Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

MAXUM · 08-07-2011, 10:11 AM

Hey LP I just thought before I comment on your posting that it's great to have a reasonable and civil exchange of opinion and ideas. I think not only for myself but for any casual observer here this kind of discussion is extremely useful and beneficial. Plus you do bring up some very interesting points worth thinking about. It's truly unfortunate this is not always the case....

OK on to a few of your comments.

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake.

I personally would prefer not to see the standards changed for a number of reasons, however as you and I have both pointed out and agree the continued effort to bring forth the same petition should be capped/limited. This is a really hard one to deal with and yes with the right legal representation and deep pockets any system can be abused, but you really don't want to take the ability for the regular folks to be able to have their voices heard either. No matter if the rules were to change or not people with deep pockets and lawyers always seem to get heard, I think making the standards to strict is not going to serve the intended purpose from my point of view anyways.

Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

This I do agree with you on -but also keep in mind that things do change over time and what may not be a problem now could be later on. If we were having this discussion 50 years ago based on the use of the lake back then it's a far picture today so are the laws. Any attempts to make spot zoning as you say overtly in the interest of the abbuters is an entirely different story. So I really don't see a good way to solve this problem other than to leave it as is and let the Director and DOS make the decision based on what they think is in the best interest of the public.

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

That's easily explained. highways are designed and routed based on the design of engineers and where it makes the most sense to put them. How much money is spent on studying this stuff floating plans and determining the best solution? The lake, well that was naturally formed so it is what it is.

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know.

I think the decision to keep that area as is will prevail.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves.

I'll be interested to read your thoughts on this one because I believe this is a very important safety measure. Not that anyone necessarily adhere's to it, but having it on the books and having the discussion as to why it exists is a very useful in that it bring attention to people about safe passage and also the importance of understanding the affects of the wake you leave behind.

08-07-2011, 10:11 AM	#444
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	Hey LP I just thought before I comment on your posting that it's great to have a reasonable and civil exchange of opinion and ideas. I think not only for myself but for any casual observer here this kind of discussion is extremely useful and beneficial. Plus you do bring up some very interesting points worth thinking about. It's truly unfortunate this is not always the case.... OK on to a few of your comments. However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards. My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake. I personally would prefer not to see the standards changed for a number of reasons, however as you and I have both pointed out and agree the continued effort to bring forth the same petition should be capped/limited. This is a really hard one to deal with and yes with the right legal representation and deep pockets any system can be abused, but you really don't want to take the ability for the regular folks to be able to have their voices heard either. No matter if the rules were to change or not people with deep pockets and lawyers always seem to get heard, I think making the standards to strict is not going to serve the intended purpose from my point of view anyways. Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening. This I do agree with you on -but also keep in mind that things do change over time and what may not be a problem now could be later on. If we were having this discussion 50 years ago based on the use of the lake back then it's a far picture today so are the laws. Any attempts to make spot zoning as you say overtly in the interest of the abbuters is an entirely different story. So I really don't see a good way to solve this problem other than to leave it as is and let the Director and DOS make the decision based on what they think is in the best interest of the public. Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different? That's easily explained. highways are designed and routed based on the design of engineers and where it makes the most sense to put them. How much money is spent on studying this stuff floating plans and determining the best solution? The lake, well that was naturally formed so it is what it is. What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know. I think the decision to keep that area as is will prevail. I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves. I'll be interested to read your thoughts on this one because I believe this is a very important safety measure. Not that anyone necessarily adhere's to it, but having it on the books and having the discussion as to why it exists is a very useful in that it bring attention to people about safe passage and also the importance of understanding the affects of the wake you leave behind.