NH Shoreline Protection Act

[Gard]

Does anyone know anything about the institution of the "NH Shoreline Protection Act"? I've received a few e-mails about it, and it looks to me that if the thing is enacted, it will set up -- all in the name of having the government be the "protector" of ground water -- a set of rules that will make it illegal to dig, move rocks, repair areas that have seen water damage from the winter, or even garden on certain portions of one's property, without permission from the state DES

I want to get into this on the show, but will look for more information, or possibly a guest who has more data on it. If anyone knows anything about it, just toss me a line or post a message here. I'll make some calls today and try to let people know what I find out.

Happy Scorched Earth Day!

G!

[John Edward Mercier]

The shoreline property owners try to ban/restrict the use of the public waterways... then get retaliation from that group for ban/restrictions on them. Viscous cycle.

[David]

It is amazing that the very power some use on others so frequently turn around and bite them back.  Racism eventually led to affirmative action, business' that try hard to limit competition, then cry when they are then limited, and so many other examples.  The christians cry about the 'liberal agenda' in schools, are always ready to push their beliefs on the schools when possible.  In fact, conservatives have pushed a lot of the precedents that are later used by more liberal groups when conservatives lose power. 

[J’raxis 270145]

It is amazing that the very power some use on others so frequently turn around and bite them back.  Racism eventually led to affirmative action, business' that try hard to limit competition, then cry when they are then limited, and so many other examples.  The christians cry about the 'liberal agenda' in schools, are always ready to push their beliefs on the schools when possible.  In fact, conservatives have pushed a lot of the precedents that are later used by more liberal groups when conservatives lose power. 

I think it only turns around when the State figures out taking the other side is more beneficial to their own ends (i.e., growth of the State). To wit, the State sided with the anti-racist cause when they figured out it made a neat excuse to pass laws allowing them to snoop on and meddle in the hiring and firing decisions of private businesses. Same thing with business regulation: The U.S. was so firmly on the side of big business in the late 1800s because that's where the power was. Socialism was a populist, anti-Statist philosophy. Then people like FDR realized that State Socialism—Socialism as carefully controlled, meted out, and administered by the State itself—was so much better at consolidating power than industrial capitalism was.

[David]

That is true.  My main point was about precedents though.  They are incredibly important to human society in general.  Even in family, every kid asks mom or dad why they let them stay out till 10 at night last night, but not tonite.  Thus the teenager phrase 'that's not fair'. 
The idea of fairness is far older than egalitarianism.  But that is what most today associat it with. 

[freeborn]

The new CSPA is nothing but an abomination created to make more money for the State with permits.  There was nothing wrong with the old law but now they have effectively taken many civil rights away from shorefront property owners.

The new law says that the DES can come on your land without a warrant and snoop around. This is a direct violation of Art. 19 of the NH Constitution.

Want to find out more? Look here: http://www.nhguardians.com

[Jared]

yes, my grandmother-in-law is very affected by this. she lives on the water in barrington, and basically she is no longer allowed to alter her property in any way, including most basic repairs.

[AntonLee]

why can't people who don't own property leave everyone else's property alone.

[John Edward Mercier]

Because many of the shore owners decided to try restricting those using the waters, which is public common owned... meaning everyone has the right to uninfringed access and usage.

The shore owners began arguing that some of the various user groups where disrupting the ecology of the lake and physical characteristics of the shoreline... hence what is good for one, is good for all.
They made their own cage.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Our state rep, member of the Grafton planning bored and, otherwise,  egregious serial bureaucrat, Katherine Mullholland, knew nothing about the Shoreline Protection Act  at a recent planning bored meeting
I was reminded that she voted for it.

[freeborn]

The shore owners began arguing that some of the various user groups where disrupting the ecology of the lake and physical characteristics of the shoreline... hence what is good for one, is good for all.
They made their own cage.

You are kidding, right?

[John Edward Mercier]

Afraid not.
Many times the restrictions that groups wish to place on others backfires on them.

[freeborn]

So because a couple of shoreland owners were greedy, like asshole Mitt Romney trying to rope off his shoreline, you favor putting restrictions and lower property values for every shoreland owner in the State.
Why not, make everybody suffer for the idiocy of a few.

I used to give permission to fishermen to park on my property and let them launch their boats because it was more convenient than driving to a State boat ramp.  Then one of these guys expressed the same opinion that you posted.  Guess what, my land is now posted and nobody launches their boat here any more. People have the right to shoot themselves in the foot if that is their desire.

In time you will find that the CSPA is going to backfire on the State, not on the shoreland owners.

Live Free or Die? My ass.

[John Edward Mercier]

I don't favor it...
I stated that is how it comes about.

A group of people large or small decide that something someone else is doing needs restricting.
They begin making broad claims, and demanding State intervention. It usually backfires.

[freeborn]

You said in your post above that 'many' of the shore owners tried to get restrictions put in.
I don't know where you read this dribble but you know damned well that is not true because shoreland owners are well aware that they don't own the water.

The State doesn't own the shoreland owners property either but that doesn't seem to stop them from putting in restrictions.

Screw the State. I do with my land what I want to do with my land.  If the State doesn't like it and they show up on my land, let's see how they deal with the business end of a shotgun.