River Dave
A report regarding David Lidstone, River Dave
(2021-08-20, 13:49)
Dear Concord Friends Meeting,
I want to summarize what I think I know, what I have done, and to suggest actions we might be taking regarding our former neighbor David Lidstone known affectionally as River Dave.
Dave lived in the area of our Meeting House for a long time. He lived in our area long before our Meeting acquired title and built along Oxbow Road in Canterbury. His story is told in many news accounts.
About 6 years ago, when I was newly returned from the Peace Corps, Dave approached me in the Meeting parking lot and introduced himself. Mostly he chatted about the illegal dumping that was happening across the river on the Boscawen side. At first I was wary and skeptical about this unusual soul but came to appreciate him as a “local character” who was living gently and responsibly on the land and not harming anyone.
As I understand it, about 6 years ago, Canterbury’s newly appointed town administrator took it upon himself to contact the absentee title-owner of the land where Dave had been living. I have read accounts that say the town administrator spoke to the title-owner about such issues as zoning violations and misuse of land with “current use” designation. The title-owner then contacted an attorney who initiated legal proceedings to force Dave to leave the homestead he had built on the land.
When I first read about Dave’s plight, I contacted his friend Jodie Gedeon and made two suggestions:
- That we raise money to buy the land title for Dave’s homestead. Perhaps the title could go to a conservation organization with a life-time easement for Dave to continue his life on the land.
- That I could approach Concord Friends Meeting and ask for permission for Dave to move his camp to the 5 acres of backland we had been gifted.
Understanding that Dave was 81, my first suggestion seemed far less disruptive. Unfortunately, Dave’s homestead burned down while Dave was in jail and the titleholder’s representatives were removing Dave’s home.
There were others in Meeting who also thought about our backland as a way forward for Dave. Both Greg and Mark made similar suggestions. (At first, I had the misunderstanding that Dave’s homestead was close to the Meeting’s land, and that a move might easily be accomplished.)
Over the past three weeks, I received three phone calls about Dave:
The first was from a Union Leader reporter. I tried to be clear that it was just a suggestion and certainly not my decision. I tried to explain our process: “Kleinschmidt said that Quakers make decisions after silent prayer and statements, and such business matters are decided once a month. The next business meeting is the second Sunday of September.”
The next phone call was from an AP reporter and again I tried to be clear that it was not my decision. “It has certainly occurred to us that here is a neighbor in need,” said Richard Kleinschmidt, co-clerk of the Quaker meeting, “and how can we help him?” (For the record, I donated personally to a fundraising effort on Dave’s behalf.)
Lastly, I received a call from someone working with Dave and Jodie who asked about building on our backland. (I do not remember his name.) As he described it, they had $30,000 and were thinking of a small house built on a slab. I explained that in addition to the issue of it not being my decision, there might be problems associated with the Meeting’s property:
- The land is not easily accessible because of the ravine.
- The land is not “on the river” – a path down the bluff to the river would involve many switchbacks etc.
My gut reaction to the proposed building has to do with it not being “gentle”. I admired how Dave had managed to live gently in the woods. His off-grid life was far less disruptive to the planet than mine or anyone else that I know. Even if one could get a cement truck onto the backland, it just feels wrong and somehow violent, but that is not a rationally thought-out response – just a gut response.
On Monday, Dave called Greg directly:
[Dave asked] if it would be possible for him to live on our back acreage. [Greg] is not sure how he had his name and number.
- He wanted to know what the Meeting was thinking. He had heard rumors and wanted to know what was possible.
- He is hoping to build a place that he can pass on to some deserving person who might live with him.
- He believes he has enough money to build a long driveway, bring in electric, put in a septic field and build a small house
- He made mention of many offers of assistance re. labor and services and donations of funds in the mid $200 thousands.
- He believes that if we will have him, our land is his best option. Among his motivations are not leaving his home area and helping the public image of the town which is "not smelling too good these days."
- His phone contact is [omitted]. It's his cell, but he doesn't do text at least to send. Best to use voice.
- There is a committee helping him that consists of a CPA and a lawyer and other folks he knows.
- He has a good place to stay now [omitted] and is hoping to build next summer.
For those who have not seen the news, a recent development is that the people helping Dave have received a $180,000 donation.
I have been criticized for even suggesting that our Meeting might be part of a way forward for Dave. To those who are upset with me, I apologize. I felt a leading to reach out and offer help to a neighbor in need, and one of the things I offered was to ask the Meeting about Dave living on our backland. That one suggestion seems to have taken on a life of its own and it has metamorphosed into something I never envisioned. My serving as clerk puts me in a situation where people may ascribe to me more power than I actually have or want.
So, what now?
I had a helpful chat with Lucy Nichols last night after mid-weekly worship. Lucy serves on the Canterbury Planning Board and knows many of the issues and people involved. Lucy suggests that it would be good for someone to discuss this “issue” with town officials. What is legally permissible within the town’s camping and zoning ordinances? I could contact town officials, but I do not want to be ahead of our Meeting and to be seen as pushing Dave on our Meeting.
We have three weeks (including a holiday weekend) before our regular meeting for business. I would really welcome thoughts, suggestions and prayers. I think this would benefit from preparation and research before we prayerfully consider where God leads us.
Perhaps Friends might email me directly or email us all as appropriate.
Rich
klnschmidt [at] gmail [dot] com
Communications in Response to our Co-Clerk's Letter
(2021-08-16, 12:06)
We are aware that members and attenders of the Meeting do not have a means of reaching out to everyone and engaging in digital conversations. Our Co-Clerk invited feedback on his recent letter and suggested folks "copy all" if they wanted to. Since "copy all" won't work he has asked that comments be sent directly to him at klnschmdt [at] gmail [dot] com (subject: River%20Dave) . He expects to share the comments with the Meeting soon.
One message was sent with a "copy all" command, but that only reached half the Meeting. (See my apology below if you have not yet read it). In the interest of getting that message to everyone it follows.
Thank you for your understanding. Sometimes difficulties arise as we lurch toward unity.
With kind regards to all,
Greg
JJ's message:
I am finding this situation very unfortunate. Yes, I understand that the original intent was not to have this be anything like an offer that just needed details worked out. But now we have the idea of his being on our property repeatedly discussed in the media. Many seem inclined to feel that River Dave was wronged by being forced out of his squatting situation. I don't see it that way. He may be deserving of much sympathy for various reasons but so are hundreds of others who find themselves homeless. If our Meeting, in worship with attention to business, feels moved of the spirit to figure this out to aid him to live on our property, there are still many legal impediments, including that the gift of this land was from a nonprofit to us which entails some attention to what are proper uses of it under that transfer. I hope that Friends will take a sober look at this and not be swayed by the situation that developed without input from the Meeting as a whole.
Love and Light,
JJ Smith
An apology from your communications assistant.
Dear Friends.
As you have probably noticed I maintain two lists for communication. One is via regular email and one uses MailChimp. There are reasons for this but I have found that it is too easy to forget to send out messages via regular email using the BCC function. That happened last night with the letter from our Co-Clerk, Richard.
To make matters more confusing the regular email list that I use is divided into two lists because there are too many names in it, more than is allowed by my email program. Yesterday half the meeting received a message BCC and the other half received it with all the email addresses exposed. I apologize for this and resolve to use MailChimp exclusively in the future. MailChimp protects your privacy by always sending messages BCC.
I would ask that those who received the message last night with addresses exposed please not "Reply to All" and please delete the message to restore some level of privacy to those who have entrusted us with their addresses.
Sincerely, Greg Heath, Communications Assistant
