To the editor:

The June 30, 2022 edition of The Portsmouth Times confuses me. In the article regarding solar facilities, Council Vice President Ujifusa, sitting as Town Council president, states that the solicitor advised that members should not engage in conversation with speakers. Then the acting president invites residents to submit another agenda item. 

Mr. Fitzmorris submitted an agenda item requesting a vetting of the town’s sometimes-frozen pension plan/sometimes-unfrozen pension plan. It was rejected without comment. This is the same man who unearthed the (hidden from the public) proposed $145 million dollars of indebtedness for sewers. 

We also have the fallout of the town’s loss in the matter of the sign ordinance. That was the one the town’s insurance company picked up the tab for. The settlement/decision did not cost the town anything. Readers of this letter should try to figure out that oxymoron. 

Two of these items represent the town’s greatest eyesores. The visual impact of the solar collectors on the corner of West Main and Stringham roads (on Navy land) defy adjectival description. Perhaps the Town Council is unaware of this visual blight. The other is the response to the town’s loss in the matter of the sign ordinance. Do we really have to live with the atrocious visual obscenity on East Main Road? 

In closing, It appears that Roderigues, Howard, Munch, and Thurston (of the June 30 article) are on to something. How many times did higher authority tell us that the state could force sewers on us?

Philip Driscoll

169 Immokolee Drive 

Portsmouth