Quote:
Originally Posted by lawn psycho
Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.
Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.
You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.
It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.
Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.
Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....
The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.
The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.
|
How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.