Mooring rules flawed
To the Editor:
And for everyone to see on the town cable channel of the Tuesday, December 8th Town Board work session: Why did Councilman Peter Reich inform the building inspector of my floats that are tied to a bulkhead in Menantic Creek? Why does a question of restricted navigation go to the building inspector instead of the bay constable?
Answer: It would be more disruptive to my business if the town building inspector is involved by writing a letter to my friend, the owner of the bulkhead. Listen carefully to what [Mr. Reich] says after I say I am going to bring the floats into the basin: it won’t interfere with navigation but does it comply with other regulations? What he is saying is: Bert, I don’t care what you say, your floats can’t stay in the water around here.
I am feeling politically persecuted! Is it that I am a Democrat? Or that I challenge the status quo of the rules regarding moorings? Councilman Reich’s making an issue of these floats is his form of intimidation. Intimidation that I think the rest of the Town Board is being subjected to, particularly regarding waterway issues.
For your information: The floats are at maximum 12 feet wide and they are flush tied to the bulkhead. They go dry to half that width at low tide. So, his scenario of a small sailboat being restricted rings hollow as its skeg would hit bottom before it bumped my floats.
But this is the silly stuff — the real issue is rental moorings in Dering Harbor and by my calculation, the main renters of moorings are on their way to $2 million in rental income. How many times has the mooring law been modified in the past six years? More than several, but the will to change the renewal process is not there.
Why? Because Peter won’t allow it. Listen to Councilman Ed Brown on Tuesday’s tape. He says other people have complained about my floats as well. Who could that have been, I wonder? And this brings in the argument raised on Tuesday when Councilman Ed Brown addressed the town attorney regarding mooring fees and how can the town justify them? Additionally, in recent reading of the Reporter, you hear others chattering about town bottom and how it’s everyone’s resource, and a call for some kind of fee system for its allocation.
It’s a mad grab out there, but clearly the first point must be in safely mooring a boat. Yet, Peter Reich is against any kind of town inspection, or recommendation of gear. Afraid of the liability. But Sag Harbor does it among other towns. Haven’t seen a lawsuit from any of them.
It is just another attempt to protect his constituents’ business models. What would happen if we changed the renewal process on rental moorings in Dering Harbor? The waiting list would disappear. Or you could nurture other mooring operators and see what flourishes. Why should a nonresident have access to a mooring to the exclusion of a resident taxpayer who is, in theory, owner of the bottom?
It’s time to object to the $20-per-year fee for being on a waiting list for a mooring in Dering Harbor. It’s time to change the renewal process so owners and residents have priority over non-taxpayers to the town bottom and allow for some semblance of equality in sharing the benefit of this public trust. The relationship is clear: this system is hurting local businesses and individuals, and to sustain it is causing the town to create more regulations and charge higher fees.
CAPTAIN BERT WAIFE
SHELTER ISLAND
