| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
VERY informative article.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 7:39:24 AM
|
Found this today on my old home town newspaper, I will try to post a link but it it doesn't work cut and paste the following
www.dailyhome.com
It is the headline article today. it explains exactly where the legislation came from and WHY!
URL: Proposed boating restrictions.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
VERY informative article.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 9:05:28 AM
|
Finally, a clear, concise article that explains the reason for the legislation.
It appears that :
1. Development opportunities started the bill and concerned lake users across the state pushed it forward. Job opportunities always get catch the legislator's eye.
2. Sewage concerns are the primary reason for the desire to prohibit large boats and houseboats.
3. Restricting speed is a reason for restructuring the bill. Guys, get a sailboat is you want a big boat. I guess sailers don't create sewage. There was no mention of noise.
4. Notice that wake is not mentioned. As has been pointed out, all boats create wake; the problem is not the boat , it's the operator. Until the operators become more considerate we will have a wake problem. I've had families in 24' boats pass, at slow plane, by my swim platform (with swimmers in the water) not more the 40' away and throw a 2+' wake. Unfortunately, you can't legislate stupidity and carelessness.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I read it
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 9:32:28 AM
|
I don't get it. I guess I'm dense. I read the words but they don't make any sense. I still can't see the connection between developments and houseboats. Houseboats have not hindered Lake Lanier development that's for sure. This stuff sounds like a sailboat manufacturer lobby. BTW they have heads as well.
The sewage issue is also ridiculous. In order to get a write-off as a second home the boat needs a galley and a head. All they have to do is write a simple law prohibiting any "Y" valves in head systems and either requiring inspection and/ or certification (paid for by the boat owner).
Something else at work here........
|
| Name: |
jawjagal
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I read it
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 10:19:03 AM
|
I just read it and saw ATLANTA written all over it.
Told 'ya. Here they come.....
(of course, I am from Atlanta, but I am not one of THEM -I love Lake Martin as a family member....not to rape and move on to the next lake.....)
|
| Name: |
AnchorbayDon
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Points to ponder
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 10:41:23 AM
|
This is good information about the origin of the proposed legislation.
Points to ponder:
1. the bill is silent on the issues of sewage and wakes - 2 issues said to be important reasons for the bill
2. The Marine Sanitation Act of 2002 already addresses the sewage issue and is currently enforced Statewide -eliminating the need for further legislation in this area.
3. Any motorized boat can create a wake, the size of which is chosen by the operator of the boat. The size of the boat matters less than the operator of it.
4. 99% of the people affected by the proposed legislation heve never seen Lake Harris/Wedowee. Most could not even point to it on a map, but their lives and recreational choices will be affected by the bill. This legislation is NOT about Lake Harris/Wedowee any more.
5. The new jobs created by Georgia developers might offset the existing jobs lost in the Alabama marine industry across the State if the bill were to pass as is.
6. Few legislators or bill drafters are also boaters - resulting in the missed definition of 'residence' boats to include many, many boats that probably were not intended. Even the IRS did a better job! The legislators would do well to visit the lakes, talk to the people, and look around to learn about that which they are attempting to regulate.
7. Boating differs from a rowboat on a farm pond to a ship on the ocean. Could it be that's why so many Birmingham folks come to Lake Martin rather than Lake Wedowee? Boating also differs from a 10,000 acre lake to a 40,000 acre lake. One size does not fit all.
8. If this bill fails, very few people's lives would be negatively affected. It would just be 'business as usual'. If it were tp pass, thousands of people's lives would be negatively affected.
That's my opinion.... and I may be wrong.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answer to Ric and Don
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 6:25:53 PM
|
The answer is UNDESIRABLE boats. To legislate you can't just pick on one type of boat. What's undesirable:
1. Large boats that encourage live-upons and large wakes. Who wants to look out of their cabin window and see a 90 foot houseboat with 30 people on board pull up 100 ft from your dock for the weekend--UNDESIRABLE
2. Loud/fast/unsafe boats and drivers. Who wants show-offs doing their thing in front of your dock all weekend--UNDESIRABLE
Sorry guys, but it is time to cut to the chase. These are the facts as I see them, without the polite BS.
|
| Name: |
longtimer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Haven't you heard?
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 8:05:06 PM
|
Those boats rarely leave their wet slips, and when they do they never go above idle speed. Oh, and they're owned exclusively by poor people.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answer to OSMS
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 9:04:18 PM
|
Do you really think that's going to happen? I may be ignorant but my experience with houseboats is the opposite. They avoid anchoring in places where people are near. They want islands, coves anywhere there is privacy.
The last place I ever wanted to anchor in my houseboat was 100 ft off some one's dock. When I was lucky I had a nubile babe that I wanted to go swimming with.... :-)
Can't speak for cruisers though..... never had one....
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Besides
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 9:06:06 PM
|
I would cruise the day with 30 people but NEVER sleep in a cove with that many...LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
|
| Name: |
JohnGalt
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I read it
|
|
Date:
|
3/19/2006 9:32:11 PM
|
Thanks for the kind words about the people of Atlanta.
|
| Name: |
jawjagal
-
|
|
| Subject: |
To John Galt
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 5:20:15 AM
|
Thanks for the kind words about the people of Atlanta.
If you saw my last posts about Destin ( we have owned down there for 23 years) you'd be scared too. I can talk about Atlantan's commercialism (plus I know a little about real estate - worked for John Wieland) because I was born and bred here. You?
|
| Name: |
JohnGalt
-
|
|
| Subject: |
To John Galt
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 6:29:56 AM
|
Piedmont Hospital
|
| Name: |
jawjagal
-
|
|
| Subject: |
To John Galt
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 8:50:29 AM
|
Crawford Long
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Actually
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 9:15:23 AM
|
I wouldn't like for #1 & 2 either. I think #2 is a more likely scenario though.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Actually
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 12:46:17 PM
|
Roswelric, things must be slow. You're asking questions and then answering them yourself with the next post!!
I think restrictions need to be passed now before it's too late to control both big boats and loud/fast boats. Loud/fast boaters have all kinds of alternate places to go (navigable lakes, gulf, etc) and big boats/houseboats don't belong here anyway--they should be on navigable waters so they can travel. Despite what some think, this lake is privately owned (with some control from the FERC), and all the owners should have a say so in the operation.
|
| Name: |
fountain
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Points to ponder
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 1:08:34 PM
|
AGREE AGREE----makes you wonder???
|
| Name: |
AnchorbayDon
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WRONG!!!
|
|
Date:
|
3/20/2006 11:16:32 PM
|
The property for the lake was taken by the Federal Government under the law of eminent domain - for the common good. U.S. Govt owns the lake, it is controlled by FERC, who gives the license to Alabama Power to operate the lake and dam for the common good. It is not 'privately held'.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WRONG!!!
|
|
Date:
|
3/21/2006 8:48:50 AM
|
Boy, I've got to read up on that. Haven't heard before that the U. S. Gov owns the lake (I assume everything below the 490' line). If that is the case why would the Alabama Leg be able to make laws affecting U.S. Gov property. I do know the FERC has tremendous control over what APCo can and cannot do, but actually owning the lake is news to me.
Don't doubt you, just got to find out more.
|
| Name: |
HoosierDaddy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
This one made me laugh:
|
|
Date:
|
3/21/2006 9:45:07 AM
|
8. If this bill fails, very few people's lives would be negatively affected. It would just be 'business as usual'. If it were tp pass, thousands of people's lives would be negatively affected.
You're assuming that having no current regulation doesn't affect anyone's life negatively....that "business as usual" doesn't have a negative affect on those who aren't going to be directly impacted by the passage of such a bill.
That is terribly convenient, isn't it Don?
Ignoring the fact that it is myopic and selfish, it is a beautiful play on words, with not even the slightest basis in reality.
Gotta love those big money lobbyists, huh?
|
| Name: |
str8tup
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Actually
|
|
Date:
|
3/22/2006 7:20:22 PM
|
My boat does travel , it goes on a trailer and i take it to the beach , BUT!!! i live here , so you people see the problem . There is no reason to have 2 boats and i am not moving
|
| Name: |
str8tup
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answer to Ric and Don
|
|
Date:
|
3/22/2006 7:23:45 PM
|
fishig boats undesirable (rice burner on water)
pontoons undesirable no knowledge needed to own one
can we ban these too????????????
|
|
New Post
Search
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Coast
»
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key
Login
|
Home
