Save the Anchorage In Washington, DC

[Flipper]

Sam,

You said "The SW waterfront developer is PN Hoffman. They are fine people and have not a greedy bone in their collective bodies. Monty Hoffman put the deal together over several years by bringing community, government and commercial interests together to find common ground"
I personaly spoke with Marty Hoffman on Monday (July 18th) and suggested that while he indicates that the developer has conducted 300 meetings with the public, none of their meetings have envolved the greater cruising comunity or the boating public at large. I have not heard or witness any outreach from the developer or his staff since...

[Sam Plan B]

Yes. And you are unlikely to hear from them. In general, people tend to associate with those who are in their own social circle or those who are related to their business interests. You are in neither of those groups. PN Hoffman has hired a marina consultant (designer) and that firm is the one to whom your comments should be directed. I do not know who that firm is. The Hoffman people are not boaters and, frankly, know nothing of things on the water side of the dock. Their life's work is in real estate development.

This must also be said. Creative people such as real estate developers who want to see things built tend not to associate with folk who dress themselves in numpty NIMBY armor. One’s time is limited and there is no point wasting it on people who have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation. If you want to get Hoffman's attention do up an alternate marina scheme. Render it and mount it on big boards. Demonstrate that you have some useful ideas and that Hoffman's marina consultant is not producing a workable deliverable.

[Flipper]

Contact your Congressman now, Tell them to vote NO on the following bills to save the anchorage HR 723 and HR 2297. Local DC leaders are stealing our waters.

See article below:
Page 6 The Southwester August 2011
Holmes Norton introduces new Southwest waterfront legislation
By Brandon Fuller
On June 22, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 2297, a bill to “promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia.” This legislation would transfer the federal government’s title and interest of any areas included in the Southwest Waterfront Project Site, known as The Wharf, to the District of Columbia. Norton says this transfer is essential to the multimillion dollar development of the Southwest waterfront. This is the second congressional step necessary to ensure D.C. has all proper ownership and authority to proceed with The Wharf ’s development. Last summer, Norton filed legislation that deauthorized and transferred part of the Washington Channel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the district. That legislation passed the House of Representatives, but got mired in the Senate’s unfinished business. Norton re-filed the bill, H.R. 723, in the current Congress. If it passes, it will allow for larger docks along the Southwest waterfront between Interstate 395 and Fireboat Pier 5.
Congresswoman Norton describes these bills as “not particularly controversial,” but merely technical legislation that clarifies statutory language. Although the current pace of Congress frustrates her, she is confident her bills will eventually pass without difficulty. In the meantime, she says the development has successfully made progress in identifying tenants. At the July 11 Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6D meeting, Monty Hoffman of Hoffman-Madison Waterfront, the developer of The Wharf, was asked whether he believed it would be difficult to pass H.R. 2297. “This legislationwill get done, we have great confidence in the leadership of Eleanor Holmes Norton,” he said.
When pressed for specifics on a Plan B if the bill does not pass, Hoffman said, “There is no Plan B, this will get done.” Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells believes Norton’s latest bill is a necessary step for developing The Wharf and the rest of the Southwest waterfront, pointing out that past lease arrangements with the federal government have not been optimal for business investment.
Currently, both H.R. 2297 and H.R. 723 are awaiting review in their respective committees.

[mbianka]

[QUOTE=Flipper;746092]Contact your Congressman now, Tell them to vote NO on the following bills to save the anchorage HR 723 and HR 2297. Local DC leaders are stealing our waters.

See article below:
Page 6 The Southwester August 2011
Holmes Norton introduces new Southwest waterfront legislation
By Brandon Fuller
On June 22, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 2297, a bill to “promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia.” This legislation would transfer the federal government’s title and interest of any areas included in the Southwest Waterfront Project Site, known as The Wharf, to the District of Columbia. Norton says this transfer is essential to the multimillion dollar development of the Southwest waterfront. This is the second congressional step necessary to ensure D.C. has all proper ownership and authority to proceed with The Wharf ’s development. Last summer, Norton filed legislation that deauthorized and transferred part of the Washington Channel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the district. /QUOTE]

While I've got issues with a lot of what happens in the Federal Government. Transferring control to the DC government is insane! I work here in DC as a freelance tech from time to time and it is one of the most corrupt and inefficent governments I've ever seen. Incompetance is too nice of a word to describe what happens here. Handing over the waterfront to them would be like like throwing money into a hole. I expect to be heading down to DC with my boat at some point when heading south and I fear what it would be like if the DC Government is running things. I'll certainly be writing my congressman about this issue.

[Flipper]

Nothing new is available from US Army Corps. of Engineers on PN 11-50.

The DC Zoning Commission update: Following is posted on the the DC Zoning Commission web site for PUD Case 11-03: The zoning Commission has issued a notice of close of record in advance of decision. The record for this case has been closed in advance of the decision meeting, except for the following information: 1. Specific requested documents due 15:00 8/26/2011 and 2. Ersponses from parties + draft findings of facts + conclusions of law due 15:00 9/2/2011.

I don't think we will hear anything until September.

Remember to write your Congress person. Bill HR 723 and Bill HR 2297 must be voted down (vote no) if you want to save the anchorage in Washington DC.

[Chief Engineer]

Don't you know "It's fo da cheerun"

[Flipper]

It has been reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers has advised the developer and the District of Columbia that they will not allow the 200 ft extension of the docks into the 450 ft wide Washington Channel unless there is a law passed which de-federalizes the 400 ft wide federal channel. The developer is now in a full on rush to lock in concepts and drawings in Sept 2011, so they can complete proposal development for phase 2 of the PUD (development plan) and submit it in Feb 2012. House bills, H.R. 723 and 2297 are still in committee. Please notify your Congressman to vote NO on H.R. 723 and H.R. 2297. Save the channel for our children!

[btrayfors]

No matter which State you live in, PLEASE, PLEASE write or call your Congressman or Senator and ask them to vote "NO" on these bills.

We get cruising boats from all U.S. states and abroad regularly visiting and anchoring in the beautiful Washington Channel.

By the way -- as recently proved with Irene -- the Channel is the only decent hurricane anchorage in the upper Potomac River. You'd have to go at least 60nm downriver to find another decent anchorage in a real blow.

Please don't let clueless, misguided or greedy developers and politicians destroy this national treasure!

Bill

[Sam Plan B]

Wait! Hold on. I need to scroll back up through the posts. Nope, still no alternate schemes for the mooring field. How can this be with so many creative minds churning away on this design problem? It’s so much easier to just say NO than to sort through all the issues involved and come up with something workable and new. No alternate design means no one is listening to you. So, go to Google earth, zoom in on the SW Waterfront and get started sketching.

[Flipper]

Sam,

You must have missed post 18 "The upper reaches of the Washington Channel are about 450 feet wide. If change must occure, I would recommend reducing and splitting the current 400 foot wide channel into two 150 ft wide channels eached placed east and west on the outer banks / docks. Then place a mooring field and anchorage sized for 50 -60 foot boats using the remaining 150 feet in the middle. This would allow visiting traffic and tour boats to have an unconfused traffic pattern and a turning basin just before the 14th street bridge.
Reducing the channel from 400 feet to 200 feet and extending the docks 200 feet into the channel will leave only 50 feet for anchoring or mooring next to the east Potomac park. That is simply not enough room and is too close to shore."

[Sam Plan B]

Flipper,

You are talking to the wrong man. DRAW your proposed design and write a brief narrative explaining it. Send that to PN Hoffman. Follow up with an email asking for a a few minutes to present your alternate. Your DRAWING should be 24" x 36" and mounted on board. It is also helpful if your DRAWING is followed accompanied with a print of the existing dock plan so that they can be compared side by side. It will also be helpful if you have a construction cost estimate that shows your proposal is less expensive than the dock plan now under consideration.

"The upper reaches of the Washington Channel are about 450 feet wide. If change must occure, I would recommend reducing and splitting the current 400 foot wide channel into two 150 ft...." that does not communicate. Also, you should provide a brief summary of your qualifications to make recommendations. Are you a licensed captain? Are you a naval architect with shore side facilities experience? That may seem beside the point but you are dealing with the big league and they will want to know these things.

[Flipper]

Sam,

With reguard to my experience, I am a PE, a licensed USGC Captain (100 ton Ocean), and Marine Engineer (Chief, unlimited steam and motor), and was responsible for over mile of deep water warfage in a major east coast port.
I enjoy my cruiseing status.
I expect and the developer to do his homework, after all he wants to do the changing, let him spend his revenue on 2x3 artist renditions.
I have already let my Congressmen know to vote no on HR 723 and Hr 2297.

[Sam Plan B]

Flipper,

Again, you are talking to the wrong man. With a resume like that you should be presenting your case to PN Hoffman. And you should be presenting it in the form they expect to see. As far as they are concerned, they HAVE done their homework. If you want to be effective you need to put together a presentation that is effective. Web whinging is not going to do the job.

[Flipper]

Sam, It's easer to inform the national boating community who can see how rediculous the developers proposal is and ask the crusiers contact their Congressman. That effort will trump all the Districts and developers foolish proposals. I don't need to be a Don Quixote, or power point ranger, I just muster a navy of smart voting boaters to change the Districts and developers course. They will not see it comming, their lobbyists might and suggest alturnitives. Who knows they may even come back and solicit input... I doubt this DC focused land grab (water rights) will ever get through the 112 session of Congress...

[Sam Plan B]

The national boating community does not live here. As a matter of fact, you don't live here either. Elinore Holmes Norton does live here. It is in her interest to see this project through because it represents millions in sales and property taxes to the District government. Weighing against those millions is you. And you don't live here. Get for real.