[Bboa-members] Berther correspondence from Berkeley Marina

[BD]

Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:54:42 BigDaddy69_77 at yahoo.com  
To: wificoop at wificoop.org

While I'm addressing the bulletin board, has anybody
else noticed the substandard/poor construction of the
new
half million dollar shower/bathroom over by C dock
that took 2 years to complete? The ventilation is
poor, the floors are not canted towards the drain and
the bench is placed such that the shower will wet
anything placed on it. One would hope for 500 grand to
get better construction than that. I was wondering if
anybody knew who to contact to complain about the
construction or if we should circulate a petition to
sue the builder or what? Also, did everyone see that
they intend to remove the recycling bins? or was that
just over here on H dock? Apparently people are
throwing trash in them. That seems a horrific waste
and would result in much fuller and hence more
expensive to dispose of dumpsters. I'd like to bring
the blue barrels behind the gates rather than remove
them if we have to and give the recycling guys master
keys to access them. They're getting doubly paid
anyway, so why shouldn't they walk the extra 50 feet.
Don't we pay them to remove it and then they get paid
to recycle it? Thoughts?

Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:36:48 skyesturgeon at comcast.net
wificoop at wificoop.org

I agree with BD about the recycling. There should be a
better solution than throwing the baby out with the
bath water. However, inside the gates may be inviting
critters and foragers onto the docks.

Fri, 4 Aug 2006 14:39:04 BigDaddy69_77 at yahoo.com
wificoop at wificoop.org

No comments about the bathrooms by C dock? Thanks for
your support about the recycle bins. If they're not
used for trash though, then they should stay clean and
not invite/encourage critters, no? Of course I always
rinse out my recyclable cans and bottles. I also
already see rats, mice and raccoons on the docks
plenty as it is, so I can't imagine some clean paper
and cans making much difference on my dock anyway. 

Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:07:37 jeremiason at gmail.com
wificoop at wificoop.org
CC: "BBOA" <Bboa-members at berkeleyboa.org>

The bathroom project is a representation of a
Government contract project gone bad... First the
total cost of the project was $500 or thereabouts. The
Marina's portion was half of that due to a matching
grant ($250k). 
 
Since they have decided to postpone the washer/driers
I haven't been over there, but knowing the City of
Berkeley and it's other public works projects, such as
the Police Station, I am surprised the new bathroom's
plumbing is working. Complaints should go to your
Councilmember Linda Miao (
mailto:lmaio at ci.berkeley.ca.us), Mayor Tom Bates
(mayor at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Director of Parks and
Waterfront ( parks at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Waterfront
Commission and of course Cliff Marcetti.

As far as the recycling bins... Zac made a complaint
that no one was picking up the bins and now the Marina
Staff has decided to stop the service based on the
cans having garbage in them. The cans had garbage
because on the O Dock they hadn't been emptied in
months.  
 
The Marina Supervisor has decided not to have
recycling, which the rest of California is mandated to
do and the City of Berkeley wants. 
 
The City Municipal Code, Section 12.36.010 states:
 
The City Council of the City finds and determines that
a municipal program for the collection, disposal and
recycling of metals, glass and paper placed at
curbside is in the public interest and serves to
promote the general welfare of the City. (Ord. 5266-NS
§ 2, 1980: Ord. 4689-NS § 1, 1974) 
 
Based on that I would encourage anyone who has an
interest to attend the next Waterfront Commission
meeting and let them know what you think.
 
Tom Jeremiason

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:19:58 fishmeal at sonic.net
wificoop at wificoop.org

Tom - Cliff says the contract was signed with the
washer-dryer concessionaire last week. 
 
Meanwhile, the real waste of public money is yet to
happen: the H-I rebuild. The marina is about to insure
that we have vacant 48' and 52' berths in perpetuity
by following the current plan. This is much bigger
issue than the fireworks or the bathrooms or the
recycle bins.  
 
I'm not finding fault with the houseboat owners - they
came up with a plan that suits their own interests and
preferences, and I would have done the same in their
position. But it's a very wasteful plan for everyone
else. 
 
There is a claim that the long history of vacancies on
H and I docks is because the berths are crosswind. Not
true. I've spent enough time in the world of big boats
to know that the owners want to berth their boats in a
marina, not a residential housing project.
Crosswind/upwind is not a big deal for most of them.
But berths between houseboats are and will continue to
be a very hard sell - especially considering that the
marina approach channel is too shallow for large
sailboats, leaving power yachts as the primary market
for these berths. And, without the shoreside
improvements that have just been cut from the rebuild
plan, the new docks will be even less attractive to
the owners of large power yachts. Add in the fact that
the market is already saturated in this size. Note ads
in Latitude 38 for 40 and 50 ft berths in both of the
Emeryville marinas, available right now. 
 
There are far more sensible alternatives. The one I
like best moves the fish boats to a smaller rebuilt
I-dock, which then becomes a dedicated fish boat dock
(like the fish boat dock at Emeryville). The
houseboats move to the end of K-dock, and G and J
docks are extended to fill up the space left by
removing H and I. 
 
We end up with just as much new berth revenue, maybe
more, at a fraction of the development cost. We don't
commit to continued deep dredging of the shallowest
part of the marina to accommodate the deepest draft
boats, and we solve marketability problems by
separating both the fish boats and the houseboats from
the regular yacht berths. Also, the new berths sizes
we add by extending J and G would be much closer to
the demand peak, and would generate much more revenue
per acre of marina. 
 
There are other configurations that also work. But if
you are really concerned with the health of the Marina
Fund and the City's ability to operate the marina in
the black and keep berth rates reasonable, you have to
question the wisdom of the current plan for H and I.  
 
  Paul Kamen

  -"Call Me Fishmeal"-

  fishmeal at sonic.net
  510-540-7968
  www.well.com/user/pk

Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:19:58 BigDaddy69_77 at yahoo.com
wificoop at wificoop.org

Paul, do you have a sketch/plan of your proposed
solution that you could attach? I'd love to see
visually what you're describing. What is the general
response to that plan from those in power when you
present it? If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is the
current "demand peak?" I can't really picture what you
mean by this "moves the fish boats to a smaller
rebuilt I-dock" please clarify along with your
visualization of your proposed "G and J docks are
extended to fill up the space left by removing H and
I." I think I can see that and it sounds very good,
but help me see your vision please. 
I think that relevant parties should be CC'd in on our
discussion:  Councilmember Linda Miao
(mailto:lmaio at ci.berkeley.ca.us), Mayor Tom Bates
(mayor at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Director of Parks and
Waterfront ( parks at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Waterfront
Commission and of course Cliff Marcetti, as well as
Ann I guess, no? How do you feel about that? Do we
have handy contact information for the Waterfront
Commission and Cliff? Also, I'm less willing to
overlook royal screwings at the hands of firework
costs and a very poorly conceptualized and executed
bathroom project in the face of skyrocketing berth
rates. I'd rather see your plan/vision increase
revenue 20% and result in fee rollbacks and improved
infrastructure. Of course I'm a dyed-in-the-wool
idealist, but this is Berkeley isn't it?
BD


Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:39:02 fishmeal at sonic.net
wificoop at wificoop.org
Dock Replacement Issues

On 8/4/2006 at 7:19 PM BD wrote:

>Paul, do you have a sketch/plan of your proposed
solution that you could attach? I'd love to
seevisually what you're describing. 

Details are on my website, although it's not at all
obvious where to find them. Look in
http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/money/index.html
and click on
"Comments to the Waterfront Commission for the March 8
meeting." 

>What is the general response to that plan from those
in power when you present it? 

Actually, the idea of moving the fish boats to their
own dedicated fish boat dock originally comes from Ann
and Cliff, not from me. I think they are sympathetic
to the rest of the alternative I have sketched out,
but they have spent a lot of our money developing the
current plan and feel somewhat committed to it. Also,
they recognize,
possibly with some justification, that the floating
home owners will fight against change very hard, and
moving them to K-dock will be a tough sell. (Look how
long it took them to agree on the configuration of the
current H & I proposal, even though it's tailored for
them.)  

>If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is the current
"demand peak?" 

30-40 ft berths, the size for which the waiting list
is longest. 

>I can't really picture what you mean by this "moves
the fish boats to a smaller rebuilt I-dock" please
clarify along with your visualization of your proposed
"G and J docks are extended to fill up the space left
by removing H and I." I think I can see that and it
sounds very good, but help me see your vision please. 

See document on the website at the link above. The
current H & I replacement plan is also online at
http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/photo-of-the-week/Photo051212.html

>I think that relevant parties should be CC'd in on
our discussion:  Councilmember Linda Miao
(mailto:lmaio at ci.berkeley.ca.us), Mayor Tom Bates
(mayor at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Director of Parks and
Waterfront ( parks at ci.berkeley.ca.us), the Waterfront
Commission and of course Cliff Marcetti, as well as
Ann I guess, no? How do you feel about that? Do we
have handy contact information for the Waterfront
Commission and Cliff? 

Contact info is also on my website, ready to cut and
paste into your
email program:

http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/Contacts/ContactIndex.html

The Commission gets amazingly little correspondence
from berthers, so
each letter makes a difference. One hint, though:
Don't send it by way of the marina office or the City
Clerk - if you do that it will not reach the
Commissioners until the next packet for the next
meeting goes out. Much better to communicate
individually, whether by
email or hard copy. Same with Councilmembers, I would
imagine. 

Feel free to cc any of this discussion, but I'd like
to see the latest revised bid for the project, as
currently proposed by the
City, before going public with an opinion that it's a
big mistake. I think that will be available at the
meeting on Wednesday August 9. 

>Also, I'm less willing to overlook royal screwings at
the hands of firework costs and a very poorly
conceptualized and executed bathroom project in the
face of skyrocketing berth rates. I'd rather see your
plan/vision increase revenue 20% and result in fee
rollbacks and improved
infrastructure. Of course I'm a dyed-in-the-wool
idealist, but this is Berkeley isn't it?
BD

My plan won't get us a 20% revenue increase, but it
might avoid another boondoggle. The only thing that
approaches 20% more revenue is increased commercial
activity on the scale of a new hotel near Hs.
Lordships, or a major turn-around in revenue from
restaurants and from the DoubleTree hotel. The ferry
might help, which is one of the reasons I'm pushing
the DoubleTree location for the terminal. (Plus it
might save the marina quite a bit of money on
dredging.) 

The best option on my side of the marina might be for
Berkeley Yacht Club to take over management of O-dock
under a long-term lease. They are looking into it, but
as far as I know they haven't run any
numbers yet and are not ready to make a proposal. The
floating home owners, or an association of
live-aboards, or even BBOA, might also be in a
position to form a co-op or a non-profit to manage one
or more docks. 

Under any of these scenarios the City would still own
the marina and still collect lease revenue from the
commercial enterprises, and this would fund the
waterfront parks and facilities for the various
public-serving non-profit clubs and organizations. A
few years ago
this arrangement would have been bad for the berthers,
because the net flow of cash was into the berthing
operation rather than out of it. But this might have
changed with the last round of increases.  

  Paul Kamen

  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com