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.

Anyway, press release follows:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Scott Croft, 703-461-2864,
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

"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?

"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.


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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.