WOW Trail 1st Phase Dedication Set

[jetskier]

As I have previously stated...if you want the trail, then suspend the operation of the train. The mixed use is the primary problem as safety is dictating that a fence separate the trail and the train. In addition, this portion of the trail will be exceedingly expensive as bridges will have to be built (ex: Pickerel Cove). The alternative is to just go through the woods...the exercise value is the same as along the shore.

I don't see a legal battle as being in the interest of the community (perhaps the lawyers) and a number of properties in SDS & Long Bay are taxed as though they are waterfront. With a fence, there is going to be significant abatement filings. Not good in this economy.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

[summersux]

Originally Posted by jetskier

properties in SDS & Long Bay are taxed as though they are waterfront. With a fence, there is going to be significant abatement filings. Not good in this economy.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

I can't find them, maybe because I'm slow. Could you give me map and lot number or name of a home owner in SDS that owns waterfront.

[jetskier]

If a property has a view of the water and access direct line of sight, Laconia has been taxing that property at a higher rate. That does not mean that the property actually is waterfront, it is just Laconia's way of increasing their taxes.
I used to have a condo with a distanced water view (and line of sight access) and my taxes were 50% higher than my neighbor that did not have the view.

Right now my lot is taxed at about 30% of smaller lots across the street with a water view and line of sight access.

Jetskier

[summersux]

Originally Posted by jetskier

That does not mean that the property actually is waterfront, it is just Laconia's way of increasing their taxes.
I used to have a condo with a distanced water view (and line of sight access) and my taxes were 50% higher than my neighbor that did not have the view.

Originally Posted by Shaq_d

Real cute, summersux. You pulled in the quote, but did you read it? It says 'taxed AS THOUGH they are waterfront.' No one is claiming to own the waterfront.

Got it thanks. Now we can compare values of houses of the same size but that own waterfront and see if they are taxed the same.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by summersux

Got it thanks. Now we can compare values of houses of the same size but that own waterfront and see if they are taxed the same.

For what purpose? I think most people would already expect the unencumbered waterfront homes would be taxed higher than the homes with a shared waterfront, waterfront "view", restricted waterfront, etc.

[Shaq_d]

Originally Posted by jetskier

properties in SDS & Long Bay are taxed as though they are waterfront. With a fence, there is going to be significant abatement filings. Not good in this economy.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

Originally Posted by summersux

I can't find them, maybe because I'm slow. Could you give me map and lot number or name of a home owner in SDS that owns waterfront.

Real cute, summersux. You pulled in the quote, but did you read it? It says 'taxed AS THOUGH they are waterfront.' No one is claiming to own the waterfront.

[SAMIAM]

It's too bad that a little yankee common sense can't prevail.That train creeps along at 2 or 3 mph and presents no danger to anything......there is absolutely no reason for that fence except that somebody's lawyer wants it.
I don't think anyone objects to the bike path and most welcome it.There is something ugly and unnatural about a chain link fence

[summersux]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

It's too bad that a little yankee common sense can't prevail.That train creeps along at 2 or 3 mph and presents no danger to anything......there is absolutely no reason for that fence except that somebody's lawyer wants it.

Well said "Live Free Or Die"

[no-engine]

Let's ALL, Work on one's legislator to remove the fence requirement!

Next for those in SDS, read a letter to editor in Today's Daily Sun!

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by no-engine

...Next for those in SDS, read a letter to editor in Today's Daily Sun!

Here is the letter so everyone can read it. (Sept. 30, 2010)

Trail through South Down would be on public property, not private

To the editor,

WOW! What a group of elitist, selfindulgent,
and self-important people
there are in the membership of the
South Down Shores Recreational
Association. Imagine, assessing
themselves $100 per year to establish
a legal fund to “protect South
Down’s interest(?) with respect to the
proposed...W.O.W. Trail.” To protect
what interest? The right of way is
public property. Yes, the land where
the trail is planned to go is on public
property, not land owned in any way
by South Down Shores residents.

Over the past summer, a number
of letters to local newspapers have
praised the benefits of the now-finished
section of the trail, and ever
so many sharing and kind people
of Laconia have participated in the
beautification of the trail through the
magnificent murals and lovely flowerbeds.
What an absolute improvement
the walkway has been to the community.
What more can be said?

Out of self-interest and selfishness,
this small but arrogant and egocentric
group wants to exclude the citizens
of Laconia from public land that
they, the South Down Shores people,
apparently have been using and walking
over freely for years. This doesn’t
make it theirs. How sad that they
can’t see their selfishness. Their $100
per year could be used to help less fortunate
people than they are; and then
walkers, bicyclists, grandparents with
baby strollers, lake-lovers, teenagers,
dog-walkers, and joggers could have
access to the path without the need to
go through an expensive court battle
to win what rightfully belongs to the
people.

Harry J. Mitchell
Laconia

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

... I don't think anyone objects to the bike path and most welcome it.There is something ugly and unnatural about a chain link fence

My thought too. A chain link fence is just .... UGLY and in a few years it will be rusty and more ugly!

What about a 2 foot wood post with a log rail on top? I have tried looking but can't find an RSA that requires a chain link fence. If there is one somewhere, why can't the legislature make a change or exception?

BTW: Why is there no chain link fence seperating the Laconia Daily Sun parking lot from the tracks?

[no-engine]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

My thought too. A chain link fence is just .... UGLY and in a few years it will be rusty and more ugly!

What about a 2 foot wood post with a log rail on top? I have tried looking but can't find an RSA that requires a chain link fence. If there is one somewhere, why can't the legislature make a change or exception?

BTW: Why is there no chain link fence seperating the Laconia Daily Sun parking lot from the tracks?

Thanks for researching thru RSA. I do not know where to research, but I'd continue.....

Apologies to readers: I mentioned the article, but neglected to attempt to copy it to post. My lack of thought, as I discovered the Sun makes PDF available.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

My thought too. A chain link fence is just .... UGLY and in a few years it will be rusty and more ugly!

What about a 2 foot wood post with a log rail on top? I have tried looking but can't find an RSA that requires a chain link fence. If there is one somewhere, why can't the legislature make a change or exception?

BTW: Why is there no chain link fence seperating the Laconia Daily Sun parking lot from the tracks?

Remember, not every rule or regulation is an RSA.

The reason that the specified fence has been required is because the Railroad Division of the NH Department of Transportation has mandated it. They have the authority over that section of railbed and it's adjacent ROW.

There could be a myriad of reasons that they believe the fence is necessary, including a possible requirement by Federal Rail authorities.

In any case those wishing to understand the reasoning behind the fence would have to contact the NH officials at DOT to find out what the rationale was.

[SAMIAM]

Until Harry Mitchell submitted his letter, the discussion about Southdown was fairly civilized. To call the residents elitist, selfindulgent, self-important arrogant, selfish and is a little over the top. Almost hateful.
It seems reasonable for them to not want a chain link fence blocking their view and access to their property and it seems that they are open to a solution.
Mr Mitchell noted that walkers, bicyclists, grandparents "with baby strollers", lake lovers, teenagers, dog walkers & joggers would all suffer because of the greed of the southdown elitists (he forgot to mention cancer victims, minorities, single moms and the homeless).......but it seems to me that all of those victims he described pretty much fit the Southdown residents, themselves.
Also, his argument that the $100 fee for legal expenses could better be used to help the unfortunate could, certainly be applied to the huge expense for building and maintaining the trail itself.
The people in Southdown are just like us.....moms, dads grandparents, working, retired ....pretty unfair to characterize them the way Harry Mitchell did.