As I said, we'll leave it to Don to verify that TB was indeed warned; any person would be disturbed to hear this and then see the link. Clearly it is in my best interests to have 2 VtSteves given the nature of the link. Again, Don can verify that said was warning was legit. In the meantime, as per this AM's LDS, I see more light has been shed on the gang of two and their accusations of lying and dishonesty. Oh wait, the person's last name is Clark...has to be related to WC. Or you would only have to change 3 letters to change Clark to Chase.
Majority of people on Barber Pole Road want a no wake zone
Nov 23, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,
Michael Kitch’s article (Saturday, Nov. 20) concerning the no wake zone (NWZ) in the Barber Pole requires some clarification. As someone who has summered for 27 years in my parents’ cottage in this area, I am aware of three attempts since 1997 to get a NWZ in place. The area in question is the 390-feet between the buoy and Squirrel Island. This narrow and congested passage can be a logistical nightmare in the summer, given the 150-foot passage law. People in the Barber Pole recognized this and over these 13 years a majority of people from Barber Pole Rd., Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people on the Cow Island passage in the Barber Pole have signed-on in favor. Incidentally, several of the Cow Islander’s who have signed-on in the past were neighbors of the person quoted in your article as being only able to find two people in favor of the NWZ. One only has to read the names of people who signed in favor of the NWZ at the hearing last July and read the letters submitted subsequently to the DOS to realize just how many people are in favor. Seventeen extra minutes to traverse the channel? My calculation using the length of the proposed area was less than two minutes!
Also keep in mind the stated objective when SBONH was formed last year was to oppose the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. To this end they started an online petition whereby people from all over the country and beyond were encouraged to sign because “your lake could be next”. Now Mr. Verdonck objects to the manner in which Barber Pole residents input was obtained? Furthermore, at the second hearing in October, appellants from outside the Barber Pole were allowed to testify, but no one in favor of the NWZ.
I find it compelling that the DOS would rule in favor of this NWZ, citing serious safety issues, and then reverse its ruling on a technicality. I was one such technicality in that the property that I will inherit is still in my parents’ name so I was not considered a landowner. Other names were similarly disqualified because they were spouses who did not appear on the deed etc. The statutes regarding the submission of signatures are vaguely worded and the original petitioners were told only that “25 signatures were needed”.
The area in question is indeed a safety hazard with many of its residents in favor of a NWZ. The DOS agreed. They need to do the right thing and institute this NWZ before a serious accident occurs.
C. Clark
Tuftonboro
|