Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

MAXUM · 07-02-2009, 09:25 AM

This is yet another fine example of the simple fact you cannot under any circumstances legislate responsibility. Great we have laws that ban this that and the other thing... hope that makes everyone feel good because exactly how are these laws to be enforced and more importantly under what circumstances.

If this problem were a real concern then all the towns and the DES would work together to severely restrict the type of waterfront development INCLUDING the site work before the work begins. Ah but the only problem with that is if to many restrictions are put in place, or cramps the style the "do you know who I am" rich people who just demand and or pay off to get what they want. Both the towns and the state find themselves in a bit of a pickle at that point, if to many restrictions are in place the multi-million dollar mc-mansions and chop licking property tax revenues go out the door or selectively look the other way. More and more it's the latter of the two.

So as with anything these days such laws are there for two purposes. One - to make everyone feel good and legislators one more thing they can "brag" about having done when really in a sense they have done nothing. Second having it on the books provides a law that can be selectively applied when it suits the needs of the town or DES, of course completely at their leisure and I dare say probably a better harassment tool than enforceable law.

With the economy in the dumper the way it is these rolling green lawns sitting in front of beautiful sprawling mansions equate to big tax revenue to the local and state tax coffers. Nobody is going to tell the owners of these places what they can or cannot do simple as that. Money has, does and always will talk..

07-02-2009, 09:25 AM	#15
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	This is yet another fine example of the simple fact you cannot under any circumstances legislate responsibility. Great we have laws that ban this that and the other thing... hope that makes everyone feel good because exactly how are these laws to be enforced and more importantly under what circumstances. If this problem were a real concern then all the towns and the DES would work together to severely restrict the type of waterfront development INCLUDING the site work before the work begins. Ah but the only problem with that is if to many restrictions are put in place, or cramps the style the "do you know who I am" rich people who just demand and or pay off to get what they want. Both the towns and the state find themselves in a bit of a pickle at that point, if to many restrictions are in place the multi-million dollar mc-mansions and chop licking property tax revenues go out the door or selectively look the other way. More and more it's the latter of the two. So as with anything these days such laws are there for two purposes. One - to make everyone feel good and legislators one more thing they can "brag" about having done when really in a sense they have done nothing. Second having it on the books provides a law that can be selectively applied when it suits the needs of the town or DES, of course completely at their leisure and I dare say probably a better harassment tool than enforceable law. With the economy in the dumper the way it is these rolling green lawns sitting in front of beautiful sprawling mansions equate to big tax revenue to the local and state tax coffers. Nobody is going to tell the owners of these places what they can or cannot do simple as that. Money has, does and always will talk..