Petition For No Anchor Area
#1
Banned
Gold Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 5,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petition For No Anchor Area
There is a petition that I can email you if you'd like to read.
The Petition basically states that the Sunset Park’s residents feel that an area in Columbia Bay should be a designated as a no anchor area for protection of their property and safety of their residents. To a degree I empathize with their situation, however, there are only several areas on the lakes that are soft bottom (not mud), shallow, and safe enough for people to anchor and enjoy the water with their friends and families. Unfortunately the area in back of their subdivision is one of them.
According to the Fox Waterway Agency Code of Ordinances Chapter 6.06 D, the criteria in determining whether and to what extent to designate an area as restricted, the Board shall consider the following:
1. Whether a boating safety hazard currently exists;
2. Whether a public safety concern exists relative to other common water uses (e.g., swimming, skiing, etc.); and
3. Whether a boating user conflict exists.
The issue of protection of private property is not appropriate criteria for designating a specific area as restricted.
The petition filed with the Agency does cite “the creation of a condition which is hazardous to the health and safety of Buena Park’s and Sunset Park’s residents and their families”
They will have a very difficult time demonstrating that the anchoring of boats in this area by families, with small children playing in the water, is creating a hazard for their residents. The bottom line is they don’t want boats anchored behind their house which is not appropriate criteria for designating the area as restricted.
The monthly board meeting is on Feb 23 @ 6:30 with the public hearing to follow @ 7:30. The location is 333 S. Green St., McHenry, IL.
The membership of NIOC needs to step up and be at this meeting with logical and rational rebuttal to this petition. There is no sense being a boat club if we cannot prevent ridiculous legislation on the waterway we call home. Please be at this meeting.
The Petition basically states that the Sunset Park’s residents feel that an area in Columbia Bay should be a designated as a no anchor area for protection of their property and safety of their residents. To a degree I empathize with their situation, however, there are only several areas on the lakes that are soft bottom (not mud), shallow, and safe enough for people to anchor and enjoy the water with their friends and families. Unfortunately the area in back of their subdivision is one of them.
According to the Fox Waterway Agency Code of Ordinances Chapter 6.06 D, the criteria in determining whether and to what extent to designate an area as restricted, the Board shall consider the following:
1. Whether a boating safety hazard currently exists;
2. Whether a public safety concern exists relative to other common water uses (e.g., swimming, skiing, etc.); and
3. Whether a boating user conflict exists.
The issue of protection of private property is not appropriate criteria for designating a specific area as restricted.
The petition filed with the Agency does cite “the creation of a condition which is hazardous to the health and safety of Buena Park’s and Sunset Park’s residents and their families”
They will have a very difficult time demonstrating that the anchoring of boats in this area by families, with small children playing in the water, is creating a hazard for their residents. The bottom line is they don’t want boats anchored behind their house which is not appropriate criteria for designating the area as restricted.
The monthly board meeting is on Feb 23 @ 6:30 with the public hearing to follow @ 7:30. The location is 333 S. Green St., McHenry, IL.
The membership of NIOC needs to step up and be at this meeting with logical and rational rebuttal to this petition. There is no sense being a boat club if we cannot prevent ridiculous legislation on the waterway we call home. Please be at this meeting.
#3
Banned
Gold Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 5,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Petition For No Anchor Area
Hopefully the board members will read this and make everyone aware of this issue at at the next board meeting and general meeting. Maybe someone should bring the petition opposing this restricted area and get everyone and their friends/families to sign it.
Hopefully the whole club will go on the 23rd and the board members will make a statement to the Waterway Agency on behalf of the club.
Hopefully the whole club will go on the 23rd and the board members will make a statement to the Waterway Agency on behalf of the club.
Last edited by Elite Marine; 01-15-2006 at 08:03 AM.
#5
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Petition For No Anchor Area
I oppose most new legislation. We live in a "free country". With each law that is passed, a freedom is taken away. It looks like I will not be able to make the meeting. Generally, I do not anchor, I do realize the implications. Please let me know what else I can do. Sign a petition, send a letter, meet outside the meeting etc.
#6
Banned
Gold Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 5,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Petition For No Anchor Area
At least Bruce, Mike, Dale, Kevin, Calvin, Karen, Dawn and I made the meeting.
Where were the other board members from the club? What is the sense of being a club if you do not fight for our freedom and less legislation?
Thanks to all of those who attended and for Bruce speaking on behalf of the club.
Sincerely,
Kirk
Where were the other board members from the club? What is the sense of being a club if you do not fight for our freedom and less legislation?
Thanks to all of those who attended and for Bruce speaking on behalf of the club.
Sincerely,
Kirk
#7
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: McHenry, IL
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Petition For No Anchor Area
Kirk,
I'm afraid the writing is on the wall for the chain. Next, we'll see speed limits. It's happening to all the lakes -Winni in NH, has the same problem. The property owners have alot of clout- they pay the biggest burden in tax $. The recreational use $'s benefit only local business. I read in the paper that only 25 people signed the petition for the no anchor however.
I'm afraid the writing is on the wall for the chain. Next, we'll see speed limits. It's happening to all the lakes -Winni in NH, has the same problem. The property owners have alot of clout- they pay the biggest burden in tax $. The recreational use $'s benefit only local business. I read in the paper that only 25 people signed the petition for the no anchor however.
#8
Banned
Gold Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 5,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Petition For No Anchor Area
The board tried to say that the number of For and Against was about equal. However, there were at least 5X as many people there opposing the No Anchor than were for it.
The people have legitimate issues. They need a clear path to their slips and possibly a swim area for the kids, just not 1,300+ feet of shore line and 250' out from shore.
Their President/Lawyer almost wet his pants when he saw the turn out, he was visibly shaken by the turnout.
Hopefully they resolve this for the boaters and homeowners.
If not, we know where they live!!! LOL
The people have legitimate issues. They need a clear path to their slips and possibly a swim area for the kids, just not 1,300+ feet of shore line and 250' out from shore.
Their President/Lawyer almost wet his pants when he saw the turn out, he was visibly shaken by the turnout.
Hopefully they resolve this for the boaters and homeowners.
If not, we know where they live!!! LOL
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pwrbotr
General Boating Discussion
9
03-02-2021 04:16 PM
Buddy OO
General Boating Discussion
1
11-02-2007 03:32 PM
G-Force
General Boating Discussion
1
01-30-2002 09:29 PM