In the Spirit of Compromise....

VtSteve · 08-12-2009, 11:34 AM

I do not think either side can effectively negotiate a compromise at this time. The supporters are trying to rush through the Legislature and make the bill permanent. The reasoning is that they do not feel there is sufficient data to defeat the sunset provision. I agree. I also agree that there is not enough data for anyone to determine anything, other than the lake being quieter this year.

For those that claimed it's quieter due to the law? I can only state this. Those on your side that are trying to change the status of the bill have stated themselves there is not enough data to support their claims. They disagree with El's broad statement about traffic being up, primarily because both the MP and their own group have stated that traffic on the lake, as well as registrations, slip rentals, and boat sales are all down.

In an attempt to prove something that is simply not true, people have made the claims that the lake is safer due to the law as it is.

In the spirit of common sense, I can only conclude two things here.

The sunset provision must be extended for further evaluation. You can tinker with the daytime speed limit if possible. But I would further assert that the MP has to take as proactive a role to study the situation further, and try to report their findings periodically. In any event, the safety wording of the current law should remain in tact.

There is only one group afraid of the sunset provision. They are the diehards. If they wish to prove their point at some time, it will have to be done with interviews, real life observations, and factual data. I would be perfectly willing to review the data, ALL of it, from 2008, 2009, AND 2010.

08-12-2009, 11:34 AM	#13
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I do not think either side can effectively negotiate a compromise at this time. The supporters are trying to rush through the Legislature and make the bill permanent. The reasoning is that they do not feel there is sufficient data to defeat the sunset provision. I agree. I also agree that there is not enough data for anyone to determine anything, other than the lake being quieter this year. For those that claimed it's quieter due to the law? I can only state this. Those on your side that are trying to change the status of the bill have stated themselves there is not enough data to support their claims. They disagree with El's broad statement about traffic being up, primarily because both the MP and their own group have stated that traffic on the lake, as well as registrations, slip rentals, and boat sales are all down. In an attempt to prove something that is simply not true, people have made the claims that the lake is safer due to the law as it is. In the spirit of common sense, I can only conclude two things here. The sunset provision must be extended for further evaluation. You can tinker with the daytime speed limit if possible. But I would further assert that the MP has to take as proactive a role to study the situation further, and try to report their findings periodically. In any event, the safety wording of the current law should remain in tact. There is only one group afraid of the sunset provision. They are the diehards. If they wish to prove their point at some time, it will have to be done with interviews, real life observations, and factual data. I would be perfectly willing to review the data, ALL of it, from 2008, 2009, AND 2010.