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?

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.

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.

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.

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..

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? :-)

"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?

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.