Quote:
Originally Posted by derf
the only problem with that statement is that anything less than what they have gotten now will be taken to court ...
imho , the 'settlement ' should have been rejected ..
yea , the beach would have been closed , but; we would have have not comprised again !! everytime there is a compromise we loose !!
|
Derf, I am with you 100%. By compromising the way they did they gave those people ALL the negotiating power going into RegNeg. If they don't like what the pro access people are putting forth then all they need to do is stall until the mandated deadline approaches. In addition they now set a precedent for closing those stretches of the beach and a precedent for no night time access
. They lost no money on this deal since the NPS agreed to pay their legal fees. It is just a bad deal all around. If people look long term on this they would have rejected it and told the judge to close the beaches until reg neg is complete. That way those groups had much less negotiating power. They really sold the farm on this one. The only reason I can see to do what they did was to create a situation where the local businesses had a shot at staying in business.
I really think a counter suit needs to be done challenging the legality of a private entity to privately negotiate the policies of our public lands...but I am no lawyer.
Ughh evertime I think of this it get me steamed.
Threaded Mode