manotickmike Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Sorry 'bout the format, but worth a listen. This may not concern you now, but it should. https://www.instagram.com/tv/B76UpXshkk-/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&fbclid=IwAR3-oyWQ64HdwSO8tTdlelxArjG2u4I0RtBeIIGsXV_-bzlBdCjFc1m1czc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
signfan Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Not much detail there. What does the clause say that council wants put back in place? There is two sides to every story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manotickmike Posted January 30, 2020 Author Share Posted January 30, 2020 Key here from a local perspective, the agreement was changed, presented as unchanged, landowners found the change, and pulled the plug. Nobody was notified in advance, and OFSC expected the trusted club reps to present the altered agreement, and nothing would change. Transparency would dictate the changes be presented for discussion, in time for a resolution, and before a lot of people bought trail passes under false pretenses. When the language of the agreement was altered. Did I miss anything? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tricky Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, manotickmike said: Key here from a local perspective, the agreement was changed, presented as unchanged, landowners found the change, and pulled the plug. Nobody was notified in advance, and OFSC expected the trusted club reps to present the altered agreement, and nothing would change. Transparency would dictate the changes be presented for discussion, in time for a resolution, and before a lot of people bought trail passes under false pretenses. When the language of the agreement was altered. Did I miss anything? No you did not, and that is why this is such a mess. A mess that cannot be laid at the feet of local clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, manotickmike said: Key here from a local perspective, the agreement was changed, presented as unchanged, landowners found the change, and pulled the plug. Nobody was notified in advance, and OFSC expected the trusted club reps to present the altered agreement, and nothing would change. Transparency would dictate the changes be presented for discussion, in time for a resolution, and before a lot of people bought trail passes under false pretenses. When the language of the agreement was altered. Did I miss anything? Sounds like that's what has happened. O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manotickmike Posted January 30, 2020 Author Share Posted January 30, 2020 Well, petitions are rolling, reps who spoke up last week are all hiding. Wonder when the lawyers will begin circling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispy Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Who authored the changes? Who ALL within OFSC knew about these changes and when? Edited January 31, 2020 by crispy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoonerBP Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 11:47 PM, tricky said: No you did not, and that is why this is such a mess. A mess that cannot be laid at the feet of local clubs. Local clubs have always been the point of contact with landowners and unfortunately in some cases agreements were signed that exposed the clubs and districts to extreme liability for the sake of maintaining a trail corridor. in the past this was not as big a concern but with the frequency and extreme amounts of-lawsuits it is not worth the risk personally to club executives to potentially lose everything they own. So in reality this is blame that should be laid at the feet of the clubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTC Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 The blame goes to the people that sue, they need to take responsibility for their own actions, our trails are getting busy and Ive already seen a few spots where someone has missed a corner. For no reason, lay off the throttle and drive to what you see 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, GTC said: The blame goes to the people that sue, they need to take responsibility for their own actions, our trails are getting busy and Ive already seen a few spots where someone has missed a corner. For no reason, lay off the throttle and drive to what you see There is no issue in this current fiasco with sledders that want to sue the club/landowner/ OFSC. That type of event was and is still covered under the land use agreement by the OFSC insurance. The problem is when a non-sledder multi use trail user sues. The OFSC doesn't want to be involved in that nor should they be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTC Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 I understand that, its the whole sue sue society that has us in the state we are in with risk management and insurance, nobody takes responsibility for their own bad decisions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.