Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-15-2024, 07:48 AM   #1
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 3,008
Thanks: 699
Thanked 2,203 Times in 937 Posts
Default

It appears that the reason the property was sold is because it was not financially feasible to operate it as a summer camp. There are many other summer camps on the lake and maybe the law of supply and demand contributed to the downfall.

One upside that has not been mentioned is that if this property is developed as planned that town will realize a significant increase in taxable value and therefore tax revenue when it is completed. And, not to generalize, but when people purchase the higher cost homes often they are beyond their child raising years so the occupants of these properties will likely contribute substantially to the town's finances while being a minimal burden on town services.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2024, 09:04 AM   #2
TomC
Senior Member
 
TomC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 679
Thanks: 21
Thanked 93 Times in 62 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
One upside that has not been mentioned is that if this property is developed as planned that town will realize a significant increase in taxable value and therefore tax revenue when it is completed. And, not to generalize, but when people purchase the higher cost homes often they are beyond their child raising years so the occupants of these properties will likely contribute substantially to the town's finances while being a minimal burden on town services.
What do you think will happen? That revenue goes to sustaining the current town budget and thus reduces the tax burden on everyone else - or the budget balloons as new ways to spend the windfall are found?
TomC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2024, 09:27 AM   #3
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 347
Thanks: 26
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Default

The last thing needed is more high-end housing, regardless of what town we're talking about. What we really need is workforce housing (not to be confused with subsidized housing).

When a typical house for a family of four is running ~$500,000, that locks a lot of people out of housing. How many employers can't hire anyone because there isn't any affordable housing for their prospective employees? Pretty much anyone making less than $100K will not be able to afford to buy a house and anyone making less then $70K won't be able to afford rent.
Weekend Pundit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2024, 01:02 PM   #4
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 2,061
Thanks: 210
Thanked 657 Times in 437 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit View Post
The last thing needed is more high-end housing, regardless of what town we're talking about. What we really need is workforce housing (not to be confused with subsidized housing).

When a typical house for a family of four is running ~$500,000, that locks a lot of people out of housing. How many employers can't hire anyone because there isn't any affordable housing for their prospective employees? Pretty much anyone making less than $100K will not be able to afford to buy a house and anyone making less then $70K won't be able to afford rent.
Why must current tax payers supply “workforce housing”? If a business decides to open or operate in this area knowing unemployment is at zero isn’t that on them? It’s not the taxpayers responsibility to support one’s business plan.
WinnisquamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WinnisquamZ For This Useful Post:
ApS (12-16-2024), Biggd (12-16-2024)
Old 12-15-2024, 04:36 PM   #5
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 347
Thanks: 26
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Why must current tax payers supply “workforce housing”? If a business decides to open or operate in this area knowing unemployment is at zero isn’t that on them? It’s not the taxpayers responsibility to support one’s business plan.
Who said anything about the taxpayers doing any of this? Mostly it's a matter of making it less difficult for such housing to be built. I have seen far too much of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) attitude delay or destroy worthy developments.
Weekend Pundit is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-15-2024, 10:35 PM   #6
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,385
Thanks: 3
Thanked 597 Times in 493 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit View Post
Who said anything about the taxpayers doing any of this? Mostly it's a matter of making it less difficult for such housing to be built. I have seen far too much of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) attitude delay or destroy worthy developments.
That isn't likely to be the case on this parcel.
We all understand that lakefront development would be higher value housing that what we would typically be expecting for starter homes.

NH HB 1361 (?) I believe would be what a developer would use to increase workforce housing should they wish to go that route.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2024, 11:23 PM   #7
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 347
Thanks: 26
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
That isn't likely to be the case on this parcel.
We all understand that lakefront development would be higher value housing that what we would typically be expecting for starter homes.

NH HB 1361 (?) I believe would be what a developer would use to increase workforce housing should they wish to go that route.
My comment was aimed at towns in general, not specifically Meredith. Yeah, it was off-topic. My bad.

Goodness knows workforce housing is needed across the state. That's certainly true of Gilford.
Weekend Pundit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2024, 12:07 AM   #8
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,385
Thanks: 3
Thanked 597 Times in 493 Posts
Default

That can fix it for all of the towns/cities.
Just a matter of it being invoked, and the municipality realizing what the cost of a lost court case would be.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2024, 09:19 AM   #9
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,754
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 300
Thanked 1,010 Times in 736 Posts
Arrow ...... big money, big time and long time.

95-acres of land, 4500 feet of Lake Winnipesaukee waterfront, one third or 30-acres of the 95-acres land is a beautiful wetlands area with tall pine trees, close to the Meredith Neck Rd that gets flooded from time to time.

Two photos ..... https://gis.vgsi.com/MeredithNH/Parcel.aspx?pid=1765 ..... of the camp buildings, built in 1830 and 1965. These two buildings are the only existing buildings on the 95.38 acre property. There's a large waterfront dock, suitable for a camp waterfront which is set in the lake water, in the lake.

A drawing that shows the proposed seven lots and a large non-buildable area ...... http://www.stevecapykw.com/former-gi...or-18-million/.

Maybe this non-buildable wetlands area will receive 'current use' low tax status and be protected from future development. This very attractive wetlands area is what's seen from the road while driving.

Where is this Camp Menotomy 95-acre property? ...... http://www.mapquest.com/us/new=Hamps...tomy-450115226

Individual summer camp for young people in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont have typically been in existence for 80 to 110-years, created before World War II, and now cost about $14,500 for a camper to attend a seven week session from June 25 to August 10.

Each new house will probably have to pay the Town of Meredith maybe $35,000/year in property tax, plus they spend on building materials, construction labor, maintenance, local business', local services, restaurants, boats and cars. So, these seven new waterfront home owners will help support the local economy, big time ..... and long time.

The last year that Camp Menotomy Girl Scout Camp actually had a full eight week or seven week session was probably in the year 1999 or 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/ny...cout-camp.html ..... Nov 26, 2006: Southampton NY buys a 65-acre Camp Tekakwitha on great Peconic Bay for $16.5 million.

The chance that the Town of Meredith or the State of N.H.would buy Camp Menotomy are probably close to ZERO.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.64421 seconds