Sale of Bahre Estate?

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by wifi

I'd love to see the lake the way it was, with larger pieces of properties. Where I grew up on Leavitt Shores was beautiful, guessing 8 acres, with 500' frontage, nice grand house. It would have been great if the town of Gilford, thinking of the future, didn't allow subdivisions, but the greed for more taxes, and the thought of elegant town buildings and town growth prevailed, and we have today three houses instead of one. I wouldn't want to live there today, it is now suburban, no longer any feeling of the rural life it used to be.

Towns need to get out of the business of subdivisions to further their own selves at the spite of future attractiveness of the area and future generations.

How does this relate to the Bahre property? Towns shouldn't be buying up property to preserve it, they should be making zoning and subdivision rules to limit the expansion. If I wanted to live on Long Island, NY, I would move there. Towns buying up things will just increase the bonding, such as Moultonboro wanting to build a new civic center. Great to get your name on a corner stone, but a disaster for the future tax rates, especially considering the result of the current progressive nature the country has followed in the recent past. The chickens will come home to roost, sooner than you think.

My opinion, based on a lifetime at the lake. I'm sure you have yours, and I will read it, but won't necessarily respond, I know right from, errr... wrong.

You have a nice fantasy but since it never will happen that is exactly why special places such as Camp Alton should be protected for all to enjoy. This isn't a liberal or conservative position. Enough said.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

You have a nice fantasy but since it never will happen that is exactly why special places such as Camp Alton should be protected for all to enjoy. This isn't a liberal or conservative position. Enough said.

Not really - it's a conservative position to take a look at what you got in your bank account, what you're making for revenue and say yeah we can't afford this. Then turn to the tax payers and say do you really want your taxes to go up to pay for it? No? OK fine no deal we'll pass on it.

It's a liberal position to say we don't care how much it costs, this feels good, will be great for the town (even though we have no idea how or why) so we're going to "make an investment" AKA tax the town... and figure it all out later. Once we own it who cares it will have to be paid for one way or another and we have all these fat cat out of towners with huge mcmansions to tap into at will. Yes yes let's go after all the "rich people" they can afford it. What's not to love here? Let's go out and pat ourselves on the back now and loathe in our greatness.

Well let's look at this from a different perspective. That property would have cost the town money to acquire and no doubt on credit + interest. Real money. This was not a donation, or a grant or a trust given to the town. Who's going pay for it? The tax payers. While it is a noble idea to preserve these areas, this takes money and ya know some times you simply cannot afford it and this notion that the tax payers are nothing but an endless cash register that can be dipped into has to and will eventually stop. I for one would be pissed off if a portion of my hard earned money was being eaten up in taxes to pay for some park somewhere that is not essential to the well being of the town.

That said if the town had that kind of cash on hand with nothing better to do with it and wanted to at the time buy it and preserve it, then that is an entirely different story although still a costly one. Then again I guess I am one of the few that believe that buying things you don't need on credit is absolutely insane.

Remember the purchase price is just the beginning not only does the town need to buy the property but then what? They would need to sink even more money into improving it... to the tune of how much and by doing what? Least we forget how irresponsibly any town government budgets and spends money. Then it has to be maintained, patrolled, etc... more money and management. Now how is this a money maker? You going to charge people to use it? How much really is the return on that even if you were to match the cost of state park entry. It's a pittance and I suppose in 250 years you might get back the original purchase price if your lucky. The whole thing would have been a net drag on the town. AH maybe we should put in a casino to pay for it.

I actually applaud the town for saying no, for looking at the bottom line and saying this has no ROI for the town, we see no benefit to doing it and we cannot afford to take this on. Plus again if the tax payers voted on it then the appropriate people made the ultimate decision, the ones would have ended up writing the check for it.

My thought is the best option for public preservation would have been to have the state do it, built a nice state park there, put in a massive boat ramp and parking lot. Sure would have beat that piece of crap they bought at the end of Alton Bay years later. The state is in a much better position to take on a project like that and has far more resources at it's disposal to have turned that into something decent.

[Acrossamerica]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Not really - it's a conservative position to take a look at what you got in your bank account, what you're making for revenue and say yeah we can't afford this. Then turn to the tax payers and say do you really want your taxes to go up to pay for it? No? OK fine no deal we'll pass on it.

It's a liberal position to say we don't care how much it costs, this feels good, will be great for the town (even though we have no idea how or why) so we're going to "make an investment" AKA tax the town... and figure it all out later. Once we own it who cares it will have to be paid for one way or another and we have all these fat cat out of towners with huge mcmansions to tap into at will. Yes yes let's go after all the "rich people" they can afford it. What's not to love here? Let's go out and pat ourselves on the back now and loathe in our greatness.

Well let's look at this from a different perspective. That property would have cost the town money to acquire and no doubt on credit + interest. Real money. This was not a donation, or a grant or a trust given to the town. Who's going pay for it? The tax payers. While it is a noble idea to preserve these areas, this takes money and ya know some times you simply cannot afford it and this notion that the tax payers are nothing but an endless cash register that can be dipped into has to and will eventually stop. I for one would be pissed off if a portion of my hard earned money was being eaten up in taxes to pay for some park somewhere that is not essential to the well being of the town.

That said if the town had that kind of cash on hand with nothing better to do with it and wanted to at the time buy it and preserve it, then that is an entirely different story although still a costly one. Then again I guess I am one of the few that believe that buying things you don't need on credit is absolutely insane.

Remember the purchase price is just the beginning not only does the town need to buy the property but then what? They would need to sink even more money into improving it... to the tune of how much and by doing what? Least we forget how irresponsibly any town government budgets and spends money. Then it has to be maintained, patrolled, etc... more money and management. Now how is this a money maker? You going to charge people to use it? How much really is the return on that even if you were to match the cost of state park entry. It's a pittance and I suppose in 250 years you might get back the original purchase price if your lucky. The whole thing would have been a net drag on the town. AH maybe we should put in a casino to pay for it.

I actually applaud the town for saying no, for looking at the bottom line and saying this has no ROI for the town, we see no benefit to doing it and we cannot afford to take this on. Plus again if the tax payers voted on it then the appropriate people made the ultimate decision, the ones would have ended up writing the check for it.

My thought is the best option for public preservation would have been to have the state do it, built a nice state park there, put in a massive boat ramp and parking lot. Sure would have beat that piece of crap they bought at the end of Alton Bay years later. The state is in a much better position to take on a project like that and has far more resources at it's disposal to have turned that into something decent.

Very well said.

Only problem many locals, particularly those who live on the lake, have is if the state owns it , it might attract too many of the "unwashed" and living in their bubble they hate to deal with that. Better to just tax the 90% who do not live on the lake and really can not afford the baubles of excess.

[wifi]

It is healthy to look back in the past to see what was done wrong, so as not to repeat it in the future. The beauty the lake once was, is gone forever. my son will only hear my descriptions and experiences. With unbridled growth, what will the future generations be left with? Is a shore front of all Condo's shouting "water view for all" or funnel developments really where you want the lake to end up?

As Maxum points out, towns need to live within their means. Take Moultonboro, for instance. They have all the tax base they need to fund everything, yet still go out to bond new buildings, new parks and new centers. What happens when the economy takes a nose dive, worse than now? First thing people do is jettison their 2nd homes, which erodes the tax base, raises taxes and more homes sell.... Short sited, towns should be saving for spending, not bonding and spending the future. Maxum hit it right on the head, it is not a local vs non local thing as some want to cloud the issue with, it is future survival of the town and everyone currently owning property, local or not.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Not really - it's a conservative position to take a look at what you got in your bank account, what you're making for revenue and say yeah we can't afford this. Then turn to the tax payers and say do you really want your taxes to go up to pay for it? No? OK fine no deal we'll pass on it.

It's a liberal position to say we don't care how much it costs, this feels good, will be great for the town (even though we have no idea how or why) so we're going to "make an investment" AKA tax the town... and figure it all out later. Once we own it who cares it will have to be paid for one way or another and we have all these fat cat out of towners with huge mcmansions to tap into at will. Yes yes let's go after all the "rich people" they can afford it. What's not to love here? Let's go out and pat ourselves on the back now and loathe in our greatness.

Well let's look at this from a different perspective. That property would have cost the town money to acquire and no doubt on credit + interest. Real money. This was not a donation, or a grant or a trust given to the town. Who's going pay for it? The tax payers. While it is a noble idea to preserve these areas, this takes money and ya know some times you simply cannot afford it and this notion that the tax payers are nothing but an endless cash register that can be dipped into has to and will eventually stop. I for one would be pissed off if a portion of my hard earned money was being eaten up in taxes to pay for some park somewhere that is not essential to the well being of the town.

That said if the town had that kind of cash on hand with nothing better to do with it and wanted to at the time buy it and preserve it, then that is an entirely different story although still a costly one. Then again I guess I am one of the few that believe that buying things you don't need on credit is absolutely insane.

Remember the purchase price is just the beginning not only does the town need to buy the property but then what? They would need to sink even more money into improving it... to the tune of how much and by doing what? Least we forget how irresponsibly any town government budgets and spends money. Then it has to be maintained, patrolled, etc... more money and management. Now how is this a money maker? You going to charge people to use it? How much really is the return on that even if you were to match the cost of state park entry. It's a pittance and I suppose in 250 years you might get back the original purchase price if your lucky. The whole thing would have been a net drag on the town. AH maybe we should put in a casino to pay for it.

I actually applaud the town for saying no, for looking at the bottom line and saying this has no ROI for the town, we see no benefit to doing it and we cannot afford to take this on. Plus again if the tax payers voted on it then the appropriate people made the ultimate decision, the ones would have ended up writing the check for it.

My thought is the best option for public preservation would have been to have the state do it, built a nice state park there, put in a massive boat ramp and parking lot. Sure would have beat that piece of crap they bought at the end of Alton Bay years later. The state is in a much better position to take on a project like that and has far more resources at it's disposal to have turned that into something decent.

If this person were in charge, there'd be no national parks and Walmart would own Winnipesaukee.

There's a solid middle ground to this discussion but, like seemingly every topic in America today, it's clearly being polarized.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[fatlazyless]

Lake Winnipesaukee has a total of one state park which is called a 'State Beach and RV Park.' Lake Winnipesaukee has 182-miles of shoreline, and 72-square miles of surface water, and the lone state park, Ellecoya, occupies just 65-acres.

http://www.nhstateparks.org/visit/st...tate-park.aspx

Here's a super website that shows the one and only Lake Winnipesaukee state park which has been in operation, on a seasonal basis, since sometime in the early 1960's.

I keep hoping that a community sailing facility/program similar to Community Sailing on the Charles River in Boston will get built on the totally undeveloped Ellacoya beach that's on the other side of the Poor Farm Brook from the swimming/bathing beach, close to the RV campground ..... which is isolated from the Ellecoya state beach by the large Poor Farm Brook which has no foot bridge spanning it.

That would be a super-duper spot for a community sailing program because it fronts on a big, open, windy area of the lake complete with big water, big sky, big view, big wind, big natural sandy beach ........ a sail-boater's big dream location ...... big hubba-hubba ..... "The Lake Winnipesaukee Community Sailing Centre" ....... or something!

Ellacoya State Beach & RV Park
www.nhstateparks.com/ellacoya.html

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

If this person were in charge, there'd be no national parks and Walmart would own Winnipesaukee.

There's a solid middle ground to this discussion but, like seemingly every topic in America today, it's clearly being polarized.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point of what Maxum said, in spite of his very well written post. To compare his logical and rationale stance to your comments about National Parks and Walmart is ludicrous.

The situation referred to in Moultonboro is well stated. Taxpayers are once again going to be asked to pay $6.4 million for a Rec. Center facility that is neither needed or justified.

My apologies for changing the initial subject of this thread.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point of what Maxum said, in spite of his very well written post. To compare his logical and rationale stance to your comments about National Parks and Walmart is ludicrous.

The situation referred to in Moultonboro is well stated. Taxpayers are once again going to be asked to pay $6.4 million for a Rec. Center facility that is neither needed or justified.

My apologies for changing the initial subject of this thread.

Not missing the point at all--if everything was simply about taxes and ROI, America would have zero government-owner property paid for by everyone and enjoyed by everyone.

The part I agree with is whom would be better in terms of stewardship, the town or the state, but that conversation implies the realization that there's value in public lands--the middle ground discussion I referred to.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[VitaBene]

Well framed Maxum!

Sue, agreed and that is why I wish more people would pay attention to local politics! I love our low tax town and the services available. I don't know that we need more (fill in the blank) at this point!

[Acrossamerica]

Heard this morning over coffee. Hilton Hotels has offered Sandy Point owners 18 million for the point. Anyone else heard this rumor? Actually Alton could use a few new hotel rooms and Hilton does a fine job. Doubt it would be more than 6 - 8 stories high.

[camp guy]

18 million is a lot of lobster rolls, and, the question is, do you get a bottomless cup of coffee.

One has to remember, as the last leaf of the fall hits the ground, "tourism" is officially over, and "rumorism" moves to the top for the rest of the winter, except, of course, for discussions of "ice-out".

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by camp guy

18 million is a lot of lobster rolls, and, the question is, do you get a bottomless cup of coffee.

One has to remember, as the last leaf of the fall hits the ground, "tourism" is officially over, and "rumorism" moves to the top for the rest of the winter, except, of course, for discussions of "ice-out".

$18,000,000? The town could have bought the property for a fraction of that price. The value of the property has risen about 3-fold since the time the town thought it was 'too expensive".

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

If this person were in charge, there'd be no national parks and Walmart would own Winnipesaukee.

There's a solid middle ground to this discussion but, like seemingly every topic in America today, it's clearly being polarized.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

I should be in charge

In the interest of debate - your assertion here is completely lubricous. Furthermore I am sick and tired of the notion that just because you don't agree with what I said that is considered "polarizing". No where did I suggest that property could not or should not have been considered for conservation. What I did say is that the town of Alton alone was not an appropriate candidate to take on that kind of project due to the initial and ongoing costs associated with trying to conserve that property never mind do something with it. Instead I suggested that the STATE would have been a better suited custodian of that property with the infrastructure and logistics and broader tax base to develop it in a way for all to enjoy. However even at the state level it's not an excuse to borrow millions for something that is not essential.

That said every single piece of open space cannot be set aside for conservation. Life goes on, things change, development does and will happen. Would it have been nice for that property to be conserved, absolutely, but what the current owners did with it is tastefully done.

Finally if you were so interested in conserving that property why didn't you just go out and buy it? My bet is probably like the town of Alton, you couldn't afford it.

I do hear FFL and Walmart are in discussions

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I should be in charge

In the interest of debate - your assertion here is completely lubricous. Furthermore I am sick and tired of the notion that just because you don't agree with what I said that is considered "polarizing". No where did I suggest that property could not or should not have been considered for conservation. What I did say is that the town of Alton alone was not an appropriate candidate to take on that kind of project due to the initial and ongoing costs associated with trying to conserve that property never mind do something with it. Instead I suggested that the STATE would have been a better suited custodian of that property with the infrastructure and logistics and broader tax base to develop it in a way for all to enjoy. However even at the state level it's not an excuse to borrow millions for something that is not essential.

That said every single piece of open space cannot be set aside for conservation. Life goes on, things change, development does and will happen. Would it have been nice for that property to be conserved, absolutely, but what the current owners did with it is tastefully done.

Finally if you were so interested in conserving that property why didn't you just go out and buy it? My bet is probably like the town of Alton, you couldn't afford it.

I do hear FFL and Walmart are in discussions

The state would have been better candidate? How about the federal government? I think about the purchase of a local piece of land totally differently. I have no problem paying higher taxes when I can see where the money is going.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

The state would have been better candidate? How about the federal government? I think about the purchase of a local piece of land totally differently. I have no problem paying higher taxes when I can see where the money is going.

And what about those who can barely afford the taxes they are already paying. Just because you can and are willing to pay higher taxes doesn't mean everyone else can or does.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I should be in charge

In the interest of debate - your assertion here is completely lubricous. Furthermore I am sick and tired of the notion that just because you don't agree with what I said that is considered "polarizing". No where did I suggest that property could not or should not have been considered for conservation. What I did say is that the town of Alton alone was not an appropriate candidate to take on that kind of project due to the initial and ongoing costs associated with trying to conserve that property never mind do something with it. Instead I suggested that the STATE would have been a better suited custodian of that property with the infrastructure and logistics and broader tax base to develop it in a way for all to enjoy. However even at the state level it's not an excuse to borrow millions for something that is not essential.

That said every single piece of open space cannot be set aside for conservation. Life goes on, things change, development does and will happen. Would it have been nice for that property to be conserved, absolutely, but what the current owners did with it is tastefully done.

Finally if you were so interested in conserving that property why didn't you just go out and buy it? My bet is probably like the town of Alton, you couldn't afford it.

I do hear FFL and Walmart are in discussions

Lubricous? Really?!
In any case, yes--I suppose this discussion is a reflection of one greater: where is the line between government spending taxpayer money on "unnecessary" purchases vs. those that are expensive but we know are worthy.

As the son of a machinist and grocery store clerk who has depended on the US Parks system and public lands for recreation my whole life--along with millions and millions of others, including the affluent--I see a great value in purchasing and protecting valuable lands for use by everyone. Of course, this assumes the purchase is viable and won't destroy a town's financial stability.

In short, in my mind, there's a very real balance that needs to be found between people's willingness to pay to keep beautiful places public and available to all rather than the few.

I'd love to know where this land fell in that spectrum.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Lubricous? Really?!
In any case, yes--I suppose this discussion is a reflection of one greater: where is the line between government spending taxpayer money on "unnecessary" purchases vs. those that are expensive but we know are worthy.

As the son of a machinist and grocery store clerk who has depended on the US Parks system and public lands for recreation my whole life--along with millions and millions of others, including the affluent--I see a great value in purchasing and protecting valuable lands for use by everyone. Of course, this assumes the purchase is viable and won't destroy a town's financial stability.

In short, in my mind, there's a very real balance that needs to be found between people's willingness to pay to keep beautiful places public and available to all rather than the few.

I'd love to know where this land fell in that spectrum.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Well considering the entire national debt is hovering around 17 trillion dollars at the moment and growing I'd say we've already got ourselves a pretty big problem to deal with.

Everyone now a days wants stuff and wants it NOW, and how to pay for it.... what was the monthly payment again? Sorry but once again I say going into debt for non-essentials is insane. Simple as that. Protecting beautiful places is a noble effort where it is possible and feasible to do. In the case of this piece of property, from the town's perspective it was neither from a financial point of view. Instead the property falls into private hands, a very nice estate is built. It could have been far worse.

[Orion]

In ANY discussion about funding for a project, always substitute the word "taxpayers" in place of every instance of the words "town", "state", or "Federal government" and see if it still sounds like a good idea. It almost always sounds like a bad one, especially as we head into another major recession (if we even ever got out of it).

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Orion

In ANY discussion about funding for a project, always substitute the word "taxpayers" in place of every instance of the words "town", "state", or "Federal government" and see if it still sounds like a good idea. It almost always sounds like a bad one, especially as we head into another major recession (if we even ever got out of it).

How about adding "Grant" to your list. It is amazing to hear local officials equate a government grant to free money that no one pays for.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Orion

In ANY discussion about funding for a project, always substitute the word "taxpayers" in place of every instance of the words "town", "state", or "Federal government" and see if it still sounds like a good idea. It almost always sounds like a bad one, especially as we head into another major recession (if we even ever got out of it).

Oh common Orion, you missed the latest and greatest term of all time... "investment". Awh now don't you feel much better now that you know all your hard earned tax money is being "invested" versus "spent".

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Plus again if the tax payers voted on it then the appropriate people made the ultimate decision, the ones would have ended up writing the check for it.

My thought is the best option for public preservation would have been to have the state do it, built a nice state park there, put in a massive boat ramp and parking lot. Sure would have beat that piece of crap they bought at the end of Alton Bay years later. The state is in a much better position to take on a project like that

Not exactly. The major taxpayers in most of the waterfront towns are non-residents and therefore not voters. The people who vote for some of these things like school budgets are voting to spend their money as well as the money of people who have no say in the matter and in many cases do not use the resources.

As far as having the state pay for it: Yes it spreads the expense out over a larger pool of taxpayers but it is still money that needs to be raised from the tax levy.

Sorry, there is no free lunch!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Not exactly. The major taxpayers in most of the waterfront towns are non-residents and therefore not voters. The people who vote for some of these things like school budgets are voting to spend their money as well as the money of people who have no say in the matter and in many cases do not use the resources.

As far as having the state pay for it: Yes it spreads the expense out over a larger pool of taxpayers but it is still money that needs to be raised from the tax levy.

Sorry, there is no free lunch!

Agreed there is no free lunch here, but ideally this area would have better served by being state managed.

Yes that is true the voters locally are spending other people's money but they are motivated by what affect any new spending will have on their own tax bill as well - I don't think they necessarily care about the non voting tax payers. That said not every vote is about that, but it certainly is a factor to many.