Weirs Drive-in sold

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

Do the trucks normally pass by you and let you know they are removing waste from a certain location? Are people required to take out ads in newspapers that notify you that they are removing waste from property?

It would have required a substantial operation to dig, load, and remove it. People who live in the area and travel by that wide open site daily, and in some cases several times a day, would have seen it happen. If Woodsy says he never saw it happen, it is highly unlikely that it did.

Don't forget, not everyone who posts here or boats on Winnipesaukee is a tourist, person on vacation, weekender, or occasional visitor. There are people who actually live and work in the area and notice what is going on! There are even people who are fortunate enough to boat on the lake 5 to 7 days a week, for work or play, from April through November. Really! It happens!

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

It would have required a substantial operation to dig, load, and remove it. People who live in the area and travel by that wide open site daily, and in some cases several times a day, would have seen it happen. If Woodsy says he never saw it happen, it is highly unlikely that it did.

Don't forget, not everyone who posts here or boats on Winnipesaukee is a tourist, person on vacation, weekender, or occasional visitor. There are people who actually live and work in the area and notice what is going on! There are even people who are fortunate enough to boat on the lake 5 to 7 days a week, for work or play, from April through November. Really! It happens!

Well said TlltonBB. Thanks

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

It would have required a substantial operation to dig, load, and remove it. People who live in the area and travel by that wide open site daily, and in some cases several times a day, would have seen it happen. If Woodsy says he never saw it happen, it is highly unlikely that it did.

Don't forget, not everyone who posts here or boats on Winnipesaukee is a tourist, person on vacation, weekender, or occasional visitor. There are people who actually live and work in the area and notice what is going on! There are even people who are fortunate enough to boat on the lake 5 to 7 days a week, for work or play, from April through November. Really! It happens!

Digging a hole a few feet from the burned down hotel and burying the debris would have raised eye brows from anyone and everyone in the area, No? Especially for such a "substantial operation" as you put it.

I was unable to search a 5 year old article on Laconia Daily Sun's web site. so...

[Woodsy]

Outdoorsman...

Here is a link you can use to read old versions of the LDS... complete with the front page story about Baldi and the crap he buried at the Drive In.

https://issuu.com/dailysun/docs/lds11-7-12

When this news broke... there was HUGE local uproar because of the buried waste and its proximity to the lake.

In case you didn't bother to search here...

Here is an old thread from here (with over 100K views) that started right after the Saloon fire and continued up until after the DES article in the LDS.

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ighlight=baldi

I am not saying Baldi didn't remove the hazmat waste.. But given his history (knowingly burying the hazmat waste on the property instead of trucking it away) and given the very public uproar about it, it was weird that the dig up and removal of the hazmat waste never made the paper. As a year round resident of the Weirs, I did not see any hazmat abatement dump truck or archaeological vans go in or out of the Drive-In. So it really doesn't surprise me that the deal to sell it is "on hold" because of "site pollution".

Woodsy

[TiltonBB]

There will be an article tomorrow in the Laconia Daily Sun about the drive in sale falling through.

[8gv]

So...

Do I have another shot at going to the drive-in next spring?

[GodSmile]

According to today's news story, the issue was the possibility of archeologically significant items on the property. The article did not reference any hazmat issues.

[TiltonBB]

Here is the article:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...-falls-through

I had been told through another party that there were also pollution issues.

That is a shame but it is not the first time the arrowhead issue has stalled or stopped development in the Weirs area. Many years ago there was a plan for an 80 room resort starting where the mini golf is at the bridge and running to around the corner past where the tiki boats are being sold. That too fell through because of indian artifacts buried there.

So what happens? Re bury the artifacts, never to be seen again, and let the land stay vacant?

Maybe the nuts around the country, with a political agenda, who want every historic statue taken down will decide that the arrowheads are weapons and a remnant of war and should be dug up and thrown away.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Here is the article:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...-falls-through

I had been told through another party that there were also pollution issues.

That is a shame but it is not the first time the arrowhead issue has stalled or stopped development in the Weirs area. Many years ago there was a plan for an 80 room resort starting where the mini golf is at the bridge and running to around the corner past where the tiki boats are being sold. That too fell through because of indian artifacts buried there.

So what happens? Re bury the artifacts, never to be seen again, and let the land stay vacant?

Maybe the nuts around the country, with a political agenda, who want every historic statue taken down will decide that the arrowheads are weapons and a remnant of war and should be dug up and thrown away.

If the Baldi's ever plan on trying to selling the property then these issues will need to be addressed. I agree excavate the artifacts place then in the Lakes Region Museum clean up the property and move on.

It is infinitely better than having vacant land. As was said earlier in the post, the drive in equipment was removed and being brought to a different location so more prime real estate will sit idle. UGH!!!!!!!!!! This was such a positive development for the Weirs Beach Area

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Here is the article:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...-falls-through

I had been told through another party that there were also pollution issues.

That is a shame but it is not the first time the arrowhead issue has stalled or stopped development in the Weirs area. Many years ago there was a plan for an 80 room resort starting where the mini golf is at the bridge and running to around the corner past where the tiki boats are being sold. That too fell through because of indian artifacts buried there.

So what happens? Re bury the artifacts, never to be seen again, and let the land stay vacant?

Maybe the nuts around the country, with a political agenda, who want every historic statue taken down will decide that the arrowheads are weapons and a remnant of war and should be dug up and thrown away.

Simple solution here: The City of Laconia should purchase the property for "fair market value" and donate it back to the "Native Americans". Allow them to build a casino, hotel and anything else they so choose (tax free of course). DONE!

[Descant]

Municipalities don't want to own polluted sites any more than you do. They mostly won't accept donations or ownership through tax deed, bankruptcy etc. until the site is cleaned up and approved by DES/EPA.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by 8gv

So...

Do I have another shot at going to the drive-in next spring?

Sure! Just put this on if you don't mind. Discounts available for multiple units if you bring the whole family. Enjoy the movie!

[Woodsy]

I am with TiltonBB on this...

IMHO the Native Artifact story is just a cover story... The developer also owns the lot at the top of the hill by Cumby's and will no doubt have the same native artifact issues and quite possibly civil war veteran artifacts. The cost of digging a few holes and checking for artifacts isn't that prohibitive.

My guess is they probably found something way more substantial that needs to be dealt with. Something very expensive that needs Hazmat remediation.


Woodsy

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am with TiltonBB on this...

IMHO the Native Artifact story is just a cover story... The developer also owns the lot at the top of the hill by Cumby's and will no doubt have the same native artifact issues and quite possibly civil war veteran artifacts. The cost of digging a few holes and checking for artifacts isn't that prohibitive.

My guess is they probably found something way more substantial that needs to be dealt with. Something very expensive that needs Hazmat remediation.


Woodsy

I agree also and even Hazmat remediation is not terribly expensive these days as the fed requirements have reduced the amount of remediation necessary especially if it is an extremely old breach

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by joey2665

I agree also and even Hazmat remediation is not terribly expensive these days as the fed requirements have reduced the amount of remediation necessary especially if it is an extremely old breach

This reminded me of when we bought our mill building in Manchester. We had core samples testing done for a new parking lot and they found ash from burnt wood that came from an old mill building next door. The remediation that needed to be done on that material was....have it incinerated. What? Yup, its already been burned. You cant make this stuff up.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This reminded me of when we bought our mill building in Manchester. We had core samples testing done for a new parking lot and they found ash from burnt wood that came from an old mill building next door. The remediation that needed to be done on that material was....have it incinerated. What? Yup, its already been burned. You cant make this stuff up.

Absolutely. We had property (a concrete plant)in Brooklyn NY from 1972 til 2016 which was next to an oil storage tank and across from a natural gas facility located on what is commonly know as the most polluted canal in the US (the Gowanus). The property was to say the least contaminated.

The resolution was to "cap" the property with 6" of concrete (no problem for me because we were concrete producers for 60 years) problem resolved. LMAO

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by joey2665

I agree also and even Hazmat remediation is not terribly expensive these days as the fed requirements have reduced the amount of remediation necessary especially if it is an extremely old breach

I worked for a hazmat contractor that clear a 250 gallon home heating oil spill. Had to jack the house up a remove, dispose, & replace 500 cubic yard of impacted soil & reset the house. $500,000! "Not terribly expensive"???


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I worked for a hazmat contractor that clear a 250 gallon home heating oil spill. Had to jack the house up a remove, dispose, & replace 500 cubic yard of impacted soil & reset the house. $500,000! "Not terribly expensive"???


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Yes but that is for an "active" spill. I am guessing as with my property the issues are quit old and remediation tends to be much different for issues that happens 20,30,40,50+ years prior

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by joey2665

I agree also and even Hazmat remediation is not terribly expensive these days as the fed requirements have reduced the amount of remediation necessary especially if it is an extremely old breach

I have a friend who works for the EPA. Hazmat remediation is EXTREMELY expensive. I won't even tell you how many times she had to go back for more money to remediate an old shooting range, or how long it took.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

IMHO the Native Artifact story is just a cover story... The developer also owns the lot at the top of the hill by Cumby's and will no doubt have the same native artifact issues and quite possibly civil war veteran artifacts. The cost of digging a few holes and checking for artifacts isn't that prohibitive.

My guess is they probably found something way more substantial that needs to be dealt with. Something very expensive that needs Hazmat remediation.


Woodsy

I disagree. The archeological artifacts, and/or the potential for such artifacts, is a huge issue. Here's why:

1. Generally, absent local regulations to the contrary, a developer is not precluded from disturbing or demolishing land/buildings of historical/archeolological significance. Even a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places may be demolished. However, this changes when a developer wants to disturb more than an acre of land.

2. Any time a developer proposes to disturb more than an acre of land, the developer is required to file a for an EPA stormwater permit. Generally, the EPA permit is issued by simply "filling out the form".

3. As part of "filling out the form", the developer is required to certify that they have contacted the State Office of Historic Preservation, and certify that the SOHP has determined that the stormwater activities will cause no harm to properties that contain, or may contain, historical or archeological significant features.

4. If SOHP determines that historic/architectural features may be harmed, the stormwater permit goes into a sort of limbo, where the developer must either preserve or mitigate the harmed historic/archeological disturbance.

5. The developer must then work to appease the SOHP, and show that they have done all they can for preservation. That said, there is no standard/regulation for said preservation. On a property like the drive in theatre, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent on planning such preservation/mitigation, with no assurance the SOHP will accept the plan. The goal of the SOHP is preservation and mitigation, and they have a professional, and likely emotional, preference to uphold this goal. As a reference, the City of Laconia spent $90,000 on archeological consultants, just to demonstrate that there was minimal chance of finding artifacts below a sidewalk reconstruction.

6. "If" the SOHP was requesting/requiring that all artifacts on the property be located and preserved, the land is worthless for new development, as millions could get expended to achieve that goal. Finding these artifacts is akin to finding a bunch of needles in acres of haystack. There would likely be a SOHP compromise between total preservation, and some sort of limited preservation/mitigation, but a developer has no way of determining the cost or time it would take to get to such a compromise.

Usually, environmental contamination, if any exists, is more quantifiable, both in terms of discovery, and cost of remediation. Further, laws exist that allow one to "cap" certain types of environmental contamination, provided that contamination is "stagnant", with limited potential for spreading to other properties. This can be relatively inexpensive, as the "cap" is often paving or a concrete floor flab. It is also possible that there are more significant environental risks, but I doubt that the burying of fire debris would be so expensive to mitigate that it would jeopardize Mr Mitchell's development plans that were stated in the press.

Unfortunately, this site may have some serious risks, and those risks will pass to any new developer/owner. Accordingly, the value of the property is compromised, such that a developer will need to mitigate those risks, either through an extended/expensive review of the risks, or a significant reduction in sales price that would mitigate the risks. The current owner could work to quantify these risks, but certainly does not have the experience to do so, and may or may not have the financial fortitude to do so.

The Weirs needs some serious help. Mr. Mitchell could well have changed the landscape for the better, but he is a prudent developer, and probably won't accept undue risk. For the Weirs to see a renaissance, the City is going to need to come to grips with the following:

1. They are going to need to get involved with this sort of development/developer, and and work through the environmental and archeological issues, such that they convince the State that the benefits of redevelopment outweigh the benefits of preservation. There will be strong arguments on both sides, but I suggest that no preservation will never happen if there isn't an eye towards redevelopment

2. They are going to need to come to grips with the fact that properties in the Weirs are not getting redeveloped, because motorcycle week vendor rentals are more valuable, and are less risky, than new development. As long as that is the case, vacant lots are going to trump new development. If there were a ban on temporary vendor rentals on private property, owners would be left with no choice but to redevelop. In the short term, these owners will be VERY unhappy, and such legislation could even cause owners to lose property, as values would drop, at least in the short term. I'd suggest, however, that stakeholders with a longer term vision could be rewarded with a prosperous resort community.

Meredith was a challenge to "fix", and that was in an era of simplified environmental/historical regulation. The Weirs is going to be a bigger challenge, take deep pockets, and is going to take a lot of lobbying to convince the politicians/authorities/landowners that long term change can come with some short term pain and compromise. I'm guessing it won't happen, but I've lived here my entire life, and would love to see it happen.

[lagoon]

Originally Posted by Riviera

I disagree. The archeological artifacts, and/or the potential for such artifacts, is a huge issue. Here's why:

1. Generally, absent local regulations to the contrary, a developer is not precluded from disturbing or demolishing land/buildings of historical/archeolological significance. Even a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places may be demolished. However, this changes when a developer wants to disturb more than an acre of land.

2. Any time a developer proposes to disturb more than an acre of land, the developer is required to file a for an EPA stormwater permit. Generally, the EPA permit is issued by simply "filling out the form".

3. As part of "filling out the form", the developer is required to certify that they have contacted the State Office of Historic Preservation, and certify that the SOHP has determined that the stormwater activities will cause no harm to properties that contain, or may contain, historical or archeological significant features.

4. If SOHP determines that historic/architectural features may be harmed, the stormwater permit goes into a sort of limbo, where the developer must either preserve or mitigate the harmed historic/archeological disturbance.

5. The developer must then work to appease the SOHP, and show that they have done all they can for preservation. That said, there is no standard/regulation for said preservation. On a property like the drive in theatre, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent on planning such preservation/mitigation, with no assurance the SOHP will accept the plan. The goal of the SOHP is preservation and mitigation, and they have a professional, and likely emotional, preference to uphold this goal. As a reference, the City of Laconia spent $90,000 on archeological consultants, just to demonstrate that there was minimal chance of finding artifacts below a sidewalk reconstruction.

6. "If" the SOHP was requesting/requiring that all artifacts on the property be located and preserved, the land is worthless for new development, as millions could get expended to achieve that goal. Finding these artifacts is akin to finding a bunch of needles in acres of haystack. There would likely be a SOHP compromise between total preservation, and some sort of limited preservation/mitigation, but a developer has no way of determining the cost or time it would take to get to such a compromise.

Usually, environmental contamination, if any exists, is more quantifiable, both in terms of discovery, and cost of remediation. Further, laws exist that allow one to "cap" certain types of environmental contamination, provided that contamination is "stagnant", with limited potential for spreading to other properties. This can be relatively inexpensive, as the "cap" is often paving or a concrete floor flab. It is also possible that there are more significant environental risks, but I doubt that the burying of fire debris would be so expensive to mitigate that it would jeopardize Mr Mitchell's development plans that were stated in the press.

Unfortunately, this site may have some serious risks, and those risks will pass to any new developer/owner. Accordingly, the value of the property is compromised, such that a developer will need to mitigate those risks, either through an extended/expensive review of the risks, or a significant reduction in sales price that would mitigate the risks. The current owner could work to quantify these risks, but certainly does not have the experience to do so, and may or may not have the financial fortitude to do so.

The Weirs needs some serious help. Mr. Mitchell could well have changed the landscape for the better, but he is a prudent developer, and probably won't accept undue risk. For the Weirs to see a renaissance, the City is going to need to come to grips with the following:

1. They are going to need to get involved with this sort of development/developer, and and work through the environmental and archeological issues, such that they convince the State that the benefits of redevelopment outweigh the benefits of preservation. There will be strong arguments on both sides, but I suggest that no preservation will never happen if there isn't an eye towards redevelopment

2. They are going to need to come to grips with the fact that properties in the Weirs are not getting redeveloped, because motorcycle week vendor rentals are more valuable, and are less risky, than new development. As long as that is the case, vacant lots are going to trump new development. If there were a ban on temporary vendor rentals on private property, owners would be left with no choice but to redevelop. In the short term, these owners will be VERY unhappy, and such legislation could even cause owners to lose property, as values would drop, at least in the short term. I'd suggest, however, that stakeholders with a longer term vision could be rewarded with a prosperous resort community.

Meredith was a challenge to "fix", and that was in an era of simplified environmental/historical regulation. The Weirs is going to be a bigger challenge, take deep pockets, and is going to take a lot of lobbying to convince the politicians/authorities/landowners that long term change can come with some short term pain and compromise. I'm guessing it won't happen, but I've lived here my entire life, and would love to see it happen.

Well said and thoughtful. Laconia is going to have to decide how to promote the redevelopment of the area if there is ever going to be success in that.

[joey2665]

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england...447902403.html

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Outdoorsman...

Here is a link you can use to read old versions of the LDS... complete with the front page story about Baldi and the crap he buried at the Drive In.

https://issuu.com/dailysun/docs/lds11-7-12

Sorry Woody but I was not able to verify the link above so I will not click on it. "issuu.com" is just too suspect to be a legitimate web site and a whois search gave me the run-around.

When this news broke... there was HUGE local uproar because of the buried waste and its proximity to the lake.

In case you didn't bother to search here...

Here is an old thread from here (with over 100K views) that started right after the Saloon fire and continued up until after the DES article in the LDS.

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ighlight=baldi

I took the time to read the above link you provided. There was NO uproar about burring debris on site so you are being a jackass for suggesting such. 100K views is as meaningless to this discussion as that thread was. It was hijacked no less than 5 times and there was NEVER a mention of the owner burying the building on the property.

I am not saying Baldi didn't remove the hazmat waste.. But given his history (knowingly burying the hazmat waste on the property instead of trucking it away) and given the very public uproar about it, it was weird that the dig up and removal of the hazmat waste never made the paper. As a year round resident of the Weirs, I did not see any hazmat abatement dump truck or archaeological vans go in or out of the Drive-In. So it really doesn't surprise me that the deal to sell it is "on hold" because of "site pollution".

Woodsy

Given that you have taken issue with this property for over 7 years now... Yeah.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

Sorry Woody but I was not able to verify the link above so I will not click on it. "issuu.com" is just too suspect to be a legitimate web site and a whois search gave me the run-around.

I took the time to read the above link you provided. There was NO uproar about burring debris on site so you are being a jackass for suggesting such. 100K views is as meaningless to this discussion as that thread was. It was hijacked no less than 5 times and there was NEVER a mention of the owner burying the building on the property.

Given that you have taken issue with this property for over 7 years now... Yeah.

I did not see where Woodsy said that the local uproar was on this website but I do remember that a lot of local people, and Laconia city officials, were very concerned about the condition and future of the site. I am not sure how you could determine that there was "NO uproar". As many people remember, it remained an eyesore for a very long time and many local people were very unhappy about it. There is no need for the name calling just because you have a different opinion.

Woodsy posts regularly with a level head and an informed opinion. As a full time resident of Weirs Beach he is in a great position to have a lot of information about what is going on in the area.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

Sorry Woody but I was not able to verify the link above so I will not click on it. "issuu.com" is just too suspect to be a legitimate web site and a whois search gave me the run-around.

I took the time to read the above link you provided. There was NO uproar about burring debris on site so you are being a jackass for suggesting such. 100K views is as meaningless to this discussion as that thread was. It was hijacked no less than 5 times and there was NEVER a mention of the owner burying the building on the property.

Given that you have taken issue with this property for over 7 years now... Yeah.

Outdoorsman--I'm confused. It appears as though you refuse to click on the link to LDS which Woodsy provided to substantiate his claim, then you question both his claim and his integrity. You can't have it both ways.

I did click on the link to LDS. It was an eye opening article that clearly reported how the Baldis abused the property, and that they risked criminal prosecution.

I have no doubt this created an uproar, and I thank Woodsy for his reporting.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Outdoorsman...

Here is a link you can use to read old versions of the LDS... complete with the front page story about Baldi and the crap he buried at the Drive In.

https://issuu.com/dailysun/docs/lds11-7-12

When this news broke... there was HUGE local uproar because of the buried waste and its proximity to the lake.

In case you didn't bother to search here...

Here is an old thread from here (with over 100K views) that started right after the Saloon fire and continued up until after the DES article in the LDS.

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ighlight=baldi

I am not saying Baldi didn't remove the hazmat waste.. But given his history (knowingly burying the hazmat waste on the property instead of trucking it away) and given the very public uproar about it, it was weird that the dig up and removal of the hazmat waste never made the paper. As a year round resident of the Weirs, I did not see any hazmat abatement dump truck or archaeological vans go in or out of the Drive-In. So it really doesn't surprise me that the deal to sell it is "on hold" because of "site pollution".

Woodsy

Woodsy I re read the article, I now remember it when it was published. My question would be since the buyer owns property in the area, wasn't he aware of the potential issues before the offer to purchase was made?