Rockland's new draft harbor mgmt plan Adhoc group ends with a whimper, not a bang.

Listen to  the complete audio  of the March 5th  presentation
http://penbay.org/rockland/adhoc/030520/rockland_adhoc_030520_full_2hrs1min.mp3

The draft Rockland Harbor Management Plan


OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRESENTATION
Marine Economy section of the Plan.  
Noel Musson didn't read the Key Findings Nor  the objectives 
He read the Goal,and went directly to the Action Items. 

But the Key Findings  are where the supposed facts found are supposed to be! 

WORKING WATERFRONT

Despite being told to the contrary told a year ago,   the Plan Draft redefines Working Waterfront to include any water-dependent use.  But working waterfront is  FISHERIES TAX LAW  not HARBOR TAX LAW  

Title 36, §1132. DEFINITIONS

11. Working waterfront land. "Working waterfront land" means a parcel of land, or a portion thereof, abutting water to the head of tide or land located in the intertidal zone that is used primarily or used predominantly to provide access to or support the conduct of commercial fishing activities.|  For purposes of this subchapter, a parcel is deemed to include a unit of real estate notwithstanding the fact that it is divided by a road, way, railroad or pipeline

When consultant Noel Musson  and Rockland Commun ity Development Director  Julie Hashem got corrected  for trying to insert  their redefinition a year ago, they apologized and accepted the fisheries  element of the definition

But Musson inserted their redefinition into the Plan within the Marine Economy Key Findings.  Was it because  he didn't want to draw attention to this disobeying the  committee that  Musson decided to not to read it a the meeting?

Musson also didn't read aloud any of the Objectives.  Objective #5 promotes the Yachting Solutions expansion for megayachts:  "Private marinas and commercial dock space thrive and help meet the needs of the harbor."    That's a rather strange sentence when you unpack it. Why single out marinas of the diverse waterfront businesses on the harbor?  Why single out "private" marinas and dockage?  How about our public marina?  Should not we plan to improve and expand the Public Landing and public dockage to meet the needs of local and visiting boaters?  The "harbor" doesn't have "needs", boaters have needs.  

The City has needs for increased revenue from harbor users.  That needed revenue won't be coming from MORE private infrastructure on the water. They won't be paying taxes on their increased and thriving marinas and dockage in the water.  They won't be sharing with the City their profits. 

 They will be doing their best, like Yachting Solutions, to persuade the City through Private Public Partnerships, to move public facilities out of their way so they can expand.  

Musson explained the Plan is focused on City-owned property and services.  But when you get to he Marine Economy, the focus shifts to private enterprises and helping them suck up our marine resources and increase their profits, rather that focusing on strategies to enhance the Public Interest and increase City revenue.  

IN ESSENCE the Plan promotes the privatization of our natural resources while placing the financial burden of maintaining diminishing public infrastructure and increasing public services on the backs of tax payers.  

When private developers go after local, state and federal permits for their projects in our harbor water, should this Harbor Management Plan, as currently worded, receive approval by the City Council, they've essentially got City approval and backing for their enterprises that they can quote word for word.  

The SADDEST things about the Public Presentation 

1.  NO PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME Supposedly the public having read the document would have had something to say  but no time allotted for that!

 2. Musson's sleight of hand within the Plan Draft and his choices of what to read aloud and what not to read.

3. The moment was when someone asked if the Committee had discussed the Yachting Solutions marina expansion. Musson said no, and added that he wasn't really familar with the project.  Uh huh.  

4.  Worst: bereft of public speaking time  no one objected or even questioned anything about the obvious bias in favor of private interests over the public interest within the Marine Economy section.  

Musson just breezed through it in a few minutes.  Not a peep out of harbor defender SHIP.  Christos didn't even attend!  Where was SHIP? Hiding in the bushes trying to distance himself from his line by line approval of the plan last month?