Comments on: Pier ban redux http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/2008/02/pier-ban-redux/ Commentary on media, technology, marketing and clamming strategies Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Churbuck http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/2008/02/pier-ban-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-310215 David Churbuck Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:45:08 +0000 http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/?p=1565#comment-310215 Seasonal docks are very different from permanent structures -- some argue they cause more damage being installed and taken down, disturbing the bottom -- others say they're okay because they are shorter, usually don't involve pressure treated wood which can leach all sorts of nastiness. http://www.healthybuilding.net/arsenic/index.html Knowing your family's property there is little to no shore access required by clammers, and others with business on the beach and little to no foot traffic from Cordwood to the Oyster Company landing on Little River Road. I'd take the ConComm chief's remark with a grain of salt -- one can make a lot of obvious scientific claims -- shade on bottom, post disruption, prop dredging. My arguments are based on property rights. 1. Massachusetts should roll property lines back to the high tide line from the low. The wet zone should be in the public domain as it is dynamic and necessary for commerce and passage. 2. A pier is a public taking of public water. I can't sail through it. I can't row through it. I certainly am not allowed to stand over "my" water on top of your dock, but yet your dock is over my water. Solution -- do what the old timers did -- pulley on a pole with a loop of rope and a pennant to the dinghy. Seasonal docks are very different from permanent structures — some argue they cause more damage being installed and taken down, disturbing the bottom — others say they’re okay because they are shorter, usually don’t involve pressure treated wood which can leach all sorts of nastiness.
http://www.healthybuilding.net/arsenic/index.html

Knowing your family’s property there is little to no shore access required by clammers, and others with business on the beach and little to no foot traffic from Cordwood to the Oyster Company landing on Little River Road.

I’d take the ConComm chief’s remark with a grain of salt — one can make a lot of obvious scientific claims — shade on bottom, post disruption, prop dredging. My arguments are based on property rights.

1. Massachusetts should roll property lines back to the high tide line from the low. The wet zone should be in the public domain as it is dynamic and necessary for commerce and passage.
2. A pier is a public taking of public water. I can’t sail through it. I can’t row through it. I certainly am not allowed to stand over “my” water on top of your dock, but yet your dock is over my water.

Solution — do what the old timers did — pulley on a pole with a loop of rope and a pennant to the dinghy.

]]> By: Chris B http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/2008/02/pier-ban-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-308157 Chris B Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:04:22 +0000 http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/?p=1565#comment-308157 I am sympathetic to the ban, but also affected by it. My family's house lies in the proposed area and we want a seasonal dock in front of our house to host a dingy, but that wouldn't be allowed. I talked to the head of the conservation commission and he said scientifically speaking, there's absolutely no problem with this kind of dock and their commission has never once rejected a proposal to put one in because the environmental impact is negligible. What bothers me is as I try to get in touch with Councilman Barry I can't and they won't respond to my emails. If this policy isn't being based off scientific data and reports, what is it based off of then? I am sympathetic to the ban, but also affected by it. My family’s house lies in the proposed area and we want a seasonal dock in front of our house to host a dingy, but that wouldn’t be allowed. I talked to the head of the conservation commission and he said scientifically speaking, there’s absolutely no problem with this kind of dock and their commission has never once rejected a proposal to put one in because the environmental impact is negligible.

What bothers me is as I try to get in touch with Councilman Barry I can’t and they won’t respond to my emails. If this policy isn’t being based off scientific data and reports, what is it based off of then?

]]>