In historic district, I choose preservation over solar panels: Letters

In historic district, I choose preservation over solar panels: Letters

April 21 − To the Editor:

It’s always a little bit unusual whenever I agree with Historic District Commissioners Martin Ryan, Jon Wyckoff, and Reagan Ruedig about anything, but I do agree with them this time. I think that the proposal to strip the Historic District Commission of its jurisdiction over solar panels is a very bad idea, and I urge that it be rejected.

The way I see it, either you’re committed to historic preservation, or you’re not. If you are, then, like anything else, historic preservation has its price. Sacrifices have to be made, and costs have to be paid. One of those costs is that solar panels have to go − or, at least, their use has to be carefully scrutinized and sparingly allowed − for they are fundamentally inconsistent with the character of the historic district, particularly the South End.

You wouldn’t install solar panels in the historic buildings in Old Colonial Williamsburg. You wouldn’t install them in the historic homes in Old Sturbridge Village, in Massachusetts. You wouldn’t put them in the old Spanish buildings in St. Augustine, Florida. So, why would you put them in Portsmouth’s historic district? Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in saying that if it comes down to a choice between preserving Portsmouth’s historic character and promoting green energy, I choose historic preservation. Green energy will simply have to take a back seat. My stance is informed by the simple fact that even if solar panels were installed in literally every home in the entire city of Portsmouth, it wouldn’t amount to a drop in the bucket in terms of implementing renewable energy nationally or solving the worldwide problem of climate change.

The existing system, in which the Historic District Commission entertains applications for the use of solar panels on a case-by-case basis, has generally worked well over the years, and there is little reason to change it. The HDC has more or less had an unwritten, unspoken policy that if you won’t be able to see the solar panels from the front of the house, approval will generally be granted, whereas if they are going to be visible from the street or the sidewalk then approval will usually be denied. Such an approach strikes a reasonable balance between historic preservation and renewable energy, and I think that it should be continued.

The case which served as the cause célèbre for City Councilor Josh Denton’s proposal to divest the HDC of authority over solar panels was the application to install them in the property at 180 New Castle Avenue. However, that application presented a close case. The vote to deny the application was 4-3, and there were legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. You wouldn’t have been able to see the solar panels from the front of the house, but they would have been clearly visible to one or more of the neighbors to the sides and rear. I would not quarrel with the four members of the Commission who voted to deny the property owner’s application, and I similarly would not quarrel with those who voted to approve it. There was ample ground for reasonable difference of opinion.

For the same reason that you don’t abolish jury trials because a jury renders a bizarre verdict every now and then, you don’t dismantle a system for land use administration that has generally worked well over the years merely because of one (allegedly) bad decision. To rescind the HDC’s authority over solar panels merely because one disgruntled property owner was unusually loud and public in voicing her complaints is an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction and a short-sighted, shallow-minded solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And the system for determining whether and when solar panels are to be allowed in the historic district ain’t broke.

Duncan J. MacCallum

Portsmouth

Funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan

April 21 − To the Editor:

The oldest adage: we always do what’s right… after we’ve tried everything else first. It’s true in our representative house members.

Steve Little

Portsmouth

Really, Chris Sununu? What an embarrassment

April 19 -- To the Editor:

Sununu’s comments during his interview with George Stephanopoulos last Sunday, should be an embarrassment to New Hampshire and to all the level-headed, non-MAGA members of his Republican party. He dismisses all the indictments against Trump as being more of a political distraction: "people see it more as reality TV at this point." Really, Chris?

His about-face − from his enthusiastic (almost giddy) support of Nikki Haley and full-throated criticism of Trump, to his uncomfortably flippant comments on Sunday, endorsing Trump once again − has many of us Granite Staters feeling that he can’t vacate the governorship fast enough!

J. C. Schroeder

Hampton Falls

Supporting our enemies and hurting our allies is not patriotic

April 19 -- To the Editor:

The expression of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be lost on some politicians recently. If that expression has any merit, then logic would follow that "the friend of my enemy is my enemy." With that said, Iran is a Russian ally and is considered a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has supported the organizations/groups attacking Israel. Logic would follow then that if Russia supports Iran, then it is endorsing Iran's proxy attacks on Israel. It seems contradictory then, that some self proclaimed staunch supporters of Israel appear to be carrying the water for Russia.

Blocking aid to Ukraine would seem to fall into that category. Aid to Israel and Ukraine could have been authorized months ago, if there was not such an effort to undermine the proposed legislation. We need to speak plainly about which nations, and politicians, support the interests of the United States and which ones do not. It really doesn’t matter how many American flags politicians are wrapping themselves in if they are effectively promoting the talking points and enabling the agendas of our adversaries. Purposefully or naively supporting our adversaries is not being patriotic. Iran and Russia are not our allies, they are each others.

Don Cavallaro

Rye

I welcome York's effort to regulate short-term rentals. Vote yes on Article 64

April 22 − To the Editor:

The April 2024 Town of York Voter’s Guide provides a detailed explanation of Article Sixty-Four to establish a Short Term Residential Rental Ordinance. The Amendment is proposed to address an important issue facing the residents. As a homeowner living near summer rentals, I welcome the Town’s efforts. I also cannot understand why any responsible landlord would not be in favor. It is good for those who rent properties responsibly and makes accountable those who do not. Unfortunately, stories abound about overcrowded rentals that are disruptive to neighborhoods and which lead to related problems including trash storage, overflow parking (a public safety issue when blocking sidewalks), hazardous unpermitted open fires, and disrespectful late night parties. This Amendment is good for the Town of York. It will make York more attractive to reputable visitors and for those who are not, provide some relief to residents.

Richard Topping

York, Maine

WRITE TO US

Please keep letters to 250 words or less. Submissions must include the writer’s first and last names, city or town and a daytime telephone number (which is for verification purposes only and will not be published). Send letters or commentaries to opinion@seacoastonline.com. Letters from Seacoast-area writers addressing local topics will be given priority for publication.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: I choose Portsmouth historic preservation over solar panels: Letters