New Waterfront Tax proposed HB 629-FN

[LIforrelaxin]

While Maybe it is time for New Hampshire to change its slogan.... From:

Live Free or Die

to,

Live Free, Get Taxed like the rest of America, or Die........

Some day someone is going to realize that the state needs to figure out better revenue streams..... The days of NH being able to rely solely on Property Tax, are numbered..... As Property Tax goes up for lake property owners, it also continues to go up for those with out lake front property. When I feel I can no longer afford the lake property I will sell it.....No big deal... What about the people that live in NH full time.... What will they do? Where will the Grocery Store workers, landscapers etc go when housing is no longer affordable....

At the end of the day, it is time for NH to evolve......

[AC2717]

so let me get the straight to see if I can sum up what this bill is:

Bill is to raise boat fees another $5, and $1.58 per foot of waterfront on bodies of water that are dammed.
and this money generated will go to maintenance of the dams, but the dams are
1 - Leased out by the state to private companies because they make money off the electricity that is produced from the dams by selling it to users in the state.
2- the leases include that these private companies have with the state has in them that the company is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the dams
3 - waterfront property is being tasked to bear the cost of these dams but the dams benefit every single property in a flood zone of said dams that are not flooded because the dam is there and maybe of the waterfront property would no longer be water front if said dam was let go but others would be flooded out and become the water front. Also those that are not because of revenue generated by the bodies of water including commercial/retail property
4 - boaters are being asked to bear a cost as well whether on that body of water or not
5- there was already a $30 million allocation the state has set aside to do said repairs that the private companies as supposed to be paying for to begin with
6 - $300,000 of this annual tax will go to the administration of handing out this tax and moving the funds when there is already people in place to hand tax assessing and handing out the money (which with the other new boat fee was proven they couldn't do that correctly to begin with)


So my questions added to my understandings/questions above:
1 - explain to me where have taxes for how many years passed have been allocated for infrastructure like it is supposed to be already
2 - why are select tax payers having this taxed forced on them when every single property has interaction with said dams (commerce, value, irrigation, food, etc...)
3 - why is it not recommended by committee for the companies that are in a legal contract with the State being held to the contract they signed and agreed to as they are being and if not why are no suits being filed against them for breach of contract
4- would this not result in a class action lawsuit against the state for an unfair tax burden? causing more expense to the state and tax payers

I'm sure there are more questions to add to this, and this needs to be known to the public

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so let me get the straight to see if I can sum up what this bill is:

Bill is to raise boat fees another $5, and $1.58 per foot of waterfront on bodies of water that are dammed.
and this money generated will go to maintenance of the dams, but the dams are
1 - Leased out by the state to private companies because they make money off the electricity that is produced from the dams by selling it to users in the state.
2- the leases include that these private companies have with the state has in them that the company is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the dams
3 - waterfront property is being tasked to bear the cost of these dams but the dams benefit every single property in a flood zone of said dams that are not flooded because the dam is there and maybe of the waterfront property would no longer be water front if said dam was let go but others would be flooded out and become the water front. Also those that are not because of revenue generated by the bodies of water including commercial/retail property
4 - boaters are being asked to bear a cost as well whether on that body of water or not
5- there was already a $30 million allocation the state has set aside to do said repairs that the private companies as supposed to be paying for to begin with
6 - $300,000 of this annual tax will go to the administration of handing out this tax and moving the funds when there is already people in place to hand tax assessing and handing out the money (which with the other new boat fee was proven they couldn't do that correctly to begin with)


So my questions added to my understandings/questions above:
1 - explain to me where have taxes for how many years passed have been allocated for infrastructure like it is supposed to be already
2 - why are select tax payers having this taxed forced on them when every single property has interaction with said dams (commerce, value, irrigation, food, etc...)
3 - why is it not recommended by committee for the companies that are in a legal contract with the State being held to the contract they signed and agreed to as they are being and if not why are no suits being filed against them for breach of contract
4- would this not result in a class action lawsuit against the state for an unfair tax burden? causing more expense to the state and tax payers

I'm sure there are more questions to add to this, and this needs to be known to the public

When we breach a dam, flooding does not occur.
Belmont breached the dam. It simply allowed the water to flow out in a controlled method until low enough to remove the dam.

If Lakeport was to have a situation that it became high risk, they would just keep the flood gates open as much as they could without swamping downstream... even when no new rain was predicted to lower the lake enough to do the maintenance or to breach and remove the dam.

Or course, if you lower Winnipesaukee by the depth of that dam, interesting navigational challenges and changes in shorefront happen.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

When we breach a dam, flooding does not occur.
Belmont breached the dam. It simply allowed the water to flow out in a controlled method until low enough to remove the dam.

If Lakeport was to have a situation that it became high risk, they would just keep the flood gates open as much as they could without swamping downstream... even when no new rain was predicted to lower the lake enough to do the maintenance or to breach and remove the dam.

Or course, if you lower Winnipesaukee by the depth of that dam, interesting navigational challenges and changes in shorefront happen.

Fully understand I was using flood to explain my stance with idenified flood zones off of dammed water ways and benefits of such dams across the state

[tummyman]

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

done and done and shared
when selecting committee - select House Resources, Recreations & Development

Bill number is: HB629

[hemlock]

Sent comments
Whos next?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason for the bill is that same as our arguments in Belmont.
Instead of spending taxpayer money, draw it down, breach it, and remove it.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

While Maybe it is time for New Hampshire to change its slogan.... From:

Live Free or Die

to,

Live Free, Get Taxed like the rest of America, or Die........

Some day someone is going to realize that the state needs to figure out better revenue streams..... The days of NH being able to rely solely on Property Tax, are numbered..... As Property Tax goes up for lake property owners, it also continues to go up for those with out lake front property. When I feel I can no longer afford the lake property I will sell it.....No big deal... What about the people that live in NH full time.... What will they do? Where will the Grocery Store workers, landscapers etc go when housing is no longer affordable....

At the end of the day, it is time for NH to evolve......

NH is one of the least tax burdened states in the country…I believe we currently rank at #5. We must be doing something right! Moving to a state where property taxes are lower but other taxes more than makeup for our high property tax makes no sense at all as you are just spending more money!

I’ll take NH any day!

Dan