Access to the water will be increasingly challenging

I drive nearly every day past a good example of this phenomenon. An area once occupied by the physically largest recreationally oriented boatyard on Seattle's Lake Union is being developed for condominiums. To skirt City of Seattle requirements that any waterfront developments must be related to water-oriented activities, a very small dock has been built as part of the project. It would seem unlikely that there will be any public access to this dock, as none of the new owners of the $half million and up, up, up waterfront condominiums will want strangers coming ashore in their front yard. Most likely the moorage will be sold to the condo residents.

Anyway, press release follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press Contact: Scott Croft, 703-461-2864, SCroft@BoatUS.com Date: January 15, 2007

TIME RUNNING OUT TO ENTER BOATU.S. RECREATIONAL BOATING ACCESS AWARD

Declining Water Access Threatens Boating

As waterfront land values skyrocket and condominiums sprout on nearly every acre of waterfront property, recreational boaters are losing more and more access to the water with every passing day. To spotlight the problem and to recognize those who are helping turn the tide, BoatU.S. has launched a national Recreational Boating Access Award. But time is running out - the deadline to enter is February 1, 2007.

The BoatU.S. Recreational Boating Access Award will honor an individual, group, government body, business or non-profit organization that has succeeded in preserving or improving public waterway access. Judges will look at four criteria: 1.) the challenges faced in retaining or increasing access in an area; 2.) the direct impact or measurable results of the solution; 3.) the level of success in increasing awareness of the issue in a community; 4.) and "repeatability," the ability to take the successful approach and adopt it in other areas.

Examples of solutions could include creative public/private partnerships, changes in land use planning or permitting processes, tax incentives, legislation or public ballots, publicity or public education. Eligible activities include those undertaken in the last three years.

Winners will be announced at the Working Waterways and Waterfronts - A National Symposium on Water Access to be held in Norfolk, VA May 9-11, 2007. For more information, go to http://www.BoatUS.com/gov/AccessAward

But I have to agree that it's getting harder for anyone but the well healed to get to places like this.

Capt Jack R..

http://www.mcall.com/business/realestate/all-brineybreezesjan14,0,7517634.story?coll=all-businessrealestate-hed

Another example: Our previous town supervisor was making noise about building a 200 slip marina on Irondequoit Bay to serve what he called "transients from Canada". The newly elected supervisor has continued to support the idea. This sounded like the now-defunct fast ferry, which the city of Rochester lost millions on. It was supposed to transport millions of Canadians who were dying to eat at our world class restaurants - both of them. It failed in a year. Anyway, I stopped at the town hall to ask about the business plan for this marina. A public works robot told me the Army Corps of Engineers was handling that aspect. I said "No..I mean the business plan. Where are the numbers indicating that there are so many boaters looking for a marina at this location?" The guy gave me a blank look and repeated his comment about the ACOE. So, I went home and called their Buffalo office. The woman I spoke with said "We may look at traffic levels to determine if the engineering is done right, but we don't get involved with the actual business model". OK. I'll be meeting with the supervisor in two weeks. This should be interesting. I really need to know how they cook up these ideas.

Here in the Soviet of Washington, The People already own most of the land beyond the high tide or high water line. The property is administered by the Department of Natural Resources, or DNR. A lot of good it does us to "own" this, however. Ownership doesn't equate to access. Because The People of the State of Washington own the land, owners of adjacent properties- (marinas, fuel docks, boat yards, private residents, yacht clubs, restaurants, etc) get to "lease" the ground under the water from the DNR. Obviously there are no competitors in the game of leasing out the ground into which your pilings have been driven, so the rates are whatever the state thinks traffic will bear. And the state thinks the traffic will bear a lot! These perpetually increasing costs for DNR "leases" make property taxes look like a bargain, and the costs are passed along to the boating public or absorbed by the business owner until they are driven under by the expense.

Land use policy makers would do well to recognize the significant contribution to local economies provided by recreational boaters. What other group spends so much, while expecting so little in return? :-)

Public ownership is nice, but all the parks, easements, and so forth aren't of much value to boaters unless boating is included in the activities envisioned on the public properties and reasonable access is assured.

But then again.....

I realize that money talks. and BIG money screams.

Just on the news last week, a really nice coast line trailer park (and I do mean NICE) In FLA. was offered HUGE money to sell to developers. They voted to do so, where each household was going to walk away with about a million USD each.

Kind of hard to pass up, but in the long run, it seems like the tax base will rise, and the shorline beauty and accessability will erode.

just an opinion.

Bill Kearney wrote:

You mean like they did in New London where they took an entire neighborhood by Eminent Domain to sell to a private developer? Or like what's happening in New York City where they are attempting to take an entire city block worth billions by Eminent Domain?

Yep - that's the way to go.

One challenge that all boaters face when it comes to political candidates is that there aren't enough of us anywhere to carry much local clout. When it comes to the sheer number of votes we can deliver at the ballot box we usually lose out to environmentalists, preservationists, or a general public that doesn't agree that facilities for boaters are consistent with the concept of "public" access. That's not the worst argument in the world, either- "Why should we have to be wealthy enough to own a boat in order to enjoy the public shorelines?"

When it comes to the number of dollars we can pump into an expensive political campaign in order to call in favors after the election is over, we usually lose out to corporate real estate developers.

I would suppose that if easy solutions were readily apparent there would be no need for the sponsoring organization to pass out awards to the best ideas offered, wouldn't you? :-)

It's a tricky balancing act. There are private property rights on one side of the question. Why should Joe Doaks forego a $50-million sale of the real estate upon which his boatyard happens to sit, simply to continue operating a business where he might be lucky to net $150,000 a year? From one perspective its unfair to Doaks to tell him that he *must* provide services to boaters, yet it certainly impacts a lot of people in the community when such services become no longer available or the complete lack of competition in an area allows the remaining vendors to price their services artificially high.

This is a very complex issue when all sides are considered.

National ain't gonna get it done.

It has to be local first with help from national organizations.

When the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers pursued the Freedom to Fish Act, they started local, then looked for help from the national organizations like the Recreational Fishing Alliance and IGA who contributed experts and some money.

It worked as it got passed.Thinking locally is always the best.

Making beaches inaccessible to the public is inappropriate. We share a small forest with other property owners in our area. The forest goes right to cliffs on Chesapeake Bay. There's no beach unless you are willing to jump down a cliff about 100' high. The land is posted for no hunting and no motorized vehicles, but anyone who wants to hike the land and enjoy nature is welcome. I've seen some folks flying kites right there on the cliffs a few time. Why not? :>}

Do I understand you to say that existing businesses and services continue to operate after the trust takes over and the real estate owners get a discounted, but tax free settlement?

Are the parties that sell to the trust exempt from Federal taxes, or just state taxes?

I think this is not just about the NW but everywhere. One of the things I like about Georgia is around the big lakes we have lots of parks. But the coast is becoming more and more developed and "Natural" coastline is vanishing as well.

But even the lakes are not going to be safe when the big money developers decide to target them. The biggest contributor to the last two governors has been the builders assoication.

I like your - money talks and big money screams line. I will have to save that one.

Capt Jack R..