Lake Martin Topics: Now Osms....

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	Catherine -
	Subject:	Now Osms....
	Date:	3/5/2008 8:23:03 AM

I didn't say that, and didn't mean to imply it either, though I suppose I can understand how you got that impression. I DO suspect that the Commision, as proposed in the Act, would ultimately attempt to snatch the entire amount collected in their jurisdiction, and the Act is certainly written in a manner to allow that to occur.

I gather that you are somehow involved with an HOA or POA at the lake? If so (and even if not), could you give me your thoughts on the Commission as proposed in the Act? While I certainly agree with those who argue that a commission is neded to oversee the development of the lake, the proposed framework in the Act appears to me to be nothing less than an attempt to convey control perpetually to Russell Lands and Alabama Power. The lake doesn't belong to either of them, and I feel that any such commission should be comprised of representatives who are elected by the property owners whom they will regulate. I am intimately familiar with Russell Lands' involvement in "managing" their developments, and I would not wish that upon a farmer or homeowner who chose to purchase land outside of Russell Lands or APCO's holdings. Placing such regulatory power and fiduciary responsibility in the hands of the two largest owners of the property to be regulated would seem to me to be an incredible conflict of interest. Do you agree?