New Marine Patrol Headquarters

[diz]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

No, it's not that simple--citizens in a democracy have a responsibility to participate in that democracy. Criticism without participation (and, I daresay, apathy) is the very antithesis of democracy.

It actually is that simple. The First Amendment guarantees that. And Participation comes in many forms including voicing your opinion in places like this forum, voting and volunteering.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by diz

It actually is that simple. The First Amendment guarantees that. And Participation comes in many forms including voicing your opinion in places like this forum, voting and volunteering.

No, you're getting the freedom of speech and democracy confused. The first amendment protects your, and others', rights to criticize, but democracy cannot work by criticism alone.

If people here have issues with the construction of a new MP headquarters, they are free to complain, but it's useless to the larger picture unless they're going to get involved. And uninvolved complainers are annoying. I think that was the original point.

[diz]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

No, you're getting the freedom of speech and democracy confused. The first amendment protects your, and others', rights to criticize, but democracy cannot work by criticism alone.

If people here have issues with the construction of a new MP headquarters, they are free to complain, but it's useless to the larger picture unless they're going to get involved. And uninvolved complainers are annoying. I think that was the original point.

I'm not confused at all. Free speech is a product of a functioning democracy. What you view as complaining is actually someone voicing his/her opinion.

When I was on Town Meeting I got comments just like the one above from people in my precinct, especially during the annual town budget. I chose not to see them as "uninvolved complainers" but as tax paying townspeople with every right to their opinion. I would never discount feedback or an unsolicited opinion. Being able to listen to viewpoints other than mine is essential to the committees I am and have been on.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by diz

It actually is that simple. The First Amendment guarantees that. And Participation comes in many forms including voicing your opinion in places like this forum, voting and volunteering.

This discussion is a little off topic but I believe that the 1st Amendment only protects you from the government limiting speech ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"). Although a forum like this gives you plenty of opportunity to speak freely it is not protected by the 1st Amendment unless Congress tried to make a law limiting it. As the site operator I could limit your speech here all I want to. Newpapers can publish or not publish anything they want and if someone tried to tell you their opinion on the street corner you could tell them to "shut up" and they'd have no Constitutional right to speak.

We all believe in free speech but don't get carried away with what is protected by the 1st Amendment.

[swnoel]

That price is peanuts to what some think their property on the lake is worth! This is easily fixed by increasing the taxes on all waterfront homes in NH... 40% increase and wha..la, paid for!

[wifi]

Originally Posted by swnoel

That price is peanuts to what some think their property on the lake is worth! This is easily fixed by increasing the taxes on all waterfront homes in NH... 40% increase and wha..la, paid for!

Obviously, you don't own waterfront, one of the lets tax others for your own benefit crowd, uuuggggghhhh

[TiltonBB]

Yes, everyone has an opinion. But here are some things to ponder.

Since the existing building is old, and sinking, something has to be done. Some people have speculated about why the facility needs to be on the water. There are numerous reasons.

1. When a significant incident occurs on the lake (major boating accident, plane crash etc.) supervisors can leave their offices, jump in a boat, and respond immediately.

2. When there is an arrest the prisoner can be transported, booked, and held for court without involving other departments.

3. When a Marine Patrol officer has any mechanical issues with his assigned boat he can return to the office and change boats.

4. Marine Patrol officers reporting for their shift can start immediately rather than have to drive (on the payroll) to a different location to get in a boat.

5. Repairs to the boats can happen on site without a need to pull them out of the water to trailer them elsewhere, adding unnecessary expense.

6. Morale and professionalism will increase when they work out of a state of the art facility that they can be proud of.

7. Citizens will find it convenient to visit when any need arises. I know that has happened to me in the past when I got a warning for a burned out stern light and the ticket was written so that by appearing at the Marine Patrol office and showing the repair the citation was waived.

I am sure that there are other reasons, but this facility needs to be built and the waterfront is the right place for it.

[ericnh]

I spent a lot of time on the lake this summer and hardly every saw the Marine Patrol out on the water. When I would go past the MP HQ .... all the boats sitting on the dock. I was cut off, passed too close just about every time I drove my boat around the Weirs/Meredith area... never MP around. They did stop over at Advent cove to "double check" that I was properly rafting my boat (I was).

Is their mission to show up at an accident and take a report? If that is the case, I don't think they need new HQ.

[pcmc]

I didn't reread this entire thread, so I apologize if this is already in here. But.....

Is there a vacation planning board (of sorts) that may possibly have some insight as to future planning of the 'Lakes Region'. If future refurbishing of areas around the lake are in the works, it makes sense to have phase A be preparing the policing force first prior to larger crowds, and then trying to play catch up. Larger summer or winter events could play a role.

I'm speculating, and hoping many areas that are complained about get the attention they need.

I too, don't always agree with out of control tax dollar spending, so hoping this project improves the area is all I can hope for.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by pcmc

I didn't reread this entire thread, so I apologize if this is already in here. But.....

Is there a vacation planning board (of sorts) that may possibly have some insight as to future planning of the 'Lakes Region'. If future refurbishing of areas around the lake are in the works, it makes sense to have phase A be preparing the policing force first prior to larger crowds, and then trying to play catch up. Larger summer or winter events could play a role.

I'm speculating, and hoping many areas that are complained about get the attention they need.

I too, don't always agree with out of control tax dollar spending, so hoping this project improves the area is all I can hope for.

I think you will find that there is no local, state or county organization that holds much sway over tourism or master planning. Most of the maintenance and funding seems to be by the towns and spending will vary based on their tax base.

[Breakwater]

Just a clarification for anyone thinking their tax dollars are paying for the new Marine Patrol building. According to the Governor and Council approval, funding is from the Navigational Safety Fund. This fund is made up from registration fees from boats that must be registered. While some of you will say it is still the taxpayer that carries the burden...I agree, but only if you register a boat.

Interesting fact...this fund is a revolving, dedicated fund that had a several million dollar balance under Dave Barrett who worked to save for the purpose of a new building. Then along came Speaker Bill O'Brien and his followers who took the funds and applied it to the general fund as revenues. So...if you want to talk about unfair taxes...did you know the boaters paid an unfair amount to the general fund that others didn't have to?

Just some facts to consider.

[pcmc]

Originally Posted by Breakwater

Just a clarification for anyone thinking their tax dollars are paying for the new Marine Patrol building. According to the Governor and Council approval, funding is from the Navigational Safety Fund. This fund is made up from registration fees from boats that must be registered. While some of you will say it is still the taxpayer that carries the burden...I agree, but only if you register a boat.

Interesting fact...this fund is a revolving, dedicated fund that had a several million dollar balance under Dave Barrett who worked to save for the purpose of a new building. Then along came Speaker Bill O'Brien and his followers who took the funds and applied it to the general fund as revenues. So...if you want to talk about unfair taxes...did you know the boaters paid an unfair amount to the general fund that others didn't have to?

Just some facts to consider.

Thanks, I think(?).

It's great to hear Mr. Barrett had a plan and stuck to it, making this undertaking possible ! Mr. O'Brien on the other hand, hopefully a guy like this has achieved something positive on his own without repeatedly stealing from Peter to fund Paul.

Facts are always appreciated.

[Airedale1]

Although I am in favor of a new facility for the MP, I am curious if anyone here knows what the impact or lack thereof will be for those who put in at the town docks while the project is underway?

[BroadHopper]

http://thecitizen.villagesoup.com/p/...-ahead/1299132

The Architects are from Ashland also design the 'Twins'. The two rest stops off I-93 in Bow.

[Descant]

I think some closer inspection will show that aker Terri Norelli and her crew raided the various dedicated funds, including the rainy day fund, and that by the time Bill O'Brien was Speaker, the money was all gone. I don't usually like political stuff on this forum, but if you're going to post this stuff, perhaps it should be a separate thread and should have some specifics, like dates. and bill numbers.

[Breakwater]

Originally Posted by Descant

I think some closer inspection will show that aker Terri Norelli and her crew raided the various dedicated funds, including the rainy day fund, and that by the time Bill O'Brien was Speaker, the money was all gone. I don't usually like political stuff on this forum, but if you're going to post this stuff, perhaps it should be a separate thread and should have some specifics, like dates. and bill numbers.

224:220 Navigation Safety Fund. Amend RSA 270-E:6-a to read as follows:

270-E:6-a Navigation Safety Fund. There is established the navigation safety fund which shall be [nonlapsing and] continually appropriated to the department of safety, division of [safety services] state police. The state treasurer may invest moneys in the fund as provided by law and all interest received on such investment shall be credited to the fund. The fund shall only be used to promote the safety of navigation and the administration and enforcement of RSA 270, RSA 270-B, RSA 270-D, and RSA 270-E. Any balance remaining in the navigation safety fund at the close of each fiscal year shall lapse to the general fund.

Items in brackets were deleted from the statute's language upon passage.

I believe Speaker O'Brien's rule was 2010-2012.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...11/HB0002.html

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by Breakwater

224:220 Navigation Safety Fund. Amend RSA 270-E:6-a to read as follows:

270-E:6-a Navigation Safety Fund. There is established the navigation safety fund which shall be [nonlapsing and] continually appropriated to the department of safety, division of [safety services] state police. The state treasurer may invest moneys in the fund as provided by law and all interest received on such investment shall be credited to the fund. The fund shall only be used to promote the safety of navigation and the administration and enforcement of RSA 270, RSA 270-B, RSA 270-D, and RSA 270-E. Any balance remaining in the navigation safety fund at the close of each fiscal year shall lapse to the general fund.

Items in brackets were deleted from the statute's language upon passage.

I believe Speaker O'Brien's rule was 2010-2012.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...11/HB0002.html

The relevant language in this legislation is below. It can be found approximately 2/3 of the way through the document.

"224:220 Navigation Safety Fund. Amend RSA 270-E:6-a to read as follows:

270-E:6-a Navigation Safety Fund. There is established the navigation safety fund which shall be [nonlapsing and] continually appropriated to the department of safety, division of [safety services] state police. The state treasurer may invest moneys in the fund as provided by law and all interest received on such investment shall be credited to the fund. The fund shall only be used to promote the safety of navigation and the administration and enforcement of RSA 270, RSA 270-B, RSA 270-D, and RSA 270-E. Any balance remaining in the navigation safety fund at the close of each fiscal year shall lapse to the general fund."

[fatlazyless]

A new home for the Marine Patrol, in an architect designed, single purpose, waterfront building that can be used for the next hundred years is a great improvement. Just take a look at the Town of Meredith's Police Dept, Fire Dept, and Community Center; all super-duper, public town buildings that totally improve the Town of Meredith....big-time!

You do not see any 268-unit storage businesses being proposed on a Route 3 vacant lot in Meredith....now do you......which is the very ugly, imminent storage case in the Weirs.........too ugly bad for the Weirs!

Wouldn't it be nice if the State of NH changed its mind, and agreed to build a new community sailing building facility on the beautifull stretch of un-developed sandy beach that fronts on Lake Winnipesaukee at the Ellecoya State Park-RV Campground. That proposed community sailing center there at Ellecoya should be re-visited once the legislature wakes up and figures a way to power up the state's parks and recreation facilities.

[BroadHopper]

Rep. Dave Huot propose to shoot down O'Brien grab from the Navigation fund last year. Only to be oppose by O'Brien and declared ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) Huot had the backing of the NH Marine Industry and SBONH.

Now that O'Brien is out of the way Marine Patrol was able to move forward with this proposal. Problem is most of the money is gone and bonds will need to be issued.

I think Rep. Huot should once more reestablished the navigation fund now that O'Brien lost power.

[Misha888]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

A new home for the Marine Patrol, in an architect designed, single purpose, waterfront building that can be used for the next hundred years is a great improvement. Just take a look at the Town of Meredith's Police Dept, Fire Dept, and Community Center; all super-duper, public town buildings that totally improve the Town of Meredith....big-time!

You do not see any 268-unit storage businesses being proposed on a Route 3 vacant lot in Meredith....now do you......which is the very ugly, imminent storage case in the Weirs.........too ugly bad for the Weirs!

Wouldn't it be nice if the State of NH changed its mind, and agreed to build a new community sailing building facility on the beautifull stretch of un-developed sandy beach that fronts on Lake Winnipesaukee at the Ellecoya State Park-RV Campground. That proposed community sailing center there at Ellecoya should be re-visited once the legislature wakes up and figures a way to power up the state's parks and recreation facilities.

Does driving past run down homes and a trailer park make those Meredith facilities all that more fantastic? Driving past that empty Aubuchon and pizza place is pretty swanky too. No one even sees those buildings. I'm sure you are making your comments in jest so I won't comment on the thought of building another building on a prestine beach.

And putting another building on the beach is a fantastic idea.

And the total for the building exceeds the $7.8M. You have a $600K+ architect cost and the $1.5M cost to buy the industrial building.

[Wreckn1]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

Although I am in favor of a new facility for the MP, I am curious if anyone here knows what the impact or lack thereof will be for those who put in at the town docks while the project is underway?

From the meeting I was in, there should be little to no impact at the town docks, that may have changed from 3 months ago, but the state is being very conscious of the summer time residents. Again that was 3 months ago at the meeting. They also wanted demo and pile/sheet driving done before residents started arriving for the spring/summer however I can tell you for a fact demo will not be starting when they originally wanted it to, due delays with the paper work end of it.....hope this helps

[Airedale1]

Originally Posted by Wreckn1

From the meeting I was in, there should be little to no impact at the town docks, that may have changed from 3 months ago, but the state is being very conscious of the summer time residents. Again that was 3 months ago at the meeting. They also wanted demo and pile/sheet driving done before residents started arriving for the spring/summer however I can tell you for a fact demo will not be starting when they originally wanted it to, due delays with the paper work end of it.....hope this helps

Thank you!