https://www.unionleader.com/news/bu...cle_29f61247-d24a-5ae2-a05c-916f6d836bff.html
This could open the "can of worms" on summit rights and ownership in court.
This could open the "can of worms" on summit rights and ownership in court.
Not sure whom “You” is but like I said let’s play nice. I happen to agree with this post. For the record I am a long time financial supporter to the Ob’s. I’ve never ridden the Cog but have used the Auto Road via multiple modes of transportation and support capitalism especially when it comes to private ownership. As I’ve stated on this board before I am not a big fan of The AMC but not against everything they do. I’m also a NH resident and contribute to the General Fund on multiple levels. Yes it’s a hornet’s nest up there. Although it’s unfortunate that some if not all parties involved cannot agree to disagree and come up with a solution to solve their problems. They all have an interest to come to a solution that benefits all.The other members and chairman of the Mt Washington Commission were saying the same thing two years ago but Presby has decided to kick the "hornets nest" or "the old boy network" as you see fit to describe the MWC. The attorney general did not issue the commentary on the summit ownership because he wanted to, he did it due to Presby's prior public and private comments to the MWC. The various articles point the Obs lawsuit actually being led by a member of the Obs board. Not sure how deep his pockets are. Like it or not the cog is has substantially increased the summit use of late and planning for more while the autoroad is relatively static. The septic system is overloaded by increased use which is going to be mostly attributable to increased cog use. If he doesn't push back the solutions are going to impact his and his sons future business either in increased fees to fund a solution, or capacity caps. The state has already said that summit improvements have to come up with source of revenue.
that's ~60k hikers that could visit the museum (and my assumptions are likely very high).
The optimist in me thinks that getting this all out into court and sorted might "clear the air" and enable a more harmonious relationship. The pessimist remembers the summit rights issues have been "settled" several times before but it never seems to "stick". The fight over the location of PNSY comes to mind.As the attorney general's ownership summary had stated a few years ago, all the original deeds and surveys of the area are suspect with overlapping claims of ownership and rights to the summit. Even if there is one entity that does have clear title there are numerous overlapping rights and past precedent. I expect no one except for the lawyers litigating the case would be happy with a court settlement.
Enter your email address to join: