Braun Bay Rafting Bill

gtagrip · 01-21-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

My family owned lakefront property since 1892. We see lots of issues in front of the property, but we expect it. After all, the lake is a public park.
If we banned boaters from the lake then I guess folks that live next to public parks can ban baseball because it hit their cars and building. Ban basketball because of the constant noise from dribbling. Ban kiddie rides because of the constant squelling of happy kids.

OMG! I just found the next agenda with these folks! God forbid!

I just don't like folks who move here in the past decade tell me what I can and can not do on this lake. I've been here since birth!

Or, like the people that by next to Logan airport and then want runways shut down because the jets are loud. Duh!

Airwaves · 01-21-2010, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Elchase

Quote:

Let the people who live on Braun Bay have some peace.

I was unaware that anyone LIVES ON Braun Bay.

I was always under the impression the waters are owned by everyone in the state for the enjoyment of ALL...

If we want to carry out El's logic to the extreme then Lake Winnipesaukee is owned privately by the waterfront property owners and no one else is allowed...that would include island residents unless they also own shorefront on the mainland.

Let us waterfront owners have some peace!!!

gtagrip · 01-21-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Originally posted by Elchase

I was always under the impression the waters are owned by everyone in the state for the enjoyment of ALL...:

I also think this was El's position on that other law we cannot speak about. Can we say hypocrite!

BroadHopper · 01-22-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Or, like the people that by next to Logan airport and then want runways shut down because the jets are loud. Duh!

And like the folks who recently move to Meredith and want the church to stop ringing the bells every hour. The church been doing this since the 1700's. Remember that El?

And the folks that moved into a development next to the Hudson Speedway and they wanted the speedway shut down because of the noise.

And the folks that banned the Pledge of Allegiance and prayers from schools.

This will never stop. We will no longer be the land of the free. We have lost our bravery.

wifi · 01-22-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

And like the folks who recently move to Meredith and want the church to stop ringing the bells every hour.....

The same folks that were pressing for the fire house not to blow its horn on fires.

Actually, its a great notification for non firefighters, so they can gawk at that unmentionable thing come out of the 'barn'

Breakwater · 01-22-2010, 10:41 PM

Lets look at the proposed law...

270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation.

It is my recoomendation, as a user of the bay, that we support this bill!!! Why?

As written, this bill seems to allow for three rafts of three of three boats which is currently illegal! It does not speak to any of the current rafting practices in Braun Bay! If everyone else (other than the first three rafts of three) continues to limit their raft to 2 boats and maintains the proper spacing, Rep. Patten has simply allowed more boats in the "No Rafting Zone".

My question for Rep. Patten is:

1. Do our elected officials and adjacent property owners remember the Braun Bay of the 1980' and early 90's?? It has come a long way. Maybe they should do their homework!

2.Which law do we obey? RSA 270:44 or the proposed 270:133

"RSA 270:44-Size of Rafts; Separation of Rafts and Single Boats. – Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, no person shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:
I. Form or allow the boat which he is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;" (allows a max of 2 boats)

Does she now intend to allow rafts of 3 boats?

3. Do you remember when Braun Bay was regulated like every other zone in the State where rafting had to be 150' from shore? After several hearings conducted by the Dept. of Safety at Moultonborough Academy, the administrative rule for Braun Bay was changed to allow anchoring w/in 75' of shore. The reasoning for this was the fact that the prime anchoring area abutted State property. This was viewed as a compromise between the competing uses of our public waters. A compromise that RSA 270:1, II and III declares.

270:1 Declaration of Policy. –

II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species.
III. It is the intent of the legislature to recognize in RSA 270:42-46 that the cumulative effect of boats congregated as ""rafts'' differs from that of the same number of boats scattered and, therefore, requires specific appropriate regulation.

Let's pass this legislation and prove a point!

Sorry for the long post-

lawn psycho · 01-23-2010, 07:18 AM

Breakwater, thanks for the Declaration of policy. That is great info.

And you are correct that this bill is a reversal of the current Braun Bay policy. Someone raised this issue previously as well.

However, simply letting this thing pass would embolden other waterfront owners to think that they can draft a bill on a post-it note to their local rep and push these things thorugh. I beleive what is important is for people to write the committee and their local reps so they understand that rafting is not some evil thug activity by boaters.

Look at the vitriole from a poster above regarding "trash" in the sandbar. It's far from reality but you will get a non-boater committee member to get an image in their head.

We need to educate the committee so that when this or other similar bills get proffered, legislators understand the over amplification of issues from shorefront owners. Feed the committee a steady dose of the facts and it puts large holes in the sails of the shorefront owners argument.

VtSteve · 01-23-2010, 09:42 AM

Most that support this new Bill don't seem to know much about it, but the do like new bills

It seems that many of the people supporting new laws limiting access or activities on the lake are not only angry, but have some very prejudiced views towards a variety of groups.

I wonder how many people read this post, and thought "Hmmmmmm...."

"The sand bar sits in front of undeveloped land. This area is NOT on someones "front lawn" as some have claimed. Only on the busiest boating days of the year does the anchorage spread beyond this "non-developed area" where there are NO houses.
Carry on"

It would seem that once again, facts defy rumor.

Rattlesnake Guy · 01-24-2010, 06:46 PM

Kind of like building a house next to Old Faithful and being P'd at all the people who come to enjoy it.

Tourism is the largest industry in NH.
Winnipesaukee is one of the largest tourist destinations in NH
Some people rafting are NH taxpayers
All people rafting are contributing to our economy.

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

OCDACTIVE · 01-24-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

I wouldn't think so considering there are "NO" houses next to the sandbar... I don't think the wildlife take assesments on their houses.. LOL

NoRegrets · 01-24-2010, 08:41 PM

I believe the reason some individuals love to have laws and control is to compensate for an unfulfillied desire to be something they are not! Instead of going forward and exploring the world, taking on challenges, or becomming constructive citizens they seem fixated on small issues and try to manuver politicians and local media to score perceived "big time" laws. I have not been impressed with by any of the control freeks that support non-essential and trival issues although it does give a good view of what is wrong with our country. These individuls must view themselves as the new breed of Danial Boones, Henry DuPonts, Fords, Mellons, or great industralists.

Keep up the good fight! Massachusett-e-s just did!

lawn psycho · 01-24-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

Let's suppose for a minute that it did. The sandbar has been used for many decades. If the argument were true, then the buyer got the discount up front. That discount would get passed along to the next buyer. It's no different then a person moving into a home on a busy street or near a highway.

hazelnut · 01-24-2010, 09:21 PM

Why is it that 2 people are allowed to derail yet another thread?

VitaBene · 01-25-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Let's suppose for a minute that it did. The sandbar has been used for many decades. If the argument were true, then the buyer got the discount up front. That discount would get passed along to the next buyer. It's no different then a person moving into a home on a busy street or near a highway.

Your analogy is good LP. The problem is that the proponents are trying to create Winnipesaukee's version of a highway noise mitigation wall.

Breakwater · 01-23-2010, 10:03 AM

I agree. We need to put a stop to this. I was just on a late nite rant!

01-22-2010, 10:41 PM	#6
Breakwater Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 47 Thanks: 0 Thanked 76 Times in 18 Posts	Rep. Patten-Look at the History and the current law!! Lets look at the proposed law... 270:133 Braun Bay. No person shall form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay at any time when there are already 3 rafts consisting of 3 or more boats in Braun Bay. In this section, “raft” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 270:42, IV. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation. It is my recoomendation, as a user of the bay, that we support this bill!!! Why? As written, this bill seems to allow for three rafts of three of three boats which is currently illegal! It does not speak to any of the current rafting practices in Braun Bay! If everyone else (other than the first three rafts of three) continues to limit their raft to 2 boats and maintains the proper spacing, Rep. Patten has simply allowed more boats in the "No Rafting Zone". My question for Rep. Patten is: 1. Do our elected officials and adjacent property owners remember the Braun Bay of the 1980' and early 90's?? It has come a long way. Maybe they should do their homework! 2.Which law do we obey? RSA 270:44 or the proposed 270:133 "RSA 270:44-Size of Rafts; Separation of Rafts and Single Boats. – Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, no person shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time: I. Form or allow the boat which he is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;" (allows a max of 2 boats) Does she now intend to allow rafts of 3 boats? 3. Do you remember when Braun Bay was regulated like every other zone in the State where rafting had to be 150' from shore? After several hearings conducted by the Dept. of Safety at Moultonborough Academy, the administrative rule for Braun Bay was changed to allow anchoring w/in 75' of shore. The reasoning for this was the fact that the prime anchoring area abutted State property. This was viewed as a compromise between the competing uses of our public waters. A compromise that RSA 270:1, II and III declares. 270:1 Declaration of Policy. – II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species. III. It is the intent of the legislature to recognize in RSA 270:42-46 that the cumulative effect of boats congregated as ""rafts'' differs from that of the same number of boats scattered and, therefore, requires specific appropriate regulation. Let's pass this legislation and prove a point! Sorry for the long post-

01-23-2010, 09:42 AM	#8
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Interesting reads Most that support this new Bill don't seem to know much about it, but the do like new bills It seems that many of the people supporting new laws limiting access or activities on the lake are not only angry, but have some very prejudiced views towards a variety of groups. I wonder how many people read this post, and thought "Hmmmmmm...." "The sand bar sits in front of undeveloped land. This area is NOT on someones "front lawn" as some have claimed. Only on the busiest boating days of the year does the anchorage spread beyond this "non-developed area" where there are NO houses. Carry on" It would seem that once again, facts defy rumor.

01-23-2010, 07:18 AM	#7
lawn psycho Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: On the move... Posts: 987 Thanks: 113 Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts	Breakwater, thanks for the Declaration of policy. That is great info. And you are correct that this bill is a reversal of the current Braun Bay policy. Someone raised this issue previously as well. However, simply letting this thing pass would embolden other waterfront owners to think that they can draft a bill on a post-it note to their local rep and push these things thorugh. I beleive what is important is for people to write the committee and their local reps so they understand that rafting is not some evil thug activity by boaters. Look at the vitriole from a poster above regarding "trash" in the sandbar. It's far from reality but you will get a non-boater committee member to get an image in their head. We need to educate the committee so that when this or other similar bills get proffered, legislators understand the over amplification of issues from shorefront owners. Feed the committee a steady dose of the facts and it puts large holes in the sails of the shorefront owners argument.

01-24-2010, 06:46 PM	#9
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	Kind of like building a house next to Old Faithful and being P'd at all the people who come to enjoy it. Tourism is the largest industry in NH. Winnipesaukee is one of the largest tourist destinations in NH Some people rafting are NH taxpayers All people rafting are contributing to our economy. Question: Does the propensity to rafting in front of a property area change the real estate value of that property?

01-24-2010, 08:41 PM	#11
NoRegrets Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hudson - NH Posts: 408 Thanks: 233 Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts	I believe the reason some individuals love to have laws and control is to compensate for an unfulfillied desire to be something they are not! Instead of going forward and exploring the world, taking on challenges, or becomming constructive citizens they seem fixated on small issues and try to manuver politicians and local media to score perceived "big time" laws. I have not been impressed with by any of the control freeks that support non-essential and trival issues although it does give a good view of what is wrong with our country. These individuls must view themselves as the new breed of Danial Boones, Henry DuPonts, Fords, Mellons, or great industralists. Keep up the good fight! Massachusett-e-s just did!

The Following User Says Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (01-25-2010)

01-24-2010, 09:21 PM	#13
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Why is it that 2 people are allowed to derail yet another thread?

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (01-25-2010), LIforrelaxin (01-28-2010), OCDACTIVE (01-25-2010), Resident 2B (01-25-2010), robmac (01-25-2010)

01-23-2010, 10:03 AM	#15
Breakwater Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 47 Thanks: 0 Thanked 76 Times in 18 Posts	I agree. We need to put a stop to this. I was just on a late nite rant!