 |
|
|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4304 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
 Wed Apr 25, 12 12:44 pm |
 |
|
| scooter wrote: |
Until then, you can go back and re read all of my posts here and that should just about sum it up. |
OK, I've re-read all of your posts. I don't see anything as far as an argument against the park. The legal issues are HOW to fight the park, not WHY.
In Fact, here are all of your posts that I cold find on the subject:
| scooter wrote: | 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 |
| scooter wrote: | im with monkey boy. The environmental impact should at least be discussed. I don't think we should be developing this area any more than it has been already. lots of people enjoy that bay for kayaking and SUP'ing and should not be designated for only cable park use. I don't think this will be as easy a sell as ya'll think it will.
I'm not trying to pee in your cheerios but there are other opinions that need to be considered.
Is this the Gorge or Disneyland cracked out on redbull. I guess well find out. |
| scooter wrote: | I oppose this plan because it uses public water space to profit only a few. The public should have use of all public water space and the basin should not be developed for a few people. This would set a very dangerous precedent for private profiting on public waters.
I'm not here to troll or to get involved in a discussion but rather to let you know that there are some of us who think this is a very bad idea. The environment on this forum has not been friendly to those of us who disagree with this plan and I felt the need speak my peace.
Also, here is a letter to the Hood River News and the City planning commission from a friend who is a water rights attorney here in Oregon.
... |
OK, the rest of this post is legal crap that may or may not be relevant. Regardless, it's about HOW to fight the development, not WHY.
What I get from your posts is that you Kayak and/or SUP in the basin and you don't want to share. You don't care that the entire community will benefit from the development and that hundreds or thousands will get to utilize the basin instead of the dozen or so that do now. I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just saying that is how your posts read. And for the record, Kayaking and SUPing will still be available in the basin. The park won't take up the whole basin.
| scooter wrote: |
In general, we oppose giving away our public water way for a development that would exclude public use. It's that simple.
That's my main concern, personally. |
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you picketing Meadows, Timberline and Skibowl as well? Public use won't be excluded, in fact public use will multiply a thousandfold. I'd like to understand your viewpoint, I really would. But you are coming across as one of a dozen people that use the basin and don't want anyone else to use it because you're greedy. I'm sorry, but that's how you come across. Making a statement like " we oppose giving away our public water way for a development that would exclude public use." is a lie. Public use would not be excluded. Many, many more people would get to use the basin than use it now. Either you are lying to yourself, or to us. What's the real reason you don't want this park? Seriously, we want to know. If I can get behind your reason, I'll support you. But I can't get behind "This is my private SUP lake and I don't want a bunch of people here.".
Scooter, I raised several questions for you. Come, on, address them. To refresh your memory:
1. The basin is an eyesore because no one has an interest in beautifying it. Where are "The Friends of the Hood River Waterfront". Why have you done nothing to transform the basin?
2. Scooter, why do you claim opponents of the park have been silenced here? Have your posts been deleted?
3. Scooter, why do you claim opponents of the park have been silenced here? ... Have you been banned? .
I've seen a bunch of legal issues that explain HOW you'll fight the park. I have yet to see a SINGLE reason WHY we should fight the park. Please, please, post ONE reason why this park will be bad for Hood River and the Local community. There's got to be ONE valid reason, doesn't there? I mean there are dozens of good reasons to support the park. There MUST be ONE reason to be against it? Every fight has two sides. Why is it that I haven't seen ONE valid argument against this park? OK, PDXmonkeyboy made good points. He's a smart guy and should not be discounted. I do believe the environmental impact should be studied, but it is my belief that the environmental impact will be zero or positive.
Why is it that opponents of the park feel they have been "silenced" on this forum? Please note that is a recurring theme in Scooter's posts. They have not had posts deleted, nor have they been banned. In fact, they have been encouraged to participate and share their views. Yet they feel "silenced". I don't understand it. Perhaps it's because they feel frustrated by the many reasons to support the new park and have been unable to articulate any reasonable response? Certainly it is easier to claim that you've been "silenced". That way you can claim your arguments are shrouded in mystery and can't be shared here. Much easier than actually debating rationally. |
|
|
scooter
Since 23 Apr 2005
99 Posts
hood River
|
| Wed Apr 25, 12 2:02 pm |
|
|
Hey Nak
I appreciate your comments but quite frankly I have been very clear.
I hope you can make the meeting as I will not be spending any more time trying to explain what has been previously posted.
Have a good one!!
Derek |
|
|
Inept_Fun
Since 14 Apr 2005
1417 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Wed Apr 25, 12 2:21 pm |
|
|
_________________
I heart dangling |
|
|
quenyaistar
Since 21 Oct 2011
416 Posts
Cougar, WA
Obsessed
|
| Wed Apr 25, 12 2:49 pm |
|
|
Clearly skooter does not want a cable park on the Columbia river in Hood River.
Clearly skooter has no reasonable reason for his stance, other than he just dont want it.
Clearly skooter will try to use the law to get his way, because if it came to a popular vote he probably would not get his way.
Clearly that whole area down their is nothing but a big parking lot surrounded by warehouses, nothing special at all except for access to the river.
Clearly, even with a cable park you will still be able to access the river.
Clearly that big parking lot will be busier more often if there is a cable park down their.
Clearly this would be good for HR businesses and tax revenue.
Clearly their is no choice that will please everyone, welcome to America.
_________________
1 OF 1 |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4304 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Wed Apr 25, 12 3:10 pm |
|
|
Hey Derek!
Thanks for responding, even if it's not the response I would have hoped for. I do believe in looking at both sides of an issue.
| scooter wrote: |
I appreciate your comments but quite frankly I have been very clear. |
As I explained, your posts come across as "The basin is my private SUP/Kayak lake and I don't want to share." Since your posts read this way, and you emphasize how clear you were, I can only conclude that you meant exactly what your posts sounded like. Especially since you refuse to explain any further.
| scooter wrote: |
I hope you can make the meeting as I will not be spending any more time trying to explain what has been previously posted. |
I can not make the meeting unfortunately. Hopefully some good will come of it and we'll hear some reasonable objections to the park. It's hard to knock holes in arguments that are "shrouded in mystery".
Thanks for posting Derek. It's your right to oppose the park, even if it is for reasons that I find somewhat objectionable. |
|
|
K4L
Since 19 Jan 2009
483 Posts
Obsessed
|
| Wed Apr 25, 12 3:47 pm |
|
|
Thanks for taking the time time write that up Nak.
Pretty much sums up exactly what I was thinking.
And Derek's response ? Pretty much speaks for itself  I hope that is as good as it gets because If the argument against a Cable Park gets no better than what has been expressed here then it would seem to be a no-brainier for approval as long as legal issues can be dealt with. |
|
|
wakeup
Since 11 Sep 2005
328 Posts
always
Obsessed
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 4:51 am |
|
|
First off, good work NAK!! good presentation of the facts
Forrest is killing it too doing all the hard work organizing everyone
thanks!
so being that I am not in town to help fight the good fight, I have been curious as to WHO we are dealing with.
After doing some checking around it is primarily a group of kayakers that we are dealing with (or at least they are the ones leading up the opposition)
This dude derek bell(seems to be the leader) is a friend of several kiters (tybo, B, Lance, Mack, Holly, and more) on FB that I am sure are for the cable park
Maybe someone that knows this guy can talk to him and his cause to really try to figure it out
Their personal argument:
at this point it is just as NAK says. "me and my 15 friends kayak here and we won't share it!"
this guy grew up on the mckenzie river fishing and paddling. He should know what good fishing is, and that basin isn't it!! Why is he concerned with that body of water when there is the hood, deschutes, WS and many other nicer sections of river? Why is he so concerned with a fairly stagnant body of FLAT water that is not suitable for salmon habitat? Still trying to figure that one out...
Their legal argument is where they actually may have a case, but do they have the money to fight it should it go that direction?
HOWEVER
They are claiming that the land beneath the water is Public Use land as designated by the DSL.
From everything that I have seen over the years the designated "high water line" that defines what is the Hood river ports property vs. DSL land is way to the north of the entire basin, making the area port of hood river property.
That is where I believe their legal argument falls short in the fact that it is not Public Land. It is Port property
My best guess is that ACOE will pass it cause they deal with the dams and navigable waterways (which the basin is NOT)...they don't care. The DSL will issue the permits and make a claim that it is not their decision to make because it is Port property. I think the port already knows this, too, from an article I read in the HR newspaper.....but the port will end up being the governing body that sanctions this.
We all know that the port usually follows the smell of money, and being that this development will bring it, hopefully they will go for it.
I think it is only right that the debate be settled in HR rather than in some state court.
Peace and cable to the world |
|
|
wakeup
Since 11 Sep 2005
328 Posts
always
Obsessed
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 5:18 am |
|
|
also
instead of bitchin
why don't these guys start a new sport and join us for a few laps
cablekayaking!!!
wanna see em hit the kicker!
mobe on a kayak!! |
|
|
scooter
Since 23 Apr 2005
99 Posts
hood River
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 6:55 am |
|
|
Hey gang,
Sorry, I've been super busy and on the road yesterday.
Nak, I apologize. I thought that I had most of our points on this forum alone. There is a lot of info on a couple different threads on
http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=4
If you have any more questions about our view after you read some of that feel free to ask.
We are a diverse group of citizens who are fighting to keep the basin open to public use. The cable park would keep the public out. It really is that simple. Our research has indicated that we do have legal standing in this case. I have yet to see a cable park in the US built in a public river. I'm not talking about land use issues, I'm talking about public river rights. The more you guys educate yourselves on that subject the more you will come to find that building in a public river in this country is very difficult. To allow the cable park would set a very dangerous legal precedent for those who enjoy the use of public water.
We know that the property around the basin will be developed some day and hope that it is done in a way that benefits all the citizens of Hood River.
We don't believe that it is right to designate a public bay for the use of one party.
That's it in a nutshell. We are not here to change any minds but to give you the chance to understand where many of us are coming from. This fight is going to happen on a political and legal field and not here.
If we are wrong then you might get a cable park in the basin. We will see.
Thanks for all the responses.
Derek |
|
|
Inept_Fun
Since 14 Apr 2005
1417 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 8:41 am |
|
|
If the port owns the water then how is it public?? Isn't the port a private entity free to do what they want with the water that they own?? Also your argument that it only benefits a few is so off base I dont know how it even makes sense in your own head. How would a business, that would bring in thousands of people to downtown hood river every summer, where people would walk across the street to eat downtown, buy stuff downtown, take kiteboard lessons, windsurfing lessons, go golfing, go to timberline, ride the mt hood railroad, etc etc etc only benefit a few people?? Do you mean a few thousand?? I have talked to people who have said, if Hood River gets a cable, I will buy a house there. Is this of no benefit whatsoever to anyone who actually lives in Hood River?? Thats why Im saying, who the hell are you, and why do you care so much?
_________________
I heart dangling |
|
|
Inept_Fun
Since 14 Apr 2005
1417 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 8:46 am |
|
|
I forgot the thousand new locals it will bring into a great, healthy, and fun sport.
_________________
I heart dangling |
|
|
consumer
Since 28 Nov 2010
406 Posts
banned
Obsessed
|
| Thu Apr 26, 12 11:18 am |
|
|
| I think the pro side needs to establish just how many we are in relation to the opposers of the development. More of us need to write in. |
|
|
scooter
Since 23 Apr 2005
99 Posts
hood River
|
| Fri Apr 27, 12 12:49 pm |
|
|
| Inept_Fun wrote: | | If the port owns the water then how is it public?? |
The water in the basin is not owned by the port. It is part of the Columbia river and is public.
| Inept_Fun wrote: | | Isn't the port a private entity free to do what they want with the water that they own?? Also your argument that it only benefits a few is so off base I dont know how it even makes sense in your own head. |
I have argued that a cable park would close off most of the basin for public use. I have not argued the economic benefits of the cable park but rather the exclusion of the public to use most of the basin
| Inept_Fun wrote: |
How would a business, that would bring in thousands of people to downtown hood river every summer, where people would walk across the street to eat downtown, buy stuff downtown, take kiteboard lessons, windsurfing lessons, go golfing, go to timberline, ride the mt hood railroad, etc etc etc only benefit a few people?? Do you mean a few thousand?? I have talked to people who have said, if Hood River gets a cable, I will buy a house there. Is this of no benefit whatsoever to anyone who actually lives in Hood River?? Thats why Im saying, who the hell are you, and why do you care so much? |
Again, I have not argued the economic benefits.
I don't want a public river privatized so a small demographic of our city can use it.
It's pretty simple.
Ian, Can you please name one cable park in the US that has been built on a publicly owned river?
Not to be snarky but if you research why they aren't built in public rivers in this country you will understand my objections more. To allow this to happen here could lead to the privatization of protected public rivers all over the country. We will fight that here first. The whitewater community has been fighting that for 30 plus years in the US.
I hope that this helps you understand at least my objections.
We are a diverse group and only a couple of us are kayakers. To say that we do not want to share is silly. We are fighting for everyone's rights to use the basin as long as that use does not restrict others.
.
Thanks and see some of you on Wednesday.
Derek |
|
|
Inept_Fun
Since 14 Apr 2005
1417 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Fri Apr 27, 12 2:07 pm |
|
|
Cities give away public land for things such as skateparks all of the time. This doesn't mean cities all over the world are giving land away at a rapid pace to build skateparks. I think you are taking this thing way to far.
Good to know you could care less about all the good the cable park will bring to the Hood as long as you can still kayak in there.
I still believe you are wrong in your assumption that the entire boat basin is public land though. I would like to see some "research" on your end that states this. I couldn't find anything that said anything about it being public or private.
_________________
I heart dangling |
|
|
K4L
Since 19 Jan 2009
483 Posts
Obsessed
|
| Fri Apr 27, 12 4:27 pm |
|
|
Admittedly I am ignorant with regards to much of this public waterway thing.
Two questions I have are (1) how is a Man made basin that is only navigable at the discretion of US Army Core of Engineers, public property, and (2) How is the general public excluded any more than some other profitable waterway endeavors such as Docks and Commercially run riverboat/raft tours which are " taking up my public waterways dammit!".
Why don't you go after them folks scooter? |
|
|
scooter
Since 23 Apr 2005
99 Posts
hood River
|
| Fri Apr 27, 12 9:50 pm |
|
|
| Inept_Fun wrote: | Cities give away public land for things such as skateparks all of the time. This doesn't mean cities all over the world are giving land away at a rapid pace to build skateparks. I think you are taking this thing way to far.
|
Im not talking about public lands. We are talking public waters. Please re-read my statements.
| Inept_Fun wrote: | | I still believe you are wrong in your assumption that the entire boat basin is public land though. I would like to see some "research" on your end that states this. I couldn't find anything that said anything about it being public or private. |
These are not assumptions. We have done a lot of studying on the subject and are confident that we have a very strong case. I will not be showing you our research. Do your own.
As far as docks and marinas go...please read the forum threads on iwindsurf.com They discuss the legal differences of marinas and docks a bit.
Please let me know if you can name a cable park in the US built in a public. As I will be meeting with some of you on Wednesday that will have to do for now.
I really do appreciate those of you who are truly trying to understand our opposition to the cable park. Hopefully this has helped a little bit.
Derek |
|
|
Inept_Fun
Since 14 Apr 2005
1417 Posts
Hood River
XTreme Poster
|
| Sat Apr 28, 12 9:25 am |
|
|
| scooter wrote: | | Inept_Fun wrote: | Cities give away public land for things such as skateparks all of the time. This doesn't mean cities all over the world are giving land away at a rapid pace to build skateparks. I think you are taking this thing way to far.
|
Im not talking about public lands. We are talking public waters. Please re-read my statements.
|
In this statement I am not comparing public land to water. You were the one who made the statement that said we would be setting a "very dangerous" precedent by letting them build the cable over this water. Actually the cable wont be "built" on any public land or water. So I was just wondering what this "very dangerous" precedent is and why it would be any different than a county giving up public lands to something like a skatepark?
| scooter wrote: | | Inept_Fun wrote: | | I still believe you are wrong in your assumption that the entire boat basin is public land though. I would like to see some "research" on your end that states this. I couldn't find anything that said anything about it being public or private. |
These are not assumptions. We have done a lot of studying on the subject and are confident that we have a very strong case. I will not be showing you our research. Do your own. |
As far as anything you have stated on this forum, I have seen nothing but assumptions from you, so again I would like to see some facts that actually back up anything you are saying.
And I like how you just ignore other peoples posts who bring up great arguments against you, kinda like you hear what you want you know? Really strengthens your opinions about this land a lot.... yes opinions because where is your "research" that you are working ever so hard on??
_________________
I heart dangling |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
