Another big parcel for sale

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by bigdog

I suspect most of these McMansions to be built, will be people who are not 'year-round' folks, just a place to visit with the kids and grand-kids during the summer months. Their other home being in Florida (Naples, Jupiter, Palm Beach) and the likes, the rest of the year.

If this is the case these new property owners will not add to the school system with their kids being seasonal, that would be a plus. Also, the taxes these new folks will help the tax base for the town, the down-side, it may affect property values upwards, which would be a bad thing for others with waterfront properties in town.

Yes, but a wonderful piece of property would be lost to the many for the sake of the (very, very, very, very) few.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Yes, but a wonderful piece of property would be lost to the many for the sake of the (very, very, very, very) few.

"The many?"

It was privately owned before and will remain so; if you really want to acquire property"for the "many," lobby your local politicians to develop more parks.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by codeman671

It will be a shame to see this developed.

Agreed. We don't want no stinkin' fancy green lawn new homes built the DAY AFTER my fancy green lawn new house was built.

[FlyingScot]

Girl Scouts is great in general, but these lawyers deserve a merit badge in BS. The whole reason the trust was created was to protect camp uses from being usurped by money. So the money pressure arriving is now the reason the court should allow them to break the trust?

Also completely bogus that the GS cannot operate a camp with free land. They may need to rethink structure/schedule/participants, but they are the Girl Scouts! Surely they can figure out a way to use the land to benefit a whole bunch of children

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Girl Scouts is great in general, but these lawyers deserve a merit badge in BS. The whole reason the trust was created was to protect camp uses from being usurped by money. So the money pressure arriving is now the reason the court should allow them to break the trust?

Gotta wonder if the terms of the trust will be stricken as being in violation of the rule against perpetuities?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Yes, but a wonderful piece of property would be lost to the many for the sake of the (very, very, very, very) few.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Is the public allowed to access it now? It looks gated.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Is the public allowed to access it now? It looks gated.

I was referring to the (tens/hundreds of) thousands of campers and leaders that would no longer have the opportunity to experience summer camp vs. the few families that would own the homes.

Once a camp like that is gone, it's GONE.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

Agreed. We don't want no stinkin' fancy green lawn new homes built the DAY AFTER my fancy green lawn new house was built.

You're right, it' true.

[TiltonBB]

It appears that the reason the property was sold is because it was not financially feasible to operate it as a summer camp. There are many other summer camps on the lake and maybe the law of supply and demand contributed to the downfall.

One upside that has not been mentioned is that if this property is developed as planned that town will realize a significant increase in taxable value and therefore tax revenue when it is completed. And, not to generalize, but when people purchase the higher cost homes often they are beyond their child raising years so the occupants of these properties will likely contribute substantially to the town's finances while being a minimal burden on town services.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

One upside that has not been mentioned is that if this property is developed as planned that town will realize a significant increase in taxable value and therefore tax revenue when it is completed. And, not to generalize, but when people purchase the higher cost homes often they are beyond their child raising years so the occupants of these properties will likely contribute substantially to the town's finances while being a minimal burden on town services.

What do you think will happen? That revenue goes to sustaining the current town budget and thus reduces the tax burden on everyone else - or the budget balloons as new ways to spend the windfall are found?

[fatlazyless]

95-acres of land, 4500 feet of Lake Winnipesaukee waterfront, one third or 30-acres of the 95-acres land is a beautiful wetlands area with tall pine trees, close to the Meredith Neck Rd that gets flooded from time to time.

Two photos ..... https://gis.vgsi.com/MeredithNH/Parcel.aspx?pid=1765 ..... of the camp buildings, built in 1830 and 1965. These two buildings are the only existing buildings on the 95.38 acre property. There's a large waterfront dock, suitable for a camp waterfront which is set in the lake water, in the lake.

A drawing that shows the proposed seven lots and a large non-buildable area ...... http://www.stevecapykw.com/former-gi...or-18-million/.

Maybe this non-buildable wetlands area will receive 'current use' low tax status and be protected from future development. This very attractive wetlands area is what's seen from the road while driving.

Where is this Camp Menotomy 95-acre property? ...... http://www.mapquest.com/us/new=Hamps...tomy-450115226

Individual summer camp for young people in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont have typically been in existence for 80 to 110-years, created before World War II, and now cost about $14,500 for a camper to attend a seven week session from June 25 to August 10.

Each new house will probably have to pay the Town of Meredith maybe $35,000/year in property tax, plus they spend on building materials, construction labor, maintenance, local business', local services, restaurants, boats and cars. So, these seven new waterfront home owners will help support the local economy, big time ..... and long time.

The last year that Camp Menotomy Girl Scout Camp actually had a full eight week or seven week session was probably in the year 1999 or 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/ny...cout-camp.html ..... Nov 26, 2006: Southampton NY buys a 65-acre Camp Tekakwitha on great Peconic Bay for $16.5 million.

The chance that the Town of Meredith or the State of N.H.would buy Camp Menotomy are probably close to ZERO.

[Weekend Pundit]

The last thing needed is more high-end housing, regardless of what town we're talking about. What we really need is workforce housing (not to be confused with subsidized housing).

When a typical house for a family of four is running ~$500,000, that locks a lot of people out of housing. How many employers can't hire anyone because there isn't any affordable housing for their prospective employees? Pretty much anyone making less than $100K will not be able to afford to buy a house and anyone making less then $70K won't be able to afford rent.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

The last thing needed is more high-end housing, regardless of what town we're talking about. What we really need is workforce housing (not to be confused with subsidized housing).

When a typical house for a family of four is running ~$500,000, that locks a lot of people out of housing. How many employers can't hire anyone because there isn't any affordable housing for their prospective employees? Pretty much anyone making less than $100K will not be able to afford to buy a house and anyone making less then $70K won't be able to afford rent.

Why must current tax payers supply “workforce housing”? If a business decides to open or operate in this area knowing unemployment is at zero isn’t that on them? It’s not the taxpayers responsibility to support one’s business plan.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Gotta wonder if the terms of the trust will be stricken as being in violation of the rule against perpetuities?

Hmmm...not a lawyer, but it would seem to be an unforced error if that was the case. It is not difficult to protect a piece of land forever. People and organizations due this with the Lakes Region Conservation Trust and other groups as a matter of course, including protecting specified uses

[8gv]

My take on this:

The trust was put in place to allow the scouts to have an opportunity to go to summer camp.

That promise was fulfilled.

At some point the demand for that activity ceased to exist.

Changing the use of the property does not cause harm to the scouts because for them, that activity is not coming back.

I say change the property's use and deliver its current value to the trustees so that the scouts can benefit in more modern ways.

[Descant]

Sounds like the Menotomy trustees have lost sight of the intent of the trust as I understand it: Site/land preservation and good experiences for Girl Scouts. In our town the Trustees of Trust Funds (elected by the town) manage forest land that was a bequest in 1965. Proceeds from periodic harvests go into a trust fund and the income of that fund is available for schools. Open to the public for hiking, etc. No reason something like that couldn't be set up for Menotomy, with derived income going to Girl Scouts and allowing them to do "wilderness camping" which requires no structures. Undeveloped land adds to the total desirability of a community which improves value without raising costs. Perhaps Meredith should petition the court for such a plan? Hillsborough and Rockingham counties unexpectedly became over developed. Now they're desperate for open land. The Lakes Region is close to that mistake. On another site, we also purchased a summer camp and the Parks Dept. runs a day camp and other year round programs. Setting aside a large portion of the land as conservation land enabled grant funding such as LWCF and LC HIP, as I recall.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Why must current tax payers supply “workforce housing”? If a business decides to open or operate in this area knowing unemployment is at zero isn’t that on them? It’s not the taxpayers responsibility to support one’s business plan.

Who said anything about the taxpayers doing any of this? Mostly it's a matter of making it less difficult for such housing to be built. I have seen far too much of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) attitude delay or destroy worthy developments.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

I was referring to the (tens/hundreds of) thousands of campers and leaders that would no longer have the opportunity to experience summer camp vs. the few families that would own the homes.

Once a camp like that is gone, it's GONE.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

True.
But it seems that no one wants to lease it, and the Arlington Girl Scouts don't see a future with them opening it back up.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

Who said anything about the taxpayers doing any of this? Mostly it's a matter of making it less difficult for such housing to be built. I have seen far too much of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) attitude delay or destroy worthy developments.

That isn't likely to be the case on this parcel.
We all understand that lakefront development would be higher value housing that what we would typically be expecting for starter homes.

NH HB 1361 (?) I believe would be what a developer would use to increase workforce housing should they wish to go that route.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

Sounds like the Menotomy trustees have lost sight of the intent of the trust as I understand it: Site/land preservation and good experiences for Girl Scouts. In our town the Trustees of Trust Funds (elected by the town) manage forest land that was a bequest in 1965. Proceeds from periodic harvests go into a trust fund and the income of that fund is available for schools. Open to the public for hiking, etc. No reason something like that couldn't be set up for Menotomy, with derived income going to Girl Scouts and allowing them to do "wilderness camping" which requires no structures. Undeveloped land adds to the total desirability of a community which improves value without raising costs. Perhaps Meredith should petition the court for such a plan? Hillsborough and Rockingham counties unexpectedly became over developed. Now they're desperate for open land. The Lakes Region is close to that mistake. On another site, we also purchased a summer camp and the Parks Dept. runs a day camp and other year round programs. Setting aside a large portion of the land as conservation land enabled grant funding such as LWCF and LC HIP, as I recall.

Then the town should make an offer greater than the one currently on the table.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That isn't likely to be the case on this parcel.
We all understand that lakefront development would be higher value housing that what we would typically be expecting for starter homes.

NH HB 1361 (?) I believe would be what a developer would use to increase workforce housing should they wish to go that route.

My comment was aimed at towns in general, not specifically Meredith. Yeah, it was off-topic. My bad.

Goodness knows workforce housing is needed across the state. That's certainly true of Gilford.

[John Mercier]

That can fix it for all of the towns/cities.
Just a matter of it being invoked, and the municipality realizing what the cost of a lost court case would be.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

True.
But it seems that no one wants to lease it, and the Arlington Girl Scouts don't see a future with them opening it back up.

You seem to be injecting a charitable trust with economic goals.

Lease? Maybe I missed something, but generating income did not appear to be a goal of the grantor.

A future? Are you asserting that there are not plenty of kids who could have a wonderful time here?

Sadly, the Girl Scouts are treating their camp as a business. That kind of thinking is great in all sorts of situations, but does not apply to the trust

[John Mercier]

From the LDS article... " The deed, recorded in 1962, permits the sale of the property if the Arlington, Massachusetts, Girl Scouts, or their successor, or no other organization wishes to “hire the camp grounds for camping purposes, and if no other organization can be found to utilize the site for camping purposes...”

The deed also states that, in the event of a sale, the trustees “shall invest the proceeds of such sale” into investments, and use the proceeds from those investments for “camperships or scholarships for girls of Arlington” who are members of the local Girl Scouts organization. "

Hire - Lease

The lawyers seem to be playing around that phrasing of the deed.