Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase
And this is supposed to be some sort of "all-inclusive compromise committee"?
|
Good point. One thing to be added here. We can all brainstorm as to what "we all" could agree on as to what constitutes a compromise, i.e. 55 day, 30 night, 500' safe passage, and yackity yack yack all day but in reality we need to keep the following in mind. The state legislature and executive branch are far less conservative than was the case when HB 162 was rejected, and will become increasingly so in the future. Many of the supporters of HB 162 were voted out of office (most likely unrelated to HB 162). Many people (not on this forum) are very happy with the SL and are going to point out that in fact the whole lake's region did not disintegrate (as some on the forum predicted) because of the SL. Some feel that the SL didn't go far enough.
The real debate will be in Concord (against the backdrop of a very high profile boating trial that will have national exposure). Everyone on this thread can insist that this or that is the best "compromise" but it's not a whole lot more meaningful than if we all agreed that monkeys can fly. Just because the forum members (hardly a representative slice of the NH public) agree on something doesn't necessarily make it so. It just seems to be a whole lot of mental gymnastics. Some on this forum have suggested that SL supporters can't go back to the 60's, Golden Pond, etc. and yes of course we can't go back to these times. There are more boats, more faster boats, more kayaks, canoes etc. People change, times change, and laws change to reflect this. This is an expected consequence of how societies evolve and has been a part of man's history since the beginning...the "we don't need no more laws" crowd is being overly simplistic to believe this will change. Old laws will be discarded, and new ones adopted as we move into the future. (Sure glad we can shop on Sundays now!)