Cable Park - It's Game Time!

Trent · Since 10 May 2012 76 Posts Hood River

Then perhaps you should change your mantra to something like "We are just trying to come to a solution that works for everyone....as long it involves a cable park." Clearly a cable park does not work for everyone. If it did then there would be no one fighting you on it. If you really did want to come up with a solution that works for everyone then you'd throw out some idea that did not involve a cable park.

Now, I realize that's not going to happen. You guys want a cable park, and I certainly don't fault you for wanting one. However, it's disingenuous for you guys to portray yourselves as willing to work out a solution that works for everybody when you clearly want just one thing.

forrest · Thu Sep 20, 12 9:08 am

Trent, thanks for your opinion. Obviously, this is a very difficult battle.

nicorico · Since 13 Sep 2012 23 Posts Hood River

Trent, you are being disingenuous in your attempt to portray the proponents as having empty alternative proposals. It should be clear to you and anyone, that the opposition does not want ANY cable park. Any plan that involves a cable park in the Basin is no good to them. They have said it over and over when confronted. There has been no honest talk from them on special hours, buoy removal, park shortening, beach development or access compensation, etc... All of which could benefit everyone if they are willing. But are they? As a group, they are not.

You sound like a rational person. So you should understand that in our view, the park DOES actually work for everyone. No current use will be displaced and there is ample room on the waterfront for all and to handle growth.

If you would like to have an honest conversation about what we can do to appease the majority of the community, then we (and the Naitos I'm sure) are more than willing.

-Nic

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

forrest · Thu Sep 20, 12 12:34 pm

We've tossed a few theories around, but in my opinion it's most likely positioning. Steve has proposed a solution he felt would work for everyone, and I agree. His solution was to make the north end of the boat basin bigger by moving some sediment. You can move 9,999 m^3 without an USACE permit, more if you permit. There has been a proposal with the Port to do this for ages, but not much motivation.

When you start talking about moving sand, we could then start thinking about creating a beach along the Event Site and further west. There are a lot of options here, and it's the most reasonable idea anyone has come up with so far.

Everyone needs to make an attempt to understand their opponent's position if we want this debate to productive. It's easy to point fingers, I'm very guilty of this, but what we need now is a solution, not boycotts.

blancoh2o · Since 15 Mar 2005 1154 Posts Oregon Phishy

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

Insisting on perfection is a passive - agressive form of opposition.

Proposing expensive "compromises" that involve significant "mission creep" is a passive aggressive form of opposition.

It's nice to be nice to the nice. But at some point Naito Development will wring their hands and say "bah this is too much trouble I'll just build a cable park in Florida (or Vietnam)".

And then it will go back to being a dream.

My dad was a city planner - he talked about this stuff all the time. A savvy local businessman doesn't say "I oppose this" he just gums up the works enough until the project dies. Why reveal your true opposition if it will just anger your customers?

If this is "go" time, like it said at the top of the thread, seems reasonable to apply a "your with us or your against us" standard. If it's early in the planning process, then canoodling about "wouldn't it be nice" is worthwhile. If the powers that be are about to bring the gavel down, not sure if the opprotunity to brainstorm really exists anymore.

Just FYI.

Good luck Forrest, hope your heart doesn't get broken on this deal. Sounds like you've worked pretty hard on it.

forrest · Fri Sep 21, 12 9:45 am

Thanks for the kind words. My heart won't break.

Making Hood River better for those of us who live and work here is my goal, and I have lots to work on. I have four other projects I'm working on that will raise the quality of life of people that who live and work here involving field sports (soccer/lacrosse/ultimate frisbee), BMX/mountain biking, indoor rock climbing, and improvements to the Sandbar.

There is always going to be opposition to things I work on because people are afraid of change.

D-Krep It Kiter · Since 18 Jul 2011 417 Posts Obsessed

nicorico · Since 13 Sep 2012 23 Posts Hood River

You bring up some valid points, but I don't think Trent has stated his position yet. Although some of the tone might be snarky, it would serve us well to not be so quick to judge.

From what I've read, Trent seems to just be in the middle asking questions and trying to call attention to some hasty words and conclusions. I don't see any harm in that. Personally I appreciate it.

Just sayin.

Ulaar · Since 26 Apr 2007 2 Posts New Member

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

Trent · Since 10 May 2012 76 Posts Hood River

Ian,

The current issue at hand has actually nothing to do with ACCESS and everything to do with USAGE. The ACCESS to the basin is very limited right now but the USAGE is unlimited. The opposition is fighting to preserve the USAGE. See the difference? I'm not just splitting semantic hairs here either. These are legal terms that the state of Oregon recognizes with regard to public rights to navigable waterways.

Please also remember that there are many more opponents to this cable park than just the "Friends."

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

According to the port I can currently rent out this body of water and have exclusive use of the basin. Theoretically if I was rich I could rent the basin out and float in the middle of it by myself all year long. I just don't see how this body of water could be considered natural or navigable. I think that is where your arguments are flawed. Also the use in the basin is not unlimited. In fact I think you can argue that the basin in its current state is much more limited thanif there were a cable park there.

Trent · Since 10 May 2012 76 Posts Hood River

Nope. That is where YOUR arguments are flawed. I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong on this one. The water in the basin is absolutely navigable, according to the legal definition of the word itself. Whether or not it is navigable is not just an opinion by you. There is an actual definition for it and the basin meets this definition. That is fact.

Did the port tell you that you could rent this body of water? Or is this on their website somewhere? My guess is that they will rent ACCESS to the basin to someone and not rent the actual USAGE of the water in the basin to someone.

And I believe you misunderstood my point about unlimited usage. Currently the public can pretty much do anything they want in that water (as long as the activity is legal, of course). That is what I meant by 'Unlimited usage.' A cable park would very much 'Limit' that usage.

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

Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.

That is the definition of a navigable waterway. Now unless Im missing something and the 76 is getting its fuel pumped into their tanks via a barge that comes into the boat basin, over the 5 feet of water at its deepest point of entry. How does the boat basin fit the definition of a navigable waterway?

Just because you know what the word navigate means doesnt mean that the boat basin falls under the definition of a "navigable waterway". The whole point of the government trying to protect these areas in the first place is pretty much so they can be sure that vital goods can be shipped through these navigable waterways, not that you can navigate them on a vessel...

Trent · Since 10 May 2012 76 Posts Hood River

Dude, I'm impressed that you did a little research to obtain that definition. However, I think you need to do a little more.....like perhaps read the entire article from which you grabbed your definition from. I'm guessing it was from this (below)? Check out the bold section at the very bottom. The boat basin absolutely falls under the definition of a navigable waterway.

"Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.

Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The distinction is particularly important in the case of so-called navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal government can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. It also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams. Generally a state or private property owner who is inconvenienced by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws of Eminent Domain would apply, which may lead to compensation for the landowner.

The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section Cool

gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.

In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms. One area of this regulation covers matters of transportation and commerce: for example, rules governing the licensing of ships and the dumping of waste. A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled by federal law. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation's navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A third area of regulation involves Workers' Compensation claims. The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901–950). The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States.

The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.