"Meredith voters: islands not all the same"

Bear Islander · 03-12-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

Its a mute point whatever my personal beliefs of the situation are, it was a decision to be made by the voters of Meredith.

And those voters have spoken.

I would like to believe most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for.

However it is far from over. Clearly this insane situation will not stand in the long run.

I don't think you really understand what this is about.

Skip · 03-12-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I would like to believe most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for.

However it is far from over. Clearly this insane situation will not stand in the long run.

I don't think you really understand what this is about.

Its unfortunate that you take the tact that if someone carries a political opinion contrary to yours that "...most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for..." or that I don't "...really understand what this is about..." or most unfortunately, that good folks that disagree with you must be "liars".

It is much more conducive to polite and intelligent debate to agree to disagree without calling in to question the integrity or intelligence of those that hold a different belief or opinion.

You are obviously a very intelligent and passionate individual. I just wish sometimes you would re-read your posts and count to ten before you punch the "submit reply" button.

But now we are wandering off topic, please feel free to contact me off line if you would like to chat about this further!

Skip

Bear Islander · 03-12-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

Its unfortunate that you take the tact that if someone carries a political opinion contrary to yours that "...most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for..." or that I don't "...really understand what this is about..." or most unfortunately, that good folks that disagree with you must be "liars".

It is much more conducive to polite and intelligent debate to agree to disagree without calling in to question the integrity or intelligence of those that hold a different belief or opinion.

You are obviously a very intelligent and passionate individual. I just wish sometimes you would re-read your posts and count to ten before you punch the "submit reply" button.

But now we are wandering off topic, please feel free to contact me off line if you would like to chat about this further!

Skip

I don't see where this is off topic. I don't regret anything I posted, although you may be reading more animosity into it than I intended.

He is not a liar because he disagrees with me. He is a liar because he is telling lies.

"Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever"

That warrant would not have eliminated any of the voters rights forever. Anything done with this warrant could be undone with another. Trying to scare the voters in the days before they vote sometimes works, it's never right.

He could have been up front with the voters and told them that the warrant would close the loop hole he is using to prevent development of one small island. He could have told them the the loop hole is also screwing a lot of innocent people on other islands but that he doesn't care about them, only his pet crusade.

But of course he couldn't do that because he would have lost the vote. And it was very close.

The funny thing is that I agree with what he is trying to do. I just hate the way he is going about it.

This may put out of business some of the companies that do island work. Boats, barges and water access on the mainland cost plenty. That is one of the things I was talking about when I suggested people don't understand what this is really about.

GWC... · 03-12-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't see where this is off topic. I don't regret anything I posted, although you may be reading more animosity into it than I intended.

He is not a liar because he disagrees with me. He is a liar because he is telling lies.

"Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever"

That warrant would not have eliminated any of the voters rights forever. Anything done with this warrant could be undone with another. Trying to scare the voters in the days before they vote sometimes works, it's never right.

He could have been up front with the voters and told them that the warrant would close the loop hole he is using to prevent development of one small island. He could have told them the the loop hole is also screwing a lot of innocent people on other islands but that he doesn't care about them, only his pet crusade.

But of course he couldn't do that because he would have lost the vote. And it was very close.

The funny thing is that I agree with what he is trying to do. I just hate the way he is going about it.

This may put out of business some of the companies that do island work. Boats, barges and water access on the mainland cost plenty. That is one of the things I was talking about when I suggested people don't understand what this is really about.

Your compromise warrant will state?

tis · 03-13-2008, 08:22 AM

Skip, I probably should have posted this somewhere else, but I already posted the first one here and I know this has your attention. Anyway, can you give me your opinion on RSA 483-B: 9 II regarding the 50 reference line. Maybe I should PM you. Thanks.

Islander · 03-12-2008, 06:03 PM

I wonder is Mr. Dexter understands the damage he is doing. I know of two septic system upgrades that could not be done last year because of Him. It was assumed that this could be resolved and work started after ice out. I guess this is now going to court. I wonder how the voters of Meredith will like the attorneys bill for defending an indefensible position. Well I guess it doesn't matter as long as Mr. Dexter's favorite lake view is not disturbed.

tis · 03-12-2008, 07:44 PM

I don't think it matters much what passes now. It is going to be very difficult to deal with the state getting permits. I think the state is getting what they want, no building on the lake.

I personally have dealt with getting a new septic system which was approved for four and they wanted it converted to two. It doesn't make sense, because the old system could remain but if you want to put in a new one they only want you to have two.

The state has now said that if you build a boathouse, you have moved the reference line, (previously defined as the natural mean high water level on natural fresh waterbodies) so that if you are building another building, it must be 50 feet away from that (new) reference line. So if you want to build a house, it must be 50 feet away from the inside of the boathouse, not 50 feet from the lake. That is pretty tough to do on many lots. It is taking so much time-they have a million ways to stall, and so much money that it will really hurt the economy around the lake. Some like BI may like it until they want to do something themselves.

Islander · 03-12-2008, 08:24 PM

I am in favor of limiting lakeside development. There are legitimate ways to do it. Buy up the land and put it in a trust. Pass reasonable restrictions and building codes.

Legal tricks are not the way to do it. Preventing homeowners from replacing their windows, upgrading plumbing or electric, or putting in a new septic system is not the way to do it.

Using lies to play on voter fears just before an election is not the way to do it.

03-13-2008, 08:22 AM	#5
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,767 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	Skip, I probably should have posted this somewhere else, but I already posted the first one here and I know this has your attention. Anyway, can you give me your opinion on RSA 483-B: 9 II regarding the 50 reference line. Maybe I should PM you. Thanks.

03-12-2008, 06:03 PM	#6
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	I wonder is Mr. Dexter understands the damage he is doing. I know of two septic system upgrades that could not be done last year because of Him. It was assumed that this could be resolved and work started after ice out. I guess this is now going to court. I wonder how the voters of Meredith will like the attorneys bill for defending an indefensible position. Well I guess it doesn't matter as long as Mr. Dexter's favorite lake view is not disturbed.

03-12-2008, 07:44 PM	#7
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,767 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	I don't think it matters much what passes now. It is going to be very difficult to deal with the state getting permits. I think the state is getting what they want, no building on the lake. I personally have dealt with getting a new septic system which was approved for four and they wanted it converted to two. It doesn't make sense, because the old system could remain but if you want to put in a new one they only want you to have two. The state has now said that if you build a boathouse, you have moved the reference line, (previously defined as the natural mean high water level on natural fresh waterbodies) so that if you are building another building, it must be 50 feet away from that (new) reference line. So if you want to build a house, it must be 50 feet away from the inside of the boathouse, not 50 feet from the lake. That is pretty tough to do on many lots. It is taking so much time-they have a million ways to stall, and so much money that it will really hurt the economy around the lake. Some like BI may like it until they want to do something themselves.

03-12-2008, 08:24 PM	#8
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	I am in favor of limiting lakeside development. There are legitimate ways to do it. Buy up the land and put it in a trust. Pass reasonable restrictions and building codes. Legal tricks are not the way to do it. Preventing homeowners from replacing their windows, upgrading plumbing or electric, or putting in a new septic system is not the way to do it. Using lies to play on voter fears just before an election is not the way to do it.