Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
I was unsure at first, but now I definitely think you're ESA's mouthpiece. Far too much passion and length in your posts for us to think you're neutral.
On the specifics--Sure, the optimal height of the posts is debatable and probably not a big deal. The big deals are the noise/intrusion every 30 minutes and the public's ownership of the dock for all. The posts are just one of several tools the town has available if we come to believe this is not in the town's best interest
|
You don't know me very well, anytime I choose to voice my opinion and do so at length and with passion. Let me speak about my passion in this case, my passion here is not all about ESA, or Seaplanes.... it is about acknowledging the fact that there can be use models outside of the Norm.
Businesses use union wharf all the time. So that isn't a logistical argument here, you can't say that someone can put a dumpster in the middle of the wharf (which I see done yearly if not more often) and call it ok, but then tell someone they can't bring a sea plane into the dock, because the wings extend out over the dock. So if the public access is deemed not suitable for business then it needs to apply to all business period end of story.....Equal treatment is what this is called, and yes I am very passionate about that.
Now In my eyes, as a public access point, I think that any business should require a permit to use the dock, and pay a fee based on hourly usage to do so.... This includes a private citizen that needs a dumpster placed on the wharf to clean out their island property. In this case the Dumpster company is the business, which would require the property owner to gain the permit and pay the fees....Or a construction company that needs to tie up their barge for a few hours, and load materials....And it extends to a commercial entity simply leaving a boat at the wharf for a longer period of time, then would be considered the norm for a recreation user (i.e. overnight, or over a weekend). This allows the town to control the usage of the pier for other then purely recreation purposes. If this is already going on, then why is everyone up in arms at this point. To operate a business from the wharf ESA would have to get the necessary permits. So my guess is this isn't the current situation.
Now if the FAA grants the runway identification, private pilots will see it as a navigation point, and may chose to stop in and check things out. Once on the water they are a boat, and like any boat have the right to tie up at the wharf safely... having lower posts facilitates that.... Once again I am pretty passionate about equal treatment......
Now if down the road ESA wants to run a sight seeing business, he is going to have to get permits from the town, etc.... To my knowledge that hasn't been done, and that is when the argument in this thread becomes relevant. If down the road the store wants to put in facilities to enable selling gas to sea planes, there will be permits from the Town, DES, and likely the FAA... once again that is the time for the arguments I see in this thread.....
Don't think I am 100% in agreement with ESA, I am not... what I do agree with him on is equal treatment.... the arguments here are not separating out the categories that need to be separated out..... The FAA runway designation is harmless not really worth worrying about, it simply adds a way point marking the location... a location where a sea plane operator could land anyway... I am sorry but private sea-plane operators, should have the same rights and accommodations as private boat owners.
Business aspects and concerns are a different debate, if the town doesn't have regulations in place that would prevent a business from utilizing the wharf with out prior notification then that is a town issue, and mistake.