Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
...RSA 271:20 might seem clear to you, however it is trumped by multiple New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions to the contrary. An example is below. I know from past experience that you don't like this decision, but you should take it up with them, not me.
"W. A. Sundell & a. vs. Town of New London
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
119 N.H. 839, December 12, 1979
....littoral owners have common law property rights which are more extensive than those of the public generally, which could not be taken without compensation, and which were not affected by the statute. RSA 271:20 (Supp. 1977)."
|
Actually I have no problem with either the statute as written nor the Supreme Court cases you cite, as they do not conflict each other. Read the synopsis of the case you cite more carefully, the key phrase in the passage is "
and which were not affected by the statute (RSA 271:20)...
The littoral rights often cited by you allow property owners in
some cases to build or maintain docks, boathouses, accessory structures, swim rafts & swim lines into or onto the publicly owned waterways in the State, after obtaining the necessary governmental permissions & permits as these littoral rights are by no means absolute rights.. However, the actual waters on which these structures occur remain the property of all. The original post in this thread started by Rayhunt alleged that he was harassed for anchoring within 150' feet of a shoreline. I saw no mention by him that he was anchored within a swimline. Given the facts as stated by him, he was well within his right to be where he was. And as any regular reader of this site may recall, these incidents seem to crop up every year.
I believe the point that Rayhunt was trying to make, and one that I will continue to emphasize, is that by State law the great bodies of water in this State are maintained by and open to use by all citizens. The court cases you cite are not and do not conflict with this philosophy. If indeed the RSA was so fatally flawed, I am sure that one of the Lake's regions legislators would have ammended it appropriately in the decades since the first decision you often cite was handed down.
But again no such legislation has been proposed (or ammended) because the intent of both the RSA and the Courts of this State are, in my humble opinion, abudantly clear and actually reinforce the rights of all to enjoy our public waterways.
Skip
