No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by MJM

Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...

I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.

Its all these new LOW VoC paints that we are required to use in NH. They just don't last as long.

[KPW]

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by KPW

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

Is this different than the hearing in Tuftonboro that was conducted by the Department of Safety earlier today? If so, I'd be interested in knowing what jurisdiction the Town has over this matter?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Barber Pole NWZ hearing was held this morning at 10:00 AM at Tuftonboro Meeting Hall. Anyone out there who attended care to share their thoughts?

[hazelnut]

The hearing was held today. The hearing was limited to the 11 individuals that submitted requests for re-hearing. The state will now decide whether or not to allow a full re-hearing, which will make the original hearing null and void and essentially set the process back to square one. If the state decides a re-hearing is necessary we will be notified and we will pass along the information to all. If th state decides a re-hearing is not warranted then the process continues to the state level through the house, senate, etc.

The hearing was fairly well attended.

[KPW]

I thought it was included in the regular town agenda. My mistake.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The hearing was fairly well attended.

1) I'd "audited" a similar NWZ hearing—in the same building—about ten years ago: No one "in opposition" to the NWZ had appeared at the previous hearing. (Attended by about 30 people). In spite of that turnout, it failed then, but something equivalent is in place near Tuftonboro Neck "Narrows"—today.

2) At the earlier hearing at the same location, I'd noticed no particular odor—this hearing was different. Can anyone account for that odor?

It wasn't "the usual suspect" from Wolfeboro—who's expected to do a rumored eight years for transporting the stuff.

3) At dinner last evening, I encountered a friendly face—a diner from Massachusetts—with whom I've spoken at area restaurants. I'd seen her at the hearing, but didn't have an opportunity to re-introduce myself there.

After the hearing, she was speaking with an elderly gentleman—could that have been Hal C. Lyon, the author of local Bass-fishing lore?

This is turning into a much longer reply than I'd planned!

4) Anyway, it turns out this person lives at the northern reach of the Barber Pole NWZ, and their family is opposed to that NWZ—saying:

"The NWZ is too long—we and our neighbors have been water-skiing through there for ages. "

[OCDACTIVE]

GRANTED!

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

[Hammond]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

GRANTED!

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

Wow. Nice to see that the SBONH group was able to change the outcome of this attempt buy a few to slip this No Wake Zone proposal through the system.

To me it seemed that SBONH did not take sides on the issue but rather challenged the process. I find that to be a very important distinction and applaud them and their efforts to see that a small vocal minority could not push their agenda through the system without allowing ALL in the area the opportunity to provide their input on the proposed NWZ.

This was NOT a Go Fast agenda but a DO IT the RIGHT WAY initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Barber Pole NWZ I admire the goal of SBONH.

Responsible legislation makes noting but good (and proper) sense.

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

Bravo SBONH and thank you.

[Bearislandmoose]

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

Nice try

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

When people try to stir the pot, even stirring so obviously as above, it's usually met by a Webmaster that points out if the IP addy is the same as another current user.

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

Don thank you so much. I really appreciate you sharing this information with the membership as it is truly your call to have done so.

[winni83]

Well now, isn’t that interesting; and to think that the illustrious and righteous El Chase told us on August 25, 2010 in post # 128 of this thread that:

“I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site.”
“If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again.”

I would not be surprised to see the argument raised that (a) our webmaster is wrong; (b) someone hijacked EL Chase’s IP address; (c) someone else in the El Chase household is using the IP address; or, perhaps (d) that El Chase has abandoned his fellow travelers. This is better than a soap opera.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

What an attempt to try to stir the pot

winni83's post was not an attempt to "stir the pot", but my reply to it was? Your hypocrisy is matched only by your intellectual dishonesty. I assume that your instant conversion from a "thunder boater" to a "safe boater" must have resulted from a near death experience, and was not driven by some long term plan to reverse the SL?. Come on.

Originally Posted by winni83

I think this poster has crossed the line

Please spare me. I looked for "winni83" in the phone book, and can't find anyone by that name, so aren't you crossing the same line? In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now. Is OCD somebody's real name? Is Vitabean?
You guys sound like the press after they found out Christine O'Donnell had "dabbled in witchcraft" when she was fifteen years old. Get real. This is not testimony before a grand jury. This is an internet forum.

As I said, if you want me to stay away, stop taunting me by dropping my name out of the blue for no reason, like winni83 did. If you can't do that, then you get what you get and can't cry "foul" about it.

Wah, wah, wah.

[chipj29]

Funny, I thought this thread was about the NWZ at the Barbers Pole.

Great news that the motion to re-open was granted. No surprise that the usual trolls come out of hiding as soon as news they don't like comes out.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Good job on uncovering this scam SBONH!

I don't think Chip deserves all the credit for that.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I don't think Chip deserves all the credit for that.

Say what? What exactly was I taking credit for? Other than being in agreement with some of the SBONH initiatives, I have no affiliation with them whatsoever.

elchase, why don't you take a closer look at what SBONH stands for. You might find yourself enlightened as to the organizations goals.

[NoBozo]

I suggest that there are a few more Screenames who are using that same IP Address....and one may suprise you. NB

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There have been some great replies to the BP NWZ topic, both pro and con, many in the I don't Know yet category. OCD had some good feedback, Hazelnut was extremely articulate in the entire discussion. They both pointed out pros and cons, like adults that care. Best of all, they are inclusive.

Now there's an unbiased comment. Please, I just ate dinner.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It was the principle of the thing, and done by people with no principle, and selfish regard only for themselves.

Kind of like people who were against a SL despite polls, legislative bodies with bipartisan majorities for a SL, and a preponderance of emails showing people were fed up with the former status quo on the lake.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There are at least three here that remind me how important it is to be truthful to yourself and others. It must be a soulless existence to not know the difference.

There were more than three but they were bullied and badgered off this site by this very vocal minority who has few other venues on which to congregate. Truthful to yourself?? Like SBONH is primarily about safety? That you are the majority? Come on. And you accuse others of stirring the pot.
While you may attempt to take ownership of this forum it is reassuring that your group can no longer do so on the lake by marginalizing others who wish to use this beatiful resource.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

... Speed used to be king on Winni, .....

You must have a short memory. How fast can you go with a 10 HP Johnson on a 12 foot boat?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

State orders hearing on the No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” reopened.

Safe Boaters of NH pushes bill to ensure proper notification of future hearings.


For Immediate Release:


The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire’s public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department’s official website at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the “Barber Pole” no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes prior to decisions being made.

[Bearislandmoose]

Tough crowd.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Tough crowd.

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda.

In your very first post to the forum you said

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. {snip} you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

You are putting words in OCD's mouth. You are trying to stir the pot and trying to portray this procedural issue accomplishment into an unlimited speed and wild cowboy scare scenario.

The forum isn't buying your bull moose. If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this. I quoted you and bolded some of your outrageous comments. You attempt to cast a black shadow over a SBONH success. You seem to want to inflame and distract from them and their accomplishment. Your attitude is deplorable. This thread is not about speed but about the process of legislation.

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters. Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters...If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this.

Please leave me out of this: I have it especially easy in the finding of fradulent posts, polls and voting record of the "Unlimited Speeds for Winnipesaukee" crowd.

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

Before anything with real meaning happens, SBONH will eventually discredit themselves—just as the NHRBA did.

In the immortal words of Wednesday-Friday Addams,

"Just wait"

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda. ...The forum isn't buying your bull moose...

The best part about this one is that OCD gives you a big "Thanks" for this nonsense, as if you said just what he was thinking when he read my post. What he doesn't mention is the PM he sent to bearislandmoose right after that post...before he knew who bearislandmoose really was, welcoming me aboard, and giving me his phone number to call. What a bunch of phonies.
If you guys had named your group "Fast Boaters of New Hampshire", I'd still disagree with your agenda but would have nothing but respect for your honesty. I respect a good healthy disagreement...democracy in action. But naming yourselves "Safe Boaters", as if the people of NH are too stupid to not see through that, says everything about you and your collective honesty. I've never seen that name said without the speaker putting air quotes around the word "safe". It's like a crooked car salesman using the name "Honest John", or the biggest guy on the football team being named "Little Bill". Ya, that makes it true.
And riding the coatskirts of the honorable Power Squadron as they did their inspections to gain false integrity, then introducing ITL-ready bills through some shill of a representative to try to build a false reputation, are the things that really deserve such outrage. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Admit "Safe Boaters" one and only ultimate goal...to repeal the SL, and I will praise your integrity while I work against you. But play these dishonest games, and you have no excuse to call anything "over the line", or calling anyone else "dishonest". What could possibly be more "over the line" or "dishonest" than using the name "Safe Boaters" for this group of cowboys and scofflaws? Instead of directing your outrage at the phony who has embarrassed you with that moniker, you praise him...and you try to make a huge controversy out of something so trivial as a phony post under a phony name that makes a perfect point...on an internet forum. Your protest is so shallow as to be pathetic.
I have to give you credit though Joe. Assuming your name is really Joe Kerr, at least you have the fortitude to use your name before you criticize others for not using theirs. Is Joe Kerr really your name? If not, I take that back.

And who is this purveyor of wisdom from Vermont? Can I use some of those gems in my upcoming book on the Human Experience? Is that Leo Sandy in disguise? Give me a break.

[fatlazyless]

Not sure if this link www.bigbadboat.com is relevant to this thread. If the link works, it has an article about the Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, 'SBONH', that's titled "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters" and it is dated September 23, 2010.

...thankyou very much!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake Winnipesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"

How is this "news"?

[Bearislandmoose]

Wow. Reading the forum rules at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?

[fatlazyless]

...good morning Pineedles....hey....got a quik question 4 U......it's that capital 'P' in WinniPesaukee....which is how the www.bigbadboat.com decided to spell it in their headline "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"

...I honestly have no clue about that 'P' but just maybe it's all about them wanting to put the 'P' as in Performance back into Winnipesaukee? What do you think? Got any insight on their 'P' ?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Wow. Reading the forum rules at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

Thanks to you and my buddy BIM (or El Chase or Ed Chase or Warren or whatever his name is today) for the comedic relief!

Have a great day!

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Why not talk about how a small group of people tried to sneak in a bill that no one else even knew about... Not one comment from you regarding that.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post where I did just that. I'll give it to you again (if you can excuse my "parsing");

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

...You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

In my book, El's comments are always welcome on this forum, under any name. No one has done more to expose the hypocrisy of certain members of the SL coalition. He has provided badly needed transparency to what is going on behind the scenes in many instances, often with surgical precision. Welcome back.
As far as the mission of some to repeal or amend the SL, I think most of our leaders in Concord are savvy enough to see what's really going on. A few fringe members of our legislature will be unable to change what most people on the lake have wanted for a very long time. The overwhelming support of the SL by the House, Senate, and letters and emails attests to this. I also hope that if a bill is put forth to exclude the Broads from the SL that there is an opposing bill put forth whereby the SL on the Broads would continue to be 45 MPH but on the rest of the lake it is substantially lower, say 35 MPH.JMO

[winni83]

I respectfully suggest to the Webmaster that the IP address of this person be permanently blocked from further posting. At least other people who agree with him have the courage and moral character to continue to post under their member names, and for that I respect them.

[jrc]

I disagree, let him post and let him use whatever name he wants, he really can't hide his agenda.

We have to be open to people that disagree with us, we are not a bunch of Joy Baher's are we?

I Remember, when another poster kept changing his screen name, pretty soon no one took him seriously.

[winni83]

I certainly agree that this forum should generally be open to all and that debate is healthy. However, I think this poster has crossed the line and that was the reason for my suggestion. His words and actions have certainly served to undermine the credibility of whatever cause he is advocating.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

Did they address the Barber Pole No Wake Zone situation?

Regarding that Barber Pole No Wake zone situation; you guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of the undeserved personal No Wake Zone in front of the house of one of your own a couple of years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the real local residents. Is "Safe" Boaters going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

[sound of crickets chirping]

I didn't think so.

The hypocracy is comical.