Timber Island Rope Swing?

[sportsmaniac38]

Anyone know if the Rope swing on Timber is still there this year? Last year I had heard they were cutting the tree down this winter.

I can see they are worried about liability but wouldn't putting a sign on the tree saying use at own risk cover it? I guess people being sue happy now a days ruins it for the rest of us.

If the rope swing isn't there anymore are there any other fun places around the lake to go do things like this?

Thanks

[Mink Islander]

that Timber Island is well posted private property so coming ashore to use a rope swing is trespassing. If you do a search on this site, you'll find a number of threads relating to the issues the current owner has had with trespassers. Sadly, the owners have found it necessary to post signs around the island, to rope off a swim area, etc. in order to maintain the privacy of the island. Not saying I agree with everything they've done, but they're well within their rights to prohibit public access to their land.

My advise is to heed the signs and stay off the island altogether.

[BroadHopper]

It is sad to see a lot of the favorite rope swings around the lake going the way of the dinosaurs. There was a great swing off of Camp Samoset, now Samoset Condominiums. The tree limb was cut off. There was another one on Paugus Bay just off the point that is now South Down Shores. There are no trespassing signs around the property. The big debate is that the state owns the property on this side of the rail bed. Yet South Down Shores act as if they own the property.

I remember a number of the summer camps use to have rope swings. I don't see any in the past few years. Due to liabilitiies?

lee Iacocca was right. 'The are ten lawyers for every engineers in the US. Other countries have ten engineers for every lawyers'. This should be a wake up call to the american public. Instead of blaming the govt. and the banks for the economic mess we are in, they should look at themselves.

[sportsmaniac38]

Where was there one on the samoset property? That is where I live now and always thought it would be a great place for one but its pretty shallow.

I will look up the info on Timber. I thought it was state owned and was conservation or something like that. I didn't realize it is privately owned. I guess now I will stay off. I can see if it was my land I would be upset as well. O well I'm sure I'll find another place.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by sportsmaniac38

Where was there one on the samoset property? That is where I live now and always thought it would be a great place for one but its pretty shallow.

It is near the Terrace Hill Road side of the property. I think the big tree is still there. You should see where the limb was. You will notice it is pretty deep there.

Lake Shore Park had a rope swing near the Samoset property. Someone cut the tree down back in the '60's

[Merrymeeting]

Sadly, the same thing has happened on Merrymeeting. There was a rope swing in one cove that was an integral part of my teen years, as it was for many generations of lake residents.

While the landowner was supportive of it's use, and enjoyed the tradition as much as others, he was finally convinced by his lawyer that the liability exposure was too high.

He started by cutting down the rope and posting signs. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough and groups of kids would put it back up. So, he cut down the tree. They moved to another tree. After one more cycle of this pattern, the tradition died.

Sad, but I unfortunately understand why the landowner felt the need to do this.

[jrc]

I'm sure Mink Islander is right, it's private property and there is conservation protection on the island that stops access by the general public.

Timber Island is a taxpayer subsidized private park.

[tis]

It is sad. The insurance companies don't even want you to have a diving board or slide. Most flat our refuse your business if you have them.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm sure Mink Islander is right, it's private property and there is conservation protection on the island that stops access by the general public.

Timber Island is a taxpayer subsidized private park.

No, it isn't

The owners pay taxes on the entire island. Just like anyone else. A conservation easement does not lower taxes.

I imagine most of the island is taxed as current use and therefore at a very low rate. However if you disagree with that, complain to the town about their tax rates.

[Mink Islander]

The undevelopable 128 acres is assessed at just $15,800 though that is an adjusted number from the base assessed land value of $523,390. Not sure what drove the adjustment. To give that some context, we jointly own 0.58 acres of shoreline on Mink Island that abuts swampland so cannot be developed -- it's around 30 feet or so of frontage - just a sandy beach area really. It's assessed at $21,200. So the point seems valid -- why is the net assessed value so low on the undeveloped land? I don't know what you'd comp it against, but still it has to have more value than $15,800. A question to the R/E appraiser, I guess.

[tis]

Are you sure about that BI that with a conservation easement that they don't have to pay taxes?

[jrc]

From the Lakes Region Conservation Trust website:

"Establishing a trust, donating land, or providing a gift of a conservation easement to the Lakes Region Conservation Trust can reduce, or even eliminate, estate taxes."

"Certain uses, such as subdivision or development, may be restricted when an easement is placed on the property. In donating an easement, the landowner (and any subsequent owners) retain title and use of the land, with the exception of specific rights relinquished under the easement. Conservation easement restrictions are permanent and legally binding for the present owner and all future owners. Provided certain conservation requirements are met, a gift of an easement to the LRCT may result in tax advantages for the donor"

There several more paragraphs touting tax advantages.

And I'm sure Mink Islander's examples show how a conservation easement has actually lowered taxes on Timber Island. Current use is no where near as powerful a tax tool.

I not against conservation easements, just that if the public is going to fund them through lower taxes, then the public should also get some benefits. Stonedam Island is an example of limited public use.

[Sman]

If the rope swing isn't there anymore are there any other fun places around the lake to go do things like this?

right, all the other info is fascinating there was a rope swing in Meredith, not sure if it still exists, IF its still there it would be before church landing on the left

between sleepers island and the mouth of alton bay there was at one time a high rocky area at the shore line where people used to jump off of into the lake, I can't speak to the safety of it but it might be the type of thing you are asking about

don't have too much fun, you might get in trouble

[Bear Islander]

A conservation easement does not lower your taxes. The easement is not calculated into the valuation or the tax rate.

It is true that by placing your property under a conservation easement you may have a better argument to convince the town you deserve the lowest tax rate. It is also true that land set aside permanently for conservation purposes may be considered to have a lower commercial value and therefore a lower valuation.

However the tax is determined by the tax rate multiplied by the value of the property. There is no tax exception for conservation land.

Also conservation land can sometimes be used commercially. As example many conservation easements allow for foresting the land and selling the timber at a profit. It all depends on the language of the easement.

[jrc]

BI, trying to get beyond the semantics here to my original intent.

In the case of Timber Island and in many similar cases, a large portion of desirable, developable land was placed in a conservation trust preventing development. For tax purposes, the land is now less valuable and the tax bill goes down. The land owner still has the same private use of the land. So in effect, everyone else in town pays a higher tax to subsidize this land.

The benefit to the town is that the land is never developed. But is that enough? Shouldn't the public have some access to the land they are paying for?

I'm not trying to say that Timber should change their deed. As far as I know its legalling binding and can't easily be changed. I'm just standing by my statement that Timber Island is a private park and other taxpayers are paying some of its fair share of the town tax base.

[Bear Islander]

The public are in no way "paying for" conservation land. The taxes are lower because the value of the land is lower.

A conservation easement does not imply public access.

If a person ignores the no trespassing signs on Timer Island, then they are criminals. It's just that simple.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The public are in no way "paying for" conservation land. The taxes are lower because the value of the land is lower

Sure they are! Since the Timber Island owners are not paying their fair share, the tax rate goes up and everyone pays for it!

[TomC]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Sure they are! Since the Timber Island owners are not paying their fair share, the tax rate goes up and everyone pays for it!

You own an improved parcel of land with a somewhat rundown structure on it. You demolish the house and plant a garden on it - or maybe just let it return to its native state. The town reassesses and you are billed for the value of the land only (the value of the house is deleted).

Would you conclude, then, that you aren't paying your fair share? Would you feel that everyone else in town pays for what you have decided to do with your land?

That does not follow in this case, and the same logic can be used when looking at the decision to convert some of Timber Is to conservation land.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by TomC

You own an improved parcel of land with a somewhat rundown structure on it. You demolish the house and plant a garden on it - or maybe just let it return to its native state. The town reassesses and you are billed for the value of the land only (the value of the house is deleted).

Would you conclude, then, that you aren't paying your fair share? Would you feel that everyone else in town pays for what you have decided to do with your land?

That does not follow in this case, and the same logic can be used when looking at the decision to convert some of Timber Is to conservation land.

I'm unfamiliar with the history of the island. Have structures been torn down on this parcel? Is the land that has been put into trust improved in any way? Is the land reverting to a natural state, or was it already in a natural state?

[TomC]

The owner of the island put a large portion of his property into a conservation status, eliminating the possiblity of future development. This surely caused a large decrease in the value of the land.. I was trying to draw a parallel between this situation and the perhaps more familiar scenario where a landowner diminishes the value of his parcel by removing improvements.


The implication with the island is that this decision "cost the remaining town taxpayers money" and therefore the landowner should grant some public access rights. In my example I was trying to suggest an analogous situation that would "cost the remaining town taxpayers money" but illustrate that the granting of public access to the parcel as a result would be nonsensical...

I guess I did a bad job, there!

[fatlazyless]

As I recall and it is slightly possible that I am incorrect, the entire 130 acre Timber Island was owned by one family from Rochester, NH, for many years. Up till about 2005, it had one and only one seasonal shoreline cottage on the entire island, and the island looked to be 99%, thickly forested.

Wanting to preserve Timber Island in its' natural condition, and not getting any interest from the State of New Hampshire, the seller designed a conservation plan so most of the island would remain as it had been.

In about 2005, a 120 acre conservation common area was created, and three seperate lots, one including the original owner's cottage, of about three acres each were created and sold for aproximately $433,333. each, for a total of three, separate cottage lots occupying a total of about ten acres on the 130 acre island. The sales agreement for each of the three separate lots contained limited use rights to the remaining 120 acre common conservation land.

I recall reading somewhere that forestry students from UNH have been there, from time to time, for academic studies.

Hope this is an accurate description.

[jrc]

I've stolen the rope swing topic too long. I will respond one last time. Then the floor is yours...

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The public are in no way "paying for" conservation land. The taxes are lower because the value of the land is lower.
...

The land is appraised lower because of the easement. Assuming the town budget is the same, then everyone else must pay a little more if the people with the easement pay less.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...A conservation easement does not imply public access...

True, a conservation easement does not have to allow public access. It's up to the people granting the easement. I just believe it should given the huge tax benefits.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If a person ignores the no trespassing signs on Timer Island, then they are criminals. It's just that simple.

Absolutely true. It is a pity that the people who formed the easement could not even allow a tiny public access to use the swing.

This is no reflection on the current landowners, they are bound by the easement.

[fatlazyless]

I still say that the State of NH missed the boat, back in 2004-2005, by not purchasing 130 acre Timber Island for the very low price of something like 1.5 million dollars. The state should have bought it and then figured out what to do with it later on, like do they build a rest stop with a state liquor store, or something.

Once they owned it, it would belong to the state forever, and could become Timber Island Conservation Area & State Park similar to Whittemore Point State Park on Newfound Lake. Whittemore is a multiple use area with the beach a recreation use, the large wooded, point area, for a walking path and conservation and education, and now, a recently built state boat launch facility.

It just seems like the state had absolutely no interest in 130 acre Timber Island when it was available at a very garage sale price. Most likely, the seller would have preferred for it to become a state park property, too, similar to Elecoya State Park.

Where was the state's enlightened vision? They missed the boat! Any other State, like Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticutt, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, or even New Jersey would have been right there at midnight with the tiny asking price.....but not New Hampshire.

And, that would have solved the liabilty problem for a rope swing on Timber Island. Someone would just tie a boot leg rope swing on the State's property and it would not be a such a big deal.

[MAXUM]

I agree it would have been nice for the state to purchase Timber Is, but at the end of the day how many pieces of property come up for sale where somebody could make a very good argument that the state purchase it and keep it free, clear and open to the public? They can't buy it all. Having it a privately held nature preserve seems like a reasonable situation.

[tis]

I totally agree,Maxum, how many pieces of property is the government going to buy? It does, after all, take it off the tax rolls, making the rest of us pay more.

[fatlazyless]

For New Hampshire, a state with a yearly budget in the billions, a one time price tag of 1.3 milion for 130 acre Timber Island would basically have been like purchasing it for peanuts in 2005.

The NH legislature has a record of not wanting to spend to preserve park space for public access unless it is gifted to the state. Ellacoya State Beach on Lake Winnipesaukee, and Whittemore Point State Park, on Newfound Lake, were both gifted.

The White Mountain National Forest was created by federal legislation sponsored by US Senator Weeks of Massachusetts in about 1922. It took a Massachusetts guy to preserve the 48 NH 4000' mountains, and the White Mountains in New Hampshire.

The Town of Meredith recently raised about $2.25 mil to purchase the 525 acre Page Pond conservation area on Meredith Neck. Some geographically blessed areas are definately worth preserving for public use, and that should be one of the state's long term efforts.

[fatlazyless]

According to the info on the home page of this website, it is a distance of 182 miles to go around Lake Winnipesaukee. Now, the State of New Hampshire has exactly one state beach, Elecoya State Beach in Gilford, which is a beautifull spot and it has aproximately 1/4 mile of shore line. 1/4 mile of shoreline out of 182 miles is not much considering that the state has been in existance, right here, since about 1776.

For the tiny amount of 1.3millon, in 2005, it could have added a highy scenic and totally wooded and 99.44%undeveloped, centrally located Timber Island to its list of state forests or parks.. It had a total of one summer cottage which could have been used for administration-residence, similar to the old residence at Whittemore Point.

If one individual town, Meredith, considered it to be good for the town to go and purchase the 525 acre Page Pond land and create a conservation area, then how come the state said no to Timber Island? Meredith has an annual spending budget of about 11 million. The State of NH has an annual budget of maybe eight billion dollars and would not say yes to Timber Island.