so I got this letter??? I need some oppinions about what to do with it. - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 10th, 2007, 10:31 AM   #1
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default so I got this letter??? I need some oppinions about what to do with it.

I have been sending out letters to reps and commitie member to support the up coming bill for the ORV open road shoulder thing. this is a letter I got ...tell me what you make of it?

Quote:
Dear Dana:

I have talked to Alma about your interest in Rep. Sheltrown's bill and she is going to talk to him about your suggestion to extend the bill to the whole state and see what he thinks. He may have to have (or already has had) some conversation with the insurance lobby and perhaps with the Highway Safety Research Institute to see what opposition efforts will arise to such an amendment. He may consider changing the bill to be too controversial and end in "killing" its chances. We'll see what he says.

You may want to keep in touch with Rep. Sheltrown's office to follow the progress of his bill through Committee as Alma's focus is going to be on the budget (she is on the Appropriations Committee and you've no doubt heard of the deficits we are facing in the state budget); she will not always be up-to-date on non-budget bills like this - unless it has come to the floor for a vote and then it will be on her "radar screen".

Sincerely,

Mary Sansbury, Legislative Aide



State Representative Alma Wheeler Smith
54th District
State Capitol
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
517.373.1771 (p)
517.373.5797 (f)



Howdy,
I am Dana Smith. I have to ask a Favor of my Reps. It would seem that there is to be legislation sentHowdy,
I am Dana Smith. I have to ask a Favor of my Reps. It would seem that there is to be legislation sent to the House in the next couple of weeks regarding ORVs on road shoulders and I would like your help. Rep Joel Sheltrown is working to improve ORV access to road shoulders for the purpose of accessing fuel & lodgings in the areas north of route 61 that crosses our state. I would like to ask you to help him and to improve what He intends to pass. I would like to ask if you would support stretching the reach of this bill to the whole State of Michgan. It would be useful to me as a avid rider of ATVs that we have access in the lowest corners of our State as well as the areas in the north. I can see many folks using their ATVs for doing more chores and being able to relax without the need of going 3 hours north just to ride when they can see who their neighbors are instead. I would also ask that you consider a bill to do away with the tort liability of ATVs & ORVs on private land so we can ask farmers and other property owners for access that they would other wise denie us due to accidents and mishaps that could get them sued. I feel its the riders responsiblity to look after themselves and property owners shouldn't be burdened with lawsuits.

Thanks For your efforts.
Dana Smith


__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 10th, 2007, 10:41 AM   #2
One Arm Steve
I was born in the desert
 
One Arm Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-20-05
Location: Harrison
Posts: 1,719
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I'm not sure I understand this right? The masses are asking to ride their ATVs on the shoulders of all roads in Michigan?
One Arm Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 10:46 AM   #3
mudd_jumper
Senior Member
 
mudd_jumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-20-05
Location: Macomb Twp,MI
Posts: 5,120
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

it sounds like a political blow off. She is on the budget commitie and is the ONLY thing she can handle. Now that is bull. She (her aid) wants you to follow up on it. I thought we elected them? well that is just my 2 cents
mudd_jumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 10:58 AM   #4
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

I am spinn'n wheels in my head trying to make heads or tails out of the response. the way I read it, it says if I poke at it I will die before it gets started. the second part about getting the insurance lobby involved tells me they don't support the bill. the Insurance lobby is why we don't have any access in the state as it is. they have deep pockets and fight to keep every penny. the thing that bugs the shit outt'a me is the fact it would improve the need for insurances on ORVs. the reasons being that the current law says ORVs are at fault in any road accident no matter what. you'd be a fool not to be insured as an operator on a road of any kind.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 11:04 AM   #5
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,454
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Well, if it was a bill for the complete state, I'm sure you can imagine how many cities would not want this.

Can you imagine seeing ATV's cruising around detroit?
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:04 PM   #6
Cooter
Dad Kickin' It OldSkool
 
Cooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-04-05
Location: Chi-caw-go
Posts: 4,504
iTrader: (16)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

You don't have them already?

In Chicago, we have so many it looks like a Rap Video sometimes. :tonka:
__________________
Michigan- The Only Great Lakes State South of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Cooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:05 PM   #7
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yetti View Post
"...I have been sending out letters to reps and commitie member to support the up coming bill for the ORV open road shoulder thing. this is a letter I got ...tell me what you make of it?..."
Tell me if I'm wrong....but isn't the most critical issue here one that should've been addressed before these side-of-the-road requests were ever introduced?

From the legislator's office:
"...He may have to have (or already has had) some conversation with the insurance lobby and perhaps with the Highway Safety Research Institute to see what opposition efforts will arise to such an amendment. He may consider changing the bill to be too controversial and end in "killing" its chances...."

Along with the polling of individual county road commissions as to what Innual extra COSTS these new rules would bring forward to each individual county (and who exactly would pay for them on a statewide basis).....why in the heck are we talking now about 'opposition' issues instead of before the first right-of-way in any county was pushed through?
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:10 PM   #8
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Well, if it was a bill for the complete state, I'm sure you can imagine how many cities would not want this.

Can you imagine seeing ATV's cruising around detroit?
I guess you guys don't have the whole story. the Bill is to correct the old one.the old was questioned by the Attorney general & assistant it because it does not define what a county can or can't do withen their own boarders when it comes to ORVs. the bill would just give the countys corrected guidelines to follow when opening road shoulders. it does not open the roads itself. I know of at least 7 countys waiting to see if the bill will pass.
if it passes "as is" then everything north of 61 would be legit to open without an ammendment to the bill.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:17 PM   #9
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
Tell me if I'm wrong....but isn't the most critical issue here one that should've been addressed before these side-of-the-road requests were ever introduced?

From the legislator's office:
"...He may have to have (or already has had) some conversation with the insurance lobby and perhaps with the Highway Safety Research Institute to see what opposition efforts will arise to such an amendment. He may consider changing the bill to be too controversial and end in "killing" its chances...."

Along with the polling of individual county road commissions as to what Innual extra COSTS these new rules would bring forward to each individual county (and who exactly would pay for them on a statewide basis).....why in the heck are we talking now about 'opposition' issues instead of before the first right-of-way in any county was pushed through?
lets see if I can clear some things up.
1. county road commisions DO NOT have the power to open or close roads as they see fit.
2. the county road commisions DO have to allow for uses withen the county as the county commisioner and chamber of commerce tells them to operate.
3. the county road shoulder were open prier to bill 451 being instated. this bill that is being pushed ahead would define guide line for opening road shoulders...thats it.

I already wrote back to the Aid about not pushing our luck and to just let it stand as is without questioning the whole state. I would be sick if it failed because we looked greedy at this point. I can wait to push for an ammendment at a later date.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:27 PM   #10
USMC 0369
Livin in Cal-tuckey
 
USMC 0369's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Location: Twentynine Palms, CA
Posts: 852
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yetti View Post
I already wrote back to the Aid about not pushing our luck and to just let it stand as is without questioning the whole state. I would be sick if it failed because we looked greedy at this point. I can wait to push for an ammendment at a later date.
I think this is your best course of action. Get some kind of momentum going and then a few months down the road, collect some successful statistics like revenue generated for insurance companies, number of riders that enjoy the privelidge etc... and then push for more based on the success of what has already been established. It's like how the eco-nazi's shut down public land only in reverse.
USMC 0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 12:49 PM   #11
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=Yetti;420780]"lets see if I can clear some things up.
1. county road commisions DO NOT have the power to open or close roads as they see fit.
2. the county road commisions DO have to allow for uses withen the county as the county commisioner and chamber of commerce tells them to operate.
3. the county road shoulder were open prier to bill 451 being instated. this bill that is being pushed ahead would define guide line for opening road shoulders...thats it...."


Ahhhh, but they do, my friend and I think that you're missing my point along with the most important part (IMO) of this proposal:

"...Under the proposed legislation, a county commission can open county road shoulders to ORVs or can allow a local municipality to make that decision. A county road commission would (also) have the authority to close a percentage of county roads to ORVs if the environment or public safety is seriously threatened...."

Did anybody in this Michigan orv community believe that a bill of this magnitude would simply pass right on through without any kind of significant 'out' on the controlling body's part?

You don't try to shove what is obviously going to be an unfunded mandate and obvious added financial burden down these commissioner's throats without at the very least working paralell with them in your fight with the DNR on an issue directly affecting the road commisssion statewide!

Furthermore, as I suggested above...you also don't start being concerned about the insurance lobby or the Highway Safety Research Institute AFTER you've told the public that the orv community has researched the overall impact of our proposal!

For pete's sake people...do you really believe that 'railroading' the very people possessing the power to shut all of this down at a later date will actually result in an effective long term solution to what we all desire?

Last edited by OneManBanned; February 10th, 2007 at 12:56 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 02:10 PM   #12
phittie1100
Senior Member
 
phittie1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-26-05
Location: Burton, MI
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

<<You don't try to shove what is obviously going to be an unfunded mandate and obvious added financial burden down these commissioner's throats without at the very least working paralell with them in your fight with the DNR on an issue directly affecting the road commisssion statewide!>>


I think you may have misread Yett's description of the legislation being discussed. The bill that was recently introduced does not require any county to do anything specific. It would give the authority back to the county (or clarify the county's authority, depending on how you view it) to determine if they will open the road shoulders of their county to ATV users. The road commissions for each county would only have to deal with it if their county passed an ordinance to allow this type of use.
__________________
Paul - 2005 Wrangler Unlimited
KD8PAV
phittie1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 02:54 PM   #13
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
Did anybody in this Michigan orv community believe that a bill of this magnitude would simply pass right on through without any kind of significant 'out' on the controlling body's part?

You don't try to shove what is obviously going to be an unfunded mandate and obvious added financial burden down these commissioner's throats without at the very least working paralell with them in your fight with the DNR on an issue directly affecting the road commisssion statewide!

Furthermore, as I suggested above...you also don't start being concerned about the insurance lobby or the Highway Safety Research Institute AFTER you've told the public that the orv community has researched the overall impact of our proposal!

For pete's sake people...do you really believe that 'railroading' the very people possessing the power to shut all of this down at a later date will actually result in an effective long term solution to what we all desire?
well from what I have seen so far the Governing body of this state has done little to improve the Recreation aspects of the intire state. so the majority of counties are doing there part, some open to tree huggers like yourself and the rest want to get money coming in. the money is with the people who work and pay for permits and taxes on the use of trails the ones who ride mountain bikes and horses on the trails don't have a Fee to use the trails other then to camp. the other side of the coin is that the DNR is run by many who would see the state shut down to all motorized travel. just the idea erks me. this state was founded on the ability of everyone to have equal oppertunities for work & recreation. some don't see it that way... I think they call them facists.

by the way in what way is the bill being "railroaded"? I have yet to see anyone backed into a corner by us or anyone else.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 04:08 PM   #14
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=phittie1100;420878]
"I think you may have misread Yett's description of the legislation being discussed. The bill that was recently introduced does not require any county to do anything specific...."

And I suppose that I'm not making myself clear either; as I'm pointing out that the counties affected by new impacts on their right aways do not have the 'option' of not doing anything when they are put in charge of maintaining these new paths.

"... It would give the authority back to the county (or clarify the county's authority, depending on how you view it) to determine if they will open the road shoulders of their county to ATV users..."

Again, I hate to quote the bill sponsor's website once again; yet the authority to open these roadsides is in fact the most insignificant authority in this whole process.

"....Under the proposed legislation, a county commission can open county road shoulders to ORVs or can allow a local municipality to make that decision. A county road commission would (also) have the authority to close a percentage of county roads to ORVs if the environment or public safety is seriously threatened...."

I can get my local county board member or commissioner to force my local road commission into doing a lot of things. (unfunded mandates being the major reason that many of our roads are in so much trouble now).
Yet when the road commission is given the power to evaluate any and all environmental impact concerning your 'side road' and close the damn thing down if you didn't even initially approach them with a responsible plan to help them come up with a way to fund/maintain these sloped trails in the first place?....you've just planted a big mine in the harbor before you've even had the chance to lift anchor and leave port.

Again, this is exactly the same scenario we had a few years ago when the cycle guys were pointing to the vast amount of "irreversibly damaged" trails that should be shut down for "study"....yet when the time came to suggest a fee increase from our approaching criminal and long held down $16.25 per year....these guys came up with LESS of a percentage coming out for actual maintenance of the system and 3 times the present amount going into "safety subsidies"!!!.

The above is an undeniable fact and frankly one that I believe we should be pretty damn ashamed of. The committee formed to supposedly give our DNR the community's opinion on the next much larger fee increase acts as if they are 'immune' form giving us even a simple 'progress report' at every meeting since they spirited this hugely important discussion away and out of public view.

And with the "22,000 member representative council' being just as secretive and in fact anonymous to this day....(exactly how many millions are on the line here with the unfrozen funds; huge fee increase; etc. etc.?) you can see why these guys attack all comers with a vengeance.

Last edited by OneManBanned; February 10th, 2007 at 04:32 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 04:21 PM   #15
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
I can get my local county board member or commissioner to force my local road commission into doing a lot of things. (unfunded mandates being the major reason that many of our roads are in so much trouble now).
I would like to know how you think this is unfunded? the sticker sales for the ORVs pays about 1/3 of its cost to inforcement. that can be optioned by any county that applies for monies to maintain itself, seems like you are not as well informed as you'd like to think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by onemanbanned View Post
Yet when the road commission is given the power to evaluate any and all environmental impact concerning your 'side road' and close the damn thing down if you didn't even initially approach them with a responsible plan to help them come up with a way to fund/maintain these sloped trails in the first place?....you've just planted a big mine in the harbor before you've even had the chance to lift anchor and leave port.
OMB you are not doing so well here, what was it you tried to say? I can't make it out.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 04:23 PM   #16
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

by the way OMB would you supply the websites you are quoting? I would like to have the same insite as you for future ref.
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM   #17
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=Yetti;420996]
"I would like to know how you think this is unfunded? the sticker sales for the ORVs pays about 1/3 of its cost to inforcement. that can be optioned by any county that applies for monies to maintain itself, seems like you are not as well informed as you'd like to think...."

Yetti, I have never accused you of being misinformed over the many years that I have had the pleasure of reading your posts. I may not understand how "the sticker sales for the ORVs pays about 1/3 of its cost to enforcement...." when the county has to APPLY FOR those same funds that may never come on environmental maintenance matters...yet when you launch into:

"...OMB you are not doing so well here, what was it you tried to say? I can't make it out...."

....I guess any chance for productive debate is pretty much over between the two of us, anyways.

If you can tell me where any of these topics are being or have been publicly debated for years now with literally tens of millions now on the line....I'd be a little more sympathetic to your case of sudden reading comprehension loss cited above (no offense, my friend...........I think). :)
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 05:41 PM   #18
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post
"...I may not understand how "the sticker sales for the ORVs pays about 1/3 of its cost to enforcement...." when the county has to APPLY FOR those same funds that may never come on environmental maintenance matters...yet...."
Try to think about it as addiing 750 miles of multi-county linkage trail; receiving a blank ticket to fight for huge fee increases (if one possesses the courage to) and most importantly a chance to include your fine northern neighborhoods in on a piece of that sweet funding pie you're about to serve up fresh to make "everybody" happy on this trail sytem.......

Last edited by OneManBanned; February 10th, 2007 at 06:00 PM.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 05:54 PM   #19
OneManBanned
Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Kzoo
Posts: 84
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I also find it interesting that you agree with robbing any further funding needed to create/maintain these huge roadside projects directly from the enforcement fund....a fund already 'swung at' earlier (along with maintenance money) when the 'orv community' suggested cutting their percentage of both these important aspects in 'our' last fee increase recommendation to the state.
OneManBanned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 06:13 PM   #20
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,384
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneManBanned View Post


"...OMB you are not doing so well here, what was it you tried to say? I can't make it out...."

....I guess any chance for productive debate is pretty much over between the two of us, anyways.

If you can tell me where any of these topics are being or have been publicly debated for years now with literally tens of millions now on the line....I'd be a little more sympathetic to your case of sudden reading comprehension loss cited above (no offense, my friend...........I think). :)
forgive me if I sounded like a snot. but the part I was refering to looked like 3 topics stuck in one sentence. I am and will be here to read all of this stuff since its my section to look after. by the way is this John?
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > 4x4 Land Use > Rules, Regulations, Trail, and ORV Park Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.52209 seconds with 81 queries