Like the "half-mile of trail about 12 feet wide was treated with herbicide" that never existed.
GPS, Maps, and cameras ILLEGAL
- Thread starter Trail Bandit
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Like the "half-mile of trail about 12 feet wide was treated with herbicide" that never existed.
JacobH
Active member
I'd say an unbiased opinion would probably be better than hearsay in this matter. Especially an assessment coming from rocket21, who has some pretty extensive trail maintenance experience.
Red Oak
New member
Jacob H...So let me get this right.You are the "keeper of the facts".I am ignoring these "facts".As someone who grew up in nh and has roots going back more than two hundred years in nh, I am most likely "claiming to have logger friends".Quite the stretch there.I would bet a lot of people from nh,maine or vermont have logger friends.The land in question is private property but funded for a clean up and there is no middle ground here?Maybe you are a nh newbie but there is no property tax in nh....
As far as trolling,see entry number 52 of this thread...Maybe in your world people who own planes are not "rich"Thats fine,sorry for my working class tendencies.I also did not realize you like pics of sandpits better than mountains.Fake sympathy?My uncle died in a heli crash at age 33,so you missed the boat on that one.I grew up knowing first hand the long term pain such a aviation accident can cause a family.
I do want to make one more "assumption".It seems trail bandit can well represent himself here and if you read the complete thread you would notice he responded to my comments all ready!
Also I assume that most on this site do want another nasty and dividing ossipee thread?It seems clear to me the mods do not want this and I happily agree.Thanks for helping me learn a new word "trolling",I had to ask my almost 16 year old daughter what that meant.Sorry my property rights beliefs annoyed you so much.I guess its a stretch to imagine someones actions[such as publishing a illegal map,whether true or not] can influence some one to blaze illegal trails on private property[debated]
As far as trolling,see entry number 52 of this thread...Maybe in your world people who own planes are not "rich"Thats fine,sorry for my working class tendencies.I also did not realize you like pics of sandpits better than mountains.Fake sympathy?My uncle died in a heli crash at age 33,so you missed the boat on that one.I grew up knowing first hand the long term pain such a aviation accident can cause a family.
I do want to make one more "assumption".It seems trail bandit can well represent himself here and if you read the complete thread you would notice he responded to my comments all ready!
Also I assume that most on this site do want another nasty and dividing ossipee thread?It seems clear to me the mods do not want this and I happily agree.Thanks for helping me learn a new word "trolling",I had to ask my almost 16 year old daughter what that meant.Sorry my property rights beliefs annoyed you so much.I guess its a stretch to imagine someones actions[such as publishing a illegal map,whether true or not] can influence some one to blaze illegal trails on private property[debated]
Last edited:
spider solo
New member
Yes, I'll keep my eyes open in case that unbiased opinion does happen someday.
Dave Bear
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 168
I grew up farming and logging on property that also includes a sandpit, logging truck roads to yards and a sawmill we built and ran for a living for years. For many years this was not under land use. My parents paid full taxes on it and they are far from rich. Once the view tax hit them their hand was somewhat forced to do something to cut down on their tax burden so I believe it is under land use. This does not mean it can not be used for other purposes or that it has to be put back as forest. It still has livestock roaming the fields and woods. It may even have an old abandoned well somewhere that a hunter or hiker could fall into. To the best of the owners knowledge there are no obvious hazards. That and access is the expectation of land use.
There is a vast difference between that and a company or business individual accepting a grant for over a million dollars of tax-payer monies and not complying with that grant. Once exposed they go to the extent of legislation to protect their right to abuse the said grant compliance through hiding behind property boundaries. At what point are our politicians working on our behalf and the compliance with the conservation grant. Limiting scrutiny is one thing but the fact that this has not raised awareness and brought on action to address the public's concern is outrageous!
As for flyers and plane hobbyists, not what I would define as rich kids though some are! It's an adrenaline addiction for many and most that have a small plane give up alot of other things to keep aloft! Like those of us that hike to the level of an obsession there is no room here to speak to anyone's passion in a demeaning manner, not in my opinion! Life's to short to stand back and pigeon-hole those around us as "rich kids" or for that matter "trolls"!
I won't look for an unbiased opinion because life rarely offers such! On the other hand I will wear my tax payers hat and outdoor enthusiast and land owner and NH voters hat while I read this and any relevant information on the issues!
There is a vast difference between that and a company or business individual accepting a grant for over a million dollars of tax-payer monies and not complying with that grant. Once exposed they go to the extent of legislation to protect their right to abuse the said grant compliance through hiding behind property boundaries. At what point are our politicians working on our behalf and the compliance with the conservation grant. Limiting scrutiny is one thing but the fact that this has not raised awareness and brought on action to address the public's concern is outrageous!
As for flyers and plane hobbyists, not what I would define as rich kids though some are! It's an adrenaline addiction for many and most that have a small plane give up alot of other things to keep aloft! Like those of us that hike to the level of an obsession there is no room here to speak to anyone's passion in a demeaning manner, not in my opinion! Life's to short to stand back and pigeon-hole those around us as "rich kids" or for that matter "trolls"!
I won't look for an unbiased opinion because life rarely offers such! On the other hand I will wear my tax payers hat and outdoor enthusiast and land owner and NH voters hat while I read this and any relevant information on the issues!
Last edited:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please keep discussion and debate civil, respectful and cite facts with links when available... I haven't closed a thread in over a year and I don't want to start now.
Thank you,
Tim
Please keep discussion and debate civil, respectful and cite facts with links when available... I haven't closed a thread in over a year and I don't want to start now.
Thank you,
Tim
bandana4me
New member
My question is: Was there a specified date on the agreement to shut down the pit?
The reason I ask this is because a friend of mine in the 80's wanted to build a garage. He hired a contractor and the agreement was, the contractor would be paid half up front and the remainder when the garage was half built. When he paid the remainder (garage half built) of the agreement, the crew NEVER showed up again! When they went to court the judge asked the contractor why he wasn't completing the garage....the contractor said that there was "NO COMPLETION DATE ON THE AGREEMENT".
Again, Is there a date on the agreement that says the pit HAS to shut down by a certain date?
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Here you go
http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/Ossipee/ossipeetractdeed.pdf
Section 2-F pg 7 of 21 and section 3-j section iv appears to be the major clauses. Looks like 2 years from the date of the agreement. I am not a lawyer so others skilled in the law can comment so this is my uneducated interpretation
My read of 2-f is that the owner reserved rights to extract gravel for use on the property for forestry purposes and also a restricted right to use gravel on adjoining lands for purposes listed in 2F as long with a further restriction that the material could not be further removed. I interpret this as the owner can use for forestry purposes listed in 2 F on their adjoining lands but cant sell it, give it away or uses it for non forestry purposes. If the owner wants to build a housiung development on the adjoinign lands they cant build a road unless that is within the forestry practices exclusion. This appears to be in conflict with the two year restoration window in 3-J iv. Therein lies the issue, the owner was supposed to restore the gravel pit and extract no more gravel yet they retained the right to extract gravel for limited uses in perpetuity. This is where the state which is supposed to be managing the easement may have dropped the ball. Unless an external party is tracking the usage of the gravel to determine that its being used per the grant of conservation easement, the prior owner can pretty much ignore the restriction for gravel removal albeit at their peril if they elect to divert the gravel off the property or their adjoining lands. So selling gravel or allowing any other party to remove gravel for purposes outside the easement is not good. I beleive that there are also state laws in effect for general management of gravel pits and their closure but that is another can of worms.
I expect where the lawyers have to get involved is how can the gravel pit be required to be restored in two years yet still be able to be used for restricted gravel extraction?
http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/Ossipee/ossipeetractdeed.pdf
Section 2-F pg 7 of 21 and section 3-j section iv appears to be the major clauses. Looks like 2 years from the date of the agreement. I am not a lawyer so others skilled in the law can comment so this is my uneducated interpretation
My read of 2-f is that the owner reserved rights to extract gravel for use on the property for forestry purposes and also a restricted right to use gravel on adjoining lands for purposes listed in 2F as long with a further restriction that the material could not be further removed. I interpret this as the owner can use for forestry purposes listed in 2 F on their adjoining lands but cant sell it, give it away or uses it for non forestry purposes. If the owner wants to build a housiung development on the adjoinign lands they cant build a road unless that is within the forestry practices exclusion. This appears to be in conflict with the two year restoration window in 3-J iv. Therein lies the issue, the owner was supposed to restore the gravel pit and extract no more gravel yet they retained the right to extract gravel for limited uses in perpetuity. This is where the state which is supposed to be managing the easement may have dropped the ball. Unless an external party is tracking the usage of the gravel to determine that its being used per the grant of conservation easement, the prior owner can pretty much ignore the restriction for gravel removal albeit at their peril if they elect to divert the gravel off the property or their adjoining lands. So selling gravel or allowing any other party to remove gravel for purposes outside the easement is not good. I beleive that there are also state laws in effect for general management of gravel pits and their closure but that is another can of worms.
I expect where the lawyers have to get involved is how can the gravel pit be required to be restored in two years yet still be able to be used for restricted gravel extraction?
Indeed, the agreement was for that gravel pit to be shut down nearly 10 years ago.
The aerial photos don't do it justice, in that if you were to drive through there (as the land owner allegedly did with DRED inspectors a few years ago), the front of the pit appears to be long shut down and reclaimed. You have to know to go around this area and find the road to the back of the pit, where operations continue. Just another reason to suppress aerial photography and mapping of the area.
The aerial photos don't do it justice, in that if you were to drive through there (as the land owner allegedly did with DRED inspectors a few years ago), the front of the pit appears to be long shut down and reclaimed. You have to know to go around this area and find the road to the back of the pit, where operations continue. Just another reason to suppress aerial photography and mapping of the area.
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
"Several general observations grow out of the scant case-law and statutory references to citizen and neighbor standing to enforce conservation easements available for review. First, citizen suits and citizen or neighbor arguments for standing may be more persuasive if the conservation easement at issue is held on the public’s behalf and if the conservation easement states expressly that it is established 'for the benefit of the general public.' Second, standing for citizens to enforce conservation easements is more likely to be granted if the public has a stake in the enforcement of the conservation easement, such as if it is donated in exchange for tax deductions or credits subsidized by the public taxpayer, purchased directly using public funds, or if it allows public access. Finally, citizen suits seem likely to have better odds of success when the state enabling statute is either silent on the issue of standing or contains the broad 'person authorized by other law' language that arguably might permit citizens or neighbors to enforce conservation easements, and provided that the same legislation does not specify that an enforcing party be qualified to hold the conservation easement at issue."
THIRD-PARTY ENFORCEMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, by Jessica E. Jay, Founding Partner, Conservation Law, P.C.; Adjunct Professor, Vermont Law School, in "Emerging Trends in Environmental Law
Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center Articles", 29 VTLR 757
29 Vt. L. Rev. 757, Vermont Law Review Spring, 2005
THIRD-PARTY ENFORCEMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, by Jessica E. Jay, Founding Partner, Conservation Law, P.C.; Adjunct Professor, Vermont Law School, in "Emerging Trends in Environmental Law
Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center Articles", 29 VTLR 757
29 Vt. L. Rev. 757, Vermont Law Review Spring, 2005
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
And this:
"477:46 Restrictions Enforceable. – No conservation restriction held by any governmental body or by a charitable, educational or other corporation, association, trust or other entity whose purposes include conservation of land or water areas or of a particular such area, no preservation restriction held by any governmental body or by a charitable, educational or other corporation, association, trust or other entity whose purposes include preservation of structures or sites of historical significance or of a particular such structure or site and no agricultural preservation restriction held by any governmental body or charitable corporation, trust or other entity whose purposes include preservation of land or water areas predominantly in their agricultural state shall be unenforceable against any owner of the restricted land or structure on account of lack of privity of estate or contract or lack of benefit to particular land or on account of the benefit being assignable or being assigned to any other governmental body or to any entity with like purposes. This section shall not be construed to imply that any restriction, easement, covenant or condition which does not have the benefit of this section shall, on account of any provisions hereof, be unenforceable. Any doctrine of law which might otherwise cause the termination of such a restriction shall not be affected by the provisions of this subdivision."
RSA § 477-46
"477:46 Restrictions Enforceable. – No conservation restriction held by any governmental body or by a charitable, educational or other corporation, association, trust or other entity whose purposes include conservation of land or water areas or of a particular such area, no preservation restriction held by any governmental body or by a charitable, educational or other corporation, association, trust or other entity whose purposes include preservation of structures or sites of historical significance or of a particular such structure or site and no agricultural preservation restriction held by any governmental body or charitable corporation, trust or other entity whose purposes include preservation of land or water areas predominantly in their agricultural state shall be unenforceable against any owner of the restricted land or structure on account of lack of privity of estate or contract or lack of benefit to particular land or on account of the benefit being assignable or being assigned to any other governmental body or to any entity with like purposes. This section shall not be construed to imply that any restriction, easement, covenant or condition which does not have the benefit of this section shall, on account of any provisions hereof, be unenforceable. Any doctrine of law which might otherwise cause the termination of such a restriction shall not be affected by the provisions of this subdivision."
RSA § 477-46
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
And this:
"This Note argues that an aggrieved third party can enforce a conservation easement collaterally by suing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704 for unlawfully approving an income tax deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 170(h).[footnote omitted] The plaintiff would bring suit for an order requiring the Commissioner to find a deficiency in the taxpayer’s income tax return. Tax incentives for conservation contributions are major factors for many property owners;[footnote omitted] challenging the owners’ income tax deductions can provide a way to ensure that conservation easements further legitimate conservation purposes that provide substantial public benefits."
The "Interior" Revenue Service: The Tax Code as a Vehicle for Third-Party Enforcement of Conservation Easements, Douglas M. Humphrey, The "Interior" Revenue Service: The Tax Code as a Vehicle for Third-Party
Enforcement of Conservation Easements, 37 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 425 (2010), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol37/iss2/6
"This Note argues that an aggrieved third party can enforce a conservation easement collaterally by suing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704 for unlawfully approving an income tax deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 170(h).[footnote omitted] The plaintiff would bring suit for an order requiring the Commissioner to find a deficiency in the taxpayer’s income tax return. Tax incentives for conservation contributions are major factors for many property owners;[footnote omitted] challenging the owners’ income tax deductions can provide a way to ensure that conservation easements further legitimate conservation purposes that provide substantial public benefits."
The "Interior" Revenue Service: The Tax Code as a Vehicle for Third-Party Enforcement of Conservation Easements, Douglas M. Humphrey, The "Interior" Revenue Service: The Tax Code as a Vehicle for Third-Party
Enforcement of Conservation Easements, 37 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 425 (2010), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol37/iss2/6
Trail Bandit
New member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 20
Perhaps New Hampshire is just trying to catch up with the Chinese.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
Clever idea, but probably won't work for 2 reasons:
* Statute of limitations is tax cases is only 3+ years, or 7 years if fraud not confusion
* The IRS probably will act only if you can prove the return as filed is actually incorrect, so you would need inside information
There is a lot of slimy tax stuff in land conservation deals. In August 2005, ASNH fired a land protection specialist who had complained about a deal in which they paid $450,000 for a piece of property they valued at $650,000. The seller had it appraised at $1,450,000 and ASNH had to agree to that nominal value so the seller could get a $1 million tax deduction. The board approved the purchase because ASNH was getting the property below their estimate and it was the seller's responsibility to value the land properly for taxes. The only one subject to prosecution would be the seller's appraiser who no doubt has a stack of documents to back up their number, and the president even recommended them to another seller. [In the next couple months, the HR director left and the president fired 8 more employees before the tumbril came for him.]
This made a technorati blog See http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ke-satellite-view-maps-criminal-offense.shtml
While opinions here are strong, this site has the actual bill viewable and summarizes prior court decisions.
While opinions here are strong, this site has the actual bill viewable and summarizes prior court decisions.
Last edited:
Red Oak
New member
Any updates on the legal status of this sandpit?I am sorry about the wrong photo. I wanted to attach View attachment 4373 I have trouble with the file system on views and have been too lazy to open an account with something like Smugmug. I apologize to the moderators and other overseers.
hopefully it is closed to the public,so kids can not go up there and party it up and trash the area.[please no more negative email on this topic/related topic.thanks!]
Last edited:
Trail Bandit
New member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 20
From what I have seen from the air, nothing much has changed at the sandpit. There is a big steel gate across Gilman Valley Road that prevents people from driving into the pit area. I doubt any kids would hike the distance from the gate to the pit to party. There are lots of other sandpits in the Ossipee area.
Trail Bandit
New member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 20
Red Oak said: Any updates on the legal status of this sandpit?
hopefully it is closed to the public,so kids can not go up there and party it up and trash the area.[please no more negative email on this topic/related topic.thanks!]
Ok, I have not seen the latest agreement between the State of NH and the people who own the sand pit. The last I heard was that it was supposed to be RECLAIMED many years ago. My understanding was that the owners were supposed to kinda, sorta supposed to make it look like woods. As requested by Red Oak, I will not go into the politics or my take on the deal.
Here is a photo of the sandpit that I took today
While I was wandering around the friendly skies of NH I noticed a nice view to the north.
To the top left is Nickerson Ledge on Chocorua and to the right is Silver Lake. You may recall the white thing in the middle. We are lucky to have all this in out back yard.
hopefully it is closed to the public,so kids can not go up there and party it up and trash the area.[please no more negative email on this topic/related topic.thanks!]
Ok, I have not seen the latest agreement between the State of NH and the people who own the sand pit. The last I heard was that it was supposed to be RECLAIMED many years ago. My understanding was that the owners were supposed to kinda, sorta supposed to make it look like woods. As requested by Red Oak, I will not go into the politics or my take on the deal.
Here is a photo of the sandpit that I took today
While I was wandering around the friendly skies of NH I noticed a nice view to the north.
To the top left is Nickerson Ledge on Chocorua and to the right is Silver Lake. You may recall the white thing in the middle. We are lucky to have all this in out back yard.
Red Oak
New member
I heard from a well known, respected hiker/bushwhacker to remain anonymous (who does not post on VFTT) that the logging road near that gravel pit is the among the worst he's ever seen, in terms of massive erosion, as well as debris.
When the owners sold the property easement to the government for $1.4 million, they retained the ability to log. They did not retain the ability to continue to pull gravel from that gravel pit. That was supposed to be closed and reclaimed years ago. Yet, as seen from Trail Bandit's photos, the pit and machinery still appear to be active.
I wonder if there's a way I could get $1.4 million without having to hold up my side of the hypothetical deal?
Similar threads
