Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQ Members List Donate Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2019, 10:56 PM   #1
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 244
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.

An owner is presented with identical prices from two bidders for their land. One bidder will build houses for 12 families, increasing the environmental impact significantly. Another will grant low impact access to hundreds of kids every year, and protect the land forever.

If I were the Winchesters, I think I'd know how I'd want to be remembered.
Whether it is "right" or not is a matter of an emotional measure of right or wrong and while I get that it is still the owner's decision who they sell to. It would be no different than holding prejudice against one party because you simply don't like them or what they are interested in doing with property they one day could own.

Far as the mission statement of the town goes... that's all well and good but read the language carefully, words such as promote, and encourage they can certainly do and when it comes to say allowing special exceptions for development, these ideals can certainly play a part but they cannot just say you can't build a house there because the neighbors don't like it. Nor can they just inject themselves into a legal transaction between two parties just because. This is a serious overreach and I don't believe they have the authority to do so.

Keep in mind I am not taking sides on this just saying if all the requirements are met the town cannot come along and say no without just cause. The owner of the property has rights too. And not for nothing, ANY waterfront lot development creates an impact of some sort so using that as an argument then sets the precedence of what? No more waterfront lot development? Or is it just ok for some but not for others?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2019, 11:18 PM   #2
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,457
Thanks: 759
Thanked 796 Times in 419 Posts
Default

How is it known that the owners were presented with identical offers? Have you seen the offers? It appears that the YMCA offer was contingent on raising funds.

Last edited by Sue Doe-Nym; 07-22-2019 at 07:48 AM.
Sue Doe-Nym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2019, 09:07 AM   #3
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,550
Thanks: 1,412
Thanked 1,075 Times in 668 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym View Post
How is it known that the owners were presented with identical offers? Have you seen the offers? It appears that the YMCA offer was contingent on raising funds.
This is a fair point. Similarly, it appears the developer's offer is contingent on gaining town approval.

The bigger point, perhaps not articulated clearly enough--it's nice if someone can reap a windfall on property from their own hard work or their grandparents. It would also be nice if that person didn't feel the need to get every last dime and instead thought a bit about what's best for the community long term.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.23138 seconds