#New slogan for NH: "Live our way or die"
4043 Dead
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Merrimack+councilor+seeks+beach+ban&articleId=0828a898-0cc1-4642-9b3c-37412124be33
Merrimack councilor seeks beach ban
By JIM KOZUBEK
New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent
Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008
MERRIMACK – The town council this week will consider banning
out-of-towners from the beach at Wasserman Park.
Councilor David McCray said he will propose the ban at Thursday's
council meeting.
feb26 mccray 60px
MCCRAY
"It's time we kick the riffraff out of here," McCray said. "The most
beautiful resource we taxpayers have is Wasserman Park. I am not
ashamed to say this is ours. We pay the freight."
The McCray proposal follows last summer's controversy over posting
signs in Spanish at the beach.
Parks Department head Sherry Kalish and Merrimack police recommended
the signs after a series of disputes with Spanish-speaking people
related to breaking rules against horseplay and alcohol at the beach.
Town officials said rule-breakers often claim they cannot be held
accountable, because the 10 rules are posted only in English.
But the town council unanimously directed the town manager not to
install signs in any language other than English.
Town Councilors Finlay Rothhaus and Michael Malzone were the most
vocal opponents.
Rothhaus said English should be the only language in the park, because
a shared language contributes to national unity. Malzone said learning
English was a minimal responsibility any immigrant should accept.
At the time, McCray suggested the council let the controversy subside
and consider a vote in February to ban out-of-towners from the park.
?Request to have park rules in Spanish gets a cool reception from
councilors (71)
?Merrimack sign debate coming to head with council vote
?In Merrimack, English wins (27)
?English-only signs in Merrimack (45)
Rothhaus and Malzone said this week they were not convinced a ban on
out-of-towners was necessary; they are leaning toward charging
admission to out-of-towners.
There is currently no charge for park visitors.
But McCray, whose term is up in April, said banning out-of-towners is
one of the last things he hopes to accomplish. He said many town
residents are avoiding Wasserman Park beach in the summer because of
competition for space from out-of-towners. McCray said taxpayers
shouldn't be put in that position.
"This is completely politically correct," he said. "We should give the
townspeople their park back."
He said he knows of Merrimack residents who are paying to go to the
nearby Amherst town beach.
Amherst charges $90 for residents and $130 for non-residents for a
season pass, or $2 a person on a daily basis. There are no signs in
Spanish, parks director Nancy McMillan said.
Silver Lake State Park in Hollis draws up to 700 people on summertime
weekends; 50 to 75 percent of those visitors speak languages other
than English, parks official Steve Rand said.
Silver Lake charges $3 for adults and has had signs in Spanish since
the mid-1990s.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
free....@gmail.com
> http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Merrimack+councilor+...
> For essays (please contribute!)
> http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
>
> --
>
> What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
>
> An ex-Republican.
>
>
> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
It's a very small state and their beach is state property, not federal
and they have every right to protect it for their own citizens. It
would be like some other state holding legislative meetings in your
state capitol building.There is city property and county property and
you not check out books at the public city library ,if you
live in the county. You are not a city taxpayer.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Merrimack+councilor+seeks+beach+ban&articleId=0828a898-0cc1-4642-9b3c-37412124be33
>
>Merrimack councilor seeks beach ban
>
>By JIM KOZUBEK
>New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent
>Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008
>
>MERRIMACK – The town council this week will consider banning
>out-of-towners from the beach at Wasserman Park.
Good for them.. Hope it passes.
4033 Dead
Actually, any beach front has public access, and all state owned
(whether federal or state) must grant equal access to all. That is
the law.
Steve
>On Apr 22, 11:56 am, "free.tun...@gmail.com" <free.tun...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(FromYang, AthD (h.c)
>>
>> > "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>>
>> > Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>>
>> > Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>> > Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>> > For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
>> > For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>> > Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> > For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>> > Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
>> > a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>>
>> It's a very small state and their beach is state property, not federal
>> and they have every right to protect it for their own citizens. It
>> would be like some other state holding legislative meetings in your
>> state capitol building.There is city property and county property and
>> you not check out books at the public city library ,if you
>> live in the county. You are not a city taxpayer.
>
>It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
>have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
>access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
>something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
>to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free,
That's total Bullshit. It's done all the time. Here where I live in
Florida the State prohibits limiting the Beaches, so the local
government limits parking spaces.. There are parking places, even
entire parking lots, that require a local government issued sticker on
your car that only residents can get....
> if
>it's public property. If the city wants the beach to go private, then
>they should sell it. But as long as it's public, it's PUBLIC. If they
>really want to limit access, they should charge, like the other area
>beaches do. A little for residents, and more for non-residents. That
>would be a fair way.
>
>I agree that it should be up to the state whether or not to post the
>rules in something other than English, but it'll be hard to enforce
>laws if the people attending the beach don't understand them.
>
>And btw, your analogy is a bit faulty. Yes, a library can restrict
>book loans to people with library cards. But they can't restrict
>access to the library, and they can't forbid non-residents from
>walking into the library and reading the books.
As usual, Shook's legal knowledge is faulty even though he claims
<LOL> expertise...
A facility that is wholly funded by a local government has a perfect
right to limit the use of that facility to it's residents. as shown
below:
"three resident-only beach parking areas,"
http://www.tampabaybeaches.com/belleairBeach.php
..and here's municipal marina near me that limits permanent slip usage
to residents.
"only Dunedin residents may rent permanent slips"
http://www.dunedingov.com/home.aspx?page=departments/LeisureServices/Marina
Steve
wrote:
That's purely dependant on state laws not federal law. California
might have that law, in Florida it applies only to ocean or Gulf front
beaches...
Steve
A quick check reveals that Fatty Jamieson is even wrong in regards to
California beaches...
http://www.beachcalifornia.com/official-california-beach.html
"Some beaches are not readily accessible to the public--many are
privately owned. While laws generally support the concept that
California beaches should be made available to all, exceptions exist.
Private beaches in Avalon, on Vandenberg Base and along the Central
coast are but a few of the locations where you won't be welcome."
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT), "free.tun...@gmail.com"
>
> >> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> >> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> >> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> >> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> >> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> >> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> >> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> >> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> >> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
> >It's a very small state and their beach is state property, not federal
> >and they have every right to protect it for their own citizens. It
> >would be like some other state holding legislative meetings in your
> >state capitol building.There is city property and county property and
> >you not check out books at the public city library ,if you
> >live in the county. You are not a city taxpayer.
>
> Actually, any beach front has public access, and all state owned
> (whether federal or state) must grant equal access to all. That is
> the law.
Exactly. Most states, including California and Florida, has specific
rules regarding which parts of the beach are public and private. In
both California and Florida (and many others), all sand that is ever
wet is considered public and no one can deny access to it. In most
areas, the owners if beachfront private property are given some
property rights to a portion of the beach in front of their property,
but that's limited. Some land adjacent to that is privately owned, and
access can be limited by forcing people to park really far away, and
limiting the number of access ways, but if anyone wanted to fight
these, it would actually be quite easy, because the laws in most
states forbid multiple landowners from banding together to deny access
to other properties, or to deny the public access to public property.
It's why the state almost always owns a variance on a 8-10-foot wide
swath along one or two edges of your property.
Of course the beach in question is a public beach, and the most a town
might do is to start charging for parking and offer residents a free
parking pass. but they can't ban anyone. Period.
Steve
Bullshit, as I've already proven.
Here's more proof that shows how ignorant Milly Shook is of th law...
"Some beaches are open to the public without restriction, while others
are reserved for residents and summer visitors who are staying in the
towns where the beaches are located"
http://www.mvol.com/beaches/
Lucy Vincent Beach: Chilmark section of South Shore. A residents
only beach with a heavy surf.
http://www.capecodweb.com/capeinfo/beachesis.htm
Squibnocket Beach: Chilmark section of South Shore. A residents
only beach with a heavy surf.
http://www.capecodweb.com/capeinfo/beachesis.htm
" The public beach is for residents only and is periodically checked
by local police."
http://www.keenenh.com/seasonal/summer/swimming.asp
--
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19, Kurt Lochner wrote "You keep
avoiding the obvious about your on-line personae"
On Sat. 19 Apr 2008, Stevencanyon wrote: "Go ahead, Licky,
tell everyone what you think you know about me"
<cricket wav>
--Sollog....
Kevin Cunningham
> On Apr 22, 11:56 am, "free.tun...@gmail.com" <free.tun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> > > Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> > > Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> > > Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> > > For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> > > For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> > > Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > > For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> > > Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > > a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
> > It's a very small state and their beach is state property, not federal
> > and they have every right to protect it for their own citizens. It
> > would be like some other state holding legislative meetings in your
> > state capitol building.There is city property and county property and
> > you not check out books at the public city library ,if you
> > live in the county. You are not a city taxpayer.
>
> have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
> access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
> something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
> it's public property. If the city wants the beach to go private, then
> they should sell it. But as long as it's public, it's PUBLIC. If they
> really want to limit access, they should charge, like the other area
> beaches do. A little for residents, and more for non-residents. That
> would be a fair way.
>
> I agree that it should be up to the state whether or not to post the
> rules in something other than English, but it'll be hard to enforce
> laws if the people attending the beach don't understand them.
>
> And btw, your analogy is a bit faulty. Yes, a library can restrict
> book loans to people with library cards. But they can't restrict
> access to the library, and they can't forbid non-residents from
> walking into the library and reading the books.
Try parking in a restricted parking area.
A state can manage their property as any other property owner manages
theirs. They can't discriminate but they can restrict access.
Steve
Right! See below:
A facility that is wholly funded by a local government
has a perfect right to limit the use of that facility to it's
residents. as shown below:
"three resident-only beach parking areas,"
http://www.tampabaybeaches.com/belleairBeach.php
Canyon Note2: and here's municipal marina near me that limits
permanent slip usage to residents.
"only Dunedin residents may rent permanent slips"
http://www.dunedingov.com/home.aspx?page=departments/LeisureServices/Marina
"Some beaches are open to the public without restriction, while others
milt....@gmail.com
That's what I said. They can issue permits, or increase parking fees,
or give residents and visitors built-in advantages.
What they CANNOT do is "ban" anyone.
Steve
Yes they can
"It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free, if
it's public property."
--Milt Shook.. more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/83e117a21b818c9b
"Actually, any beach front has public access, and all state owned
(whether federal or state) must grant equal access to all. That is
the law."
David (Zepp) Jamieson more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/6956aa0300e311c9
Canyon Note: A facility that is wholly funded by a local government
David Moffitt
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:3bds04hs3jt4baj2p...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:42:06 -0700, 4033 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com>
| wrote:
|
| >On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT), "free....@gmail.com"
| ><free....@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| >>On Apr 22, 9:18 am, 4043 Dead <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >>>
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Merrimack+councilor+...
| >>>
| >>> Merrimack councilor seeks beach ban
| >>>
| >>> By JIM KOZUBEK
| >>> New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent
| >>> Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008
| >>>
%%%% zippy is unaware that Canadian law don't apply in the US.
What do you call a Republican with a conscience? You call him a Republican.
What do you call a Republican without a conscience? You call him a liberal!
.
David Moffitt
and following close in Peanut's foot steps:
http://home.earthlink.net/~unimatrix07/obama2.gif
and not far behind:
http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/glennmccoy082907.jpg
"Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it,
malice may destroy it, but there it is." - Winston Churchill
Steve
Notice how both Zepp and Shook bailed out of this thread as soon as I
proved them wrong....
onerous mistakes as their assertions that everybody must be treated
the same in regards to pubic property is a reflection of these fools
living in the imaginary world they create for themselves... In the
world of the not_too_bright leftist, other people are never allowed to
have anything that they themselves cannot or do not have....
star...@yahoo.com
Why not throw all the outsiders out of your municipality altogether,
then??
Mike
Steve
Sound fine to me, however, there are some limitations as to how far
the local governments can go... for instance, streets, roads, and
other local facilities that were funded in part by non-local tax
monies generally must admit nonresidents