 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
Port Votes Yes for Yachts, Fishermen Plan Initiative
By Jo Bailey and Carl Nyberg
Fisherman Joel Kalahara (right) with others at the Port Commission hearing December 12. (Jo Bailey photo) |
On December 11, Port of Seattle Commissioners approved a first reading of the resolution which would allow mooring pleasure boats at the terminal, despite the heated objections, emotional pleas and eloquent statements of many fishermen and others against the plan. The second vote, set for early January, will probably finalize the change, according to Commission president Clare Nordquist.
More than 30 people testified at hearings on December 6 and December 11, and an unofficial tally showed that a ratio of about 10 to one were against allowing yachts to moor at the terminal. The Port maintains that high vacancy rates at the terminal have forced it to consider mooring yachts to help pay for needed repairs.
The Port also said that the fishing industry is down and shows few indications of revival. However, fisherman Joel Kalahara said the business is growing. "The outlook for trolling is very good, there's an increase in Chinook and Coho and the potential to grow," he said.
Opponents of the Port's plan--including fisherman Peter Knutson, City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck, Philip Wohlstetter of Allied Arts, many fishermen, and hundreds of other "Friends of Fishermen's Terminal"--are already planning a citywide initiative campaign that would limit the Port's power to change the status of the terminal, which was mandated in 1913 as a "safe haven" for boats of the Pacific Northwest fishing fleet.
"We have begun the process of placing an initiative before the voters next fall to save Fishermen's Terminal," Knutson said. "This initiative will protect the homeport of the North Pacific Fishing fleet and revitalize the terminal. Fishing is not a dying industry, the runs are coming back."
His group has consulted with attorneys, and he said an initiative could protect the current zoning of the terminal by setting up an historic district, similar to the one established for the Pike Place Market when it was threatened by developers.
As for needed terminal repairs, Knutson said there have been practically no repairs or maintenance since the 1940s, although moorage fees paid by fishermen were depreciated by the Port for repairs. Fishermen question how those fees were spent. Knutson cites rotten pilings, a broken crane, and docks in such disrepair that fishermen cannot drive on them. He said the port has halved the outdoor area for working on nets and raised fees for indoor net sheds.
Kjell Askevold, a commercial fisherman since 1966, blamed the Port Commissioners for conditions at the terminal. "You've turned the place into a dump, who wants to stay? Fishermen's Terminal is a community--you've done poorly by it," he said at the December 11 hearing, his voice choking.
The Port indicates revenue losses due to vacancies at the terminal is about $200,000 per year, the amount it could expect to get from mooring recreational boats. Estimates for rebuilding a dock for those vessels, plus other repairs, range from $25 million to $35 million.
Fisherman Bret Barnecut and friends built this artists' rendition of the services the Port provides for Fishermen's Terminal and those provided at other marinas. (Jo Bailey photo) |
Terminal manager Jim Serrill emphasized that there is continued support for the fishing industry, and active fishing vessels have first priority for moorage, with commercial vessels second and recreational vessels third. Fishers point out that there are problems with the plan to add yachts.
The plans are to reconfigure Dock 10 for yacht moorage, keeping those boats separate from commercial vessels. Pleasure boats would be charged market rates, not the lower rates of fishing and commercial boats. Recreational boat moorage contracts would clearly state that fishing and commercial vessels retain priority use of all terminal areas, not just moorage slips. But, since the Port could "bump" pleasure boats from the terminal if fishboats need moorage, that would mean putting fishboats at Dock 10. Therefore, they wouldn't be moored separately as commissioners indicated.
Also, Dock 10 is the nearest dock to the West Wall where "hot work" like welding, machinery repair and other work, goes on day and night repairing fishboats. It would be noisy, with bright lights and possibly smelly boats nearby, which yachties may not enjoy.
Preserve the Terminal
City Councilmember Steinbrueck urged Port Commissioners to vote against the proposal, stating by letter that, "The introduction of recreational vessels to the terminal would seriously damage the viability of the facility for working vessels and marine industrial uses. I hope the Port will develop an alternative that provides for long term financial sustainability while preserving the terminal exclusively for working vessels."
Steinbrueck said the terminal is designated as being in Urban Maritime and Urban industrial shoreline environments, both of which set conditions for recreational marinas in order to reduce their impacts to surrounding manufacturing uses. "Clearly, the compatibility of this proposal with the city's current land use codes must be explored before embarking on such a proposal."
He urged further study and analysis of the plan. "Recreational vessels simply do not belong in Fishermen's Terminal. Moreover, it is difficult to see how transient moorage will be the fiscal 'magic bullet' to save Fishermen's Terminal ... We have a chance to preserve a REAL part of Seattle's maritime history."
Historical Site
The idea of making the terminal an historical site, thus keeping its original mandate as "Fishermen's" Terminal, has been discussed frequently for several months.
"Fishermen's Terminal could easily be nominated to the Washington State Heritage Register," said Michael Houser, director of the state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia.
"There's no reason why the terminal could not be listed," he said. "It sounds reasonable, commercial use does not make it ineligible, and there are no restrictions." Criteria for such a listing include: site is at least 50 years old, it must be of historical significance, have a story to tell and have integrity. He noted many heritage and historical sites are commercial working sites, as is the terminal.
Because the Port is a public agency, it doesn't have the right to object to the historical designation, Houser said.
Allied Arts
Philip Wohlstetter of Allied Arts, a driving force behind planning for Seattle Public Libraries and the Pike Place Market, urged involving the public in developing plans for the terminal redesign. "We need to look at the whole. Show us yachts and fishing vessels--let's see how the cultures mingle visually, give us a sense of what the terminal will feel like after this proposed change that might allow moorage for recreational vessels--before proceeding with a plan. Doing this would fulfill the spirit of your mandate as a public interest agency," he said.
Commissioner Paige Miller said in response, "I don't believe planning will work--fishermen are 'from Missouri' and need to be shown."
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!