Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
manotickmike

Well, here it is.

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much detail there.  What does the clause say that council wants put back in place? There is two sides to every story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, petitions are rolling, reps who spoke up last week are all hiding.

Wonder when the lawyers will begin circling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who authored the changes? Who ALL within OFSC knew about these changes and when?

Edited by crispy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...