Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
If you own waterfront property you ARE the literal owner of the lake in front of your property. So in a sense they do own the lake.
If a homeowner believes that the boats in front of their property are creating a problem then they have every right to petition the state for a remedy.
If you don't like No Rafting petitions then change the law. Step one would probably be contacting state legislators. If you don't do that, then don't complain when things don't change.
|
BI, you don't possess the lake. You have a right to the accessories such as dock and swim areas. THAT'S IT. As you know, there is a big difference between littoral and literal owner as you typed
You seem to push this every time it comes up over the years, even Skip has beat you up on this topic in the past. You don't have ownership. Don't believe me, talk to a municipal attorney. And don't try and bring up law about "rights" as that does not imply ownership. Example: Can you post the lake waters in front of your property with no tresspassing signs and ask the NHMP to enforce them? Oops, can't do that if you don't own that area can you?
The issue with the "problems" you elude too that owners report are in fact the mere presence of ANY boats. We all know this so try and spin that as you may, it won't work. Owners hype the amount of problems in their efforts to get these petitions to pass. Example: I posted the complaints from Braun Bay as given by the NHMP and it was a very, very small number. Yet the area is restricted for rafting.
You also forget there is a thing called called freedom of assembly. Are homeowners in subdivisions allowed to petition to have groups of people "restricted" from public roads? Answer: They can't
Rafting restrictions as a safety item? Hogwash. If rafting poses a safety issue then why is it not banned lake wide but only in areas specific to indivdual needs. If anything, I think rafting restrictions actually create potential safety issues. I'll explain below.
My primary issue with the rafting restrictions is that they do more than limit boats being tied together. When a no rafting area is approved, that area then restricts even a
single boat from anchoring within 150 ft of the shore. So even with the raftingrestrictions "thinning the ranks", the restricted area actually creates an exclusion zone. I don't think single boats should be part of the rafting rules as they are mutually exclusive items.
Take the West Alton Sandbar for example. They now have markers 150 ft out. So between the shore and the markers is a 150 ft no mans land as people tend to stay close to their boats. This means that people with kids are now in deeper water, people inherently squeeze their boats closer together, and then anchor close the the main travel lanes of passing boat traffic. That doesn't serve the public very well now does it. All this to appease one homeowner near the sandbar who recently built that home despite the fact the sandbar has been used for people using the pristine area for YEARS.
There are a limited number of prime anchoring areas that accomodate larger numbers of boats. These areas are out of primary boat travel areas, sandy bottoms, and shallow to fascilitate swimming and recreation.
What appears to be happening is more and more shore front owners are attempting to abuse the no rafting regulations for personal benefit. That is not consistent with equitable use of the lake. There are loose guidelines for what would deem an area as worthy of rafting restrictions. Just because a shore front owner wants personal space is not on the list and is why some of the areas get denied. So yes, just having 25 people hope that one of these petitions sticks is not sufficient reason.
Don't misread what I am saying. Shore front owners should have their equitable use of the lake as well but 150' buffer is ridiculus. If you put in a 150' ring lake-wide, image how many areas would be truly desireable to anchor. Once you get more than 5-6 feet, swimming, etc is out the window for anyone with smaller kids. I think a 50 ft requirement is more than sufficient and the rafting rules should change. Makes no sense that Bruan Bay allows 75 feet but all others require 150 ft. That kind of haphazard rules shows that safety is not the primary reason or things would be uniform across the lake. Other than safety, privacy from a public body of water should be trumped handily. I think there is civil law to support my assertion as well.
This is a battle I have found worth fighting for.....