Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE
While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.
First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.
There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.
The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.
Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.
A decision was not given.
However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.
Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.
Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.
|
With one exception... One of the 5 people that spoke in favor of the NWZ (16 spoke against it) stated one reason as "you don't want to be back here again next year". So unfortunately, if the NWZ is denied, the supporters will petition again next year for a NWZ.