Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

onthebay · 01-26-2007, 11:01 AM

Water quality may be the issue on Waukewan, but I think it is mainly an issue of money on Winnipesaukee. The state doen't feel like it is getting its fair share (whatever that is). The towns also don't receive any additional property tax for the leased land. If you lease 75 feet which is the minimum to put in a dock you would pay 75 x $25 per foot leased = $1875.00 per year. The town can't tax as waterfront because it is owned by the state so they don't get their money.
I would assume that if you lease the land then you could prevent others from using it. Why would it be different than renting a house, dock or a campsite.
I think that if a homeowner would otherwise have waterfront except for the tracks they should be able to lease that land. Technically no one else should be able to access because they would have to trespass from the owners property or trespass on the tracks to access it. Only the owner of that land can petition to put in and maintain a crossing.
Now I know that everyone walks and crosses the track at will but technically it is trespassing according to the RR. (Except of course from Jan 15 to March 15th for Snowmobiling)
When it comes to largescale developers that put in a bunch of docks to raise the value of all the houses in a particular development I can see where the state feels they are getting cheated.
Here is a another case of the state and the town not being able to stop the big guys (developers) from doing what they want so they flex their muscle and take it out on the little guy)homeowner.

01-26-2007, 11:01 AM	#15
onthebay Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 114 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts	Leases Water quality may be the issue on Waukewan, but I think it is mainly an issue of money on Winnipesaukee. The state doen't feel like it is getting its fair share (whatever that is). The towns also don't receive any additional property tax for the leased land. If you lease 75 feet which is the minimum to put in a dock you would pay 75 x $25 per foot leased = $1875.00 per year. The town can't tax as waterfront because it is owned by the state so they don't get their money. I would assume that if you lease the land then you could prevent others from using it. Why would it be different than renting a house, dock or a campsite. I think that if a homeowner would otherwise have waterfront except for the tracks they should be able to lease that land. Technically no one else should be able to access because they would have to trespass from the owners property or trespass on the tracks to access it. Only the owner of that land can petition to put in and maintain a crossing. Now I know that everyone walks and crosses the track at will but technically it is trespassing according to the RR. (Except of course from Jan 15 to March 15th for Snowmobiling) When it comes to largescale developers that put in a bunch of docks to raise the value of all the houses in a particular development I can see where the state feels they are getting cheated. Here is a another case of the state and the town not being able to stop the big guys (developers) from doing what they want so they flex their muscle and take it out on the little guy)homeowner.