• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

NH towns to avoid

Started by Fluff and Stuff, February 19, 2006, 04:01 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

Fluff and Stuff

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Seacoast+towns+paying+for+future+space&articleId=57fe82a6-2ca2-425e-b37b-e4b6c652256f

QuoteSeacoast towns paying for future space
By JODY RECORD
Union Leader Correspondent
4 hours, 57 minutes ago

In 2001, residents in North Hampton decided to set aside $4 million to buy conservation easements or undeveloped acreage to assure their community would retain its rural charm.

Like much of the Seacoast, the Granite State?s reputation of being one of the country?s best places to live had created building pressures.

That same year, several towns established conservation funds: Dover allocated $700,000 to their open space committee, Newington ponied up $50,000 and Rye, $300,000.

And in the southwestern part of the state, Bedford residents agreed to buy the Joppa Hill Farm for $3.6 million.

Land was gaining a new kind of value.

Proof of that has grown in the last five years with the amount of money Seacoast communities have agreed to spend on conservation.

Here?s a sampling of open space acquisition bonds: Brentwood, $2 million; Dover, $1 million; Durham $2.5 million; East Kingston $4 million; Exeter, $3 million; Greenland, $2 million; Hampton Falls, $2.5 million; Newfields, $2 million; Newmarket, $2 million and Rye, $5 million.

?It?s amazing the commitment communities have made in the last few years,? says Brian Hart who heads up the Rockingham Land Trust. ?The pressure seems to be the greatest in the Seacoast, and it?s good to see a number of towns lining up to try and pass conservation measures this year.?

Hart credits the spike in conservation money ? a state total for 2001 to 2005 of $126 million ? to the fact Seacoast residents have been ?inspired? by the realization that more and more vacant land is giving way to buildings.

?They can see an end to it,? he says of undeveloped land.

Adds Dorothy Taylor of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, ?The threat of development is very real. New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England and, for the past 40 years, in the whole Northeast. In the next 20 years, every bit of land in New Hampshire will be permanently conserved or built upon.?

Taylor suggests communities might want to aim for preserving 25 percent of their open space. New York City, she says, has 27 percent of its land conserved.

?I don?t think any New Hampshire town wants to be like New York City with its 27 percent,? Taylor says.

So far, Brentwood has used a portion of its $2 million bond to protect 1,200 acres. Open Space Committee chairman Howard Cadwell explains that, in the beginning, land protection can be less expensive because there may be landowners who can afford to donate the conservation easements.

?But as time goes on, you kind of run out of people who can do it on the cheap,? Cadwell says. ?Land prices go up, so the town ends up spending more on land protection.?

He attributes Seacoast residents? willingness to allocate large amounts of money to preservation to their desire to keep their communities from becoming overcrowded and losing what makes them special.

?The main thing is people don?t want their towns to change too much. They want to live in a rural area. They want to protect their property rights,? Cadwell says. ?They don?t want to see wall-to-wall development.

?Here in Brentwood, it?s not that we?re against development, but we are in favor of balance.?


GT

?But as time goes on, you kind of run out of people who can do it on the cheap,? Cadwell says. ?Land prices go up, so the town ends up spending more on land protection.?

CORRECTION

When open space is implemented ?Land prices go up, so the town ends up COLLECTING ever increasing amounts of property taxes"

In Londonderry the taxes have been increasing about 20% over the last few years. One of the town councilors recent said that we promised to protect open space several years ago and need to keep their word this year. There is another 1 million on this year warrant.

The Councilor is a REAL ESTATE AGENT.....surprise.

burnthebeautiful

It's a scientific fact that beaches make people socialist. California, Australia, Florida, NH Seacoast....

Kat Kanning

I used to live on the beach.   :o  I guess I got out before it stuck.

Thespis

It's a shame, because I like the beach.  :-\

FrankChodorov

Quote from: burnthebeautiful on February 20, 2006, 02:56 PM NHFT
It's a scientific fact that beaches make people socialist. California, Australia, Florida, NH Seacoast....

because between the high and low water mark is owned in common...

lildog

Merrimack has an article going up this year for a town vote getting some discussion that?s similar to this thread.

We have a conservation fund set up so the town can purchase land (I believe this is done with a public hearing only, no town vote if the town has the money).  This fund currently has I believe 3 plus million in it.

It?s being auto funded whenever someone takes land out of current use status as they are then hit with heavy taxes (I don?t know the full details about land in ?current use?), that tax money currently goes 100% into this fund.

The article being put up toward a vote would take 50% of any NEW money that would otherwise go into this fund and put it into the general government fund which would in turn lower taxes by that amount. 

In Merrimack they estimated that the fund collects about $600,000 a year due to land being taken out of current use so if the article passes around $300,000 of that would be used to offset taxes for the town.  As there is only so much land to be taken out of current use, the amount this would help offset taxes will continue to lessen as time goes on.

When the budget committee discussed this article we heard from the conservation group in town that this would hurt the town as we would no longer have the money when land comes up for sale.  The concern is that this land might be used for condos which would put higher demands on town services while paying far less in for taxes, thus increasing taxes on the rest of us.

Currently I?m leaning toward supporting the article to use the money to lower taxes but I?d be interested in hearing others opinions on this.