Wakesurfing legislation call to action

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by LakeDad

This is very unlikely to get any traction.
Noise, etc. are super weak arguments and diminish the movement.

Erosion is a legitimate concern, but that could easily become about all boats. Do you want that?

Careful what you wish for. It’s usually best to err on the side of freedom, as legislation, once given a heading, likes to eat until it’s big and fat.

I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.

Exactly--kind of like the BS with last year's special commission where half the people on it depended on boat sales for their living

[John Mercier]

I don't think moving it to 250' or even 300' would make a bit of difference in sales. You could move all boats to 300' and it wouldn't make a difference in sales.

And if you put in a noise ordinance... either through direct legislation or court inflection, the industry would just morph into a means to provide the music more directly - sort of like waterproof headphones.

But in the end, the main issue with the lakes will always be the property values that they present. Protecting those property values will be front and center regardless of what secondary issues may arise.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I don't think moving it to 250' or even 300' would make a bit of difference in sales. You could move all boats to 300' and it wouldn't make a difference in sales.

And if you put in a noise ordinance... either through direct legislation or court inflection, the industry would just morph into a means to provide the music more directly - sort of like waterproof headphones.

But in the end, the main issue with the lakes will always be the property values that they present. Protecting those property values will be front and center regardless of what secondary issues may arise.

To be a little unbiased/balanced. It’s not just property values.
It’s businesses too. And those businesses do draw people to spend money in NH.
And increase demand for property.

The boat dealers argument was if you do this everyone would pack up and leave.
Which was of course BS.

Honestly the 250ft is practically a token and just a message that NH won’t just tolerate anything. It might move some boats out of marginal coves. But it’s such a small difference. I think 500ft would make a more serious dent and still not harm most of them much. It would hit a small hand full probably hard. On some very small bodies of water. They would need a 1000ft, almost a 1/4 mile, diameter circle around the boat and that wide path moving ahead.

[John Mercier]

Tourism is about 8% of NH's GSP according to the Division of Travel and Tourism. They estimate that between 75% and 85% of that on any given year is residents recreating. The Seacoast is the actual winner for summer revenue on that one.

Boating is cost and access. Pretty much like any other recreational format.
It is doubtful that diminishing a boats speed for an extra 100 feet, or even 500 feet, would change the demand pattern even enough to discover any data on it.

Now if we stated that no vessel shall sit at rest while manned unless docked... that might create an issue.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tourism is about 8% of NH's GSP according to the Division of Travel and Tourism. They estimate that between 75% and 85% of that on any given year is residents recreating. The Seacoast is the actual winner for summer revenue on that one.

Boating is cost and access. Pretty much like any other recreational format.
It is doubtful that diminishing a boats speed for an extra 100 feet, or even 500 feet, would change the demand pattern even enough to discover any data on it.

Now if we stated that no vessel shall sit at rest while manned unless docked... that might create an issue.

Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

There are plenty. Have you been to downtown Portsmouth lately? Some are in the $2-4mil range! I live in Dover (at least for a few more months until we move permanently to Gilford) and real estate all over the seacoast is booming. Tons of people relocating to the seacoast, and summer is big down here. Personally I spend my summers in the lakes region.

[LakeDad]

Originally Posted by codeman671

There are plenty. Have you been to downtown Portsmouth lately? Some are in the $2-4mil range! I live in Dover (at least for a few more months until we move permanently to Gilford) and real estate all over the seacoast is booming. Tons of people relocating to the seacoast, and summer is big down here. Personally I spend my summers in the lakes region.

“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.

My wife prefers the seacoast and I prefer the lake.
I won this time

Property tax tends to be one of my primary motivators when shopping homes: One could argue that property tax is one of the most immoral taxes: Who wants to pay a lifelong mortgage after you’ve already paid your property off? This got to be such a problem in CA, they capped it based on an annual % of the purchase price, regardless of appreciation.

Alton, Gilford, Wolfeboro and Moultonboro bring great value. Some of the sea coast has similar value, so both will remain popular for years to come.

When I look at Gilmanton, Bow and other places, I’d have a hard time justifying a purchase. A house the price of mine in Bow would have double the property tax.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by LakeDad

“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.

Since you don't like my generic terms, here is the NH quarterly activity posted by county for residential and condo sales.

https://www.nhar.org/assets/docs/NHAR_QDS_2021-Q4.pdf

I was speaking specifically to real estate, not which area brings in more revenue. I do think that a lot more people visit the seacoast than the lakes region, but that is my opinion. Just the sheer traffic alone down here is a nightmare. When people complain about lakes region traffic I have to chuckle.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LakeDad

“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.

My wife prefers the seacoast and I prefer the lake.
I won this time

Property tax tends to be one of my primary motivators when shopping homes: One could argue that property tax is one of the most immoral taxes: Who wants to pay a lifelong mortgage after you’ve already paid your property off? This got to be such a problem in CA, they capped it based on an annual % of the purchase price, regardless of appreciation.

Alton, Gilford, Wolfeboro and Moultonboro bring great value. Some of the sea coast has similar value, so both will remain popular for years to come.

When I look at Gilmanton, Bow and other places, I’d have a hard time justifying a purchase. A house the price of mine in Bow would have double the property tax.

NH Travel and Tourism has data on where the Meals & Rental taxes are coming from by specific address, but generally correlates by zip code.

We use property taxes... which we have since the founding of the State (and used to pay all State level revenue as property taxes including on livestock and equipment) because property is much more stable, and moreover, the property tax generally goes towards items that improve the value of the property.

[LakeDad]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

NH Travel and Tourism has data on where the Meals & Rental taxes are coming from by specific address, but generally correlates by zip code.

We use property taxes... which we have since the founding of the State (and used to pay all State level revenue as property taxes including on livestock and equipment) because property is much more stable, and moreover, the property tax generally goes towards items that improve the value of the property.

Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.

[dippasan]

No need for a $150,000 wake boat to tow you if you have one of these.
Minimal wake, minimal shoreline impact, battery powered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_PhLgPtfcg

[Woodsy]

Its not just elderly... pretty much any family with lakefront property will be priced/taxed out eventually! They are not making anymore lakefront, and its a high demand commodity. We see this now in almost all aspects of lake life... I know of 1 marina getting close to $7700 for valet & winter storage!

Woodsy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by LakeDad

Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.

Gathering revenue at spending points is an excellent idea...as long as you don't need roads plowed/repaired, or need to call the police, or the fire department, or believe in public education...

I agree that nobody should be taxed out of their (primary) residence. Many towns have tax relief programs that enable cash-strapped older people to put off paying property taxes until their home is sold. Since everybody's seen huge run ups in real estate value over the 20 years you cite, that should work for all towns

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LakeDad

Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.

What spending points?
And they are protected under NH RSA 72:38-a

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

According to Realtor.com Manchester is the #1 RE market in the state, Concord comes in as #2.

Based on numbers from September 2021. This is based on both volume of sales along with average days on the market.

While areas like the seacoast and lakes region may have a high concentration of high dollar properties, that does not really create a fair measuring stick. What it does illustrate is real estate in these areas is in high demand and with limited options drives the higher-than-average prices. Then again this is happening everywhere.

It's all relative, every market is different.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I have spent a lot of time in the lakes region and now live at Hampton Beach. I don't think million dollar+ condos bring in much tourism revenue anywhere since most are probably either occupied by owners (who are likely not eating out every day or hitting tourist traps, due to BTDT syndrome) or they are empty. I suspect that when you can afford a million dollar+ condo as a second home, there's not a lot of incentive to rent it out.

I can say with certainty that sub-$500k condo short-term rentals are absolutely booming here at Hampton Beach. We rent our one-bedroom beach condo out May to Oct on airbnb and it sells out easily. Many of our neighbors do the same. We are in process of buying a second one bedroom condo right now and plan to keep buying more when good deals land in our lap (we refuse to get into bidding wars).

I think it's safe to assume the tourism revenue from the people that are renting these small (600-850 square foot) beach condos is pretty huge because in addition to the beach, our customers tell us the big draw here is all the cool places to spend money at night. Tourists love all the live music and expensive food/drink venues that are clustered here.

The lakes region, IMO, is going in the opposite direction as the seacoast, tourism-wise. It's becoming more and more exclusive and other than Weirs Beach (which is tiny compared to Hampton Beach), there really aren't any high-density low-cost vacation destinations in the lakes region anymore.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I have spent a lot of time in the lakes region and now live at Hampton Beach. I don't think million dollar+ condos bring in much tourism revenue anywhere since most are probably either occupied by owners (who are likely not eating out every day or hitting tourist traps, due to BTDT syndrome) or they are empty. I suspect that when you can afford a million dollar+ condo as a second home, there's not a lot of incentive to rent it out.

I can say with certainty that sub-$500k condo short-term rentals are absolutely booming here at Hampton Beach. We rent our one-bedroom beach condo out May to Oct on airbnb and it sells out easily. Many of our neighbors do the same. We are in process of buying a second one bedroom condo right now and plan to keep buying more when good deals land in our lap (we refuse to get into bidding wars).

I think it's safe to assume the tourism revenue from the people that are renting these small (600-850 square foot) beach condos is pretty huge because in addition to the beach, our customers tell us the big draw here is all the cool places to spend money at night. Tourists love all the live music and expensive food/drink venues that are clustered here.

The lakes region, IMO, is going in the opposite direction as the seacoast, tourism-wise. It's becoming more and more exclusive and other than Weirs Beach (which is tiny compared to Hampton Beach), there really aren't any high-density low-cost vacation destinations in the lakes region anymore.

I think you make an excellent point. There used to be cabin colonies and motels and now there are hardly any. We are a second home area now. And although more people rent their private houses, it still does not even compare to what used to be available.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

NH Division of Travel and Tourism.

Housing is not tourism.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

To be a little unbiased/balanced. It’s not just property values.
It’s businesses too. And those businesses do draw people to spend money in NH.
And increase demand for property.
The boat dealers argument was if you do this everyone would pack up and leave.
Which was of course BS.
.

Can you be sure that the wakeboats with the loud stereos do not decrease the demand for property? If a renter on the lake listens to 2 hours of bad music every day of their vacation, blasted across miles, with waves washing up on shore, will they rush to come back?

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

So I have a question on the proposed House Bill - is the 250 foot setback only applicable to the nearest land/shore, or would it also apply to other boats (i.e., would it supersede the 150 foot rule for the wakeboard boat)?

I don't know the answer to this but if it is also 250 feet from other boats then what happens when a regular boat with a 150 foot restriction gets within 250 feet of a wakeboat? Who is the violator?

I can't see how that could become an enforceable law.

[lakewinnie]

I should have looked this up before my previous post. The following language is in House Bill 1071:

"Any boat underway for wake surfing on inland waters shall maintain a minimum distance of 250 feet from the shore, docks, and other boats"

TiltonBB's question is a good one with regard to distance from other boats - how do you enforce it?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Can you be sure that the wakeboats with the loud stereos do not decrease the demand for property? If a renter on the lake listens to 2 hours of bad music every day of their vacation, blasted across miles, with waves washing up on shore, will they rush to come back?

I don't know the answer to this but if it is also 250 feet from other boats then what happens when a regular boat with a 150 foot restriction gets within 250 feet of a wakeboat? Who is the violator?

I can't see how that could become an enforceable law.

The Wake boat impede 100 feet before changing direction to navigate away from the known violation.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The Wake boat impede 100 feet before changing direction to navigate away from the known violation.

You seem to be an expert on most things so please explain this.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

You seem to be an expert on most things so please explain this.

If the law is enacted and you are operating a wake boat... you must either adjust course to maintain the 250 feet or cut your throttle. This is regardless of whatever anyone else does.
If I am operating a boat, not a wake boat, and approach you directly... as we encroach on the 250 foot mark... you must act. I need not change anything in direction or throttle until I reach 150 feet from you.

If we both reach 150 feet without a change in course or cutting the throttle, you have impeded 100 feet into your legally required safe zone... broke the law... and are subject to fine. I will not have done anything illegal until I break the 150 foot safety zone required of me.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If the law is enacted and you are operating a wake boat... you must either adjust course to maintain the 250 feet or cut your throttle. This is regardless of whatever anyone else does.
If I am operating a boat, not a wake boat, and approach you directly... as we encroach on the 250 foot mark... you must act. I need not change anything in direction or throttle until I reach 150 feet from you.

If we both reach 150 feet without a change in course or cutting the throttle, you have impeded 100 feet into your legally required safe zone... broke the law... and are subject to fine. I will not have done anything illegal until I break the 150 foot safety zone required of me.

Is this true? I have always been under the impression that if a boat is towing a skier than I have to (maybe its just should) heed to them if they are on a straight path within reason. If they are tubing zig-zagging around than right of way should win. Maybe I've just been too nice out on the water. I have been swamped by throttling down when approaching another boat within 150' only for them to fly past me within 20 ft.
Also I know that the surfboarding community already used the "they aren't towing anyone" thing for the surfing at night and that NH did change the wording of that rule to include wake surfing. so I am including them in the towing community still.

[John Mercier]

The boat flying past you at 20 feet would be violating the current law. When new law is enacted, all previous legislation is considered amended.

As it currently stands, the wake boat could pass within 150 feet of a non-motorized craft like a kayak, canoe, or paddle board and swamp them... but still be legal in their operation.

But the question was how it could be enforced? Not whether it was prudent based on any existing precedent.

Operators tend to heed ROW under logical terms... the legal requirement is NH RSA 270-D:2
It does not provide a special provision for towing except ''Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.''; which is the provision that keeps boats at least 150 feet from others and shore.

[Alton Bay]

It seems this law covers a large amount of the responsibility of any boat driver or boat

270-D:2
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.

[John Mercier]

As long as they stay 150 feet away... but it does not remove responsibility from the towing vessel to also try to maintain the 150 feet.
The earlier part of it lays out the ROW that every boat is to act upon... nothing specifically exempts a boat in tow from acting outside that.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay

It seems this law covers a large amount of the responsibility of any boat driver or boat

270-D:2
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.

It would be nice if this rule was followed.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.

I contrast this issue with the speed limit issue back in 2008 (I think that was the year). In my view, the speed limit got traction and passed because of 1) the perceived issue of safety and 2) a tragic accident that claimed the life of a woman as a result of a boat operator that had been drinking.

I still think the other key argument that should be made against wakeboats is safety of other boats in the vicinity of the huge waves. I've said this before - in all of my experience on the lake, I have never had a safety issue with boats going > 45 mph, but have had some scary calls with wakeboat waves. If safety is really an issue, I think the wakeboats are by far more of an issue than boats going > 45 mph or the occasional cabin monster that is running in a straight line.

So I have a question on the proposed House Bill - is the 250 foot setback only applicable to the nearest land/shore, or would it also apply to other boats (i.e., would it supersede the 150 foot rule for the wakeboard boat)?