This appears to me to be a lousy site . It’s Federal dough and I oppose this site. I actually drove South past this empty lot last Saturday and commented to Dooze about the residential area just to the East. I didn’t know the (small actually)empty lot was in play. It’s certainly a tough time right now but this Campus would not have been proposed in “better” times . Find a location right off a highway someplace,this location is buried . Can we please get a break from this sort of military generated controversy for a bit? Can it be denied without any flag waving? It’s just a bad site. I use Route 1 and I oppose this proposal.
Update 4/14/11
I had read some time ago about an appropriation for a Army/ National Guard facility, but it was not called out as a medical training facility. I figured at the time they were going to build another one of those National Guard depots you see around NE. A parking lot full of rusting vehicles. I was looking this am and found this document. Exeter was once on the list for a training facility,on Continental Drive. Interesting . I am so glad we were passed over. Maybe it was not pursued as Continental Drive is already home to a defense related, earmark facility, Cobham.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/brac/EA_DOCS/EA_final/Pease_AFRC_FNSI_Signed_2011_01_05.pdf
I would like to see a complete review of the process used to select the site for the facility. I want to know who owns the land sites selected. Why has the center morphed to a medical facility, is that perceived as more palatable to the public by the military?
Mike
The Exeter Town Crier 
Really what harm can come from a training center for reservists from the medical and health care fields, according to the Geneva Conventions, they don’t carry arms, right?
LikeLike
I support the building of this facility. It will benefit local businesses, support the work of our soldiers, and none of the abutters have publicly objected to this facility being located on Lafayette Road. The document you linked today on your blog stated that the public was invited via two newspapers to comment on the proposal from Oct 5-Nov 20th 2010, and only one abutter did so but it was not to object, in fact his letter requested more paving be added, apparently so he could benefit from tax payer money providing him with an alternative exit from his property (the U.S. Army declined). Yes, the City of Portsmouth objected, citing potential loss of tax revenue, but I must ask, since it is an undeveloped lot not currently being competed for by an alternative tax revenue producing use, is that a valid objection? This stretch of road on Lafayette already has much non-residential development located there, so the planned AFRC would not be incongruent with the surrounding area. It may be best to resist the urge to protest this development solely on the basis of it being a DOD project, which I suspect is the real issue here.
LikeLike