Write a letter to the Editor for the Cable Park

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

The cable park will be built in public waters. You are wrong if you think the waters in the basin are private. If I am wrong about that you will probably ge your park. I will not be giving any facts or the basis of our legal argument on this forum as this issue is likely to end up in court. I am not trying to convince any of you here and cannot possibly address every question here. There are many good points on this thread but fortunately this will be decided by state and federal laws that we feel are very much on our side.
Laws dictate which aspects of this project happen or not. The history of US cable parks and US laws regarding public water/river rights suggest the cable park will never be built in the basin. Do your own homework, get educated on water rights law and then show me an example of a US cable park built in a public river.

There are very clear legal reasons why there are no US cable parks on public rivers. Do let this one happen would set a legal precedent tha. Could ultimately put public river rights at risk in this country. I don't want that and if you understood the potential ramifications you wouldn't either. If the shoe were on the other foot here we could be proposing a business plan that would take kitesurfing areas on the river away. Maybe a nice Thomas the train log ride right in front of the event site would bring in more
money? That would suck but a developer who thought otherwise would then have more legal standing if naito successfully privatized a public river for a cable park for the first time in us history.

I hope that helps you understand that aspect of our opposition.

Thanks
Derek

Come to the meeting Wednesday if you truly want to understand some of the positions our group has. Otherwise go to the minutes and testimony from the city plan ing commission to learn more about our positions.

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 12:55 pm

Scooter,

You may or may not have a good legal argument. I don't know but I hope not. Again, that only has anything to do with HOW you'll try and stop the park, not whether you're right or wrong to try.

As far as this horrible precedent that would be set, get over it. It's pure BS. Have you ever actually gotten on a boat and gone up and down the river? If you did, you'd see considerable exclusive use of sections of water, both public and private. Marinas, fixed log rafts, industrial sites, houseboats, port facilities. Guess what, they're all on the river and they're all exclusive use. So stop with the "holier than thou" act that you're protecting the riverways from the dangerous precedent of exclusive use. When the Sternwheeler was in the basin, it had exclusive use of the water around the dock.

As far as your argument about public use, get over it. The simple fact is far more of the public will use both the shore and the water if this park is completed. So don't pat yourself on the back that you're helping the public. You're hurting the public.

I've read all the posts, and what is obvious is that you're primarily interested in blocking the park based on the fact that it will be exclusive use for cable riders. You will no longer be able to SUP and Kayak in the south half of the basin. That's OK, nothing wrong with you fighting to keep what you want. But don't kid yourself or us that you're doing it for any reason other than a few folks have basically a private lake on public water and want to keep it that way. Tell it like it is. This isn't some grand "protect the waterways and rivers", it's "I've got mine and I don't want to give it up". Nothing wrong with that, but tell the truth about it. If you have to kid yourself about your own motives, maybe even you think you're wrong--deep down.

People have a grand capacity to convince themselves they're right when in fact they are wrong. People have a grand capacity to avoid looking at what they're doing too closely, so they won't have to feel the guilt. Look at Nazi Germany. Now, I'm not equating what you're doing with the Nazis, but if they could kid themselves about genocide, don't you think you could kid yourself about what you're doing? I think you feel guilty that you're standing in the way of the good of the community, the good of the basin, and the good of the public so that just a few of you can keep the South half of the basin as your private lake--when there are other options available for you as well. Nothing else but your own guilty conscience explains your hanging on to arguments that are pure poppycock. You hesitate to state your arguments, because you know that they'll be shot full of holes as soon as they're out. Your own conscience can't deal with facing the truth of what you're doing. Nothing else fits the facts.

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

Hey Nak,

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I can also argue that you are wanting the basin all for yourselves. Seems pretty silly to make that argument when if fact the cable park would do just that but for your group. Very Happy

Ad hominem attacks are a sign of desperation. To call my efforts on behalf of the many different user groups who use the basin and will continue to do so in the future "hollier than thou" is just plain pathetic. Stick to the issues and you will do your cause more good.

You don't know me or my motives and frankly I could care less if you did.

You speak as though the cable park is the only way this space will ever be worth something or that this is the only chance we have to make this space better. That's ridiculous. I envision a nice path and some shops on the west back with a small lawn and boat launch that everyone will one day use to enjoy the basin. I see Naito either scaling down his hotel or selling the property to someone who will put a nice little multi-use building or pub down there again with a beach or lawn and public access to the basin. If none of these things happen I'm OK with that too. I love having a quiet undeveloped space on our waterfront and someday if it remains as such it will be more valuable than any building or development.

Otherwise, I'm still waiting for someone to name one US cable park built on a public river.

A big thanks to Forest for representing your cause with dignity and class. You guys are lucky to have him and frankly the guy should never have to buy a beer in this town again. EVER!

Looking foreword to meeting with him and a few of you guys on Wednesday.

Have a great weekend!
Derek Very Happy

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 2:21 pm

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 2:46 pm

Sorry, I did want to address this just a bit further than I already did:

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

i guess we can go in circles with this all day. I have stated my position. I will not go into any details. There is no point. We know where we stand legally and thought that it would be nice to give you guys a little perspective on where we are coming from. I do not care if you think you have my arguments figured out or rebutted. I haven't actually made much of an argument. I've just offered a bit of perspective. Much of what I have offered in terms of opinions on this thread are my own. I'm actually not in charge of our group and am taking my marching orders from others. I'm just the only one with a NWkite account and wanted to help you guys understand some of our positions.

Obviously I am not an attorney but we do have a couple in our group and they are taking care of the arguing.

I have not tried to argue the obvious economic benefits that might come from this. A strip mall would also bring in a ton of money but at what cost the community and to those of us who live here. $$$$ is not the only metric by which to measure the benefits of a plan. That is very short sighted. I'm OK with growth but not this kind.

See ya at the meeting.
Derek
Very Happy

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 3:28 pm

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 3:45 pm

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

The land around the basin will be developed. Yes that is true.
Your assumption that if this doesn't happen now it will become an industrial wasteland is not your opinion and not fact. Forest and his group will continue to fight for a development that works for everyone who lives in Hood River and we will help him with that.

The Hotel and the multi-use building might be built on Naito's land and if they are I'm sure they will be done tastefully. I like the architectural drawings of the multi-use building. The hotel design is very blah in my opinion. If they are built, we will enjoy the basin from the deck of a restaurant or a nice grass field. No worries there as public access and a PAW will be required. Perhaps they'll even add a nice shrubbery.

The port is working on a plan for the west side of the basin and lot one as well. With enough public input the people of Hood River will have a say in what is done there. The port knows that they have some prime waterfront real estate there and will definitely listen to those who have ideas for development. We the public will also have a say.

Derek

Very Happy

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 5:32 pm

scooter · Since 23 Apr 2005 99 Posts hood River

Woohoo! We agreed on two things!!!! The most important being that "The holy Grail" is cinematic gold!

We are currently working on some development options for the port to consider for both Lot 1 and the west side of the basin. I hope that forest's group will join us in that.

Hopefully we will all be happy with what becomes of those areas. I know the port is seriously considering the best way to use those spaces but we should definitely unite and offer them some alternatives.

If you can't make the Wednesday meeting I'm sure we will keep you posted.

Derek

Nak · Sat Apr 28, 12 8:07 pm

Ni! Ni! if you don't agree to the cable park I shall say Ni! again.

talon · Since 26 Oct 2006 8 Posts HR Kook

After reading through this long and somewhat informative thread I have a question. Maybe i'm ignorant, but how does the marina fit into this issue of public vs private waterways? The marina, like the basin, is a man-made area. The docks and boathouses are private spaces in a public waterway are they not? You need a key to get out there, and I have been stopped/ticketed for; swimming off the docks, kayaking without a lifejacket, and supposedly trespassing, all in this "public?private?policed?" waterway. Does onyone know the answer? Scooter? Nak? Port Commissioner who is lurking on the forum? Very Happy

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

chrissmack · Since 08 Jun 2005 526 Posts portland Addicted

disclosure: i'm all for the cable park. i think it would be a great addition to hood river.

the anti-park people on this forum and the iwindsurf forum, to me, are confusing the issues.

public waterways have been in the past, and will continue in the future to be used for private enterprise. it may already be legal for the cable park to operate in the basin. even if it isn't currently legal, that can change.

the argument that there is no cable park on public waters is just more smoke screen. there was a day when there was not a single private ski hill operator on public land. some cable park operator has to be the first to get permission.

seems to me that more people will use a cable park in the basin than the number of people currently using it for recreation. both sides can be called a "special interest group", but one represents more people.

seems they have given up on the "loud" argument. and as for the "unsightly" argument, seems that a cable park fits in visually with the surrounding freeway, railroad, overpasses, marina, hood river bridge, parking lots, and such that will be there for a long, long time.

don't let the opposition control the tone and direction of the conversations.

kenja · Since 19 Jun 2008 179 Posts Stoked

I'm a supporter of the cable park. That said, I do understand Derek's position and think he has articulated it better than he's gotten credit for. Imagine if it were a windsurfing simulator instead. Or, let's say a floating casino or a kids water slide park. Many of the same economic arguments would hold for those alternatives. I'm going out on a limb here, but I would venture to guess that the most rabid cable park supporters on this forum would be solidly against those alternatives (I know I would...). Yes, nobody else has proposed a better alternative, yet. That doesn't mean that someone who doesn't support our vision or plan is an idiot or that they're selfish. It is simply not that black and white. Pretending that it is really doesn't help the cause.

Props to Derek for being willing to voice and stand by his position in the face of a less than welcoming crowd. As a cable supporter, I think our best chances are to communicate the good that it will bring to our community and to build positive support, not to tell our opponents they're idiots... My 2 cents.