Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy
Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?
Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?
.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........
I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.
|
I've never in my life read bigger LIES in a post. This entire post is a lie. The former owner of my house is dead. So unless you dug him up and used your hand to guide his signature you are telling lies.
Now for some levity:
Enjoy this one TB:
http://www2.laconiadailysun.com/story/barber-pole
New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after 'Barber Pole' decision
By Michael Kitch
Nov 20, 2010 12:00 am
TUFTONBORO — The New Hampshire Department of Safety last week rescinded its decision declaring the Barber's Pole, the passage between Cow Island and the mainland, a "no wake zone" after representatives of Safe Boater of New Hampshire successfully challenged the legitimacy of the petition prompting the initial declaration.
State law (RSA 270:12) prescribes the procedure by which the commissioner of safety may place operating restrictions, including limits on the maximum horsepower or speed of boats, on lakes, ponds and rivers. The statute provides that at least 25 residents or property owners of each municipality bordering the water body may petition the commissioner, who after holding a public hearing may adopt rules to impose restrictions found to serve the public interest. Altogether restrictions have been imposed on more than 50 lakes and ponds, all identified in state law (RSA-270:76-132), through this process.
In May, the commissioner received a petition to impose a "no wake zone" on the so-called Barber's Pole strait. A hearing was held on July 21 and on July 30 Commissioner of Safety John Barthelmes issued an order declaring Barber's Pole, a stretch of water about twice the length of the Weirs Channel, a "no wake zone."
Many property owners on both Cow Island and the mainland were stunned and surprised by the decision, since they were not aware that a petition had been filed and a public hearing held. Noting the relatively low volume of boat traffic and number of boating mishaps, they questioned the need for a 'no wake zone," which the Marine Patrol has rejected in the past. They claimed that islanders who commute daily and weekly would be adversely affected by the "no wake zone," which one person said stretched the time to traverse the channel to 17 minutes.
Eleven residents, including Scott Verdock, the president, and Bob Flannery, the political director, of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, appealed to reopen the hearing, claiming that the Department of Safety failed to properly notice the public hearing and the petitioners failed to qualify as either residents or property owners of Tuftonboro.
Verdonck stressed yesterday that his organization, which formed to oppose legislation setting speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, was neither for or against the "no wake zone." Instead, he said that his membership was troubled that interested parties were not informed that a change in the operating protocols on the lake was being contemplated and that the credentials of the petitioners were apparently not verified.
"One of our members polled 58 residents of Barber's Poll and found only two who favored a 'no wake zone,'" Verdonck said. "We took no position either way. But, changes in the use of public waters should not be done under a shroud of secrecy. All the residents should be given an opportunity to participate in the decision."
The appeal was heard on October 1. The commissioner ruled that by posting a legal notice announcing the public hearing in the N.H. Union-Leader, a newspaper circulated throughout the state, the department met its obligation to provide public notification. He noted that the notice should not only be provided to residents or property owners but to all residents of the state, which has traditionaly be done by placing a notice in a statewide newspaper.
Verdonck disagrees and has asked Representative John Hikel (R-Goffstown) to file legislation requiring the petitioners to notify all abutters of the forthcoming hearing by certified mail. The process, he said, is akin to the procedure followed by local planning boards and by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services when chemical herbicides are applied to treat milfoil in lakes and ponds.
However, the commissioner found that the original petitioners failed to provide adequate proof that the signatories were either legal residents or property owners of Tuftonboro. Barthelmes instructed the petitioners to provide him with the necessary documentation within 30 days. According to Verdonck, they have failed to do so.