NH DRED Nixes Snowmobile Trail by Highland Center

[Waumbek]

From this week's Coos County Democrat:

Controversial snowmobile trail discontinued
By Eileen Alexander
TWIN MOUNTAIN — The controversial state snowmobile trail that was built last year to relieve overcrowding on the Cog Base Road Trail, and a portion of which ran behind the Appalachian Mountain Club’s (AMC’s) Highland Center in Crawford Notch, has been discontinued. Early last winter, the AMC had unsuccessfully filed a court suit to obtain an injunction to stop construction because they said that it would cause “irreparable harm” for a trail to cut through their 26-acre property to give snowmobilers another access to the Mt. Clinton Road.
The order came from Sean O’Kane, the Commissioner of the state Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED), which oversees the Parks and Recreation Department’s Trails Bureau.
Trails Bureau Chief Paul Gray said that the state intends to widen the existing trail on the Base Road to accommodate snowmobiles in the upcoming season. “Last winter we needed it,” he said of the new trail, as it functioned as a relief valve for the overcrowded Base Road trail.
When asked if the current action to discontinue the trail was a result of AMC’s suit, Mr. Gray said that he thought not. “Our goal from day one was to make a safe trail (on the Base Road).” He said that the relief valve trail which passed by the Highland Center had been an option that had worked last winter.
Mr. Gray described the Base Road trail as originally being 24-feet wide. After some construction last year, it had been narrowed down to eight feet in width in some places, barely wide enough to accommodate a moving snowmachine; on days of heavy usage the moguly, uneven and narrow terrain would be unsafe. He said that the state wanted the relief valve trail in place to handle some of the couple of thousand machines that ride through the area each week during the winter. “With a state road right beside it, we thought some snowmobiles (on the narrower sections of trail) would jump onto the paved road. That would present problems.”
Mr. Gray said that beginning in July the Base Trail will be widened by eight feet this summer at a cost of $45,000 to $60,000. This is in addition to the $200,000 that was spent last year.
Commissioner O’Kane said in a written release that the state “has agreed to work cooperatively with the AMC organization, the U.S. Forest Service and the local community to create alternative public snowmobiling opportunities that will be in the interest of public recreation while creating minimal impact to the Highland Center and the White Mountain National Forest.”
He said that DRED intends to work with the Forest Service to identify unsafe areas on the Base Trail and to widen them; to provide information about the Base Trail’s terrain and usage; work with the Forest Service and Fish and Game to monitor the Base Road trail for a year, looking at such things as usage, maintenance, grooming, and snowfall, to determine if any follow-up action — more information or additional construction — should be taken; and assess area trail usage through feedback from the public and surveys. If the existing trails do not prove adequate, the state would look at other possibilities, which could include adding more trails in the area, but only through a public process.
The Appalachian Mountain Club responded to Commissioner O’Kane’s order to discontinue the trail and his action plan with a written statement in which they said that they support “the direction outlined by the commissioner that includes improving the Cog Base Road Trail and ongoing monitoring of safety and use issues.”
They said that they intend to work with the state to find a permanent solution.
The state Department of Transportation and the AMC have not yet resolved the legal issue of who owns the right-of-way under a railroad bed that had been used by the trail as it passed by the Highland Center.

 

[darren]

Please try to keep this thread on topic and leave the politics out of it.

Thanks,

- darren

 

[Rick]

Darren, I will try to be on topic here But food for thought.... Please don't beat me up too bad with User Rep takeaways....

According to the Supreme Court's latest decision, Couldn't the state now take over the Highland Center through Eminent Domain under the auspices that the state snowmobile trail might bring in more revenue for the state? Especially if one wanted to put a snowmobile friendly lodge up on the site of the Highland Center??

 

[Gris]

Rick - the answer is NO. In order for local government to condemn land for redevelopment there has to be a finding that the land in question is "blighted," understanding that "blighted" may be defined more broadly than a ghetto. The gist of the S. Ct. decision (which i disagree vehemently with BTW) is that "redevelopment" (almost always undertaken by private developers hand picked by local government w/o competititve bidding) is now deemed to be for a "public purpose" even if the development turns out to be a shopping center. It used to be that "public purpose" meant highway, playground, park, etc. This decision is particularly disturbing to me. I tried an indentical case before the Florida courts fifteen years ago and the courts ruled that the city could not blight my client's property by putting it in a redevelopment zone and sitting on it for a number of years (so he couldnt do anything with it). Interestingly, in that case even the City admitted that the shopping center was not a public purpose and that they could not condemn the property (vacant lots) outright for redevelopment. Out of respect for this board I won't go into detail re the politics of the recent U.S.S.Ct. decision. Suffice it to say, it is "judicial activsim" at its extremist. Quite ironic - given our president's rhetoric...

 

[RGF1]

I am not sure if this is political. But as I understand right of way laws (discalimer I am not a Attorney but I work and do own with my family some land ) That abandoned railroad beds were right of ways and the state can do with them as they wish. If the land owner has objections to a old railroad bed they can ask the state if they can purchase it . I think a real estate attorney is best to answer thease type of questions. I can Email one out west But I doubt she can help with NH laws.
As for the start making it a snowmobile trail All I can say is hey they have just as much right as us hikers to enjoy our National forest . .Remember the WMNF is not a National Park .
To Be honest it is a tit for tat thing. I have a feeling the state and locals are fed up with a out of state organzation wielding influnce where they do not live and work . Maybe the AMC should try to be a bit more cooperative and reach out to to locals. Also they should take into consideration the people that live and work the land in Northern NH it is not just a play ground for the well to do from "away " as the locals would say . Yes some of them make a lving renting rooms feeding at a resturauant selling fuel and suppiles to *gasp* snowmobilers and hunters along with hikes and skliers . I do not like the damnable snowmobiles for the most part. I think In a way the AMC went to far in many ways and as I said it is a tit for tat issue.

Had not they done so I doubt this would be as big of a deal.
I would not want a bunch of snowmobiles roaring around my place but then I do not do things to aggrevate my neighbors.

 

[Panama Jack]

Playing Solomon

Mr Gray seems to have made every happy with this announcement. I'm glad for the hikers and fume throwers, after all, it is the land of many uses!

 

[RoySwkr]

The gist of the S. Ct. decision (which i disagree vehemently with BTW) is that "redevelopment" (almost always undertaken by private developers hand picked by local government w/o competititve bidding) is now deemed to be for a "public purpose" even if the development turns out to be a shopping center. It used to be that "public purpose" meant highway, playground, park, etc.

Surely a snowmobile trail qualified as a "public purpose" even under the old rules? Those 2000 snowmobiles per day/week deserve some consideration.

Nobody in their right mind thought the Highland Center was a good trail location, the state (peculiarly?) just thought they could put it there without difficulty and they were wrong. Unfortunately they seem to be concentrating on the Base Road which to my mind is an equally bad route. I drove it last winter and the road & trail crisscross each other often with no demarcation. It was bad enough in daylight, I can't imagine what it would be like at night or in a snowstorm.

A connector from the RR tracks to Mt Clinton Road crossing somewhere near the state highway garage seems better to me. Other ideas?

 

[Gris]

Surely a snowmobile trail qualified as a "public purpose" even under the old rules? Those 2000 snowmobiles per day/week deserve some consideration.

Of course, the trail would be analogous to a road. My response was directed at the Q whether the state could directly take over (condemn) the actual Higland Center under the guise of redevelopment. A better Q would be why couldn't the state just condemn the entire AMC property in order to expand the existing state park? I think there would be no legal obstacles to that. Maybe some fiscal ones tho.

 

[RGF1]

Not to hi jack a thread but gris mentiond fiscal obstacles . Be it the HC or any piece of land the state want to take, does any ( Gris ?) know if a state has to pay the going market rate or do they have some formula that of course works out to give the sate a favorable rate ? I can think of all sorts of problesm this whole issue brings up.

 

[Gris]

"Just compensation" (essentially market value) is right in the U.S. Constitution. But it actually does vary state to state in the nuance. E.g., there is a lot of debate over whether gvt has to pay for the potential value (e.g., if there are plans to develope it but it has not occurred yet) and/or lost revenue (usually depends upon whether there is an established track record, 3+ years, etc.) and so on and so forth.