02-23-2010, 09:15 PM
FYI, I spent a half hour on the phone yesterday with my representative talking about the two bills and related issues. He seemed to think that one of the two bills would pass.
Two key points were mentioned. First, that the land owners are paying property taxes on the property under the waterways. It seems unfair to the landowners to be paying taxes on so called "public waterway." We both agreed that needs to be changed.
Second, according to the attorneys he has talked to, the Conaster ruling only referred to code and not directly to the state constitution. That seems to lessen the credibility of the court decision in the eyes of the legal eagles and law makers.
There was also concern about the "trash" issue. I agreed that is a concern among many sportsmen as well.
Also, many opponents to the court ruling are playing this up as a few "wealthy elitists" trying to take care of their own interests. In my mind, that is rediculous on many levels.
[signature]
Two key points were mentioned. First, that the land owners are paying property taxes on the property under the waterways. It seems unfair to the landowners to be paying taxes on so called "public waterway." We both agreed that needs to be changed.
Second, according to the attorneys he has talked to, the Conaster ruling only referred to code and not directly to the state constitution. That seems to lessen the credibility of the court decision in the eyes of the legal eagles and law makers.
There was also concern about the "trash" issue. I agreed that is a concern among many sportsmen as well.
Also, many opponents to the court ruling are playing this up as a few "wealthy elitists" trying to take care of their own interests. In my mind, that is rediculous on many levels.
[signature]