Last Mondays nights meeting was on one and only one topic. Private roads. This issue has a very long history in Derry and not all solutions or problems are the same. Each Private road is unique and has its own interesting history. I think it is safe to say that all of these roads that we spoke about started out as Private roads meaning that none of them stared as a class V or public road at the beginning.
The arguments vary about how or why citizens on these roads want or do not want these roads to become public and we heard of some at the meeting on Monday night. I will not go into whether or not the arguments are wrong, right or something else here only because we will be further discussing these issues and of course I will keep an open mind and dive into each road issue on a more detailed history.
This post is just to get some comments from the citizens on their views and specifically this blog is to let all know that any private road we accept as public from here on in WILL cost the taxpayers additional hard to find tax dollars.
We did receive a list of roads and a dollar amount of roughly 1.5Million dollars to get these roads to minimum standards and we still have not seen what the annual up keep costs will calculate out to.
Everyone knows that we have tough numbers to crunch even before we spend $1 on these road issues. To spend more is not going to be an easy task.
What are your thoughts on Private road issues in Derry??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
absolutely NO public monies spent to upgrade these roads PERIOD!! people looking to upgrade their roads and thus their homes resale values want the best of both worlds paid for on our public dime. these same folks like the very public mr wetherbee and mr dionne of worthley road, purchased their homes, presumably with their eyes open and now are attempting to influence public policy by recommending THEIR road as most worthy of repair? who do they think they are kidding? a page right out of the katsikories playbook.
i suggest that IF a project of this sort is undertaken, that it be done only on the condition that there is a commensurate material increase in the properties tax assessed value, reflected immediately. this would insure that costs be recovered in a reasonable amount of time and would serve to seperate the sincere from the BS politico.
I gotta admit I'm not very versed on this subject...who "owns" the land in which these roads are on now? Could we assume that to make them public the town would assume ownership? If so, would this also mark a loss in (property) tax revenue?
Also, my driveway is 330 feet long...where do you draw the line with this stuff? It's a tough one.
Another concern I share came from one of the speakers from the public at the last meeting...she stated that one councilor has an apparent conflict of interest in discussing one road --- he or she would have personal financial interests in the outcome....
Can you post any specific examples of private roads?
I assume that only the people who own the private road are using the road now. If the road becomes public, will more people end up using it?
If it's just a dead-end road into a residential area, then it would seem that the only people to benefit would be the homeowners the road serves. I would hope that their property taxes would go up to cover the road maintenance and improvements.
Are these roads strategically located so that they could be extended to serve as additional connecting roads to ease traffic on the existing public roads?
Peter,
Execellent questions! Some roads connect to others and some are dead end roads. One example of each would be SANBORN rd ( connects) and McKinley or Lakeshore ( dead ends). I will post all of the roads that we discussed in the next post. Please also remember that we have many more private rds that were not discussed Mon evening. If we set precedent here, it could possibly open a new round of wanting private roads converted to public. More $$$ from the citizens!
Everyone,
It is important to note that when a home is assessed for taxes, the type of road you live on does not matter whether its public or private. it is based on square footage and number of bedrooms and sixe of lot BUT NOT on type of road.
So by accepting these roads to public roads, we will NOT gain addition tax revenue from higher assessments and we will have to collectively spend more tax payer dollars!
It is my opinion that the town should not except these roads as public roads unless the residents turn them over to the town with the appropriate maintenance already completed.
These residents new that their road was
"private" when they purchased their homes. They new that they would be responsible for the upkeep, plowing, etc. It is not the town's responsibility to take them over.
The “very public” Mr. Wetherbee chiming in.
First some facts/background info:
1) The roads committee consisted of nine people: 2 town councilors, 2 members of the planning board, 2 public road residents, 2 private road residents and Alan Cote, the towns’ road manager. Mr. Dionne had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this process, so I’m not sure why his name is being brought up in one of these posts other than he happens to live on Worthley Rd., as do I and 20 or 30 other people.
2) I had never met any members of the committee prior to serving on it.
3) All the meetings were public (but were not attended by ANYONE from the public) and the minutes of all the meetings are public record as well.
4) The part of Worthley Rd. that has been recommended by the committee for acceptance is up to #14, where the road is in quite good condition. I live at # 18 and the road is horrendous (drive it if you dare) so the roads committee recommendation does not benefit me AT ALL.
5) As BC stated, whether a road is public or private has no bearing on tax assessment. This means all private roads residents get to pay EXACTLY the same taxes as a public road residents, for the privilege of paying to maintain their own road. So this is actually the WORST of both worlds. In fact if there IS a benefit to being on a private road, I hope someone tells me what it is so I can take advantage of it.
6) The roads committee had no policy/decision making power whatsoever. We have made recommendations to the town council and ultimately the fate of all of the roads is up to them.
As I have apparently developed some politically motivated enemies, (see 1st post)I am posting this to try to keep all the time and effort put in by the roads committee from being turned into another one of Derry’s political footballs.
The recommendations on Julian and Worthley were decided based on discussions with both the towns’ attorney who attended our second meeting, and Alan Cote. Essentially, based on work, other than sewer installation, that the town had already done on these roads, it was concluded that the town had basically assumed ownership of them. In looking at all the other private roads, we found there were no others where this was the case.
All of the committee’s recommendations were based entirely on the facts we were presented with and state laws that speak clearly to public and private roads.
Enough of facts, now for some opinion. I would appeal to all private and public road residents not to let this issue become the political football that some would try to turn it into. It will just distract from the real issues and nothing will get done in the end.
This issue has dragged on for far too long in this town. Until I served on this committee, I had no idea what a complicated mess this private roads thing really is. It is not nearly as simple as many people think. In hindsight there were a lot of mistakes made in the past. We’ve heard some people say a former mayor ordered that all these roads be plowed and maintained regardless of public or private status. Also, as the homes on these roads turned from seasonal camps into year round residences, the town probably should have looked at making them public one by one, as they became more developed. Now, we’re stuck addressing all of them at the same time. With some of these residents paying in excess of $10,000 in taxes it certainly doesn’t seem fair that they should have to pay more to maintain their road, but is it fair to have the town pay? I really don’t know.
One final opinion I’d like to throw out there from a historical perspective. Most of the roads in question are around the Beaver Lake and Island Pond areas, and many started as summer homes and cottages in the early and mid 1900’s. There is little doubt that part of what has turned Derry into the thriving community it is today started with that influx of part time residents that eventually became year round residents. And today with many of these areas being assessed as waterfront/access they represent a substantial part of the tax base. This is not an "us and them" scenario. Many of these residents are your friends and neighbors and an important part of our community. So should we as a community just turn our backs on them? Just some food for thought.
NFW,
Thanks for the comments! You are 100% correct that these issues are very complicated and should not turn neighbor against neighbor. Lets look at some hard facts. Nobody can dispute the fact that the overall citizens, including citizens on private roads now will end up paying more money via taxation.
We could also take out money from fund balance( not reccommended) or we could also bond. This would be the 1.5 Mil to get roads upto ACCEPTABLE grade. Then we will have the additional tax impact of yearly maintenence through taxation from here on in. These are facts and I'm not taking a postion on any road until we further re-search them.
At least we can all get information out to the public for feedback!
Me again, 2 important issues that I forgot to mention that are addressed in this blog.
1) Another blogger states "These residents knew that their road was "private" when they purchased their homes. They knew that they would be responsible for the upkeep, plowing, etc."
That is only partially true in some cases and entirely false in others.
Because of innacurate/missing or incomplete records on many of these roads, some people were told that their road was public and since the town has consistenly at least plowed all of the roads in question, they had no reason to believe otherwise.
When my wife bought our house, she was told that the section of road we're on, (above #14) was private, but that the town plowed and maintained it, which they did for several years after she bought it. But that the lower part of the road (up to #14) was public. Huh?? Maybe if I go get my magic decoder ring out of that cracker jacks box...
Whose fault is this? I'm really not sure. I think some responsibility lies with the individuals, but some lies with the town as well as their actions on some of these roads certainly made them look public. You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
2)BC correctly stated "Please also remember that we have many more private rds that were not discussed Mon evening. If we set precedent here, it could possibly open a new round of wanting private roads converted to public."
This is a HUGE issue!!
The roads committee only addressed private roads that had some kind of town service in the past, even if that was only plowing. There are many others that the town has never done ANYTHING to.
Mr. Kimball was dissapointed that we did not look at the petition for McKinley Rd. seperately, but you just can't do that. Whatever threshold you set for accepting a petition for a road to be public, then has to apply to any future petition or the town will wind up in court left and right and there will be more political accusations.
As I said earlier, a complicated mess indeed.
One final thought that is only somewhat related.
Why in the heck the council is considering putting $80,000 plus into opening a new street (Manning St.) that has exactly zero taxpayers on it while doing nothing for streets with people who are who are putting in hundreds of thoudands of tax dollars to our town is entirely beyond me.
NFW,
Good points! I would like to address a mis-conception that I hear quite often. Many new buyers come to the council and some bring in old MLS sheets. ( Data from realtors) They claim that these sheets state on them PUBLIC roads. It is very important to note that these sheets are input by individual realtors and some just don't know or have not done the research but unfortuantly type in the wrong information.
please do not think that everything you see on an MLS sheet is true. You ( the buyer ) need to do your due dilligence here. and if you think that it was purposely done- you may want to consult a lawyer!! Your local realtors know the area better than an outside agent! Also check your Deed. And last some banks will not do financing on private rds. ( FHA and VA have issues on these private rds)
NFW, simply put, route 102 through town is in failure. It is only going to get worse. BC as well as yourself REALIZE this is true (I hope). Manning Street being connected will provide a natural alternative route to alieviate congestion and serve a far greater number of citizens and businesses in town. Surely you two are not prepared to argue that.. Worthley Road?... would have an equivalent beneficial public impact as Manning Street being connected...are you? Politics sure does make for some strange bed fellows doesn't it?
...if an MLS is incorrect or a property is misrepresented, doesn't the buyer have legal recourse. Perhaps the money that is won could be put towards sprucing up these roads prior to making them public?
Afterall, when the lawsuits begin it would be much better if the Town were out of the crosshairs!
anonymous 2:02,
First, prove to me that by paving Manning St it would allievate traffic on 102. The CLD report which was done in 1999 actually states the opposite. That it will not allievate traffic on 102. This is why the recommendation from CLD was to not spend money for this. Second, It is(the pavement) not going onto a road, but a railroad corridor. Not road was ever legally laid out on a plan and approved by planning board. So why spend money on an illegal road that nobody has proved will allieviate traffic??? Thats the 80,000 question!
Anonymous 2:15,
Yes and No on your questions. If the MLS is incorrect, there is a little clause in small print that states
"subject to errors, ommissions,prior sale, change or withdrawal without notice" This is why companies carry errors and omissions insurance. HOWEVER if you suspect MISREPRESENTAION, then yes that is a serious offense and is subject to a lawsuit in some cases.
The town has no obligation or makes no representation in a business transaction of a buyer of a home and a real estate agency.
Why people want to blame the town for this is wrong! And the citizens of Derry should not have to pay for sloppy business transactions.
Anonymous,
First, this is not about me, it's not about Worthley Rd., and hopefully it's not going to be about politics.
There are already numerous options for bypassing route 102 through the downtown area. And if you can show me facts and figures that show spending $80,000 on Manning St. will be better than all those other options or will have any significant impact on traffic on 102 let's see them.
And a little FYI, if Manning St. was paved tommorrow and in fact it was never legally laid out or approved by the planning board, by the letter of the law, it would be a private road. Ironic, huh?
Well, well...both BC and NFW have decided to compromise intellectual integrity to further their respective arguments.
First BC, though the legal status of Manning Street may be in question (I will take your word for it) this is an issue that could legally be addressed rather quickly to get it into conformity. The larger question BC is why do you oppose this. You can make all the arguements you want about safety, CLD reports and legal technicality's, this still does not defend against the underlying facts, a) 102 through town is in failure and any alternative routes WILL reduce congestion..PERIOD. And b) your primary "arguements of convienence" put forth "against Manning Street" are not reflective of your true motivation, which is that, it has been reported you and your extened family happen to reside on Manning Street and naturally don't want traffic passing in front of your home. This BC inspite of it serving the greater public good.
As for NFW, you apparently either a) do not spend much time on 102 and therefore do not appreciate the extent of the congestion problem through town; or b) you DO drive through town but apparently don't trust your own powers of observation while sitting in increasingly burdensome 102 traffic and fail to recognize this as a growing problem, both in terms of community aesthetics and practical business implications; and finally, c) you have in fact discovered that "politics do make for some strange bedfellows in Derry" and are simply working the channels to your advantage.
Now once again BC & NFW, my question to you both is simple, do you really think that Worthley Road Vs Manning Street serves a greater public good? And one more question, do you think now is the right time to add additional tax burdens to our communtity to correct a pre-existing condition that people should personally have researched prior to signing their respective P&S agreements?
9:43,
I do not live on Manning St I live on Rollins Street. Whether the road you want goes through or not traffic will increase. You simply want everyone to believe I'm being selfish and thinking of me and my family. You are incorrect! Did I speak against the Walgreens going in on Crystal Ave knowing that would increase traffic in the neighborhood? No I did not. I steated before and I'll state again. This Manning St WILL NOT allivate traffic from Rte 102. It is not properly laid out and the people that I represent have safety concerns because of the children using the recreation area in town. Lets add this all up.
Waste taxpayers money on an illegal road that the neighboors in my distrist don not want. And a paid unbaised report from CLD says is a waste. This is a no brainer!.
Its not about me- Its about my constituants.
What I find interesting is that Mr Cooper who went around saying protect the tennis courts for the children know does not care about the children in the Hood Park area. And the fact that he says will benefit business- I ask what business will benefit??
I want $1.25 of service for every $1.00 I pay in taxes --- to say that spending $80K on Manning Strret will provide that value for "the greater public good" defies common sense.
I dare anyone to stand at the top of Manning at rush hour and come to that conclusion. In fact, common sense dictates that extending Manning will cause more traffic on Broadway --- what about that line of cars on Broadway heading east waiting to make that left turn onto Manning????!!!!
Lastly Gentlemen, this is not a choice between Manning Street and private roads. Both have to be justified on their own merits.
“The higher type of man clings to virtue, the lower type of man clings to material comfort. The higher type of man cherishes justice, the lower type of man cherishes the hope of favors to be received.” —Confucious
“The higher type of man clings to virtue, the lower type of man clings to material comfort. The higher type of man cherishes justice, the lower type of man cherishes the hope of favors to be received.” —Confucious
“Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.” —James Madison
Anonymous,
I have to ask this.
Are you serious?
You say "You can make all the arguements you want about safety, CLD reports and legal technicality's, this still does not defend against the underlying facts".
Let me see if I've got this right. Safety doesn't matter. Facts and figures don't matter. And the law doesn't matter. Oh, and let's not forget, the few hudred people on ALL the private roads in town don't matter either because they're not smart enough to read a puchase and sales agreement.
Fortunately for our town coffers, they're still smart enough to write $10,000 checks to the Derry tax collector to fund projects like this.
How many of those checks will we be getting from Manning St.?
And why do you continue to compare this to Worthley Rd.? Simple. Pure politics that's why!
The fact is, for me personally, the lower half of Worthley Rd. remaining private would actually benefit me greatly. On that part of the road, there are 14 houses on about 300 feet of road that's in great shape. On the upper part, where I live, there are 6 houses on maybe 800 feet of road that is falling apart. Let's say the cost to repair the upper half (the only part that really needs repair)is $80,000. Do the math!
Worthley Rd. private - cost per house=$4000
Worthley Rd. public - cost per house=$13,333
That's right, the recommendation of the committee I served on cost me $9,333 more than if I had pushed to keep it private. And you know what, it was never a consideration, because what we recommended was simply the only fair way to deal with this complicated issue.
So much for politics, rhetoric and accusations.
Now let me pose a question to you.
Is Manning St. more important than Julian Rd., which was also recommeded for acceptance?
What about McKinley, which resurrected the private road debate? Is Manning still more important? Mr. Kimball might not think so.
Councilor Coyle seems quite concerned about them being able to win a court battle. Wouldn't the courts just say they should have read their P&S agreement? Sure wasn't what they said with the Rainbow Lake decision.
My point, anonymous, is that out here in the real world, not the world of politics, things are not always as simple as you make them out to be.
NFW might I suggest you obtain a copy of the much touted CLD report. I won't ask you to look for a traffic study or specific recommendation on Manning Street because that would be tantamount to asking you to take a seat in the corner of a round room. There is no study though BC would have you and others believe otherwise. This appropriation has been part of the CIP for a long time but has been pushed aside by politics i.e. BC.
To provide an alternative route to reduce the pressure simply makes sense and you don't have to be a civil engineer to understand this.
As for your stated desire to not make this a political issue, you must admit it would strike ANYONE at the minimum as curious, if not outright suspicious, that you would come to the conculsion that your street was one of ONLY two that should gain public status in one breath and concurrently turn around and say that the money spent on Manning Street is ill-advised. In the "real world" you referred to NFW, the truth sometimes hurts. As such, you must now suffer the slings and arrows of public inquiry generated by your decision to support YOUR own road, out of all the other equally Worthley worthy roads that were up for consideration. You all signed on the dotted line when you purchased your homes...if the town has made a major capital improvement on a private road, such as sewer then they own it and should protect the investment. If not...you own it.
john b,
I'm really disappointed with the quotes. Your original writing is so much better.
Inaccurate BS, and ALWAYS politically motivated, but at least its good for a chuckle.
PS thanks for the fan mail in todays paper. I'm certainly in good company.
anonymous 3:26,
You can choose to ignore the fact of the CLD report.Thats your business. But when I first argued this point a few years back I borrowed the report from none other than PAUL HOPFGARTEN to make this point. So if you don't believe me, ask paul!
By the way, I did see Paul at the transfere station 3 weeks ago and he told me that if he were elected, he would be voting AGAINST Manning st paving. HMMM interesting! Now you have two people to ask if there was a traffic study done. ( just because it's missing now, doesn't mean there was not one done. think about it-its the same people who want you to believe that this road was always there. and then snuck the road around to the railroaded corridor hoping nobody would find out. The truth is now known.
WOW...I read the news today..oh boy...about a private road that if changed to a public road would result in a possible development windfall to a mr neil wetherbee of worthley road. Is this true? Could this be the same as nfw who has failed to make a convincing arguement on this MB thread?
Oh yes, one more thing, seems to me that your criticism of Mr Burtis, is as you say, BS. He has always backed up his positions with nothing but facts as far as I can tell. This could explain why you and some others always end up trying to discredit him with vague nonsense.
I watched Al Dimmock complain to the town council that Benson's was parking their trucks on town property where they want to put in a new road. Lets see if the same "eagle eye" Al will say something about Derry Feed parking on town property at the courthouse on weekends.I do believe the town owns that property as well. Well Al we will see if you are two faced or not.
Why not have the 'owners' of the private roads bring them up to 'acceptable' standards and then the town can make them public and maintain them going forward in it's budget?
Anonymous 11:00,
So nice to actually see a rational post for a change.
Your point is a good one, and actually is one of the options that was presented by the roads committee in it's report.
We actually laid out 2 options for bringing the private roads up to standard with a betterment assesment.
1) Have the residents bear the full cost. This was actually presented as an option back in 2001 when this issue came to a head. It went over like a lead balloon because the costs involved varied greatly from road to road depending on the length of the road and number of people on it.
I'm looking at the numbers from 2001 and if it were a one time lump sum payment they range from a low of $3,342 per house on a road 2,250 feet long with 69 people on it, to a high of $29,195 per house for a 750 foot road with 3 people on it.
Option 2 would be a 50/50 split between the residents and the town. This is a lower cost option, however, since costs have gone up around 40% since those 2001 numbers, most residents are still looking at a looking at a hefty chunk of change. But it certainly is a valid option.
The big complication that comes up with either of these options, and will be an issue with the forming of homeowners associations if these roads stay private as well, is getting an entire road to agree and/or participate.
As an example, on my road we have people who want to keep it private and people who want to make it public. What will the town use for criteria? Majority rules? Or any dissenting vote on making it public means it stays private? Or dissenting vote to stay private makes it public? In either case, you will have residents who either won't or can't afford to join a homeowners association, or residents that won't or can't pay the betterment fee.
Again using my road as an example, there's an elderly couple that have lived here and paid taxes in this town for over 50 years and they're in there 80's. I'm not sure they could afford any of the options.
The town probaly has some leverage when it come to getting betterment assement money, as it would basically be a tax. But if the road stays private, by that definition they couldn't force anyone to join a homeowners association.
Well that's my extended answer what I'm sure you thought was a simple question. But this illustrates just how complex and how many issues are involved with this private roads matter.
Thank you much for the question.It would be great to see more intelligent questions like yours on this blog instead of people spouting silly political rhetoric, and asking questions that they won't hear the answers to.
Here you go again NFW crying politics just when the rubber hits the road. At the risk of repeating myself, lets consider reclassifying as public ONLY those private roads where a combination of town and residents resources have made a major capital improvement, such as sewer, which naturally requires protection of the investment through regular maintenance. Anything short of this...you own still it.
I don't object to anonymous postings when someone sticks to the topic at hand. However, I think posters should include their names when they are taking shots at other people. It doesn't seem fair to me that anonymous gets to question other people's integrity, but doesn't identify him or herself. Now on to the topic(s)...
Private vs. public and Manning Street are two separate issues. First on the public vs. private. As a general rule, I don't think the town should pay for bringing private roads into compliance. Having said that, I don't envy the Town Council in having to sort this mess out. The Town Council will have to sort out the history of each road and apply the law (and recent court decisions) to each one to determine if it is a public or private road. I would guess that means the Town stands a good chance of having to defend some of these decisions in court. Brian, I think the first the Town Council should do is determine the criteria that you will use to determine if a road is public or private. Then, you should go, road by road, and apply the criteria to each road.
I have a question on the assessment issue. If the assessments are supposed to reflect a home's market value, wouldn't the type of road (public or private) be a consideration? I would not be willing to pay as much for a home if it were on a private (not town maintained road).
I don't see where paving Manning Street is going to help out the traffic sitaution on 102. If people are waiting to turn onto Manning Street from 102, won't that make it more congested? Also, It doesn't sound like good public policy to run traffic through a neighborhood.
Just my thoughts,
Tom Seidell
61 Scobie Pond Road
Tom,
There is no road criteria when assessing a home and the values are based on land and building, however you hit the nail on the head. If a state law allowed towns to consider abatements for private roads and towns did not charge for all services, it would be a fairer system for private road homeowners. Then, if they would like to maintain and/or repair roads it would be up to them to do. or hire the town to do repairs.
I also agree we should look at these roads one by one and I also agree this will not be an easy thing to do.
Tom,
You make some great points!
You're correct in that private roads and Manning St. are seperate issues with their own pros and cons.
My main reason in bringing it up is that I feel in a tight budget year, its irresposible to spend money constructing a new road while the fate of these roads is still in limbo as it would be coming out of the same road budget.
I would also agree with the council developing a criteria and applying it equally. The problem with using a standard of sewer as anonymous has suggested is that we have private roads that do have sewer but that the town has never touched. No plowing no anything. If you use sewer as a criteria, the town opens itself up to having to take these additional roads that the roads committee never even included in its evaluations.
I agree with you on the anonymous postings issue as well.
I have defended the rights of people to post anonymously in the past and continue to due so.
However, as I have quite clearly identified myself, it would be nice if those who would take completely baseless and politically motivated pot shots at me as well as a part of my road which I don't even live on, while continuing to ignore any real facts on the subject, might actually have the courage to identify themselves as well.
Having said that, its better that their posts continue rather than not, so that the public realizes that these completely closed minded people are out there and have no interest or ability to participate in an intelligent, fact based exchange of ideas.
Post a Comment