Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife
Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.
|
You state yourself that you have lost the right to build the garage you wanted. If you sell your property it is less valuable because future owners are also prohibited from building.
While you feel that the constraints may be needed for the overall health of the lake, and I
agree with that view, why is it the shore owners that bear all the cost impact? Ten's of thousands of people, i.e. the public, enjoy the benefits of a healthy lake as well as the associated tourist businesses. Even the state of New Hampshire benefits from the room and meals taxes generated. Why are the shore owners the only ones to pay the cost?
Further, we are constantly reminded that the Lake is NOT ours. We can't keep people from fishing or generally being annoying in front of our property.
If the public wants to take 50 ft from the lakefront and tell me I can't build on it and am limited in what clearing I can do then I think that that portion of my land should be treated as in "current use" exemption and my property taxes should be reduced accordingly.
I'm sure our legislature will take action on my reasonable suggestions ASAP.
