HB 1056

Anybody watching this? Any chance it might pass? Would make it a crime to access most of my usual and accustomed spots...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1056

That has potential for some very negative impacts. Wonder to what extent "provide parking" infers.

At first glance, it looks like a POS meant to keep the riff-raff, middle class and poor from annoying wealthy waterfront landowners by denying them access to public waters. If you guessed it was sponsored by a Republican, you'd be right.

Thanks for posting this. Rep. Haler deserves an earful.
They'd have to close many public boat launches due to inadequate parking.

HB 1056 - DIGEST
Provides that, if a parcel of public land is one-quarter
of a square mile or less in size, is adjacent to a body of
public water, and is or can be used to access the body of
public water, the governmental entity that has jurisdiction of
the land must provide adequate public parking for persons
using the land to access the water.

Well, in two sentences you've tried to define the problem in terms of economic class and partisan politics. That is unfortunate because there may be legitimate underlying issues that need to be addressed which may include the rights of adjacent property owners as well as public health and safety.

I know there was a recent flap in Seattle tied to one or more public roads ending at the edge of Lake Washington. These were extremely small and located in neighborhoods with narrow roads and no parking yet there were folks wanting to establish those locations as public access. No parking, no trash, no sanitation and no after dark limitations/security.

Then you have situations like River Road along the Puyallup that attract hordes of rec fishers during odd years such that No Parking signs have been installed to prevent unsafe shoulder parking and businesses across the road have had to police their parking. Scary to watch guys with a rod in one hand, fish in the other, try to waddle across four lanes of 50 MPH traffic in their waders. I suspect it was a similar concern that resulted in the State Dept. of Transportation to recently close off unofficial parking along the Sky even though cars were well off the highway.

Rather than simply throwing up an "us vs them" version of your first glance an understanding how this fits into some of our other access problems probably be helpful.

On a personal level I have met with my State Senator (R) and brought to his attention how past Legislative sessions have raided the dedicated account (RCO) funded by the highway portion of the gas tax boaters pay on their boat fuel. When I brought this to the attention of my State Representative (D) last year she basically blew me off with the explanation that they "just had to do it." In short, they decided that a dedicated account established via the Initiative process intended to provide, improve and maintain boater access was simply too ripe to not pick (raid due to their need to solve other budget problems). Oh, that particular legislator is now no longer settled in the hallowed halls of Oly.

So, become informed and address issues to your legislators. I've given you one that particularly frosts my butt. No more raids on RCO monies and, oh by the way, how about paying back the millions raided over the past several budget sessions?

Haler sponsored this because a constituent on the Yakima River complained about a massive parking problem that occurred on one day associated with a "fun in the sun" float on the river. Haler has gotten an earful but needs to keep hearing that you don't solve a localized problem with a statewide ban on public access to public property that is held in trust for ALL citizens by the state.

It's a crap bill that needs to be sliced and diced and killed in Committee. Enforce parking laws that are already on the books rather than inciting class and socio-economic warfare among river front property owners with the rest of us citizens.

Sg

The devil is in the details, Gutz.

HB 1056 continued:

If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to access the water for other than governmental purposes is prohibited.
If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the public that clearly states that using the land to access the water is prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.

A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Representative Haler(R) should be cited for attempting to restrict the public from pursuing lawful activities on public property.

If I read this correctly, Black Creek boat launch, on the Wynoochee, could have a problem if this passes.......

Then I'd be pissed......but there really needs to be more parking there. Another case of "keeping hands in the pocket", not buying more land for additional parking.

You may be overstating the nature of that State property and others where this situation may occur. Does the fact that a road end happens to abut a river or lake become an authorized access point for the public?

Don't get me wrong, over the years I have used a number of roadside access points and recognize that due to various circumstances access is diminishing on both private and publicly owned properties placing more emphasis on unofficial access points.

That leads me back to the millions of $ pulled out of the RCO account by the legislature and, in my opinion, a lack of willingness on the part of the State to address the access problem. Sadly, this seems to be a race to the bottom.

I believe that that the bill defines "access" as where state lands abut the waterway so that one can fish from state land. A highway right of way may count, except that the bill has some sort of acreage basis. Which would mean that a road next to a stream would have too many acres to count but a bridge crossing would.

If WDFW is serious about surviving as a license-funded entity (perhaps even this is questionable) then they will need to address access for anglers and hunters.

I could think of a bunch of groups that would like to see access limited to certain waterways..

Tribes
Railroads
Landowners
Timber Co's
Maritime Shipping
etc...

The landowner on the Yakima should be told the same thing that he'd tell the State if they told him what to do with his land...

"Don't like it? Buy it then and you can do whatever you want with it"

Screw him and Haler both.

Fish on...

Todd