Duh, I'm the last guy who would turn liberal, but I think there is a solution beyond what has been offered.<quoted text>
Who is going to pay for all the insurance policies for all the bordering properties that the complaints are coming from Larry? I'm sure you meant to say that the "bordering residents will look unfriendly to families" for demanding action from the supervisors, or legal action could ensue.
Larry, are you willing to pay for that shiny new liability policy that only a few sledding families that are close enough (1/2 mile)to the municipal building will be protected by? Ya know, because you said "but I doubt there will be many users that walk much further than a half-mile or so", so your new tax for sledding liability is just for the sledders within a half mile of the hill.
Thanks for spending our tax dollars for a few entitled people Larry, how liberal of you.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Evening Sun.
#41 Jan 14, 2010
#42 Jan 14, 2010
Feel free to offer a solution that does not risk township nor private liability, or at least covers them fully, and does not use taxes or draw from a fund, that was not intended for municipal building rec use. WMT is all ears Larry, fire away!
#43 Jan 15, 2010
Two questions: What makes you think that the township is interested in the opinions of their residents, all of a sudden? Did you ever try thinking outside the box?
#44 Jan 15, 2010
There is a "public comments" portion of every township meeting where the Supervisors listen to the public, along with accepting public commentary on nearly every issue brought to vote, as they are discussed. The Supervisors have commented on these forums in the past, which shows they read them. Thinking "outside the box" of legalities and liability is exactly what residents don't want, and what they would complain about if their tax dollars or actual, rights were left unprotected.
There is only one solution here in reference to sledding, ban it on the municipal building hill. You will get vociferous complaints from no more than 5-10 entitled citizens who believe "the hill belongs to the tax payers, to use as we please", and they will be fodder for another story the paper writes from the angle of "supervisors take away sledding rights", instead of an accurate headline like "supervisors settle dispute between residents and protect liabilities and wasted/unauthorized taxes".
In order for the supervisors to allow sledding to continue, safeguards will have to be in place, this would most likely be in the form of a barrier close to the base of the hills, and liability insurance for people who have now been "invited to sled on the hill", in case they are injured on the barriers, if they somehow damage private property while sledding the hills, or trespass beyond the Municipal slopes.
Ignoring ANY valid side of this residential debate would be irresponsible, but that does not mean the outcome won't bother a group of residents, but they don't have a supervisors handbook that they are being held legally accountable to either. If the Supervisors do not use the legal means, within their powers to safeguard health and finances of the Township, they can be charged with an offense.
Add your comments below
|Suit prompts Boyce to close sledding hill (Jan '09)||Feb '14||End of an Era||11|
|Boob Sledding Through the Arctic (Feb '13)||Apr '13||michellepain||47|
|Storm packs 1-2 punch of snow, slush (Feb '08)||Feb '11||America Gentleman...||7|
|Letters to santa (Jan '11)||Jan '11||cartier||5|
|Bay Shore to host a winter festival (Dec '08)||Dec '10||We r all Immigrants||25|
|Local woman gets the key to her dream (Dec '07)||Nov '10||Angela Levy||5|
|No pain, no gain for father son sledders (Mar '10)||Mar '10||North America||1|
Find what you want!
Search Sledding Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC