(Logan Martin Lake Specific)
4,311 messages
Updated 1/15/2024 10:58:34 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Logan Martin Lake Specific)
126 messages
Updated 12/23/2022 9:21:15 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Boat ban lawsuit appeal
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 12:24:53 PM
|
I am reposting this here so it will go across all the lake forums. It is not limited to just harris, Wiess, and Martin any more. Legislation has already been introduced to expand it to Lake Jordan also. Is your lake next? Is your watercraft next?
I know CAT won't do it, so I will. Two years ago when this boat ban first came up the 'forum' was ready skin CAT. It seemed like everyone was for the ban. The tide seems to have turned lately. I for one have done a 180 on the issue. But here is the thing, CAT and a couple of others have spent tens of thousands of dollars already on the law suit. Now it has to be appealled and the price tag is high. Cat has told me that a lawyer has agreed to take the appeal all the way to the Supreme Court for one very reasonable, yet still very high fee. The time is running out. Appeals have to be filed in a timely manner as I am sure you all know. Well that clock has been ticking for a while now. There has been a lot going on behind the scenes trying to acheive the financial goals needed to pursue the appeal, but have so far fallen short.
I think the general sentiment now is that this does affect us all. If not now, it opens the door for future restrictions. It is a shame that the HOBO's have abandoned him. They were quick to seek his membership last year, but refused to 'get on board' with him in the lawsuit. One of the board members (though her spouse) did however, join the lawsuit, BUT in FAVOR OF THE BAN!! This showed the hypocracy of the HOBO. I ranted about this last year when I discovered it. I got a lot of email support, but little public support. If that is what you wish to do, that is fine, but CAT NEEDS the support. He is fighting the good fight for all of us. It has cost him dearly, in time, 'freinds', and money. We can't give hiim back his time, but we can offer him support in the form of freinds, but most importantly with money. Unfortunately, any donation is not
tax deductable, but it is a nice investment in the future for us all. I am sure that CAT will be happy to provide and accounting of any monies to all who participate.
It is a shame that I have to make this appeal when there is an orginization that claims to be for "all stakeholders", yet is willing to toss overboard a certain segment of the stake holders. If jsut half the HOBO membership sent the same $15 to CAT for the appeal, it would be paid for and would go toward a fight that really does affect us all. I don't know the legallities, but it would be nice if folks could join as plaintiffs also, but I don't know if that is possible in the appeals stage. Numbers mean a lot to politicians, and judges ARE politicians in Alabama.
Bottom line is CAT needs our help, but is to proud to ask for it. I am sending a small check and I hope some of you will too. If you want to ask questions, I am sure he will be more than happy to answer them. Maybe a non-profit can even be set up for the purpose of the appeal. Some of you have more knowledge than me on that subject. And like I said, it is a shame the current non-profit is unwilling to help. It really shows the 'hidden' agenda of the HOBO. IF the HOBO did solicite funds for him, they would be tax deductible, but the puppets on the board are in favor of restricting our rights. I will say if for them however, the HOBO has taken no postion on the boat ban officially. But that in itself speaks volumes to me. The board members who joined the lawsuit in favor of the ban did so as private citizens, as is thier right. But the official silence on the issue is deafening.
CAT is standing up for what he thinks is right, but has not pushed his burden on anyone. You can do as I did and make your check payable to Frank Wilson Atty, P.O. BOX 2389 MONTGOMERY, AL. 36102 c/o Boat Ban
Time is of the essence folks. The clock is ticking.
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 1:00:12 PM
|
I am a Home Owner, Boat Owner, and dues-paying member of HOBO. Is there some rule I missed somewhere that says that because I am a HOBO, and a member of HOBO, that I must be against the ban?
I understand why some are against the ban, and I respect their opinions; anyone who would forfeit a friendship over an issue like this is a friend not worth having anyway. But just as I respect their right to opinion, I would hope they would grant me the same courtesy.
But that's straying from my original question: why should HOBO be FORCED to take one side in this debate? The organization is supposed to represent ALL home-owners and boat-owners on the lake. Even those of us who dare to disagree with you. And in this case, many of us do; that group would say that HOBO is representing our view just fine on this one.
|
| Name: |
SPEARFISHER
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 1:08:52 PM
|
You answered your own question. HOBO is supposed to represent
ALLLLL home owners and ALLLLL BOAT owners.
Once again I am not affected by the ban but no one has been able to explain to me what good it will do other than line certain pockets with money.
|
The issue is NOT the HOBO support, but that CAT and the other plaintiffs need some financail support. We can, and have, debated the HOBO issue to death. I jsut feel that if you claim to represent ALL stakeholders, your board should not be actively trying to keep some off the lake. The issue is the slippery slope that has been laid before us.
Check the email you have associated with this account. You should have mai.
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 2:17:19 PM
|
"You answered your own question. HOBO is supposed to represent
ALLLLL home owners and ALLLLL BOAT owners."
And ALLLLL includes those who are FOR the ban, right?
The REAL answer: HOBO can't represent the interests of ALLLLL of the individual home and boat owners, because ALLLLL of those people don't have the same views. That leaves two options:
1. Take NO stand.
2. Take a stand that they feel is best for the LAKE as a whole.
I think they have chosen Option #1. Obviously, certain INDIVIDUALS who are on the board have chosen to support the ban; as individuals, that is their right, as long as they represent themselves as individuals, and not representatives of the board.
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I checked my mail...
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 2:25:40 PM
|
nothing there. I sent a test email from this site just to make sure things are working properly; they are.
|
| Name: |
ALSCN
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 3:06:51 PM
|
Exactly they should represent ALLLLLLLL members... but if one of the head board members publicly supports the bill, that gives the indication that the HOBOs do as well. If you are not going to have a stand, then don't elect someone to office within your organization that does.
|
maybe he thought me waz u.....
|
| Name: |
HOT ROD
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 4:24:58 PM
|
guess it depends on whether or not the membership as a whole elected the board member or was he appointed by a smaller group. also depends on when it happened, and if the member had already publicly stated a position on the issue.
I woulnt mind seeing a copy of that email myself, LTL.
|
| Name: |
SPEARFISHER
-
|
|
| Subject: |
QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 4:27:36 PM
|
#1 Take NO Stand At All?
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!!
|
The board was seated when there were only a couple of dozen members. Now there are two thousand. I am sure the elections would be different now, but they are in place for another year. The honorable thing would be for those that have caused the controversary to resign. But like I said, that would be the HONORABLE thing, and the ones in question have shown themselves to have no honor. Catch 22 it is.
As for the email. I am sorry but I don't know you well enough to send, even a heavily redacted personal and private email. This is not a personal affront to you, I just have no 'personal' knowledge about you and can't in good faith share others private thoughts with you. I have already been spanked once today over an honest mistake, so maybe I am just a little too cautious.
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
SERIOUS QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 6:12:29 PM
|
OK, they HAVE to take a stand; what stand do they take that represents the views of ALL people?
Do they stand in favor of the ban? No, because that doesn't represent the views of those opposed to the ban..
Do they stand in opposition to the ban? No, because that doesn't represent the views of those in favor of the ban.
So they can't be FOR the ban, and they can't be AGAINST the ban, yet you say they MUST choose a side?
How does that work?
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I got mail
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 6:20:04 PM
|
I don't know why some people have such a hard time telling us apart. :-)
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
SERIOUS QUESTION
|
|
Date:
|
4/16/2008 7:17:35 PM
|
The INCLUSIVE stand. Not the exclusionary stand. Their own mission statement states they are for ALL stake holders. Working to exclude some is not representing all.
|
| Name: |
Pacemaker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boat ban lawsuit appeal
|
|
Date:
|
5/3/2008 2:19:40 PM
|
I am sure most of you have heard that the Big Boat Ban is dead in the water.....FOR NOW. I have to agree with some previous posts I have read on this very topic by Lifetime Laker. I learned that this bill was to be presented at the eleventh hour....giving me literally hours to make myself present at the statehouse on Wednesday and again after it was postponed to Thursday at 9:00AM. I have heard the criticism about my failure to attend HOBO meetings to have prior knowledge, but not unlike most of you, I simply don't have the time available to attend these meetings. I do, however, pay an annual membership just like the other members of HOBO, participate in the lake clean-up, contribute to the fireworks fund, etc. I take great offense in the leadership of the HOBO Assoc. standing before our representatives and representing himself as a speaker for the entire organization and otherwise leading the members to believe that the entire organization was in favor of the ban. As stated in prior posts, either there is a quorum with all HOBO members in favor, or there is not. Clearly there is not, and for the President of the organization to make representations contrary is unconscionable. First, the bill presented is so vague as it presents concerns as to who and what will be impacted. To place a ban on boats beyond the 26' 11" length is absolutely ludicris, and I can find no logic to support the reasoning behind such a ban. Why is the length of a boat a factor at all? What does the length of a boat have to do with anything! If you ask one person, they will say it is because of the speed of the big "go boats". Well, if that is the case, then you have to ask what is the difference between a boat longer than the suggested ban length going 100 mph, and a boat that is 16' in length going 100 mph? In fact, what about the PWC's that can travel in excess of 70-90 mph! I have also been told that I am completely misunderstanding the mission and purpose behind the proposed bill. I have been told that speed has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed bill. In fact, the water patrol authorities have already stated that they do not want to get into a situation where they have to monitor or otherwise control speed because they do not have the equipment necessary to do so. That being said, I am again back to the question of what does it matter if ones boat is in excess of 26'11"? I was told that the "people" of Lake Jordan do not want their lake to become the proverbial dumping grounds for all the "go boat" owners who are now prohibited from enjoying their water craft of choice on Lake Martin and others. The Lake Martin big boat ban is now in its second year (maybe third). According to Elmore County officials, Lake Jordan currently has FOUR "go boats". Most of those FOUR "go boats" were housed on Lake Jordan prior to the big boat ban on Lake Martin. I think if Lake Jordan was going to become the proverbial "dumping ground" for the "go boats" that more than FOUR "go boats" would have landed on our waters in a two+ yr time frame. There is also present in the bill some prohibition and/or strict criteria for any vessel that contains a galley and/or sanitation system, and validation that the system is being properly disposed of is required. Our boat has both, and WE'RE ALL FOR IT!!!! However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no facility available on Lake Jordan. For that reason, I have disengaged my systems and they are not permitted to be used. However, I believe that if a law is to be enacted that places this requirement on the boat owner, the State of Alabama should be required to put in place the facility in which the law can be abided by. My boat cannot be moved in and out of the water like others. FYI: After the EPA adamently pushed for a sanitation dumping station to be put in place at one facility, it later determined that Lake Jordan does not even qualify to have a dumping station put in because it determined that there was not enough "go boats", "houseboats", or otherwise boats with a sanitation system to warrant having one in place. Additionally, after water samples were taken and tested by Auburn University, it was found that Lake Jordan was one of the very few lakes in the state wherein they would recommend that you could actually eat the fish caught in our lake. I know that all of the owners of Lake Jordan property would like to see this be the case for years and years to come. I am a Lake Jordan property owner. I do care about what happens to our lake. However, it does NOT have to be at the expense of having my preference of water craft dictated to me. I am a responsible individual who takes responsibility for my actions. I do not need the government holding my hand as I am at play on the water. We are the owners of a vessel who would be affected by the big boat ban. My husband and I own a 36 foot antique boat that I am restoring as a passionate hobbyist. Me nor my boat have ever done anything to affect anyone else or their property. I putt around in my big boat when I take it out. I just like to ride around and enjoy the scenery. I have scene far more damage by people on PWC's and bass boats than I have from any of the big "go boats." In fact, in all the time I have lived at the lake (and I work from home and I am there everyday) I have never even witnessed a "go boat" come in my slough. The problems experienced by all has absolutely nothing to do with the type of watercraft one utilizes, but more to do with the operator of the watercraft. Water Patrol needs to focus more on the actions of the operator, and less on what type of watercraft is in operation. Personally, I have experienced a great deal of problems associated with the bass boaters that come flying in and out of my slough at excessive speeds. So much so, in fact, that I was nearly tossed from my boat while I was working on my flybridge by an inconsiderate bassboater who suddenly decided that he needed to charge off from mere feet from the bow of my vessel. You don't hear anyone complaining about the real issue because no one to date has had the financial ability or the gumption to take on Bassmasters. Therefore, let's all point fingers at someone else, i.e. "go boats". I agree that some legislation should be in place to protect all of our lakes from improper dumping of sanitation systems. Although it would place a burden upon myself, I would be the first in line to help make that happen. However, just because one person prefers on type of vessel over another does not mean that our right to a choice should be taken away from us. What is next? People keep on and we will eventually lose the right to use the waters at all. Hold those accountable for their actions, not all of us for the actions of others.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Logan Martin Lake
Login
|
Home
