12/06/2006

Ink Shortage at HSO Leaves Letters Unpublished














Unless you're the administrator of a booming internet blog profit machine, in the midst of an economic boom, most people these days are struggling to stay within their budgets. I guess that goes for small town newspapers as well. To our surprise, we were informed by several Hudson School District residents who submitted letters to the Hudson Star Observer in support of the
upcoming referrendum that their letters missing in action when they opened the pages of this weeks issue. The reason is a mystery. We can only surmise that because of budget contraints, The Hudson Star Observer must have run out of ink and were unable to print these letters. We know that they would never deliberately ommit citizen letters, (or would they)????

6 comments:

CANRAC said...

Haven't seen the paper, but they usually don't publish election letters within the week prior to an election. This has been a long time policy. Now,if there are some letters but not all, then an explanation would be merited.

G.L.er said...

This is not an election, if it was the policy has been to accept letters of support, but not allow any new accusations or charges to be leveled towards a candidate in the last week because the accused would have no time to respond. This is a referendum vote which is a little different.
My only gripe with the editor's recent policy is that he has not allowed people to who write in to debate a previous letter to name that person along with the info being questioned. It is a stupid policy and should be changed. Jay Griggs said as much in a recent letter to the editor. If the paper declines to put in a letter, the staff should contact the writer with a reason. If the issue was that there was just too many letters sent in and they could not print them all, then the paper should have printed a statement saying as much.
Canrac, are you voting yes or no?
I have reasoned out both sides and will be voting yes. I am retired, on a fixed income and a conservative. The plan makes sense. I will keep an eye on the future expected push for a high school as well. If that plan is good, I will vote for it as well. There is no evidence that shows that our schools are wasting our tax dollars. If there was, I would be the first to cry foul.

CANRAC said...

I'm voting no on this one. I feel this is an incomplete plan without seeing more info on high school and handling the higher enrollment as they advance through the school system. This has nothing to do with my income; with taxe; my dislike for our school system; I just need to see what I consider a better plan. The bad part about this is that if the economy takes a long time to recover a new high school will not be well received. My "no" vote is nothing personal against anybody, nor is it swayed by things I've read or heard, it is my opinion.

And I think this is going to pass from talking to fellow residents of the community. Seems to me the "no" side is the same people who vote no on every single issue, the naysayers as I call them. More followers then thinkers.

I also think if this one passes it might be the final "yes" referendum we see for any public project in this area for a long time until the economy gets on a upswing again. I think the Andersen layoffs probably turned a few votes from yes to no, but not enough to kill the referendum.

If this referendum fails, I think it will make it hard to even consider one for awhile

Anyways, don't take my opinion personally, if you want to discuss we can, but I won't get into a pissing match. I enjoy that more when its verbal over a beer or coffee.

I think the HSO policy originated during the infamous dog track battle in the early 90's. And I beleive your right, I think it was during elections, not a referendum. What I really remember is the naysayers being stunned when Angleson kicked Jack's ass when nobody expected it in the mayoral election. Unfortunately Mayor Jack forgot that lesson of "arrogance doesn't pay".

G.L.er said...

I think the arrogance tag is one of the things (along with many other) that doomed the last referendum. Bottom line is that it was the most cost effective way of handling the growth at the time. It just was not a political winner and was not sold right.
About Canrac's point about if the new ref failing means that nothing will pass for a long time, I am not so sure. The fact is that the schools (elementary) are mostly full except Houlton now. The district will start bringing in portables soon. Nobody will like that. This is just a needed step. The high school will be static for 2-3 years, even though in my mind it is over capacity too. You can play with it a little more in the HS than you can with elem. The same people that are now saying "we need to see the total plan" are the same ones that 2 years ago said "Don't hit us over the head with a huge referendum all at once, give it to us in peices"
So what do you want? Everybody knows the new highschool is on the horizon and don't think that the board does not have a clue because they have been studying it for 3 years. Within the next 3-6 years we will need two buildings, no matter how you slice up the grades and transitions. 2 buildings!! That is my opinion and I will stand behind it as much as I can in this alias world or words.
Anderson and 3M could affect a vote and have some affect on enrollment, but not enough. Last year was a terrible real estate year and we had 9% growth in student enrollment over the previous year.
This is not a pissing match and I take nothing on this blog as personal. Just ideas and facts and how you look at them. I appreciate Canrac and his efforts on this blog.
I do have to ask the question.
what do you see as the future of Hudson and the schools. Do you see 2000+ students in the current building? Maybe two small high schools? Do you see enrollment decline and Hudson having to close schools?
The "naysayers" keep adjusting the numbers that they stake thier claim to. I notice that the one number that they keep bashing into is the ever increasing number of students.

ear to the ground said...

From what I hear, these writers were not contacted as to why their letters were omitted.

truth-sayer said...

Sooooo Mark P. & Curt W. your lay sleuth skills seem to be as lacking as your personalities and ethics, don't you think???? Perhaps as lacking as the forensic incompetents' that were hired to say what ever the source of income asked. Didn't that happen in Atlanta?? What do you say......Mark?? Or... Bill, how....about you????
But noooo you just want to defame anyone, just be cause that's the type of boys you are (note..not men but boys).