Wave of protest to mooring bill

Kelcy Dolan
Posted 4/7/15

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

This was the plea of those appearing before the House Committee on Municipal Government Thursday evening on legislation that would establish state …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Wave of protest to mooring bill

Posted

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

This was the plea of those appearing before the House Committee on Municipal Government Thursday evening on legislation that would establish state regulations on moorings.

Introduced by Representative Scott Slater, the bill would implement an additional fee, which could be as high as $350 depending on the size of the vessel, to help fund the creation and sustain of a “marine safety patrol.” Similarly, it would also regulate who is granted a mooring and require moorings to come up for review every three years and if it is still being used.

Slater introduced a similar bill earlier this year but withdrew it when people thought it suggested the fee collected would be taken from the municipalities. The bill also calls for prioritizing mooring distributions first to the residents of any municipality, then to Rhode Island citizens and finally to persons from out of state.

Slater was the only one to speak in favor of the bill.

“I am not looking to take away anyone’s mooring,” he said. “I wanted something that would put Rhode Islanders first.”

Representative Joseph Trillo, a co-sponsor for the bill and self-proclaimed lifetime boater, said, “If you look at the moorings in Newport of Block Island many of them are taken by New York or Connecticut residents so Rhode Islanders are getting stuck on neverending waiting lists. Now, you can leave them to relatives that could go on for hundreds of years, and in some cases it has.”

There is some controversy due to Trillo’s sponsoring of the bill. Last year, Trillo was involved in two altercations with a staff member at the East Greenwich Yacht Club and subsequently had his membership revoked. Trillo had been on a mooring waiting list for 13 years.

According to Trillo in a phone interview Thursday morning, he and the yacht club employee were moving Trillo’s boat during a windstorm.

“The guy didn’t know what he was doing in a windstorm and threatened me and my property by saying he was going to leave it there,” Trillo said.

After a second incident on Block Island, the East Greenwich Yacht Club terminated Trillo’s membership last September.

Trillo is suing the yacht club for damages.

Trillo said, “I need to defend myself because it’s a rumor. Show me how this bill even affects them.”

Slater assured that he reached out to Trillo for advice on the bill because of his “familiarity with the boating world.”

Slater said one of his constituents came to him after having trouble finding a mooring.

“The negative attention this bill is getting and people attributing it to retribution, it’s ridiculous,” Slater said.

Whether or not the bill was drafted as retribution or revenge Andy Tyska, board chairman of the Rhode Island Marine Trades Association (RIMTA), believes it is an “attack bill.”

In his testimony he said, “This is an attack bill on the middle class boater and middle class worker. Narragansett is one of our greatest assets, and people from all socioeconomic classes should have affordable access.”

In a phone interview that morning, Tyska said that nationally the majority of boaters (around 90 percent) are in the middle class and the additional fees would drive many of them to find more “affordable recreations.”

Matt Genio, general manager of Oldport Marine Services in Newport, expressed the same concern.

In his own testimony he said, “All boat owners aren’t wealthy. It’s become more difficult to keep my boat afloat. I’m afraid if this bill is passed, it would force me and many other boaters over the edge.”

With fewer recreational boaters those marine industry occupations become threatened, he said.

Jennifer Stewart, a yacht broker out of Newport, said, “If you think the marine industry is doing well you’re wrong. We forget that out-of-staters bring in much-needed revenue for our state, but boats are mobile, they don’t have to come here.”

Elizabeth Tiedemann, from Seascope Yacht Charters in Newport, said Rhode Island is a tourist hotspot, but it is already more expensive than some of the other states around Rhode Island and an added fee could drive these boaters elsewhere. She said these tourists are essential to an economy that is “just starting to turn around.”

“These people come and spend money at our restaurants and hotels. They bring in millions of dollars to our state. We don’t want them finding other more inexpensive ports.”

There are also a lot of concerns when it comes to creating a marine safety patrol.

Those speaking against the bill said there is no need for another patrolling entity.

Currently on the bay, harbormasters, local and state police, as well as DEM have authority to ticket or arrest boaters.

“I have worked in the marine industry my whole life and I know this would only have a negative impact,” Fred Bieberbach, a marine surveyor said. “This is a non-issue; there is not a problem that needs fixing. It undermines the work and authority of current patrol entities and achieves nothing.”

Kevin Connors, Narragansett harbormaster, said that a new patrolling entity would take “too much money, too much accreditation and too much training” to be sustainable. He suggested if the state is truly concerned about safety on the bay to give more funding to existing authorities to “beef them up.”

His main concern was how much research was done before drafting the bill.

As the harbormaster, with 350 moorings, Connors said he was never contacted about the legislation and said many others he’s spoken to weren’t either. Connors joked and said maybe they called Providence.

Similarly, in the first draft of legislation, which was eventually withdrawn, the Department of Environmental Management was a beneficiary of mooring revenues, but DEM had never been contacted on the matter.

Janet Coit, Director of DEM, submitted written testimony against the bill. She wrote, “During the boating season, DEM’s Division of Law Enforcement typically has 8-10 officers available for marine patrol in Rhode Island waters.  DEM is the designated state agency to investigate all recreational boating accidents and report findings to Coast Guard Headquarters…If the General Assembly is considering providing additional funding to ensure the safety of Rhode Island’s waterways, we would respectfully ask that DEM’s Division of Law Enforcement be the recipient of such resources rather than a new, duplicative office with overlapping jurisdiction.”

Warwick has 850 moorings and is currently one of the most inexpensive areas in the state to have a mooring, according to Warwick Harbormaster Jeff Baris. The city charges $3 per foot.

Baris was not contacted by any of the legislators either, but says he has heard concerns from people within the community and believes if the bill were to be passed it would “definitely make a difference” in people returning.

Baris called the bill confusing and does not address many concerns such as who would collect the fee or the responsibilities of a marine safety patrol.

“The main concern people have come to me with is the issue of whether they lose their mooring and go on the waiting list again or they can renew when three years are up. Some could accept the fee, but possibly being kicked out of their mooring is putting a damper on anyone’s boating experience.”

Several legislators also expressed disapproval for the bill. Representatives Raymond Gallison and Kenneth Marshall, both from Bristol, Representative Lauren Carson from Newport and Senator Mark Gee spoke in opposition.

Carson said this bill just duplicates functions that are already being handled at the local level.

Gee said, “I am always disappointed when there is legislation proposing to raise fees when we should be trying to bring them down.”

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • JohnStark

    What a surprise. Nothing says "Rhode Island" quite like a state legislator looking to increase fees in order to expand an already bloated state beaurocracy in order to punish evil wealthy out-of-staters. Yet another solution in dire need of a problem.

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015 Report this