Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

Puck · 01-26-2007, 07:57 AM

I should say that I'm not unfamiliar with the issues; just this particular article. It is not just about water quality and money earned from leases. The law in question was passed to allow individual homeowners cut of from lakes, ponds and rivers by the railroads to regain access by leasing the land along the waterfront. However in recent years an increasing percentage of the lease applications have been filed by developers looking to market landlocked property as waterfront and thus substantially increase their profit margin. It raises some questions of, for lack of a better word, ethics, since the developer can added about $100,000 more to the selling price for a dock that sits on land that the buyer does not own. In 5 years the state may have cause to not renew the lease, for instance if the rail use increases and safety becomes a concern. It puts the state in a very awkward position because the buyers have invested a significant amount of money, and they would then have to pay even more money to have the dock(s) removed. Ultimately it is the buyer who stands to get shafted.

In addition, there is a perception that the lease will never be revoked and therefore effectively constitutes a transfer of ownership of the land and water rights. This is not true and it creates another problem in that that land is still public. Anyone who wish to boat up to that frontage, drop anchor, and swim, picnic or whatever can do so (just stay clear of the tracks). Once the docks are put in on leased lands there is a perception that this frontage is no longer "open to the public" so to speak. Most people, no not all, will try to respect others space and will avoid these areas. Some lease holders have on occasion contacted the MP to have "trepassers" removed.

The vast majority of people will never get an opportunity to own lakefront property. There are not that many places that people who do not own lakefront can go. By leasing these long stretches of undeveloped shoreline the state may be restricting their options even further. This would not seem to be in the public's best interest. It does come down to a question of value. Which is worth more; the money paid directly to the state by a few for the leases, or the money that is put into the local economies by keeping those shorelines open and possibly more appealing to the general, boating public.

01-26-2007, 07:57 AM	#10
Puck Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Central NH Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 78 Times in 20 Posts	I should say that I'm not unfamiliar with the issues; just this particular article. It is not just about water quality and money earned from leases. The law in question was passed to allow individual homeowners cut of from lakes, ponds and rivers by the railroads to regain access by leasing the land along the waterfront. However in recent years an increasing percentage of the lease applications have been filed by developers looking to market landlocked property as waterfront and thus substantially increase their profit margin. It raises some questions of, for lack of a better word, ethics, since the developer can added about $100,000 more to the selling price for a dock that sits on land that the buyer does not own. In 5 years the state may have cause to not renew the lease, for instance if the rail use increases and safety becomes a concern. It puts the state in a very awkward position because the buyers have invested a significant amount of money, and they would then have to pay even more money to have the dock(s) removed. Ultimately it is the buyer who stands to get shafted. In addition, there is a perception that the lease will never be revoked and therefore effectively constitutes a transfer of ownership of the land and water rights. This is not true and it creates another problem in that that land is still public. Anyone who wish to boat up to that frontage, drop anchor, and swim, picnic or whatever can do so (just stay clear of the tracks). Once the docks are put in on leased lands there is a perception that this frontage is no longer "open to the public" so to speak. Most people, no not all, will try to respect others space and will avoid these areas. Some lease holders have on occasion contacted the MP to have "trepassers" removed. The vast majority of people will never get an opportunity to own lakefront property. There are not that many places that people who do not own lakefront can go. By leasing these long stretches of undeveloped shoreline the state may be restricting their options even further. This would not seem to be in the public's best interest. It does come down to a question of value. Which is worth more; the money paid directly to the state by a few for the leases, or the money that is put into the local economies by keeping those shorelines open and possibly more appealing to the general, boating public.