Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 07:08:49 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

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.

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.

I don't think anybody except billionaire developers and any politicians
they might happen to own would be in favor of the government taking
land from one private owner or group of private owners simply to award
it to another private owner. The issue that Boat/US is addressing has
more to do with the conversion of usage from public access and/or
boating
related infrastructure to private property without boating related
infrastructure and restricted or eliminated public access.

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.