Save the Anchorage In Washington, DC

[virginia boy]

Sam Plan B, the developers may very well create what they claim they will, but judging from what they've done with National Harbor I fear for the channel.

I heard a similar marketing spiel when they were planning the National Harbor.
Here's a promise from them:

"With direct public access lined by cafes and restaurants where people meet, congregate and enjoy urban life."

What happened at the Harbor? A sterile, contrived, expensive, monstrosity. It's so painfully clear that the whole complex is there to gouge as much cash as they can. From the over priced food to the $10 dollar per 4 hours dinghy dock, to the outrageous parking fees, to the dollar more per gal diesel than anyone else. If you want to "enjoy" the National Harbor you had better bring a boatload of cash.

I doubt that the DC waterfront will be available to the average family in the district. Unless of course they pack a picnic lunch and take a bus, because as expensive as it is now, it'll be stupid expensive after they've turned it into another disneyland for the wealthy. The average Joe boater is gonna get screwed on this one.

[Chief Engineer]

Same thing happened in Baltimore....one company owns four marinas

A lot of mu customers moved out due to higher rates.....paid parking for owners and guests higher slip and electrical fees and spanish speaking employees

[Greg S]

I received this today. Guess I can't say it's a timely response, but at least it's an acknowledgement of the email sent back at the beginning of August was received.

------------------------------------------------

"Dear Mr. S---

This is in reference to your email correspondence regarding Department of the Army permit application NAB 2011-00766 (SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT/THE WHARF) for authorization to construct five new public piers; construct two independent marinas; install "day-use" docks; construct sewage pump-out facilities; install lighting, potable water, power, communications, sewer, fire protection, winterization, and de-icing systems below deck for fixed and floating piers; install a mooring field; construct a replacement bulkhead; and construct a residential building and multi-purpose buildings on the new piers in the Washington Channel along Water Street and Ohio Drive, SW, Washington, DC.

Thank you for your interest in this project. Your comments and concerns will be considered during our permit evaluation process, and your correspondence
has been made a part of our administrative record on the application. We are forwarding your correspondence to the applicant, requesting their
consideration and response to the Corps regarding your comments and questions. We are also forwarding your letter to the District of Columbia
Department of the Environment for their information.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Ms. Maria N. Teresi, of this office, at (410) 962-4501.

Sincerely,

Kathy B. Anderson
Chief, Maryland Section Southern

[Flipper]

The DC Zoning Commission took final action last night to approve the application on PUD phase 1 by a vote of 4-0-1. (No suprizes here....)
The PUD project is subject to several other government agency reviews and approvals. First, two pieces of federal legislation have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to facilitate the full redevelopment the project. Bill No. H.R. 723, introduced on February 15, 2011, deauthorizes a portion of the Washington Channel for federal navigation to allow expansion of the District's marina. The second bill, H.R. 2297 introduced on June 22, 2011, authorizes certain transfers of property in connection with the Southwest Waterfront and marina......

This fight is not over!

Everyone needs to contact their Congressman and vote down H.R. 723 and 2297.

[Flipper]

H.R. 2297 was passed today. However H.R. 723 still not passed.

Norton’s Southwest Waterfront Redevelopment Bill Approved by Committee

WASHINGTON, DC - Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today celebrated House Oversight and Government Reform Committee passage of her bill that clears the way for the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront. Norton’s Southwest Waterfront redevelopment bill, H.R. 2297, clarifies the legal status of the property in order to allow the District to move forward with a major redevelopment project that will include 2.5 million square feet of hotels, office space, retail and residences, as well as increased maritime activity.

The federal government transferred the Southwest Waterfront land to the District in the early 1960s, before D.C. had home rule, but, even though the District owns it, restrictions on the land have resulted in its underuse. The federal government has no interest in this land other than the Titanic Memorial, which the District has worked with the National Park Service to protect, and the Maine Lobsterman Memorial, which Norton worked with Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME) to also protect in the bill.

“These paternalistic restrictions on D.C.’s own land have for years prevented the city from putting the land to its highest and best use, have driven down the value of the property, and have deprived the city and its residents of a waterfront fit for the nation’s capital,” Norton said. “By eliminating these burdensome and outdated restrictions, the city will be able to move forward with its new vision for the Southwest Waterfront.”

The new Arena Stage and the Washington Kastles tennis stadium, which are already at the waterfront, and the Graduate School USA's commitment to a long-term lease there, have jumpstarted the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront. The Southwest Waterfront redevelopment project will create thousands of jobs for District residents, generate millions of dollars annually in local tax revenue, create new and improved waterfront parks and docks, and revitalize the southwest quadrant of the city.

Contact your congressman today, tell them to vote no on HR 723.

[Flipper]

On 3 Feb the developer (Hoffman-Struever Waterfront LLC), submitted Stage Two - Phase One of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) which provides details on Phase One of the development (Upper Washington Channel, and parcels 2,3,4 and 11). The proposal still uses half of the the former Washington Channel width and the anchoring area in the upper reaches. It defers any details of moorings until Phase Three (possibly 12 years away). and neglects to address anything about the anchorage.
Contact your congressman today, tell them to vote no on HR 723.

[Flipper]

Below are from the developers PUD submission to the DC Zoning Commission. You can see that there is no room for boats to anchor or for students in small sailiing boats to learn how to sail. Please let your Congressman know that you want them to vote no on HR723 or any bill that de-federalizes the Washington Channel.

[Flipper]

Below is another picture from the developers PUD 2 submission to the DC Zoning Commission. There is no room for boats to anchor or for students in small sailing boats to learn how to sail.

The developer is meeting with the public tonight at Arena stage to explain how he is going to make South West DC a great place to see the waterfront. Unfortunately this will be at the expense of the cruising sailors anchorage!

Please let your Congressman know that you want them to vote no on HR723 or any bill that de-federalizes the Washington Channel.

[btrayfors]

To cruising sailors everywhere, and to anyone truly interested in sailing, the proposed narrowing of the Washington Channel by half is an outrage, driven by big $$$ and by misguided & misinformed & clueless "planners".

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their response to an earlier submission by the Developer responded with several questions, and asked the Developer "to submit a revised plan for review or demonstrate how the proposed work would not adversely affect general navigation and navigation ingress and egress in the Washington Channel".(from letter dated 30 August 2011)

To date, AFAIK, there has been no response from the Developer.

What's at stake? If the current proposal is approved it will mean the end to anchoring in the Nations Capital! That's right, there is NO OTHER VIABLE OPTION for boats visiting Washington DC to anchor. There is also no viable plan for moorings....the half-baked 30' spacing for "fore and aft mooring" up against the seawall is a non-starter.

Bottom line: all this cannot happen if the Federally-owned Washington Channel remains in Federal hands as it has been since its construction, and is not transferred to the DC Government as is proposed in HR723.

PLEASE, PLEASE ask your Congressman to vote "NO" on HR723, as well as any subsequent bill which contains a proposal to de-Federalize the Washington Channel.

Please help preserve this 150-year old treasure.

Bill

[Sam Plan B]

Wow! What terrific renderings. Thanks for posting them. That development will be fantastic!

[Kettlewell]

Bill:

Just for the record I did contact my Congressman who sent back a rather perplexed sounding note indicating he would have his staff look into it. Seeing as he is landlocked in upstate NY I don't think the issue was on his radar screen. But, you never know if it will at least make him think when the vote comes up.

[Nemo55]

This Is The Wave of the Future!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading

[Flipper]

Thanks Bill! We need to get this on lots of congressional radars. It's a no loose for represenatives from other states. They can show their constituants they care about their boating voters! We need lots more like Bill to call, write or email their Senitors and Represenative and let them know to vote down H.R. 723 or any bill that de-federalizes the Washington Channel. The national boating public can turn this one in favor of the cruisers if they get the message to Congress.... Please pass it on, appathy will cause us to loose another anchorage. We owe present and future boaters a place to anchor at our nations capitol.

[Flipper]

New article in the Waterway Cruising Guide on the Washington Channel.

Waterway Cruising Guide | Cruising Guide News

[Flipper]

From the developers PUD submission, a computer rendering of the proposed changes. Note there is no room for anchoring! Tell your congressman to VOTE NO on H.R. 723!