve got too high expectations for readers.

I guess it all does come down to Laidlaw. A former reporter said they stayed away from of the issue because people lost all capacity for reason whenever it came up. I learned what that reporter meant for the first time this week. That doesn’t mean I will be anymore delicate about how I report, because I don’t see any other way to get the facts out, but I will be more prepared for criticism and biased comments from both sided.

What are the community’s expectations for openness? How much of this stuff do they want to know? Are they able to make decisions if the facts are before them, or do they need to be spoon-fed their opinions? Judging by the number of people who attend city council each week, people have other concerns than how the city officials are running things. I am not trying to disappoint them by reporting on more than the latest flowerbed renovation. I see in depth coverage as what I’m supposed to do, but maybe I’m disturbing people who just want to be left alone to think the way they want to think. People want to be mad at Mr. Grenier and excuse Mayor Bertrand, without ever making it far enough into the story to see that both men are rare examples of people in Berlin who actually care. Or they want to be mad at me for exposing investors’ actions, without reading far enough to see I never accused either candidate of wrongdoing.
Both men want to do what is best for the city, but they have different views of how to get there. I do not support of oppose either one; I am a referee working to ensure a clean fight. But what people want is to have their opinions supported and a hole in the ground to stick their heads in.

Conversation with Mayor Bertrand

I talked to Mayor David Bertrand about his bid for reelection and his stances on the issues in contrast to Paul Grenier’s. A story about it will be in an upcoming paper, but I shot video of the conversation I thought might be worth posting here. It is incomplete and unedited, but it gives voters an idea of his stance on the issues. I’m shooting with a Panasonic Lumix LX3, which only shoots in 10 minute segments, so that’s why there appear to be two edits in the middle of the video. And I didn’t want to stop the conversation after I ran out of space on the card, so I only got the first 1/2 hour of our talk. I don’t know many people who would want to watch more than that anyway. The quality is also pretty low—I have a better version, but blogger won’t allow the large file. Enjoy.

Because I interviewed Mr. Grenier over the telephone I do not have video of our conversation. I will see if I can talk to him again and capture it, because he should be afforded an equal opportunity to voice his views. The more information I can get up here the better; informed voters are in the best interest of the city.

Along the same lines, on October 28 the Reporter will be hosting a mayoral debate in conjunction with the Berlin Daily Sun. It will be in the city hall auditorium at 6:30 p.m. It will be a chance for voters to come hear, meet and talk to the people hoping to represent them over the next two or four years. The main attraction will be Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Grenier answering questions about their views on the future of the city, but there will also be a chance for people running for council to speak. Hopefully lots of people will come to learn the positions of some of the less well known candidates. So please come out and get to know who you’re voting for. It’s likely to be a very close, very important election.

Gorham vs. Berlin vs. Randolph

I skipped the Berlin city council this evening to attend a public hearing in Gorham about expanding ATV trail usage to include some of the rails to trails land in Gorham, creating a corridor to Success. The conversation got heated at times as Randolph residents and several Gorham residents voiced their opposition to ATVs sharing the multi-use trails.
I couldn’t help but laugh watching the two camps, with divisions that go far beyond their preferred method of motorized or non-motorized recreation. It was a civics lesson but also an economics lesson. It was also a discussion Berlin should be watching.
Advocates for the plan want Jericho to connect to Success via Gorham, because they see potential for economic benefit in Gorham. They are betting a direct trail from Gorham will keep the ATVers sleeping and eating in Gorham, even if the Berlin allows ATVs on city streets.
If the infrastructure is already in Gorham and that trail opens, what will be the incentive to open a hotel or restaurant in Berlin? What will be the incentive to stay or eat in Berlin? Maybe there will be so many ATVers that the region will have to build excess capacity, but if not Gorham certainly has less to do to make itself the next ATV destination: it merely has to open a trail. Berlin has to build a tourist infrastructure, and that could take years instead of days.
But then there are the Randolph residents. I didn’t see one under 40, and they were not ATV riders. They talked about hiking and biking and snowshoeing and skiing, about how wonderful it is to hear the snow melt off trees on a winter’s day, and about how much they detest ATVs and snowmobiles noise. They were worried the trail might one day continue west from Gorham along the rail to trail property on U.S. Route 2, and they have been circulating emails for more than a week discussing how they can protect against such development. They have contacted representatives and senators and the executive council, and they have been amassing supporting organizations to their corner.
They were a different people talking a different language.
It goes back to the conversation I was having before, about seeing the other person’s perspective. The ATVers in the room didn’t have any appreciation for the fact that ATVs are annoying to people who don’t ride ATVs, and the non-ATVers didn’t have any appreciation for the fact that ATVers have a right to ride. Everyone just complained about the other side, while I tried not to laugh. (I feel comfortable laughing in Berlin council meetings—I know everyone there pretty well now—but this was Gorham, where I don’t know anyone.)

Berlin has something unique on this front: a lack of naysayers. In the months I’ve been covering the ATV issue I’ve heard one person speak out against it. In Gorham tonight there were 25 people that spoke against it, and 50 people came to the meeting. The room only had seats for 40, so people were standing against the walls and crammed in the doorway. It is a different issue in Gorham than it is in Berlin—the contingent of hikers and cyclists is larger there, and their perspective might make this a fight. One woman put it well, saying ATVing and other sports don’t go together well. They don’t have to be separated, she said, but it helps. In Berlin, it isn’t much work to separate the two, because there aren’t people doing other things. In Gorham, it’s much more an issue, and something that will likely inspire more debate. Randolph is like Berlin, but only the other side of the issue, so again there isn’t really a fight.

Berlin and Gorham may soon be competing for the ATV dollars, and Gorham has a head start. The ATV park may be in Berlin, but there aren’t lots of places there to spend your money if you come up for the weekend, and that will take time to change. In the meantime Gorham might take the thunder out of Berlin’s efforts to become the ATV capital of the state, simply by opening a trail.

One final thought: some people (including Chris Gamache from the Bureau of Trails) spoke of regionalization. I’ve heard that term a lot lately, from talking about schools to local government to economic development. But then, back at each town hall and city council chambers, I hear councilors and selectmen talking about how they want the businesses in their town to benefit, that they don’t care about the community down the road. The Grand Hotels, Grand Adventures initiative argues the region doesn’t have a critical mass to draw people in any one town, but as a region they do. But the region isn’t a region; it’s like Afghanistan or Africa—carved out of a map by people disconnected from its past, its future, its economy and its people. Gorham doesn’t like to be associated with Berlin, and Berlin resents Gorham’s success. No one there talks to Lancaster or Errol, and Colebrook is off by itself. Grand Hotels, Grand Adventures is an effort to make this appear a cohesive unit outside Coös County, but there is no effort to make it a cohesive unit within Coös County. It would be a shame if Gorham scoops the ATVers away from Berlin, if for no other reason than it will heighten the animosity between the two. The two communities will continue fighting each other, instead of cooperating to make each other stronger.
Mayor David Bertrand said in an interview today the current council thinks outside the box, something past Berlin city councils haven’t done. But when it comes to regionalism, this council is in step with past councils. Provincialism runs deep, and it seems to be a box the region can’t find its way out of. In a city and a region searching for useful answers to complex questions, it’s a shame to see so much animosity directed at people stuck in the same boat.

Quebec

I went for a short visit to Quebec City this weekend. My wife and I stayed at the Chateau Frontenac (we had coupons left over from our honeymoon), took in the sights and bought a lot of wine. While there we had a number of discussions about why rural Canada seems to be doing better than rural America. On Canadian television some Canadian politician was talking about how the Canadian economy is no longer in decline. All around Quebec factories were chugging away. It was strange to drive north from northern New Hampshire to find a thriving economy, because I’ve always looked at the region’s northern location as the big hurdle to success.

What are ingredients for a robust economy? We drove through Sherbrooke and Coaticook yesterday, one with its thriving industry and a bustling economy, the other with its pastoral surroundings and cute downtown. What have they got that Berlin is missing? I know the traditional answer of a highway appeals to some people, but that doesn’t strike me as enough. Berlin was an export town for a century—the roads didn’t all the sudden disappear.

And Coaticook, with its one hotel, made me worried for Berlin. I’d been there before on a bicycle tour, so I knew it was a cute little town next to a beautiful gorge. We could break up the drive between Quebec City and home, I thought, and visit another side of Quebec. But pastoral countryside and a stunning gorge haven’t resulted in tourist infrastructure. The only hotel was a run-down place next to a grocery store; instead of paying $75 for the night, we opted to drive home.
If that place hasn’t built the infrastructure to accommodate tourism, I have to question whether Berlin can. Again, like the Sherbrooke example, the mix of factors that led to the current state of the town aren’t clear to me, but it throws up big flags as to what the viability is for this model.

But I do have to say we drove through Berlin at about 8:30 last night, and the Budget Inn was packed. I was amazed, and my wife asked if maybe some of the people lived there. I didn’t know, but it seemed a good sign that people might look at Berlin as a place to spend their vacation. Again, I don’t know the truth there, but the mix looks like its getting better, which hopefully means good things for Berlin.

In Berlin?! Really?!

I’ve got a great story for next week’s Reporter. Really great. I don’t want to go into it here, but next week’s issue will not be the one to miss. Make sure you don’t.

I have to say, I love my job.

Sorry to all interested parties, but I have no interest in being an editor or a publisher. I want to be out there, where the story is happening, digging things up. That’s what I’m good at, and that’s where I should stay.
Furthermore, there is no Berlin Reporter press—there is Salmon Press, which owns the Reporter and 10 other papers, and they are all printed in Massachusetts. I couldn’t buy the paper because there would be no press for me to print a paper. That business plan just doesn’t work.
Besides, I love my job. Why would I leave? I have a boss who supports me while I do my best to improve the level of discourse in Berlin, plus benefits and vacation. I get to talk with every aspect of the city, and beyond. It’ll be a while before I quit this arrangement.

And no one would be happy with a Monday paper. You would wind up with last week’s city council news, which is often some of the most pertinent information in the paper. Ever notice the Reporter comes out the same day the daily paper reports city council meetings? That is the one time we really cover the same news on the same deadline. That’s key. Our timeliness in this one area is important and not worth forsaking. I understand it’d be nice to start out the week with quality journalism, but it’s not in the cards. I’d hate to be reporting council happenings a week late. I far prefer the model we have now.

But thanks for the constructive criticism. I’m working on improving things even more. I want to get video capability and get important interviews up online. I’d love to see the council meetings broadcast live. I’d like to be Tweeting from every meeting I go to. What I need, though, is for everyone to buy ads in the Reporter so they expand it. It could be more pages, two sections, if it brought in the revenue. I’m doing my part, improving the reporting; now it’s your turn to convince all your friends to buy the paper.

Next week, they’ll want to. Believe me, it’s worth it.

Jobs, But For Who?

Berlin wants jobs. The city is sagging because there are few viable opportunities, and everyone wants to see that change.
The question is, what kind of jobs? Jobs for whom?
If the city puts an emphasis on creating 21st century jobs, then all the residents who got laid off by the mill will be left out. The skills needed for service sector high-tech jobs are different than the skills needed to fell trees or run a boiler. Replacing those jobs with jobs relevant in the post-industrial economy does nothing for the people laid off there. The jobs will go to outsiders and a select few resident, while doing little for the people who need them most.
Think of the federal prison—37 or younger rules out much of Berlin, leaving residents frustrated and angry.
However, if the city concentrates on revitalizing the wood products industry and puts people who were laid off back to work there will be no reason for the youth of Berlin to return. High school students who go away to college don’t want to come back to log the forest; they want to come back to a place with the infrastructure to support their professional aspirations. And new people don’t want to move to the area either, because there aren’t the opportunities they’re looking for.
Right now, Berlin has a great mix of neither: Blue collar workers are out of a job, young people are leaving, and few new people are moving in. The city has to do something; it has to put its energy somewhere.
Can it do both? Maybe. If one or both of the biomass plants are built they will bring back some of those blue collar jobs, and the city could still concentrate on the new economy. That seems like no one’s ideal solution, but for Berlin compromises are more important than reoccurring inaction.
Can candidates for council really afford to be against any part of either version of new jobs for Berlin?
Mr. Grenier looks at the past nostalgically, but he didn’t mention anything about jobs that would bring people in to Berlin. He is looking to help those that are already there.
Mr. Bertrand wants to move the city forward, but at what cost to the people living there (and voting there) now? Is maintaining steadfast opposition to the controversial Laidlaw project really viable, when it could help so many people and there is no foreseeable viable alternative use for the property?

Berlin needs to create a place for people to come, while not abandoning those who are already there. That’s a tough tightrope to balance, which requires a nuanced policy view. Nuance is not the first word that comes to mind when I look at the candidates running in Berlin’s municipal election. Maybe it will become part of the conversation.

Also, I’m glad to see several people who frequent LPJ are running for council. Tim Cayer, Jon Edwards, Ryan Landry and anyone else running for city government, if you would like to write up a short (500 words or less) statement saying why you are running I’d be happy to post it on here. I will be interviewing everyone running in the coming months, but this will provide you with a little more open forum if you would like it. I know Mr. Cayer, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Landry have my contact information, but for anyone else, shoot me an email at erik dot eisele at gmail dot com.

And please, I’ll cut them off at 500 words so don’t go over, and you can only send me one statement. I will not edit them, so check for typos. I look like an idiot when I have them, you don’t want to be mistaken for the press.

Do you miss the mill?

Do you miss the mill? Please, everyone who lived in Berlin when it was there, answer yes or no. I just talked to Paul Grenier, candidate for mayor, and this was his response:

“Nothing positive happened with the closing of the mill. I think it’s a lot worse, look around.”
I didn’t live there then, so I don’t know. I lived near Livermore Falls and Jay during high school, and a girlfriend’s parents lived in Rumford years later, but there is a big difference between being connected to a mill town and living in one.
Mr. Grenier misses the jobs, I’m assuming, and he didn’t mention anything about enjoying the clean air today. That doesn’t match with my sensibilities, but I was never laid off from the mill. I am comfortable telecommuting from my laptop to anywhere in the world. Not everyone can do that. Not everyone shares my perspective, and I fear too many of the people on LPJ share a worldview closely aligned with mine. It’s time to make more room.

So tell me, please, do you miss the mill? Was the smell worth it?

The sad part is the people who lost blue collar mill jobs aren’t the ones cruising the web checking out blogs. They didn’t leave the mill to work on computers; they left to find another working class job to pay the bills. And just because they don’t have time to post 100 comments doesn’t mean their views aren’t valuable.
While my perspective prefers the clean air, my job isn’t to preach my perspective. It is very likely Mr. Grenier isn’t alone in preferring a prosperous, dirty city, where everyone made a good wage and Main Street thrived. To discount that perspective is to do a disservice to the residents of the city, even those who aren’t working class.

Middle class versus working class—the difference is clear in Berlin. There are middle class opportunities, but few working class jobs left. Look at the story I did a few weeks ago about the parts supplier running a business out of his house—how do you take that opportunity if you don’t know computers? How does working class escape the rut in Berlin?
I wonder what infrastructure the city really needs to survive. How can industry survive today in the U.S. in general ? Could it survive in Berlin? Are working class people who aren’t comfortable with computers doomed in the new economy, both locally and nationally? Or is my job going to be shipped to India, and the tradespeople will have the last laugh?

I don’t really have any answers, but I think it’s important to recognize when your worldview is restricting your understanding of the facts. My background is middle class, with a college education and lots of open doors. I value clean air, mountain views, organic food and art galleries. Not everyone does. Some people would prefer 200 jobs to a dozen more restaurants like Libby’s. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? The jobs seem more practical…

So please, in the name of science, tell me if you miss the mill. And maybe list off your education and some socioeconomic background, to see if those are indicative of anything.

I’ll start—

Mill—Don’t miss it (How could I?).
Private boarding school for high school
Two bachelor’s degrees from a state university (I paid for it all, not my parents)
Don’t drink beer, but I do enjoy wine
5 years as a commercial fisherman; hated it because my hands smelled all the time
Favorite sports: rock climbing, ice climbing and skiing (read: rich kid sports; ever looked at the price of ice tools?)

My bias is obvious. Do other people notice theirs?

New Look, Same Story

I did a little work to the site over the weekend, trying to make it look a little more spiffy. I must admit, because of the weather I missed Riverfire. The photo at the top of the page is from the preparations for the event; I’m disappointed I didn’t get to watch those pallets burn.

If anyone has any good photos please send them to me, I’ll put them up and give you credit. I am planning on checking out the lumberjack festival tomorrow, although it is still raining and the forecast doesn’t look good.

I spent a good chunk of today trying to force a coherent story out of all the conversations I’ve been having recently centered on renewable energy. CPD and the PUC and PSNH and Laidlaw all will be in there, and I’m hoping I shoehorn them into one magnificent piece. The subject is fascinating to me, not having the backstory residents lived or the same long-term investment in the community. But I have to say the PUC doesn’t win any open-government awards for how they answered my questions—not because they didn’t answer them, but because how they answered them. Glad they aren’t regulating my electric provider…Oh, wait. DAMN!

So look for that Wednesday. I won’t bore you with it here; it’s best read on newsprint anyway.