Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, that's my concern. The potential development I linked in the OP is not at Hampton Beach, this is near properties with large lots, some on 5-15 acres.
The rural town I am building in is redoing their master plan after 10 years. This is a small town where my ~40 acres is smaller lot. One of their supposed goals from the working groups is "increase the tax base".
They completely overlook the fact that that increase will turn into further increases in costs. With an increased tax base can the town clerk only be open 11 hours a week and staffed by one person wearing three hats or the transfer station 14 hours?
In the meantime one of the towns in the school district is well into the process of withdrawing from the district due to the apportionment formulas. This will result in a significant increase in taxes alone, but now we're importing more kids to attend.
Their increased tax base simply equals a more crowded town as everything else becomes a wash or increases.
It's not an increased tax base if it involves a new family with a kid. It costs almost $22K/yr for every kid in NH schools, and towns pay more than 60% of that. How many families move here and buy new homes with tax bills that cover the education expenses for their kids? Unless all those new homes and apts are being filled with childless people, the existing residents' taxes go up just to pay for education alone, not to mention the whining about not enough streetlights, sidewalks, trash pickup, police coverage, etc. The town's other option is to attract industry to increase the tax base, but that requires its new employees live somewhere else or you're right back where you started.
this is sounding like Ma. What a way to ruin a state!
They did the same thing in CT. The politicians answer was a low "temporary" income tax to reducer property and sales taxes. Fast forward 10 years, income taxed raise and permanent, sales tax raised and property taxes higher than what we have here in NH. No thanks !!!!
You are exactly right...."What a way to ruin a state!"
It's not an increased tax base if it involves a new family with a kid.
Oh of course, but the frustrating thing is they don't see that.
The survey results also brought out that many people wanted to reopen the PD. Like many other rural towns, they closed it to save money and now the town pays $15K a year to NHSP for four hours over patrols a week. This is somewhat laughable as the town is bordered on three sides by state roads and one of the troopers lives in the town. So the 4 hour block is checked easily.
but I digress.
While I'll admit that having a PD would be 'nice' for administrative things such as P&R licenses and accident reports, it is hard to justify the cost in a small town. In order to keep a PD manned with one officer 24/7, you're looking at at least three full time officers, and maybe two part timers. This is just BARELY taking into account sick time. Add onto it vehicles, equipment, additional pay for mandatory training(PT officers are requirement to meet full time training reqs in NH), insurance for the employees, and additional insurance for the town for the inevitable civil suits for real or imagined allegations.
It is like nobody thinks of the second or third order effects of their voices/vote in these matters.
Large population increases, especially 400 unit complexes like the OP mentions, does not 'increase' any tax base. It adds one large payer and a whole bunch of families who overwhelm existing services, thus requiring addition there, while they demand for increased services such as paved roads and municipal trash. All this just dumps more costs on the individual taxpayers.
Compared to Fisher Scientific at full employment in the 1990s, this development doesn't seem too disruptive. The location doesn't really bring any additional traffic to Route 1 or any of the already congested areas in Hampton.
LACONIA — Almost 1,900 housing units, along with about 200,000 square feet of commercial office and retail space, would be part of a project envisioned on the site of the former Laconia State School.
Those details about a mixed-use development of the state-owned property were shared during a public presentation Wednesday evening.
More than 50 people, including state, county and city officials, turned out for the presentation about the plan, which a special committee is expected to recommend to the state’s Executive Council in the coming weeks.
A resort hotel and conference center, health care services, an entertainment venue and outdoor recreation amenities would also be part of what Troudy Vaughan of CBRE, the real estate firm charged with marketing the property, called a “self-sustaining village and an extension of the community.”
Vaughan said the developer intends to capitalize on the natural beauty of the 217-acre property, with at least 50% of land left as open space.
The housing units would include a variety of housing types — detached single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes and apartments — that would be accessible to people of “all income levels,” said Vaughan, a regional manager for CBRE’s Public Institutions and Educational Solutions Group.
LACONIA — Almost 1,900 housing units, along with about 200,000 square feet of commercial office and retail space, would be part of a project envisioned on the site of the former Laconia State School.
Those details about a mixed-use development of the state-owned property were shared during a public presentation Wednesday evening.
More than 50 people, including state, county and city officials, turned out for the presentation about the plan, which a special committee is expected to recommend to the state’s Executive Council in the coming weeks.
A resort hotel and conference center, health care services, an entertainment venue and outdoor recreation amenities would also be part of what Troudy Vaughan of CBRE, the real estate firm charged with marketing the property, called a “self-sustaining village and an extension of the community.”
Vaughan said the developer intends to capitalize on the natural beauty of the 217-acre property, with at least 50% of land left as open space.
The housing units would include a variety of housing types — detached single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes and apartments — that would be accessible to people of “all income levels,” said Vaughan, a regional manager for CBRE’s Public Institutions and Educational Solutions Group.
1900? Is that a misprint?
And "intends to capitalize on the natural beauty"?! Talk about spin.
Finally, "accessible to people of all income levels”. Is that another way of saying subsidized by taxpayers?
"The site would include about 1,300 housing units: 340 single-family, duplex or triplex homes, 170 of which would be “entry level” homes; 108 condominiums; 500 multifamily apartments, 120 of them for workforce housing; and 350 townhomes. There would also be senior housing, with 360 independent senior-living homes and 230 assisted-care units."
Laconia had just shy of 17,000 population during the 2020 census. Those 1300 units will probably add at least 2500(conservative seat of pants guesstimate) to that, so they're looking at almost a 15% population increase for the city.
Have fun with that Lakes Region.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
