Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

MAXUM · 06-23-2020, 08:08 AM

You may find this to be informative to read as you prepare for what you are going to do. This outlines what the state can do however it seems clear to me that this is all defined within the context of doing improvements to the roadway itself.

https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectde...10_00_2014.pdf

This will be interesting to follow as it seems as though the state has the obligation to provide some reasoning for forced possession which maybe the do but it remains unstated and it seems peculiar to me that they want to take possession then discuss it's future use at a later time. Could be this is a precursor to a plan they have in mind to do some improvements or a desire to proactively take control over this property so that they can at their leisure so what they want later.

I do agree the significant value of those properties is the "owned" frontage even if it is across the road. Without that the values of those properties will tumble considerably and let's be real to "lease back" is not the same as deeded ownership. Along with that comes additional controls over the property which extend beyond what DES would enforce. At any time they could say something such as no docks and you have no recourse being a lease and not an owner type of situation.

Even if you were to get some compensation from the state - the long term value is still significantly impacted.

Then again sadly the precedent has been set where eminent domain has been used to take property for purposes which many question those use cases falling within the intended purpose of the law.

06-23-2020, 08:08 AM	#12
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	You may find this to be informative to read as you prepare for what you are going to do. This outlines what the state can do however it seems clear to me that this is all defined within the context of doing improvements to the roadway itself. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectde...10_00_2014.pdf This will be interesting to follow as it seems as though the state has the obligation to provide some reasoning for forced possession which maybe the do but it remains unstated and it seems peculiar to me that they want to take possession then discuss it's future use at a later time. Could be this is a precursor to a plan they have in mind to do some improvements or a desire to proactively take control over this property so that they can at their leisure so what they want later. I do agree the significant value of those properties is the "owned" frontage even if it is across the road. Without that the values of those properties will tumble considerably and let's be real to "lease back" is not the same as deeded ownership. Along with that comes additional controls over the property which extend beyond what DES would enforce. At any time they could say something such as no docks and you have no recourse being a lease and not an owner type of situation. Even if you were to get some compensation from the state - the long term value is still significantly impacted. Then again sadly the precedent has been set where eminent domain has been used to take property for purposes which many question those use cases falling within the intended purpose of the law.