Well, I've come to realize you've been in this game a lot longer than I have, and seen a lot of this already. Experience certainly has its value.
I've heard some tales of the issues of H&H, and I know better than just believing one side of a story. And of course, the offroad community is easy to get riled up, and a call-to-arms is a quick, easy way to do that. But, at the end of the day, regardless of the underlying issues that may have led to this point, I still don't want the park to close. Even though I haven't been there in over a year, and I'm willing to put my name on a petition if it would help. The actual text of the ordinance seems frustratingly vague in places, but deliberately focused in others. Mentions of noise and light could easily affect other venues and activities. The big one people are pointing out on Facebook are the high school sporting events, along with fair activities, other festivals, etc. Those are the vague ones. Items regarding dust and mud on highways seem to be pretty clearly focused. The trailering requirement is a killer for me, at least for the moment. It's almost like they pulled the rule book from Henry Co. Hmm...
But I understand the concerns. I've been there when you couldn't see pavement for a distance from their entrance. I especially like the part where they require them to enforce their alcohol policy.
The more I think about it, other than the towing aspect, there's not much in this I don't actually agree with. They already abide by these hours. They could solve the dirt problem with a wash station...
I'll buy the slipper-slope argument, but at the moment, it really just looks like an effort to get them to keep the road clean, and their patrons sober.
Eh, screw it, I'll still support the effort on principle, but I hope this could lead to a compromise somewhere down the road.
A lot of Counties have rules that regulate everything from Restaurants to construction sites. These rules are not intended to put the business out of business, but an attempt to reach a common ground that everyone (on both sides of the issue) can live with. Do these rules cost the business time & money? Sure they do, but what choice do they have but to work within the rules? and doing what you can do within the system to keep rules fair. Going nose to nose with the Government hasn't proven to be successful in the past. Example, Hillz & Hollarz, the Extreme OHV Park in Northern KY a few years back, and Tellico. Given time, I could probably come up with a few more examples that I cannot think of at this moment.
I'll agree to that, and after the initial reaction has died down, I'm pretty much okay with everything the ordinance is asking for, except maybe the trailering issue. Everything else seems logical.
Now, presenting this for a vote without notifying the places it will affect, seems a little underhanded, but...
Mud Madness had the same issue and discussions about trailering OHV in and out of the Park. They worked with the County and came up with a solution that seems to be agreeable for everyone involved. I don't see why DTOR can't do the same.
I agree. I just posted this on their note, but I suspect it will either be ignored, or I'm going to catch all kinds of crap. Probably going to be somebody accusing me of being one of the neighbors. Everyone reading the note is still in the "tar and feather them" mode.
"So, at first glance, I reacted the same way as most everyone here. But after going through and reading the whole thing, I'm starting to have different thoughts. They might be unpopular, but if you're reading this, please hear me out.
First, I understand there is tension between DTOR and neighbors, and those said neighbors may indeed want the park shut down. I support DTOR, will sign the petition, and have personally spread the word through my means. HOWEVER, after reading through the text of the proposed ordinance, I don't actually see anything that would "shut down" DTOR. If I'm missing it, please point it out to me. I see parts that would require them to install new equipment (wash station), but weren't improvements like that the given reason for the admission increase last year?
Summarizing the ordinance, here's what I came up with:
• 2A- Not open before 8AM, or after 9PM
o Already covered in park hours
• 2B- No lights that shine 250 ft beyond boundaries before 8AM, or after 9PM
o This would limit night rides, but since the bulk of those are done down in the trails, this could possibly be covered by limiting lighting when in the parking areas (?)
• 2C- No dust can escape property
o Sort of hard to enforce and a little arbitrary. They won’t be enforcing this to farms, which are also businesses. But during really dry periods, they could water the exit road?
• 2D- No vehicles that deposit mud/dirt on public roadways OR provision to clean vehicles before
o It’s a hassle, but I understand the reasoning, and I’m sure it would be gladly received by the neighbors on that road. A wash station (couple hoses and an angled concrete pad) could easily be installed to conform to this provision.
• 2E- Mandatory trailering
o This one is BS. This means no stock rigs or daily drivers, and would definitely cut into DTOR’s business. Technically, this would not even allow for an ATV to be brought in on a truck bed.
• 3- No drugs or alcohol
o Park rules already say no drugs or alcohol, but this would force them to enforce those rules or pay (large) fines. This would probably be hard to enforce, and might cut back on some attendance, but it would be a welcome change for some.
Again, I support DTOR, and I'll continue to, but I'm not seeing the part where it will shut the park down. I see some loopholes they might have to jump through, and some upgrade they'd have to invest in, but for the most part (except the mandatory trailer thing) they seem like somewhat reasonable items where DTOR and the county could possibly find a compromise. I still oppose this ordinance as written, but I'm just saying maybe there's some room for compromise so all parties can be happy."