John Mercier

Actually... It doesn't And State Constitution and Law forbids it.

Why you don't believe in property rights? And you wonder why we shut down the trails on our land?

May 1st... which requires this year's registration; and after official closure. And we wonder why the trails are getting shutdown.

Not quite. The State acquires both purchased land and ROW... they also lease. Requiring it as open space for a subdivision would be an illegal taking... the municipality would need to pay for the ROW as if it was an eminent domain acquisition. You can require open space... compact development... but not public access. My estimate was based on the cost of Jericho - in northern NH when land prices were much less - but I would be willing to suggest that it is on the ''light'' side of actual cost. The option to ''gift'' land to the municipality with the requirements that it be public accessible - including motorized - as always existed. The landowners closing property aren't using that option. The NHSA changed its non-profit a long time ago to be able to accept those ''gifts'' rather than rely on local municipalities... to my knowledge... it hasn't led to any miles.

But the snowmobile community can't afford to finance itself. A legislative committee was developed to find some form of State aid to keep snowmobiling going in NH... I doubt the additional costs necessary to purchase land would be something that could be pushed onto the community. Compared to Jericho, it would cost $100 million over the next five years in increased registration fees... and that is just a best guess based on the price of Jericho, which was purchased in a cheaper part of the State.

A legislative committee was formed just a few years ago to look into ways to subsidize the snowmobile community; that was just to keep the system going... extra money to purchase and secure land has never been seriously attempted by any trail group except NHOHVA.

The straight pipes would be illegal; so the State would not be the subject of litigation unless they refused to enforce the law... something not likely. But if a landowner were to file suit and win a conviction against the rider, then the landowner could sue for compensation for loss of property value and litigation fees. Recovery of litigation fees is simply requesting them in a lawsuit that you win. Recovering of property loss, that is a bigger trick. They would need to show that they sold the property for less than market value... temporary loss isn't likely to suffice.

Well, #4 shows they are requesting it.

Its about the attorney fees. Some attorneys do the work pro bono... but when they win go after the other party for expenses. It isn't the first one of this type we have seen.

They would need to us the NRTP.

Some take it personal that the owners of a property might just need a well deserved break. I am sure their intent was not to close the restaurant to send a message to anyone... just needed a rest.

Belmont got a solid 4. Possibly 5. Very hard to tell with the wind. Powdery, but rain toward the end makes it very easy to pack for a great base.

Pretty dumb statement, since landowners are reading your sentiments.

I felt he was trying to give financial advice. Not good advice, but advice none the less.

A debit card cost them nothing, and the credit card when paid off monthly can be sound budgetary finance. But you don't borrow money on a credit card, and you don't just hand out your debit card. https://www.fistscore.com/do/home