Current Use and Ownership of Idle Places. A clear pattern of the cur- 

 rent use and ownership of the agriculturally idle and nearly idle places is 

 less evident in Gilmanton than in Greenland and Stratham. or in Hopkinton. 

 Year around residence is still the most frequent single use (16 places), but 

 summer home use is a close second (11 places), and "no current use" (8 

 places) is more frequent than in the towns previously discussed. 



Commercial Size Places. Two of the commercial size places were owned 

 by a retired businessman who farmed them some at one time. Another of 

 these places is owned by a businessman who has sometimes operated it as a 

 farm. The other three owners of commercial size farms consisted of a bank, 

 a lumberman, and the heirs of an unsettled estate. High purchasing power 

 could have been a factor in ownership of the first three places. Fairly low 

 selling value is almost equally suggested in the latter three cases. One prob- 

 ably should conclude that, although strong purchasing power was available 

 in the first three cases, it is not generally necessary to take some of these 

 places out of agriculture. 



Doubtful Commercial Size Places. The owners of the full-time residences 

 on the doubtful commercial size places included two nonfarm workers, two 

 local businessmen, and one retired farmer. These probably are not wealthy 

 people. Evidently they liked, to live in the country or housing was scarce in 

 the cities and villages. Probably these places would be valued primarily as 

 residences and their farm land would not add greatly to their price. 



Less Than Commercial Size Places. Nonfarm workers made up the larg- 

 est single group of owners for residential use in the smallest size group. 



Five of the eleven summer home owners' occupations were not known bv 

 the selectmen. Five of the remaining six were business and professional 

 people. Some were of ordinarily moderate income occupations, however. 



D. Lancaster — Northern Connecticut Valley Town With Strong Agriculture and 



Little Competitive Land Use 



Description of the Area. The Town of Lancaster is located in south- 

 western Coos County. Compared with the four towns previously discussed, 

 it is located so as to be influenced less by New Hampshire urban centers, and 

 it is somewhat more remote of access from the larger urban areas of the 

 states to the south. The location makes for relatively weak rural residence, 

 summer home, and hobby farm demand. On the other hand, Lancaster prob- 

 abjy has larger areas of land suitable for agriculture than the towns previ- 

 ously discussed, with the possible exception of the Greenland-Stratham area. 

 Although parts of Lancaster are from' hilly to mountainous, it is favored 

 by the Connecticut River Valley and by a large tributary valley. 



Relative lack of nonfarm job alternatives in Lancaster, as compared with 

 Greenland and Stratham, may also be a factor toward a stronger agriculture 

 in Lancaster. 



New Hampshire Circular 53 includes Lancaster in a wholesale milk 

 lype of farming area which is described in part as follows: "Although the 

 production of milk for a wholesale market constitutes the major farm enter- 

 prise in most agricultural areas of the state, there are no areas in which it 

 reaches such a high degree of specialization as in the towns adjacent to the 

 Connecticut River. However, there are a limited number of potato growers 

 in these areas and some farmers have maple products to sell. Crop lands 

 adjacent to the river are of the better quality soils, being mainly vallev ter- 



22 



