Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   WOW Trail Phase 3 Heating up... (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21945)

Major 05-08-2017 02:47 PM

Environmental Concerns
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM (Post 278299)
Another thing to consider is the effect on wild life that can no longer reach the water. Even though there is much development on that shore, there is also a lot of woodland. The area around Pickerel Cove is mostly a large wooded area.

Two environmental concerns to consider --

1. The railroad ties are treated with creosote. The City of Laconia recently had to do a cleanup near a ball field due to creosote, and it was considered a hazardous site. The creosote leaches into the soil, so any construction will likely release the creosote into the lake.

2. There is a regulation that there can’t be any construction, grading changes or landscape changes within 150’ of the lake. Everyone is held to this restriction, including the proposed WOW Trail.

Outdoorsman 05-08-2017 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 278327)
Two environmental concerns to consider --

1. The railroad ties are treated with creosote. The City of Laconia recently had to do a cleanup near a ball field due to creosote, and it was considered a hazardous site. The creosote leaches into the soil, so any construction will likely release the creosote into the lake.

2. There is a regulation that there can’t be any construction, grading changes or landscape changes within 150’ of the lake. Everyone is held to this restriction, including the proposed WOW Trail.

The simple answer is to plow over the property on "the other side of the tracks".... that is, the side away from the lake (towards SD) ....100% legal and the State of NH owns the property (Read NOT SD)!

If the State/City does now own the ROW then they should take it by Eminent Domain! It seems that would be cheaper than allowing the .5%ers to dictate what the state should do with property that WE already own.

jeffk 05-08-2017 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 278327)
Two environmental concerns to consider --

...

2. There is a regulation that there can’t be any construction, grading changes or landscape changes within 150’ of the lake. Everyone is held to this restriction, including the proposed WOW Trail.

Are you referring to the Shoreland Protection Act (SPA)? If so, as I understand it, changes CAN be made but you have to apply for a permit and follow guidelines. I would think that adding bushes and vegetation WOULD be allowed if done right. The problem is usually with removing growth. You can also add fencing if put in with hand tools? Power tools require permits but again, you probably just need to follow proper procedures. You could probably put down a trail surface if it allowed drainage through the material. I'm not claiming to be an expert but it's not as restrictive as some might think unless you are only 50 ft from the water.

If it's not the SPA, what regulation are you referring to?

Major 05-08-2017 04:47 PM

Sd/lb
 
Outdoorsman, your solution doesn't solve the creosote issue or the 150' rule. Also, you think too highly of the residents at SD/LB. The 0.5%ers are at Grouse Point! Have you ever been in SD/LB? It's nice but let's not get carried away!

I was reminded today that although SD/LB gets a lot of press, we are not the only community against the WOW trail. Paugus Park, Breakwater, Nature’s View, Meredith Bay, and Grouse Point are all against the WOW trail.

Let's see what happens. Hopefully clearer heads will prevail.

Major 05-08-2017 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 278336)
Are you referring to the Shoreland Protection Act (SPA)? If so, as I understand it, changes CAN be made but you have to apply for a permit and follow guidelines. I would think that adding bushes and vegetation WOULD be allowed if done right. The problem is usually with removing growth. You can also add fencing if put in with hand tools? Power tools require permits but again, you probably just need to follow proper procedures. You could probably put down a trail surface if it allowed drainage through the material. I'm not claiming to be an expert but it's not as restrictive as some might think unless you are only 50 ft from the water.

If it's not the SPA, what regulation are you referring to?

Jeff, I believe it's the SPA. The track is within 50' for most of the western shore of Paugus Bay.

Woodsy 05-08-2017 05:31 PM

You are grasping at straws.... The railroad ties and their creosote have been there for a 100 years. The WOW trail will not impact the rail line so that's a moot point. They aren't digging up and relocating the rail line.

As far as construction within 150' of the lake... it happens all the time. WOW will require DES to sign off on the project... if they haven't given preliminary approval already.

The harsh reality is the State/people of NH own the railroad right of way AND the shoreline. SD/LB was proposed to the city with the possibility of a rail trail. The nuclear option would not be good for SD/LB or any of the other communities... it would be way better for all if an acceptable compromise on fencing & access could be achieved.

Woodsy

joey2665 05-08-2017 05:45 PM

Phase 1 and 2 are already along Winnisquam and Winnipesaukee River and DES obviously had no issues there so why would they with Pagaus Bay?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Major 05-08-2017 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey2665 (Post 278341)
Phase 1 and 2 are already along Winnisquam and Winnipesaukee River and DES obviously had no issues there so why would they with Pagaus Bay?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

None or very little construction near the water. Anything near the water was already constructed and paved.

joey2665 05-08-2017 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 278342)
None or very little construction near the water. Anything near the water was already constructed and paved.



Really? The paving and fencing was along the river prior to "construction " of the WOW Trail? News to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Major 05-09-2017 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey2665 (Post 278355)
Really? The paving and fencing was along the river prior to "construction " of the WOW Trail? News to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Very little of the WOW trail goes by the river. It crosses the river at the Messer Street Bridge and at the Fair Street Bridge. From the map, it appears that the WOW trail (phases I and II) abuts the water at the southern end of Lake Opeechee and along the eastern/southern shoreline of Winnisquam.

joey2665 05-09-2017 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 278367)
Very little of the WOW trail goes by the river. It crosses the river at the Messer Street Bridge and at the Fair Street Bridge. From the map, it appears that the WOW trail (phases I and II) abuts the water at the southern end of Lake Opeechee and along the eastern/southern shoreline of Winnisquam.



Yes it does go along Opeechee and Winnisquam I have been down both phases so again the DES had no issues with these so I don't think they will be a stumbling block for phase 3. That will come from the abutting communities. Although I know someone mentioned Meredith Bay was against the trail but I know for a fact they have not taken any public or official opinion on the trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Major 05-09-2017 07:47 AM

To the best of my knowledge, the only community that has made a public stand against the WOW trail is SD/LB.

laketrout 05-10-2017 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper (Post 278289)
Phase I does have a chain linked fence and the reason for that was federal safety rules and regulations as the track is considered active. Phase II has a combination pleasing metal picket fence and wood railing. This is due to changes in regulation result of feedback. I urge you to take a walk on Phase II and enjoy the new fences. Phase II connect to the Belmont Trail that brings you near Mosquito Bridge. I wonderful walk.

Belmont plans will eventually connect to the Tilton trail. From there the possibility of biking/hiking to Concord or Hanover is planned.

There is preliminary planning in Meredith about building a rail trail from downtown Meredith down to the Weirs. This is really exciting!

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________
There would be a chain link or high fence as Southdown/Long Bay have docks 56 in Southdown/Marina and 1 beach. Long Bay has a Marina/docks and 2 beaches so fencing would go up to keep the liability down. Liability insurance would be huge from what I heard plus the fact that the private communities do not feel like hosting folks just strolling into their lawns. Were not talking 10 families and 40 people more then 2500 +/- people reside there during the year.

On a side note the trail is going over or near Pickering cove north of Long Bay/SDS shores near the railroad tracks and the right of way is only 5 feet wide and stretches for 1/4 of a mile. The causeway near/over the water would have to be built up at a huge cost in that community/area.

Laconia is in a precocious position as a huge amount of the residential tax valuation/base comes from LB and SDS with 660 houses and condos.

I am long time Laconia resident and happen to live in that area. The trail could be devised to make people content but will probably be tied up in the courts for years.

laketrout 05-10-2017 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Sold (Post 278210)
A review of the plan (Plan Book 141 Page 19) shows that SD does not own the land that the RR tracks are on and that it is owned by the State. The State has owned that land longer than SD has been in existence or even a dream. The SD plan would not show a proposed rail trail as it is not part of or on their property. Good luck fighting this - I think you will be donating your money to a very smart and savy attorney who will gladly take it off your hands, as much as you wish to waste.

Just sold, there is always room for negotiation. Many SDS/LB are pissed off they will boycott businesses, restaurants and bars in the area, and that accounts for a lot of food and adult beverages. Me personally I wont boycott.

Woodsy 05-10-2017 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laketrout (Post 278433)
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________
There would be a chain link or high fence as Southdown/Long Bay have docks 56 in Southdown/Marina and 1 beach. Long Bay has a Marina/docks and 2 beaches so fencing would go up to keep the liability down. Liability insurance would be huge from what I heard plus the fact that the private communities do not feel like hosting folks just strolling into their lawns. Were not talking 10 families and 40 people more then 2500 +/- people reside there during the year.

On a side note the trail is going over or near Pickering cove north of Long Bay/SDS shores near the railroad tracks and the right of way is only 5 feet wide and stretches for 1/4 of a mile. The causeway near/over the water would have to be built up at a huge cost in that community/area.

Laconia is in a precocious position as a huge amount of the residential tax valuation/base comes from LB and SDS with 660 houses and condos.

I am long time Laconia resident and happen to live in that area. The trail could be devised to make people content but will probably be tied up in the courts for years.

Laketrout...

The fence design is a negotiable thing.... it does not have to be an ugly chain link fence. On some parts of the existing WOW trail its a pretty nice post & beam design. Certainly that design or something similar should be acceptable.

There is no liability for Southdown as the property in question is owned by the State of NH. Also there is a provision in NH State law that absolves owners of liability when their land is used recreationally by the public. It is this law that keeps snowmobile & ATV trails open to the public.

Laconia is not in a precarious position tax-wise with regards to SD/LB... any possible devaluation of the SD/LB tax base would take years to show up. There are 600+ houses/condos and there are only 12-14 for sale with an avg price of approx. $436K. Not a huge turnover. Traditionally Rail Trails have added value to a community not devalued a community.

IMHO, I think SD/LB is in the precarious position... the nuclear option of NH not renewing their waterfront lease would be most detrimental to all involved.


Woodsy

PDC4LIFE 05-10-2017 03:21 PM

Crime and Property Values
 
Interesting Article: Property values and crime are to be considered.

http://citizenreviewonline.org/2010/...ost_crime.html

laketrout 05-21-2017 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 278447)
Laketrout...

The fence design is a negotiable thing.... it does not have to be an ugly chain link fence. On some parts of the existing WOW trail its a pretty nice post & beam design. Certainly that design or something similar should be acceptable.

There is no liability for Southdown as the property in question is owned by the State of NH. Also there is a provision in NH State law that absolves owners of liability when their land is used recreationally by the public. It is this law that keeps snowmobile & ATV trails open to the public.

Laconia is not in a precarious position tax-wise with regards to SD/LB... any possible devaluation of the SD/LB tax base would take years to show up. There are 600+ houses/condos and there are only 12-14 for sale with an avg price of approx. $436K. Not a huge turnover. Traditionally Rail Trails have added value to a community not devalued a community.

IMHO, I think SD/LB is in the precarious position... the nuclear option of NH not renewing their waterfront lease would be most detrimental to all involved.


Woodsy

To each his own. Real Estate sale transactions are slow currently as there is little inventory. Woodsy you quote an average sales price of $436k that's an average and nothing to sneeze at, the average home in Laconia sells for less then 1/2 that. Average Sales of SDS/LB homes equal about 10% of total units per year, & with 660 homes, that percentage fluctuates. In any given year the # of SDS homes sold might be 65 units or 40 units it depends on many economic factors.

With Miles of private land and boat docks and marinas on eithe side of the proposed trail, there is room for Liability and other issues. When 660 residences in your city speak up its time to listen.

Woodsy 06-01-2017 07:24 AM

First Shot Fired....
 
That didn't take long....... Not sure how they think a lawsuit will somehow force the state's hand. It would set very dangerous legal precedent.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...n-file-lawsuit

Woodsy

thinkxingu 06-01-2017 12:10 PM

According to the article, the associations were instituted with the understanding that the path would be built? And now they'll not only burn their owners' and taxpayers' funds in litigation but maybe risk the continued ROW access? Very interesting case for sure.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Seaplane Pilot 06-01-2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkxingu (Post 279416)
According to the article, the associations were instituted with the understanding that the path would be built? And now they'll not only burn their owners' and taxpayers' funds in litigation but maybe risk the continued ROW access? Very interesting case for sure.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

I agree. I would think they would pick their fights very carefully because if they piss off the State, what's to stop the State from just cutting off their access to the waterfront? Then what? Moral of the story: Don't pull the lion's tail.

topwater 06-02-2017 02:50 PM

I believe everything will be shown very clearly on the maps or charts ( I'm so confused LOL ) that the State owns. This will be in court for some time. Good for south Down shores for sticking to their guns on this. As I have mentioned earlier IMO this is a TOTAL waste of money. Seems everyone is fine with it UNLESS it's in your backyard. Out of site...out of mind.:cheers:

SAMIAM 06-03-2017 09:29 AM

The thought of a waterfront fence from Lakeport to the Weirs absolutely gives me the chills.
I don't understand how anyone who cares about the stewardship of our lakes would want to do that........but why stop there.
Lets go on to Squam.

joey2665 06-04-2017 07:02 AM

This morning for the first time I ran the complete WOW Trail. Full disclosure I was a resident of Long Bay for 10 years and pretty much against the trail. It was extremely nice with several access points and the split rail fencing towards the Belmont line was esthetically pleasing. Very well kept and only saw 4 pieces of trash along the whole way. If done correctly it may not be as bad as most think.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

trfour 06-04-2017 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey2665 (Post 279542)
it may not be as bad as most think.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

If 'most' thought it was bad, the Wow Trail never would have been started in the first place...

joey2665 06-05-2017 06:32 AM

WOW Trail Phase 3 Heating up...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trfour (Post 279561)
If 'most' thought it was bad, the Wow Trail never would have been started in the first place...



Speaking about "most" as far as those opposing the next phase including those in South Down and Long Bay.

Also have mixed feeling about suing the DOT. Going to make future cooperation with the DOT and city of Laconia when other issues in those communities arise and their assistance is needed



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

brk-lnt 06-05-2017 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot (Post 279419)
What's to stop the State from just cutting off their access to the waterfront?

Taxes?

Do you think the state and/or city of Laconia want to immediately decrease the value of every property in there by 10-20%? Additionally, if access was rescinded in what seemed to be a matter of spite it could give South Down a stronger position in the end (though at a higher legal cost).

Major 06-05-2017 11:46 AM

WOW Trail
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt (Post 279585)
Taxes?

Do you think the state and/or city of Laconia want to immediately decrease the value of every property in there by 10-20%? Additionally, if access was rescinded in what seemed to be a matter of spite it could give South Down a stronger position in the end (though at a higher legal cost).

I do not know/understand the legal ins and outs of the State's right of way. The land belongs to SD/LB, and there are big chunks of land east of the right of way. No matter the outcome, SD/LB residents are entitled access to their respective beaches, which are clearly outside of the right of way, on land owned by the SD/LB community.

It is my understanding from two separate sources that the WOW Trail powerbrokers are putting pressure on the railroad to shut it down between Lakeport and the Weirs. Insuring the safety of the WOW Trail users could be a very expensive proposition, and it isn't clear as to who is responsible.

Woodsy 06-05-2017 12:04 PM

Obv, the state limiting SD/LB waterfront access would be the nuclear option, not preferable to anyone. However, A tax devaluation would take years to see as its based on sales comps. I seriously doubt you would see a 20% reduction in values and a likewise reduction in Laconia's tax base.

The lawsuit, IMHO is fragile at best. The gist of the lawsuit is SD/LB are trying to tell the state what it can/cannot do with state owned property. That is a very slippery slope and a win by SD/LB would set a HUGE legal precedent that would ripple thru the state. I don't see any judge signing off on a private citizens association telling the state what it can or cannot do... I don't think the lawsuit will be allowed to go too far forward.

If this was an eminent domain lawsuit you would have a much better chance.

IMHO SD/LB would be better off using their $$ to negotiate an acceptable fence and path design.

Woodsy

Woodsy 06-05-2017 12:11 PM

here is a link that shows the RR ROW for those who want to see what is in question... you will have to zoom in on Paugus Bay. As you can see SD/LB/various yacht clubs owns very little of the waterfront and they have to cross the state RR ROW to get there....

https://www.axisgis.com/LaconiaNH/

Woodsy

StardogChampion 06-05-2017 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 279602)
here is a link that shows the RR ROW for those who want to see what is in question... you will have to zoom in on Paugus Bay. As you can see SD/LB/various yacht clubs owns very little of the waterfront and they have to cross the state RR ROW to get there....

https://www.axisgis.com/LaconiaNH/

Woodsy

The tax maps seem to indicate the RR is not a ROW but the land is owned by the state and there are several specific ROWs across the RR land indicated on the map. Otherwise, the RR would be drawn differently and the parcels not separated outside the corridor.

That's much different than the land being owned by various property owners along the route and the RR having a ROW.

So if the state owns the land and the properties along the RR have specific ROWs, then there isn't much anyone can do on either side. If the state did put up a fence it would have to have access to those ROWs. Given that it seems money better spent would be on both parties agreeing on the aesthetics/maintenance of access to ROWs/etc. Only winner here is going to be the lawyers.

joey2665 06-05-2017 04:48 PM

Absolutely Agree
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by StardogChampion (Post 279623)
The tax maps seem to indicate the RR is not a ROW but the land is owned by the state and there are several specific ROWs across the RR land indicated on the map. Otherwise, the RR would be drawn differently and the parcels not separated outside the corridor.

That's much different than the land being owned by various property owners along the route and the RR having a ROW.

So if the state owns the land and the properties along the RR have specific ROWs, then there isn't much anyone can do on either side. If the state did put up a fence it would have to have access to those ROWs. Given that it seems money better spent would be on both parties agreeing on the aesthetics/maintenance of access to ROWs/etc. Only winner here is going to be the lawyers.

I whole heartedly agree. Only the lawyers will make out on this issue in the end.

brk-lnt 06-06-2017 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 279600)
The gist of the lawsuit is SD/LB are trying to tell the state what it can/cannot do with state owned property.

I disagree, I think SD/LB is asking the state to look a current, proven, use of the land, it's impact on the community/etc., and compare that with a proposed change that will have some unknown impact (IMO, you cannot argue "zero impact", every change has some impact).

Personally (IANAL), I think the very long delay on getting the trail built works in South Down's favor, it is like the inverse of Adverse Possession concepts. Yes, there was a stated plan for a trail when the ROW was granted, but after a certain amount of time (30 years!) goes by with no trail, and certain aspects of the community, and its draw for owners, develops around the fact that there is no trail/fence/access hindrance, you can understand why people are opposed to it.

It would be different, IMO, if SD were attempting to block access to a proposed emergency services road construction, or a similar thing that would have clear, proven benefit to the community at large. You also cannot deny some of the crime and other issues around Laconia, again, making resistance to easy access into the community understandable.

The WOW trail is at least partly being presented as something that will give "the people" freer access to the lakes/shoreline, and that is a noble cause, however the state effectively allowed the current situation where much of the shoreline is privately owned (and, not getting into side-debates about technical access to shorline areas, just saying that much of the property abutting the shore is privately owned). Trying to now compensate for selling off access by implementing a walking trail with undetermined impact on some communities is really not a balanced approach.

jeffk 06-06-2017 09:10 AM

I'm not sure a ROW for public use purposes has a time limit.

If it was for private use, say me using a property for access and never exercising it, maybe an argument could be made for forfeiting my access right.

I doubt the same would be true for public purposes which often stretch out over decades.

Further, the possible damages are speculative, possibly even unlikely. A well planned and tasteful path and fencing need not have significant impact on the adjacent properties. Other area on the WOW trail don't have problems with criminal activity. Unproven worries are not a basis for solid decision making.

If I lived there, I would certainly want a place at the table as decisions are made but I don't think NO! is a workable answer.

joey2665 06-06-2017 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 279682)
I'm not sure a ROW for public use purposes has a time limit.

If it was for private use, say me using a property for access and never exercising it, maybe an argument could be made for forfeiting my access right.

I doubt the same would be true for public purposes which often stretch out over decades.

Further, the possible damages are speculative, possibly even unlikely. A well planned and tasteful path and fencing need not have significant impact on the adjacent properties. Other area on the WOW trail don't have problems with criminal activity. Unproven worries are not a basis for solid decision making.

If I lived there, I would certainly want a place at the table as decisions are made but I don't think NO! is a workable answer.

I agree with Jeff. As a long time resident of Long Bay the best plan of action would be for all affected communities to come together with the City and WOW Trail organization to come up with a plan acceptable to all. Otherwise, as usual the lawyers make out and it costs the taxpayers and residents more money in the end. The SD/LB people could have the potential in paying legal fees on both ends in the way of special assessments and increased property tax.

baygo 06-06-2017 09:18 AM

Alternate route
 
Wouldn't it save a lot of time money and aggravation if they were to alter the route to come up Elm Street, then bypass south down shores on Parade Road and turn down Severance Road to pick up the snowmobile trail that goes through the state forest back down to the lake. Everybody wins��

Major 06-06-2017 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 279682)
Other area on the WOW trail don't have problems with criminal activity. Unproven worries are not a basis for solid decision making.

I guess 132 incidents over a six-year period doesn't rise to the level of significant criminal activity. If it was your street that had 132 incidents of assault, vandalism, drug use, tent cities, etc., I think you'd have a different opinion.

Publicly, the Laconia Police will take the position that the WOW Trail has minimal criminal activity. Privately, they will tell you otherwise. The WOW Trail is an avenue of egress to crimes occurring in downtown Laconia. Crime is definitely prevalent. SD/LB concerns about crime are not unproven or unfounded, but based on facts.

Major 06-06-2017 09:22 AM

Great Suggestion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by baygo (Post 279684)
Wouldn't it save a lot of time money and aggravation if they were to alter the route to come up Elm Street, then bypass south down shores on Paris Road and turn down Severance Road to pick up the snowmobile trail that goes through the state forest back down to the lake. Everybody wins😀

SD/LB has offered similar solutions. The WOW Trail organizers won't consider alternative routes. However, they are financially motivated to stick to their guns since the Federal funding only applies to rail-to-trail type projects.

jeffk 06-06-2017 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baygo (Post 279684)
Wouldn't it save a lot of time money and aggravation if they were to alter the route to come up Elm Street, then bypass south down shores on Paris Road and turn down Severance Road to pick up the snowmobile trail that goes through the state forest back down to the lake. Everybody wins😀

If I was the State, I don't think I would want to set the precedent of not using state land when it can be legally used. It could lead to lots of headaches in the future.

joey2665 06-06-2017 10:05 AM

Disagree
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 279685)
I guess 132 incidents over a six-year period doesn't rise to the level of significant criminal activity. If it was your street that had 132 incidents of assault, vandalism, drug use, tent cities, etc., I think you'd have a different opinion.

Publicly, the Laconia Police will take the position that the WOW Trail has minimal criminal activity. Privately, they will tell you otherwise. The WOW Trail is an avenue of egress to crimes occurring in downtown Laconia. Crime is definitely prevalent. SD/LB concerns about crime are not unproven or unfounded, but based on facts.

I would like to see the stats before and after the trail. Before the WOW Trail the criminal activity took place on the rail road tracks anyway. I have first hand knowledge as my home and several other were broken into in Long Bay and the criminal walked down the tracks to get in and the same way out and I have witness drug exchanges behind my home in LB in a parking area below my home late evenings and early mornings

Woodsy 06-06-2017 11:25 AM

The whole purpose of a Rail Trail is to separate people from vehicles as much as possible. They are hugely successful in other parts of NH and many, many other states!

Rerouting the rail trail to city streets just accommodate some private development seems silly to me and sets a dangerous precedent. Especially when that private development was sold to the city with the rail trail as part of the plan... This is a case of NIMBY pure and simple.

The winners here will be the lawyers. The reality is, the general public isn't going to feel bad for people who own homes in a wealthy gated community who want to limit public access to publicly owned land. SD/LB will ultimately lose the lawsuit, but like the speed limit it will cause some serious divisions. It already is and that is kind of sad.

Woodsy


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.