[cucumber3732842]

>In the intervening decades, that's all changed. Today's summer homes are so much more different. I've seen a lot of those families I knew back then sell their homes over time. Developers scoop up several properties in a row and build some huge McMansion. So now these areas are the sort of wealthy person summer home people picture when the term is used.

The call is coming from inside the house!

The developer would love to build four new half mil cottages instead of one new 1mil McMansion. But they can't they have to bundle four old lots or whatever to be able to do something that's legal because of the laws and rules championed by the EXACT. SAME. PEOPLE. who complain about all the new McMansions on the lake. And then they complain about the jet skis and the boat stereos and whatnot. Did you think that the people rich enough to buy this stuff would not have toys? And the whole time they vote to raise taxes too so that hastens the whole turnover process because the people who would hold onto the seasonal properties have to either bend over and take the carrying cost or renovate into a high end rental (if that's even possible to do economically with the grandfathered in cabin they've got) to make it worth it (or just sell out, which is what their kids almost always choose to do because screw all that work).

You literally can't have a shitty old trailer type "hunting camp" or seasonal cabin in most of Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine because once again, the people that got there first pulled up the ladder via the government.

Source: Have some of these assholes (lake variety) in the family

[jghn]

Yes and no. The developer doesn't *need* to develop anything. They could have just not bought the property looking to make a quick buck, and instead let someone else buy the cottage and keep it that way.