Hood River Cable Park - CGKA Needs Your Support

K4L · Since 19 Jan 2009 483 Posts Obsessed

Yes for the cable park and other proposed developments. More reason for me and my family to vacation in Hood River

Inept_Fun · Since 14 Apr 2005 1417 Posts Hood River XTreme Poster

Scooter go try and ruin peoples fun somewhere else dude, no one wants to listen to your non sensical arguments on how the boat basin is a navigable waterway. You can swim with your waterwings out in the barge lane for all i care u kook.

Heatherhoodriver · Since 12 Mar 2012 5 Posts Kook

forrest · Mon Mar 19, 12 1:10 pm

From actual data collected by Bob Nichols during an week in August last year. It's around somewhere, perhaps the Naitos have access to it.

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

One more letter from my friend....

Maybe someone from Naito would like to comment. There silence has been deafening.

Re: Nichols Basin Cable Park Planning Commission Meeting
3/19/2011
The issue presented is whether structures for a cable park can be built within the Nichols basin.
Even if tonight’s hearing is only on the appropriate use of the land within the water-filled basin, i.e., the riverbed, what is or is not permissible use of this land cannot be answered without answering all of the following questions.
Four questions must be answered with satisfaction:
1. Who owns the land, and the right to build, beneath the basin?
2. Is ownership of the basin ‘riverbed’ affected by its connection to the Columbia River?
3. Is there a public right of navigation (which, in the legal sense, includes the right to navigate in boats as well as fish, swim) in artificial waterways over private lands?
4. Will structures in the basin affect the navigability of the basin?
Question 1: Who owns the land in the basin?
Historical records demonstrate who held title to the land before it was dredged and filled with river water to allow for a boat basin. The critical question is whether the original grantor intended to include the lands beneath the boat basin (the new riverbed) when the adjacent uplands were conveyed into private property. In the American tradition, the ownership of the riverbed would not be conveyed and would revert to the state. 6 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 487, 488 (1998-89). Even if the riverbed did stay in the hands of private landowners, the court saw this as a minor inconvenience because “the right of the public to use the water would remain incontestable.” Palmer v. Mulligan, NY Supreme Court, 1805).
In the case of the Nichols Basin, the riverbed was not a natural part of the river, entrusted to the states under the Public Trust doctrine, so arguably would not revert to the state. However, Oregon State claimed ownership of the waters within the state in 1909, so ownership of the basin bottom could ostensibly revert to Oregon if ownership is not stated in any conveying title. (see 1909 Or. Laws at 319). This law may or may not affect the outcome of ownership of the basin.
Question 2: Is ownership of the basin riverbed affected by the connection to the Columbia River?
The North Carolina Court of Appeals in Fish House v. Clark, 2010, N.C.App. discussed the public trust doctrine and suggested that the submerged lands under navigable-in-fact manmade bodies of water are state-owned public trust submerged lands.
Scholars are divided on this issue.
Chris Burti, disagrees with the North Carolina court in Manmade Canal Held to be Public Trust Lands by COA, Newsletter and Legal Memorandum, STATEWIDE TITLE, June 1, 2010, http://statenet.net/newsletterarticle.asp?Article=311.
Question 3: Is there a public right of navigation over private lands underlying artificially waterways?
Whether or not a riverbed is privately or publicly owned, there are very strong arguments that use of the water above belongs to the people. Michael Blumm, law scholar at Lewis and Clark, speaks definitively on this issue as it applies to Oregon. “Oregon’s Public Trust Doctrine,” Environmental Law, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2012, Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-1
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925112
Regardless of who owns the riverbed, the public may have a right to navigation. Under the public use doctrine, the public may use the water for navigation, commerce, or recreation.
The issue of whether artificial waterways should be open to public use has come to the fore in several East Coast cases, but has yet to be litigated in Oregon.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals held in Fish House: "In light of the preceding authority, we hold that the controlling law of navigability concerning the body of water "in its natural condition" reflects only upon the manner in which the water flows without diminution or obstruction. Therefore, any waterway, whether manmade or artificial, which is capable of navigation by watercraft constitutes "navigable water" under the public trust doctrine of this state." Fish House at 212. See Fish House, Inc. v. Clarke, ___ N.C. App. ___, 693 S.E.2d 208, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 821 (N.C. Ct. App., 2010), Pet. Disc. Rev. Denied 364 N.C. 324; 700 S.E.2d 750 (Aug. 26, 2010).
In Hughes v. Nelson, 303 S.C. 102, 399 S.E.2d 24 (1990). , the South Carolina Court of Appeals weighed whether the waters of the canal were navigable waters, making the canal a public highway, or whether the canal was private property. The Hughes court held that "[t]he fact that a waterway is artificial, not natural, is not controlling. When a canal is constructed to connect with a navigable river, the canal may be regarded as a part of the river." See Hughes v. Nelson 303 S.C. 102, 105, 399 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1990). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Gwathmey court's use of the term "natural condition" was not meant to exclude manmade bodies of water from the reach of the holding.
Question 4: will structures in the basin affect the use of the water in the basin?
Whether or not structures placed in the basin would drastically interfere with public use is an issue the public and planning commission must decide.

Respectfully Submitted,
Liz Hallock, J.D.

forrest · Mon Mar 19, 12 2:15 pm

I know you want to sound smart and make it seem as though you've uncovered a project killing issue, but seriously, enough with the copy and pasting. Just email them directly, "their" email is posted at the beginning of this thread.

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

Forest,

These post are for those in the nwkite community who do not support using public water ways for a cable park. They have essentially been silenced on this forum. You don't have to read them if you don't want to.

Naito has participated publicly on this forum and it is appropriate to engage them here.

You will get no personal attacks from me and I would expect the same from you.

Thanks,
Derek

Inept_Fun · Since 14 Apr 2005 1417 Posts Hood River XTreme Poster

Scooter where is silence? I have never been THERE.

Lando · Since 19 Mar 2012 1 Posts New Member

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "monkey" may originate in a German version of the Reynard the Fox fable, published circa 1580. In this version of the fable, a character named Moneke is the son of Martin the Ape.[1] In English, no very clear distinction was originally made between "ape" and "monkey"; thus the 1910 Encyclopædia Britannica entry for "ape" notes that it is either a synonym for "monkey" or is used to mean a tailless humanlike primate.[2] Such confusions persist. Colloquially, the terms "monkeys" and "apes" may still be used interchangeably.[3] Due to its size (up to 1 m/3 ft) the Mandrill is often thought to be an ape, but it is actually an Old World monkey. Also, a few monkey species have the word "ape" in their common name, such as the Barbary Ape.

Later in the first half of the 20th century, the idea developed that there were trends in primate evolution and that the living members of the order could be arranged in a series, leading through "monkeys" and "apes" to humans.[4] Monkeys thus constituted a "grade" on the path to humans and were distinguished from "apes".[5]

Scientific classifications are now more often based on monophyletic groups, that is groups consisting of all the descendants of a common ancestor. The New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys are each monophyletic groups, but their combination is not, since it excludes hominoids (apes and humans). Thus the term "monkey" no longer refers to a recognized scientific taxon. The smallest accepted taxon which contains all the monkeys is the infraorder Simiiformes, or simians. However this also contains the hominoids (apes and humans), so that monkeys are, in terms of currently recognized taxa, non-hominoid simians.

A group of monkeys may be referred to as a mission or a tribe.

buttersmoothcarver · Since 08 Oct 2008 246 Posts Stoked

FYI, Lots of support was present in tonight's Naito development (HR cable park) public hearing. Although with a strong turnout and 100's of email's showing support. It's apparent there's going to be a long argueist battle against EPA and easement issues. Most likely delaying the permit process further, "if" any. The city council requested on topic responses, where it was repeated several times the economic benefits of the development. However, as we all know we live in a black and white by "what the law states" society. Since the Port of Hood River, does not own the waterway, but is governed by the state of Oregon, it might not be up to cities decision afterall. It will be interesting to see what the ACOE will allow. Next meeting is scheduled April 2nd, and will be more on topic about the impacts of the cable park.

genek · Since 21 Jul 2006 2165 Posts East Po KGB

Whenever something good and fun is proposed there's always some party poopers that come out of the wood work. As awesome as Oregon is it really sucks in that way. The government and people in general should support healthy outdoor activities that have minimal impact on the environment instead of opposing them.

Canada on the other hand totally gets it.

mshaw · Since 30 Mar 2012 3 Posts Kook

How much will it cost to ride?

Nak · Fri Mar 30, 12 11:31 am

I think it'd great that this issue has drawn such interest. However, I do have to point out something that apparently isn't obvious: we aren't going to make any legal decisions here. Navigable waterways, property rights, etc will be decided in a legal venue and opinions related here are irrelevant. Sorry, but it's true.

What can we do here? We can discuss whether or not we want the development to proceed, and why. We can discuss how and why to support or oppose the development. I think it's obvious that most posters are in favor of the development, myself included. But that shouldn't stop people who have an opposing viewpoint from posting. We learn a lot from other's perspectives.

It's a pointless waste of time to post opinions from lawyers on the various legal issues here. Those issues will be resolved in a legal forum and no input from nwKite is going to have the slightest bearing on the outcome.

On the other hand, I like the idea of the PAW being as close as possible to the water. Not only do I think it would be a great addition to the community, I believe it has decided economic benefits to the development. Waterfront business's such as bars, cafes and even the cablepark will see increased revenues from pedestrians. I base this on my experience with the cablepark in Singapore. There is a pedestrian path right by the cablepark, and right by the launch. Many people who had no interest in trying the cable before their walk-by became intrigued after seeing the action close-up. Additionally, there is a restaurant/bar on the path by the cablepark. Many, many people stop for a drink or a meal based on their desire to watch the riders. This is usually a spur of the moment decision based on interest generated by the walk-by.

It is my firm belief that routing the PAW directly along the waterfront will pay for itself many times over through increased revenues. Such a walkway would attract a much larger audience to the waterfront. One need only look at waterfront venues around the world to see the proof of that. The Riverwalk in Austin. The Cablepark in Singapore. Vancouver, Washington's riverfront East of the I-5 bridge. The list goes on and on. Waterfront walkways mean money to the business's on those walkways. Hopefully the Naito folks will read this and consider bringing the walkway down to the waterfront. It's a win-win for them as well as the community.

blowhard · Since 26 Dec 2005 2027 Posts Windward

ya,
Canada totally gets it,
they log their public lands like the US did in the 1950's
and we love them for the cheap (subsidized)wood products

In a fluke,(rare) the land that is underwater in front of my home I also own and pay taxes on it
However the public has rights to access the water over it.

and not everyone cares about how much money waterfront business's make,,

just to get all the sacred cows at once Laughing

and I support the cable thingy,
just because it makes you guys so happy Razz

genek · Since 21 Jul 2006 2165 Posts East Po KGB

blowhard · Since 26 Dec 2005 2027 Posts Windward

eh?

A small group can agree a lot easier

as observed Cool

jackZ · Since 13 Apr 2008 355 Posts Devon Alberta ca. Obsessed

Fukin EH!
Yup here in Alberta we have free healthcare as well !
I kite on any lake or public land . There's room for all of us .
I snowboard at all our resorts . There's lots of snow for everyone .
I don't bike but I have coworkers that do and I've heard and seen pics of the incredible trails .
I run a jet boat ( we all require a boating license now ) and can camp anywhere along the river as it's Crown land to high water mark . Lakes too . Again lots of room .
BUT
As time goes on things change . as mentioned , more people more rules . Some people just don't like to see others having too much fun !

We don't have Ft Stevens or Jones beach or Hood River , Stevensons , etc.
No South Padre , Jupiter Fl. or Haterass , Maui .
We don't have eateries where the waitress's calls you Darling or Sweetheart . Even at the new IHop that opened this year in Edmonton Ab. , I should write a complaint !

I hope you get the cable park I'll visit and use it , cool !
Then a round of disc golf after .
Thanks for sharing and making me feel very welcome when I visit .
JackZ

Very Happy