Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2717
so let me get the straight to see if I can sum up what this bill is:
Bill is to raise boat fees another $5, and $1.58 per foot of waterfront on bodies of water that are dammed.
and this money generated will go to maintenance of the dams, but the dams are
1 - Leased out by the state to private companies because they make money off the electricity that is produced from the dams by selling it to users in the state.
2- the leases include that these private companies have with the state has in them that the company is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the dams
3 - waterfront property is being tasked to bear the cost of these dams but the dams benefit every single property in a flood zone of said dams that are not flooded because the dam is there and maybe of the waterfront property would no longer be water front if said dam was let go but others would be flooded out and become the water front. Also those that are not because of revenue generated by the bodies of water including commercial/retail property
4 - boaters are being asked to bear a cost as well whether on that body of water or not
5- there was already a $30 million allocation the state has set aside to do said repairs that the private companies as supposed to be paying for to begin with
6 - $300,000 of this annual tax will go to the administration of handing out this tax and moving the funds when there is already people in place to hand tax assessing and handing out the money (which with the other new boat fee was proven they couldn't do that correctly to begin with)
So my questions added to my understandings/questions above:
1 - explain to me where have taxes for how many years passed have been allocated for infrastructure like it is supposed to be already
2 - why are select tax payers having this taxed forced on them when every single property has interaction with said dams (commerce, value, irrigation, food, etc...)
3 - why is it not recommended by committee for the companies that are in a legal contract with the State being held to the contract they signed and agreed to as they are being and if not why are no suits being filed against them for breach of contract
4- would this not result in a class action lawsuit against the state for an unfair tax burden? causing more expense to the state and tax payers
I'm sure there are more questions to add to this, and this needs to be known to the public
|
When we breach a dam, flooding does not occur.
Belmont breached the dam. It simply allowed the water to flow out in a controlled method until low enough to remove the dam.
If Lakeport was to have a situation that it became high risk, they would just keep the flood gates open as much as they could without swamping downstream... even when no new rain was predicted to lower the lake enough to do the maintenance or to breach and remove the dam.
Or course, if you lower Winnipesaukee by the depth of that dam, interesting navigational challenges and changes in shorefront happen.