Lakeshore Dreams, a published and virtual magazine devoted to promoting Minnesota's heritage of lake cabin ownership, is to be commended for helping to publicize the D.N.R.'s plans to impose stricter regulations on dock and boatlift ownership. With a 15,000 person mailing list, we hope that the magazine's assistance will contribute to a groundswell of concern and standing up to the D.N.R. Click here for a link to the LakeshoreDreams.com posting and call to action.
Here's an example of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s concern. The photo below is of an endangered dock configuration. Currently, and for more than two decades, the configuration has been compliant with all regulations and the local lake association guidelines. However, because it stretches for 65 feet on a 100 foot shoreline, it would be prohibited under currently proposed D.N.R. regulations. The property owner would be forced to discard thousands of dollars of dock structure and would not be able to use his property to moor all of his watercraft, forcing him to pay for outside storage or sell the "excess" boats. There is no justification for this! The property owner was at all times in compliance with existing regulations when he supported the local economy and purchased the structures and the watercraft. The D.N.R. could, and should, easily focus its efforts on future lakeshore development to achieve its stated preservation goals and leave existing lawfully installed structures alone.
Here's an example of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s concern. The photo below is of an endangered dock configuration. Currently, and for more than two decades, the configuration has been compliant with all regulations and the local lake association guidelines. However, because it stretches for 65 feet on a 100 foot shoreline, it would be prohibited under currently proposed D.N.R. regulations. The property owner would be forced to discard thousands of dollars of dock structure and would not be able to use his property to moor all of his watercraft, forcing him to pay for outside storage or sell the "excess" boats. There is no justification for this! The property owner was at all times in compliance with existing regulations when he supported the local economy and purchased the structures and the watercraft. The D.N.R. could, and should, easily focus its efforts on future lakeshore development to achieve its stated preservation goals and leave existing lawfully installed structures alone.
2 comments:
I like the photo. Can I park MY fishing boat between the big inner-tube and the dock and try catching some Bass? After all, it's MY lake too. I may not pay property taxes on the "upland", but I do pay my fair share of taxes to enjoy ALL of Minnesota's "public" resources.
As an attorney, can you tell me if I have the same "right of access & use" to the Township road in front of my "Roadland" property as you allege Shoreland owners have to "public waters"? If I do, I think I'll put a few speed bumps in front of my house to assert those rights.
Sam... if you really believe "in your heart" even half the crap you write for your clients, you have to be the Planet's biggest hippocrit.
Good luck trying to "sell" your bogus arguments to an Administrative Law Judge or the Courts.
The Mad Swede
madswede@frontiernet.net
Dear Mad:
Yes. You can join the other bass fishermen who enjoy the hot spot near the dock pictured. We have never taken the position that we have the right to interfere with access to the lake or with navigation.
No. You cannot put speed bumps in front of your house. That is a municipal function. Speak to your council representative and arrange for the improvements to the roadway.
Am I to assume from your tone that all the public waters should be restored to natural habitat and that no one should be allowed any longer to have private structures going into the water from their shoreline? If that's your position, just come out and say so. It would be interesting to see how many folks believe that to be a reasonable solution.
The issue is one of fundamental fairness. People who have lawfully accessed the public waters should be allowed to continue to do so. No one has identified any threat to the aquatic environment as a result of maintaining the status quo while taking a look at revising regulations for new development and new property owners.
You spelled "hypocrite" wrong.
Post a Comment