GFBL owners: the real story

[restauranteer]

Isn't it ironic....that we just closed a thread after determining that a certain "member" (don't want to single anyone out) has a right to air his opinion and then that same "member" turns around in his next series of posts and tries to silence the opinion of another "member"!!!

Is ironic the right word, or should I be using the word hypocritical?

Ooops, gotta run....something's burning in the oven!

Bon apetit!

[jarhead]

Where does it state ownership in this chapter??? Thanx for the info.

[Evenstar]

Whatever. Personally I think that this person made a good point . . . that Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by the citizens of New Hampshire, and not by anyone else. The regulatory laws on any lake in New Hampshire should be primarilly for the protection of the lake and for it's citizens, rathar than for outsiders.

I added this part after I read Jarhead's post: The owner is shown by the statement "New Hamphire's lakes" and later, with "citizens of New Hampshire". It's pretty clear to me.

[jarhead]

Where does it state that ?it doesn't . The lakes are resource but they are not owned by anyone , you seem inteligent enough to realize that they are for the residents benifit for econmical ,tourism and personal needs and uses.But nowhere does it state ownership.

[Evenstar]

Hey, I don't want to argue with you about such an obvious point. It does say "citizens of New Hampshire", not "US citizens", or "for all humans".

[jarhead]

Not an argument it is a debate of sorts.does it say own or uses to be enjoyed.I enjoy the lake to does that also mean that i own it, no.

[PROPELLER]

If the lakes in NH are owned by the citizens(or I would rather use residents) of NH, where do second homeowners who are registered to vote in another state & claim permanent residence in another state fit into this equation? As we all well know, many property owners in NH come from other states, namely Massachusetts.

This brings me to my next point. Many of the supporters of the speed limit & no rafting bills are property owners in NH but permanently reside & are registered to vote in another state. This is interesting because at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator. If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator.

It's funny, because I know this property owner well, and he has been a resident of Gilford his entire life. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise at any hearing. If you have any support for your accusation, can you provide more specifics? I would be happy to join you in reporting his illegal status to the proper authorities. Perhaps he is "The Fugitive".

Aside from that, I agree with you. I own property in Massachusetts, but I am not allowed to vote there. Except that I can donate to the campaigns of candidates I like, I cannot influence their elections and have no opportunity to contribute to their legislative processes. That's something I accepted when I chose to reside in NH. I do hope that the residents of MA will vote in a way that compliments my interests too, but I understand that is really out of my control. If they make some laws that really conflict with my interests, then I will consider whether to sell my property or to move to MA and get involved to change those laws back. This is the American way.
I'm sure that those residents of MA who would like to see some law and order returned to the lake are hoping that we, the citizens of NH, succeed in our quest for a reasonable limit on boat speeds. We appreciate whatever support they can give. I'm sure the legislators give some small amount of weight to the opinions of non-resident taxpayers. But if we, the citizens of NH, start to see legislators more concerned with the opinions of MA residents than of us, we will act quickly to get them out of office. That too is the American way. Such is the power of being a citizen of the state.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

...If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

Hey, I quoted a state law. So this was not just my opinion or something that I just said, or made up. This is actually what the NH law says.

[PROPELLER]

Your missing the point, its open to interpretation. Just because you believe it does not make it so. Its only your opinion, not a fact. All I'm saying is if someone thinks the way you & Fat Jack do, then what all the non voting property owners think is irrelevant.

[frank m.]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Your missing the point, its open to interpretation. Just because you believe it does not make it so. Its only your opinion, not a fact. All I'm saying is if someone thinks the way you & Fat Jack do, then what all the non voting property owners think is irrelevant.

Is this "open to interpretation"?

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.
Source. 1901, 9:2. PL 152:16. RL 182:17. RSA 271:20. 1977, 24:2. 1990, 177:2, eff. June 26, 1990.

[Fat Jack]

Did I post even ONCE in that thread? In fact, I did not have to. Some GFBL tries to quiet my common sense opinions by soliciting her other GFBL buddies to vote me off the forum, claiming it's not because my opinion is different than theirs (ya, right), and all of the real members see right through it and come to my defense.
Again, you must resort to the posts of other members and act as if they are mine. In fact, it was one of your own team that you are citing. So whose the hypocrite now? Those acute researching skills of yours seem to be fading.Try this stuff on some other forum. It's getting old here already, after only a week.
Let's stick to issues related to the lake, assuming again you have ever even been here.

Bon apetit!