http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...004/-1/CITIZEN
'Kinda surprised no supporter posted this after it appeared
Saturday.
Regrettably, the article is written in provocative tones, using words like "whispered", "behind-the-scenes", "lobbying", "may be a move", and "fighting to continue".
Most revealing was this:
Quote:
|
Rep. Michael Whalley, R-Alton, is opposed to the bill. In full disclosure, Whalley sells boats, but added he does not "sell the type of boats people have been critical of."
|
THIS is "full disclosure"? We ALL know what boats he sells; why "cloak" it as a lawyer might? Because they're capable of exceeding the speed limit—
and a general nuisance to lakeside residents and to other boaters?
FLL, a 47-foot Fountain is too narrow to make a good storage shed roof—but there's still hope for an inexpensive fiberglass roof. From what I've been reading, the ocean is too much for these production fiberglass boats. They end up in our lake after getting worn out offshore.
Without HB162, we're looking at what even smaller lakes (50-sq.mi.) have to put up with:
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=121234 (AM maintenance).
.