Save the Anchorage In Washington, DC

[Sam Plan B]

Please provide an alternate marina plan. Whinging is not helpful.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Sam Plan B

Please provide an alternate marina plan. Whinging is not helpful.

Current arrangement is better than the proposal.

Next question?

[Sam Plan B]

The present arrangement is going away. Please provide an alternate marina design.

[Greg S]

Originally Posted by Sam Plan B

The present arrangement is going away. Please provide an alternate marina design.

OK, shorten the existing docks so there is more room to anchor!

[Sam Plan B]

The previous post is not a deliverable. It appears that someone has access to PDF images of the proposed dockside layout. Interested persons who wish to offer up an alternate layout should mark up the PDF noting the preferred pier spacing, length and related service facilities (dockmaster office, toilet/shower facilities, pumping station, etc.). Send that marked up to PN Hoffman and you may find your views have traction. Whinging on this web site will do nothing for your cause.

[Flipper]

Sam, Do you get paid or benefit financialy in any way on this project? If no then please clearly say so, if yes, I believe you need to excuse yourself and not post as that would conflict with the intent of this forum.

[Flipper]

In answer to Sam's question, I did offer an alternate proposal to the US Army Corps of Engineers, as did others who wrote in to USACE. I know this because I filed a FOIA and recieved a copy of them. I know that they were passed to the developer by the USACE. By the developers own survey of the existing facilities much of the current wharfage still has plenty of life left.

The District of Columbia wants 5 additional piers for the "public" to be closer to the waterfront. A Market pier, A transportation pier, A city pier, A recreation pier, and An additional cruise vessel pier. The current watefront frontage is full of marinas. In order to the developer and District to get what they want, need more reparian rights (bottom land rights) so they can make the marinas narrower at the frontage and longer into the Washington Channel. They currently do not have that right because it belongs to all Americans (USACE is in charge of it) because Congress passed a law in 1935. They cannot get it back unless Congress passes another law (currently H.R. 723). I and many other crusiers and cruising associations believe we need to oppose any grab for this well used anchorage.

[Sam Plan B]

No, I do not bennifit from the SW development financially or otherwise. I do live on my boat not far from there and so know quite a bit about the project. And no, I have no patience with those who would play King of the Thread rather than take effective action to advance their cause. But even if I did work for PN Hoffman, which I do not, it would not change a word of my previous post which remains the one and only way that effective action can be taken. Whinging here is not helpful. Demonstrate to PN Hoffman that their marina consultant has it all wrong and you may accomplish something. In Air Force parlance, you are all flap and no throtle.

[Flipper]

Sam, I will take you at your word. But if you are with the contractor as a sub, I still believe you should address your commercial interest. As I said in my earlier post, I and others have posted alternate recomendations with UASCE and they forwarded them to the developer and District. I think the developer and city need to adjust their plan the development to fit the property they control and leave the Washington Channel with a national and international perspective under USACE or National Park Service (NPS).

[Flipper]

It turns out that HR 2297 which passed in the house in December refers to a deed submitted by the developer DC #2009116776 which included the additional 200 feet or reparian rights which is currently half of the Washington Channel. In order to stop it's adoption the Senate must not pass a similar pill. Ask you Senators not to pass a similar bill in legislation in the Senate.

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by Flipper

It turns out that HR 2297 which passed in the house in December refers to a deed submitted by the developer DC #2009116776 which included the additional 200 feet or reparian rights which is currently half of the Washington Channel. In order to stop it's adoption the Senate must not pass a similar pill. Ask you Senators not to pass a similar bill in legislation in the Senate.

HR2297 is a blatant attempt to end-run any objections to the Developer's master plan, which includes cutting the Washington Channel width IN HALF and thereby denying any visiting yachts to the Nation's Capital a safe and convenient anchorage!

The House legislation wording is such that only someone intimately familiar with the associated processes could discern what it's all about.

The text of this legislation can be found here:
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS STAND. CONTACT YOUR SENATOR TO ENSURE THAT A SIMILAR BILL IS NOT PASSED IN THE SENATE.

WE ARE IN DIRE JEOPARDY OF LOSING A NATIONAL TREASURE, AND OF DENYING CRUISING BOATS A SAFE ANCHORAGE IN WASHINGTON, DC.

Bill

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

HR2297 is a blatant attempt to end-run any objections to the Developer's master plan, which includes cutting the Washington Channel width IN HALF and thereby denying any visiting yachts to the Nation's Capital a safe and convenient anchorage!

The House legislation wording is such that only someone intimately familiar with the associated processes could discern what it's all about.

The text of this legislation can be found here:
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS STAND. CONTACT YOUR SENATOR TO ENSURE THAT A SIMILAR BILL IS NOT PASSED IN THE SENATE.

WE ARE IN DIRE JEOPARDY OF LOSING A NATIONAL TREASURE, AND OF DENYING CRUISING BOATS A SAFE ANCHORAGE IN WASHINGTON, DC.

Bill

Bill:

Any idea what the Senate Bill # this might fall under or is it just in commitee at this point? Another point have you spoken to the people at BOAT U.S. I'm sure they have a few lobbyists working for us boaters who can help put pressure on the Senators too.

[btrayfors]

Capt Mike,

Sorry, I don't have any info on any Senate bill yet.

We've gotta be on the watch, because there will no doubt be an attempt to slip this into another, perhaps unrelated bill so it can stay under the radar.

Yes, Boat U.S. is apprised of the situation. So, too, is SSCA.

By the way, the Developer has not responded to a request by the Corps of Engineers to provide evidence that this would not impede navigation in the Channel....way overdue.

Bill

[Auspicious]

Phil/Flipper chairs the Concerned Cruisers Committee at SSCA. His efforts are very much supported. He's doing a great job staying on top of things like the DC anchorage and the anchorage pilot program in Florida. SSCA also has worked to ease the liveaboard restrictions in Georgia and to mitigate the proposed statewide raft-up limits in MD.

We can always use more people to help keep an eye on things, write letters, go to meetings, and spread the word. Even a couple of hours a month or a weekend surge can help.

sail fast, dave
Dave Skolnick
SSCA Board of Directors

[Flipper]

Ok Plan B, here is my proposed layout which does not require extending the docks out an additional 200 feet.