“Noisy hoards of fossil fueled machines that speed down a public beach … .”
First, I believe it was the safety of the children: Off-road vehicles were endangering children who were at the beach.
Next, it was the number of people killed at the Dunes, one or two per year—people needed to be stopped from harming themselves in the pursuit of their chosen form of recreation.
Then it was the people who were out there filming for Nell and her very small coalition, documenting the “atrocities” committed by the off-roaders, leaving tire tracks, spinning donuts on the beach, driving across the river crossing, and, worst of all, having fun.
After that, it was mention of the drinking and partying that goes on out there, and how it endangered the community, and was bringing in gang types, and, oh yeah, that Portuguese festival every year was probably pissing her off, too.
Now, it’s sand in the air.
Damn, Nell, we certainly seem to be pissing you off. We don’t do it to intentionally upset you, but you sure seem to take it personal. You keep reaching, and reaching, something new a couple of times a year, something else to jump on the bandwagon about. It apparently is your life’s mission to try to stop the recreational riding out at the Dunes.
That first line above was taken from your letter in New Times (Supervisors must reduce dunes pollution,” March 11). “Noisy hoards of fossil fueled machines … .” Do you drive a car, Nell, or do you take public transportation? If you do, more power to you. If you don’t, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
I suppose that you are going to keep it up. But the estimated $150 million per year that comes into this area is hard to argue with. Maybe you should get some sort of hobby to occupy your time, and this wouldn’t bother you so much. Good luck, Nell.
This article appears in Apr 22-29, 2010.