|
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Well, its going to take a little more than lip service to solve this problem. Seems like your local government needs to be proactive and buy up some of that land for public use. You're willing to ante up a lfew pesos to support that effort, aren't you? |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com... An item from the press release folder illustrates a problem that will erode opportunities for boating in most communities unless it is addressed. 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. It's not just boat access that suffers. It's access for pedestrians who simply want to walk along a waterfront with an ice cream cone and enjoy the view. We're facing these issues here (Rochester), and it's not easy to deal with. Occasionally, a politician will acknowledge that so-called "city planning" is driven by contractors, but having an honest discussion at public comment meetings is next to impossible. These projects are jammed down the public's throat because city officials are connected in some way with the financial success of the projects. At one of these meetings, I listened as a resident asked two city council members if they'd be OK with having all their investments made public, so we could be sure they weren't involved in anything like limited partnerships connected with the plans being discussed. Naturally, this did not go over well, which isn't surprising. 15 years ago, the supervisor of the town where I now live was on a big campaign to have an unneeded mall built. He said it would be a great benefit to the community. It was, at least to a miniscule portion of "the community": His brother, who owned the land which was sold to the developer. The mall is now 85% vacant. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
I pity for y'all, but living here in the middle fo BF Illinois, I don't
think we're going to have much of that problem. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... An item from the press release folder illustrates a problem that will erode opportunities for boating in most communities unless it is addressed. 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. It's not just boat access that suffers. It's access for pedestrians who simply want to walk along a waterfront with an ice cream cone and enjoy the view. We're facing these issues here (Rochester), and it's not easy to deal with. Occasionally, a politician will acknowledge that so-called "city planning" is driven by contractors, but having an honest discussion at public comment meetings is next to impossible. These projects are jammed down the public's throat because city officials are connected in some way with the financial success of the projects. At one of these meetings, I listened as a resident asked two city council members if they'd be OK with having all their investments made public, so we could be sure they weren't involved in anything like limited partnerships connected with the plans being discussed. Naturally, this did not go over well, which isn't surprising. 15 years ago, the supervisor of the town where I now live was on a big campaign to have an unneeded mall built. He said it would be a great benefit to the community. It was, at least to a miniscule portion of "the community": His brother, who owned the land which was sold to the developer. The mall is now 85% vacant. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... An item from the press release folder illustrates a problem that will erode opportunities for boating in most communities unless it is addressed. 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. It's not just boat access that suffers. It's access for pedestrians who simply want to walk along a waterfront with an ice cream cone and enjoy the view. We're facing these issues here (Rochester), and it's not easy to deal with. Occasionally, a politician will acknowledge that so-called "city planning" is driven by contractors, but having an honest discussion at public comment meetings is next to impossible. These projects are jammed down the public's throat because city officials are connected in some way with the financial success of the projects. At one of these meetings, I listened as a resident asked two city council members if they'd be OK with having all their investments made public, so we could be sure they weren't involved in anything like limited partnerships connected with the plans being discussed. Naturally, this did not go over well, which isn't surprising. 15 years ago, the supervisor of the town where I now live was on a big campaign to have an unneeded mall built. He said it would be a great benefit to the community. It was, at least to a miniscule portion of "the community": His brother, who owned the land which was sold to the developer. The mall is now 85% vacant. I pity for y'all, but living here in the middle fo BF Illinois, I don't think we're going to have much of that problem. No lakes out your way? If there are, developers will find them. Just wait. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Jim wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Well, its going to take a little more than lip service to solve this problem. Seems like your local government needs to be proactive and buy up some of that land for public use. You're willing to ante up a lfew pesos to support that effort, aren't you? Funny that you would bring that up. 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. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Doug, the bigger lakes are controlled by the army Corps pf Engineers,
and the smaller lakes are in the State parks. Then the rivers are, well... rivers. So If there's going to be any developing, I think it will be very controlled. But then again..... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... An item from the press release folder illustrates a problem that will erode opportunities for boating in most communities unless it is addressed. 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. It's not just boat access that suffers. It's access for pedestrians who simply want to walk along a waterfront with an ice cream cone and enjoy the view. We're facing these issues here (Rochester), and it's not easy to deal with. Occasionally, a politician will acknowledge that so-called "city planning" is driven by contractors, but having an honest discussion at public comment meetings is next to impossible. These projects are jammed down the public's throat because city officials are connected in some way with the financial success of the projects. At one of these meetings, I listened as a resident asked two city council members if they'd be OK with having all their investments made public, so we could be sure they weren't involved in anything like limited partnerships connected with the plans being discussed. Naturally, this did not go over well, which isn't surprising. 15 years ago, the supervisor of the town where I now live was on a big campaign to have an unneeded mall built. He said it would be a great benefit to the community. It was, at least to a miniscule portion of "the community": His brother, who owned the land which was sold to the developer. The mall is now 85% vacant. I pity for y'all, but living here in the middle fo BF Illinois, I don't think we're going to have much of that problem. No lakes out your way? If there are, developers will find them. Just wait. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Tim" wrote in message
ups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... An item from the press release folder illustrates a problem that will erode opportunities for boating in most communities unless it is addressed. 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. It's not just boat access that suffers. It's access for pedestrians who simply want to walk along a waterfront with an ice cream cone and enjoy the view. We're facing these issues here (Rochester), and it's not easy to deal with. Occasionally, a politician will acknowledge that so-called "city planning" is driven by contractors, but having an honest discussion at public comment meetings is next to impossible. These projects are jammed down the public's throat because city officials are connected in some way with the financial success of the projects. At one of these meetings, I listened as a resident asked two city council members if they'd be OK with having all their investments made public, so we could be sure they weren't involved in anything like limited partnerships connected with the plans being discussed. Naturally, this did not go over well, which isn't surprising. 15 years ago, the supervisor of the town where I now live was on a big campaign to have an unneeded mall built. He said it would be a great benefit to the community. It was, at least to a miniscule portion of "the community": His brother, who owned the land which was sold to the developer. The mall is now 85% vacant. I pity for y'all, but living here in the middle fo BF Illinois, I don't think we're going to have much of that problem. No lakes out your way? If there are, developers will find them. Just wait. Doug, the bigger lakes are controlled by the army Corps pf Engineers, and the smaller lakes are in the State parks. Then the rivers are, well... rivers. So If there's going to be any developing, I think it will be very controlled. But then again..... The Sopranos are everywhere and they eventually get to anyone they want. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
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. What will you do to help remedy the problem? |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Bill, I wouldn't necessarily call it whing. I think Chucks post wasn't
totally about the NW in his area but all around the nation. Condo's are replacing marina's in FLA. at an accellerated pace. and looks as long as they'll sell out to developers, the boating access will be declining. 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: 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Bill Kearney wrote: 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. It wasn't intended as a whine. The fact that an organization generally friendly to boating (BOAT/US) is addressing this as a national issue suggested that it might serve to stimulate discussion of boating related topic in the NG. 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? :-) |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message
t... 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands from consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one goal is to expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town council idiots to spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't heard of yet, and probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different from other public money? |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
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. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: It seems rather obvious and simple to me. Land Trusts have been in operation for years where private property is held in the public trust by non-profit organizations. There are also tax breaks afforded these organizations which reduce or eliminate property taxes allowing for public access. Locally here, one of the organizations I'm involved in, the Windham Public Land Trust has purchased over 2,300 acres of land including some on lakes providing open access to the public on areas where there hasn't been before. Who funds the "public trust" that buys waterfront property? Is the capital assembled from private donations, or is it a line item in your state budget? 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? |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
And, seriously, you ought to think about entering the contest. :-)
|
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Tim wrote:
Bill, I wouldn't necessarily call it whing. I think Chucks post wasn't totally about the NW in his area but all around the nation. Condo's are replacing marina's in FLA. at an accellerated pace. and looks as long as they'll sell out to developers, the boating access will be declining. 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: 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. I agree with you Tim: 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.. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Jack Redington wrote: I like your - money talks and big money screams line. I will have to save that one. Capt Jack R.. Jack, you have your ear plugs in??? http://www.mcall.com/business/reales...realestate-hed |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message t... 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands from consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one goal is to expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town council idiots to spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't heard of yet, and probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different from other public money? Everyone in your community who votes for the winner of the council seats is authorizing the practice. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bill Kearney" wkearney-99@hot-mail-com wrote in message t... 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. So do something about it locally, not just whinge in a newsgroup. Vote people in that will pay better attention to what you're after. One group here is trying to assemble time lines and present them to the public early and often. In other words, by the time city planners hold public comment meetings, they've already got proposals in their hands from consulting firms who've been paid a few million dollars. So, one goal is to expose this practice to the public. Who authorizes town council idiots to spend money on proposals for projects the public hasn't heard of yet, and probably doesn't want? Is that money somehow different from other public money? Everyone in your community who votes for the winner of the council seats is authorizing the practice. The problem is that no matter who we vote for, we seem to get the same results. There's also a plan afoot to revitalize downtown by improving the bus station. The trouble is, nobody can prove that night life is lacking because of the bus station, and nobody seems to care. The real reasons are obvious, but not often discussed because to acknowledge them would mean politicians would have to stop using "improve downtown" as part of their campaign advertising. 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. |
Access to the water will be increasingly challenging
Tim wrote:
Jack Redington wrote: I like your - money talks and big money screams line. I will have to save that one. Capt Jack R.. Jack, you have your ear plugs in??? http://www.mcall.com/business/reales...realestate-hed I had heard about this a couple of weeks ago on the radio. At least here they are not using the goverment to steal the land. 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.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com