Crowdog
06-17-2005, 08:08 AM
New ATV rules tough to enforce
Obviously, there is a market for a local commercial ATV and dirt bike track.
Friday, June 17, 2005
The struggle between those who enjoy off-road motorsports and those who happen to live next door to them provides an object lesson on relations in modern America.
Those who ride ATVs and dirt bikes say they have a right to enjoy their sport and that those who complain about it are infringing upon their pursuit of happiness. Those who live nearby and have to put up with the dust and noise argue that the off-roaders infringe upon their rights to enjoy their own properties in peace.
And there appears to be no middle ground.
Of course, that's where local government comes in — as arbiter of the middle ground.
And, at least in the case of Windsor Township, that middle ground is pretty shaky.
The township, faced with a neighborly dispute, legislated the problem and in the course of doing so, created a whole bunch of other problems.
The ordinance restricts off-road riding to between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. Riders must remain 250 feet from property lines or 300 feet from another dwelling. But if riders can't meet those requirements, they must remain 100 feet from a property line and only ride for half an hour at a time. They must take a three-hour break between half-hour sessions and only two recreational vehicles can be ridden at the same time. :shaking:
Talk about micromanaging a problem. First, how will the 250-foot and 300-foot restrictions be enforced? Will it require enforcement agents — whether they be police or township code enforcement officers — to break out the extra-large tape measure whenever they respond to an ATV complaint? How will the half-hour time limit be policed? And the three-hour break? Are residents going to have to time riders and breaks? What if a neighbor starts riding two hours and 59 minutes after the last half-hour session? Do these restrictions apply to construction crews who use them to haul materials?
It's a well-meaning law that appears to be nearly impossible to enforce.
Take, for example, the dispute between Dennis Bartnik and his neighbor, Keith Sechrist — a yearlong battle that prompted the township supervisors to address the topic. Mr. Bartnik and his sons enjoy riding dirt bikes, much to the dismay of Mr. Sechrist, who says their hobby is a nuisance. After the township passed the ordinance, Mr. Sechrist said if his neighbor abides by the law, he won't have any problems. Mr. Bartnik, for his part, is defiant, saying the rule is unfair and that he and his boys aren't going to change.
A couple of things could resolve this.
For one thing, whatever happened to people being reasonable and considerate? Why couldn't Mr. Bartnik and Mr. Sechrist work out their problem without local government involvement? Couldn't a neighborly compromise be reached?
Apparently not.
The other solution would be for Mr. Bartnik and his boys to take their hobby elsewhere. But where? The closest public park that permits ATVs is Micheaux State Forest in Adams and Cumberland counties. Permitting ATVs in local parks might not work, for a variety of safety and quality-of-life reasons.
The opportunity exists for an entrepreneurial landowner to establish a commercial riding park. Maybe some farmer could turn his land into a business, in the mold of local corn mazes. Such an establishment would have to meet local zoning laws and could be regulated to minimize the impact on the surrounding community.
The nuclear option — to steal a phrase that's been in the news — would be for the state Legislature to take up the issue and pass statewide regulations governing off-road activities. If you think Windsor Township's ordinance is ridiculous, just imagine what our state legislators — influenced by lobbyists and campaign contributions — could possibly come up with.
There is a middle ground to be reached here. If neighbors can't find it, someone else will try. And it's not exactly a bold prediction to say in that case, nobody's going to be happy.
:rolleyes:
Obviously, there is a market for a local commercial ATV and dirt bike track.
Friday, June 17, 2005
The struggle between those who enjoy off-road motorsports and those who happen to live next door to them provides an object lesson on relations in modern America.
Those who ride ATVs and dirt bikes say they have a right to enjoy their sport and that those who complain about it are infringing upon their pursuit of happiness. Those who live nearby and have to put up with the dust and noise argue that the off-roaders infringe upon their rights to enjoy their own properties in peace.
And there appears to be no middle ground.
Of course, that's where local government comes in — as arbiter of the middle ground.
And, at least in the case of Windsor Township, that middle ground is pretty shaky.
The township, faced with a neighborly dispute, legislated the problem and in the course of doing so, created a whole bunch of other problems.
The ordinance restricts off-road riding to between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. Riders must remain 250 feet from property lines or 300 feet from another dwelling. But if riders can't meet those requirements, they must remain 100 feet from a property line and only ride for half an hour at a time. They must take a three-hour break between half-hour sessions and only two recreational vehicles can be ridden at the same time. :shaking:
Talk about micromanaging a problem. First, how will the 250-foot and 300-foot restrictions be enforced? Will it require enforcement agents — whether they be police or township code enforcement officers — to break out the extra-large tape measure whenever they respond to an ATV complaint? How will the half-hour time limit be policed? And the three-hour break? Are residents going to have to time riders and breaks? What if a neighbor starts riding two hours and 59 minutes after the last half-hour session? Do these restrictions apply to construction crews who use them to haul materials?
It's a well-meaning law that appears to be nearly impossible to enforce.
Take, for example, the dispute between Dennis Bartnik and his neighbor, Keith Sechrist — a yearlong battle that prompted the township supervisors to address the topic. Mr. Bartnik and his sons enjoy riding dirt bikes, much to the dismay of Mr. Sechrist, who says their hobby is a nuisance. After the township passed the ordinance, Mr. Sechrist said if his neighbor abides by the law, he won't have any problems. Mr. Bartnik, for his part, is defiant, saying the rule is unfair and that he and his boys aren't going to change.
A couple of things could resolve this.
For one thing, whatever happened to people being reasonable and considerate? Why couldn't Mr. Bartnik and Mr. Sechrist work out their problem without local government involvement? Couldn't a neighborly compromise be reached?
Apparently not.
The other solution would be for Mr. Bartnik and his boys to take their hobby elsewhere. But where? The closest public park that permits ATVs is Micheaux State Forest in Adams and Cumberland counties. Permitting ATVs in local parks might not work, for a variety of safety and quality-of-life reasons.
The opportunity exists for an entrepreneurial landowner to establish a commercial riding park. Maybe some farmer could turn his land into a business, in the mold of local corn mazes. Such an establishment would have to meet local zoning laws and could be regulated to minimize the impact on the surrounding community.
The nuclear option — to steal a phrase that's been in the news — would be for the state Legislature to take up the issue and pass statewide regulations governing off-road activities. If you think Windsor Township's ordinance is ridiculous, just imagine what our state legislators — influenced by lobbyists and campaign contributions — could possibly come up with.
There is a middle ground to be reached here. If neighbors can't find it, someone else will try. And it's not exactly a bold prediction to say in that case, nobody's going to be happy.
:rolleyes: