Mark, It is refreshing to know that someone cares about the total disregard for laws that a lot of big businesses have. They are only thinking of the almighty dollar.As you know I am a construction worker and this kind of blantant disregard for our laws goes on all the time. I sincerely hope the selectman do not negotiate down their fines. GOOD LUCK! and keep standing up for the citizens of NH. Dennis

Mark, thanks for posting this story. Merrimack is looking at a water park so this will clearly be something to watch for. I'll have to research now to see if it's the same company.

By the way, as a side note you never really explained what they did wrong. The link you supplied in the 3rd paragraph does though.

I'm wondering...

Was this a preexisting water park purchased by the RJMVR or did they build it?

If it was preexisting, was there a track record of faulty equipment? Safety hazards?

If they built it, I presume the planning board authorized the opening of the park.

Either way, if they bought it or built it, they have invested in it. I don't see how it can be perceived as far fetched for the RJMVR to desire to gain a return on their investment.

Basically, I'm getting one side of the story. I don't know the circumstances beyond the presented opinion that the RJMVR is breaking the law. I'd like to know more.
Mark, perhaps you can fill in the blanks.

Third paragraph, change the word "opening" to "building"

I would also argue the premise you present Mark, of lawful behavior somehow being the end all, be all.
Not all laws are good, many are oppressive. If I disobey an oppressive law, am I acting as an agent of anarchy?

If the state is infringing upon a business and its ability to operate and function in a profitable manner, they are being oppressive. If I applied the same standard of a citizen or business owner disobeying the law being an agent of anarchy, I could conclude the state is acting as an agent of tyranny.

There are oodles of instances of this type of oppressive intervention here in NH, most recently and notably the smoking ban.

Let's explore article 83 of the NH constitution, shall we? Read it carefully.

[Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of t he people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitalization and provision should be made for the supervision and government thereof. Therefore, all just power possessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against.

Let me ask you, has the state ever enacted a law regulating business which we can say isn't anti-constitutional according to article 83? If they have, it's an exception, not the rule and I've never heard of it but would be interested if anyone else has.

I know this situation is a municipal issue, however, every elected official in NH is required to take an oath of office promising to defend the NH constitution.

I missed a critical sentence. I found it when I re-read the blog.

"On Tuesday their attorney admitted that the Red Jacket was not in compliance with the legal permit that was granted to them by the town of Conway in order to construct and operate their new water park. Indeed, in an attempt to by-pass the process, the resort attempted to “negotiate” the terms of the established fine of $275 per day prior to violating the conditions of their permit. "

How was the RJ not in compliance with the legal permit?

Suzanne,

The water park was new. It was not pre-existing. The RJ constructed a 1,500 square foot building that was not a part of the site plan review. They constructed this building in November of 07.

They have never argued constitutionality and have admitted to violating the permit.

The selectmen are obliged to enforce the law.

The RJ decided to ignore this law.

Fairly cut and dry case. And I myself am not opposed to proper civi disobedience - but this is nothing at all about that.

Mark - What did they do that's so repugnent other than building a 1500 sqft building that was not part of the original site plan? Is the fine due to the 1500 sqft building? Your blog is very one sided and does not really address what they did wrong. They may be breaking the law as you claim, but how?

How much $$$ will it take for the town of Conway to realize this was just a "misunderstanding." Big bad company only intrested in money. So unlike the town of Conway. Give me a break!! The government is the biggest Robin Hood in the country. What hipocrisy Mark!!!

I strongly agree with Fred. This is a very one sided blog entry.

When I was a kid we used to swim at the Red Jacket pool and dive off their diving board.

Then diving boards began to diappear from hotels for OUR SAFETY.

Soon hotels will begin to disappear, because there is more concern about COMPLIANCE and SAFETY than there is that you have a hotel that has been around for a long time trying to compete with the new hotels on the block.

Thanks for penalizing an establishment in the name of the PEOPLE, hotel people are such a threat to our safety.

Does anybody else blame Liability Law?
Or, is that just me.

And then we have the zoning and planning boards who follow their own agendas and cost families, small businesses, and large corporations fortunes but are unaccountable to anyone.

We vote in zoning and planning amendments in layer after layer every year in town after town without any debate or chance to amend.

In Henniker the planning board denied Rite -Aid a chance to build on commercial land - zoned commercial, as part of their own plan. This denied the owners the value of the property. The board thought Rite -Aid was not compatable with the Henniker image even though they met all the hurdles put in front of them.

I spent four years helping a licensed salvage yard in Deering keep his license from a zoning board bent on putting him out of business. They have yet to win a court case against him and he is saddled with $65,000 in legal costs.

In Weare last year the ZBA tried to declare as ABANDONED a residence that was being remodeled because a town employee neighbor claimed it had not been lived in for two years. Residences in Weare are EXEMPT from abandonment under that part of the ordinance. We lost the first round of votes of the ZBA and won on motion to reconcider when I showed the ZBA we were setting them up for court challenge. That vote was unanimous. But the young couple with a new baby were distraught for the several years it took to do this.

Watch what Hopkinton does now with the energy plant that has given up on burning treated wood after their fight with the town and will only burn clean wood chips. See if they don't try to put them totally out of business anyway.

In Deering one ZBA genius said, quote: "Ever since we wrote this ordinance we keep finding more and more in it." He was referring to the salvage yard ordinance they crafted to put two legal yards out of business.

I don't feel too sorry for planning zoning boards any longer.

So all you if the law is wrong just break it crowd,

Why not change the law. Or are we to believe we have achieved a menu style of lawabidingness?(I am sure that is not a real word)

If we are to pick and choose which law we are to comply with I'm game - but just let me know so that when the nazis come knocking at my door I can be prepared.

In the mean time it is worth noting who can be bought and how little it takes.

By the way Howard, if you are going to call me a Hipocrit (spl) have the sack to identify yourself instead of lurking in the shadows.

You should follow the example of Ed Naile and not hide in cyberspace taking pot shots.

Mark -You still haven't explained what the Red Jacket has done wrong other than "open their water park illegally" What does that mean? How is it illegal? Rather than ranting explain the situation and present the facts - maybe we are on your side but just don't know it because we don't have the facts.

Ed - Don't get me going about Henniker and Hopkinton. Those cases show how planning and zoning can go wrong. How can a drug store not fit with the character of a town? Couldn't they have designed it to look like a barn or something? As for the power plant, with all of the concern over global warming and high energy prices, why aren't we building more wood burners We have plenty of wood. The answer for both - "Not In My Back Yard".

Mark:

My point.

How about less zoning and planning laws. They exist in a nether world of not real law. They are ordinances that carry the weight of legitimate or should I say real law but are not. They are allowed to be unconstitutional for that reason.

CNHT works with people who have been abused by zoning boards. We have to educate, bully, and threaten suits to win.

We try like hell NOT to go to court because the level of integrity and smarts is severly lacking in our state.

Often, going to bat in court for a property owner only offers the ZBA an undeserved win through a bad decision. 90% of better chances of that.

Take Weare for instance. We represented that homeowner because if Weare gets to take away property rights of homeowners who can not prove they have lived in their house for two years in a row - then what happens to lake front property or the homes of the elderly who may be in a medical facility.

This ZBA should have been take out and shot on the first vote when they said YES.

I have seen a voting ZBA member, with a college degree, say that because a chapter in the ordinance is titled OUTBUILDINGS you are entitled to more than one.

Forgive me if I measure boards I don't know by the ones I do.

As for "ignore the laws you don't like".

Have you been to Superior Court lately? That is where you will find the biggest offenders - the ones in black.

Re: In defense of the law is just wrong break it crowd

A) The more laws you have the more likely you aren't enforcing some of them.
B) If you aren't enforcing all your laws, then some laws have greater priority than others.

Who determines which laws get enforced? Perhaps the government officials who might have an agenda, the media who need some pages to fill, the pet cause people on too much caffeine and stress, the local feud, or is it just first come first serve...

Do some laws elevate in priority because you hire staff and now you have free time?

How do you know that your enforced laws have full blown priority or are just a justification of your funding level?

And add to the whole fun mess the fear of a random liability lawsuit no matter what you do.

I read the other day that "if humans were perfect we wouldn't need laws". If you accept this premise then all your laws were created by the imperfect and aren't very likely to be perfect laws.

H,

"if humans were perfect we wouldn't need laws". If you accept this premise then all your laws were created by the imperfect and aren't very likely to be perfect laws."

That is a good point. However, once a society establishes a means by which to enact laws, imperfect as thee process and the resulting laws may be, doesn't the doctrine of the consent of the govern require that if a law (for whatever reason) is not desirerous that we go throught the process of erasing or changing the law (try to make it better - not perfect).

Simply deciding that a law that has been properly established is not to one's liking or can can be ignored, broken or dismissed is a form of lawlessness.

That is why we have courts - which is where the town of Conway and the Red Jacket is headed.

Slippery slope we may want to be aware of before we take a step upon it.

Mark,

So you admit that some of these laws may be awful, and yet you intend to champion them all equally.

There is a moment before law is envoked, that humans are allowed to solve their own problems. If we envoke law at every convenient moment, are we not abdicating our own responsibility to solve problems?

If the Red Jacket owners are innocent souls attempting only to defend their investment against a callous group of public officials, are you guilty of slander/libel (not sure which) for accusing them of caring only about profit? There are so many laws, I'm sure we could find one to throw at anyone, anytime.

After six years on the Conway Planning Board and nearly twenty subsequent years of watching planning board activity, I have to express some appreciation that our selectmen are sticking to their guns on this issue. The reluctance to pursue flagrant violations only encourages further violation, and leads to the inequitable application that turns zoning and site plan regulations especially obnoxious. For much of the 1990s we had a board of selectmen that leaned toward outright hostility to local regulation, rendering our regulations toothless and leaving compliance primarily to those who supported local planning or lacked the funds to fight town hall.