absolute bullshit im mad (spokane locals please read)

sal_the_salmon said:
We need to come together on this one.

www.spokesman.com

Off limits? Proposal would restrict access to damaged areas along Spokane River

Aiming to protect and rehabilitate the Spokane River and its tributaries, the Spokane City Council is mulling a proposal to restrict access to some sections of public land near the shoreline.
www.spokesman.com www.spokesman.com

this proposal would restrict access (to only users with boats) to a sizeable and popular public access section of the spokane river.

we CAN NOT let this pass.

I have reached out to some councilmembers aides to try to get some phone time with the people who are voting on this.

As far as i can tell, its not backed by any science, the DOE, DNR, WDFW, etc.

for reference, this is roughly 15 percent of the public (non boat) access to the lower spokane river.
Click to expand...
FWIW, if you can get in above or below the bank closures, you can wade/walk up to the Mean High Water Mark. I think there is 0 chance of some judge interpreting the Spokane as not navigable. And the US constitution is what grants the feds control of, and us all access to the river below the MHWM.

I am pretty sure that above the mark, the issue is far more complicated and they can probable keep you out.
 
David Dalan said:
FWIW, if you can get in above or below the bank closures, you can wade/walk up to the Mean High Water Mark. I think there is 0 chance of some judge interpreting the Spokane as not navigable. And the US constitution is what grants the feds control of, and us all access to the river below the MHWM.

I am pretty sure that above the mark, the issue is far more complicated and they can probable keep you out.
Click to expand...
True, but easier said than done given much of the terrain and the river being slicker than snot.
 
Having spent most of my life along the Spokane River there's no doubt that this proposed legislation is completely focused on homeless population control (as mentioned above). A not so subtle legal subterfuge. The Latah sediment 'concern' is ridiculous; the impacted 'Peoples' Park' constitutes a miniscule portion of the massive upstream Latah riparian damage due to basin-wide agricultural mismanagment contributing to sediment load. The on-going efforts of the Spokane County Soil Conservation District has been methodically working on that problem for years.

Just another piece of poorly considered legislation that will be selectively enforced (the obvious tacit legislative intent). Homeless violating the ordinance don't give a shit about a civil infraction citation from a limited commission City 'Park Ranger', and the Spokane Police Dept can't even manage to field a traffic enforcement unit, let alone have officers scrambling along the steep and brushy banks of Spokane River.

Most people who've floated or traipsed along the Spokane can attest to its healthy growth of willows, poison ivy, and other native vegetation.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have any updates on this? The voting was taken on March 14 and I can't seem to find any information on it.
 
Whatever happened it won't end up being posted in the city's official gazzette until the minutes are approved at the following council meeting.

You might email the council president or the city clerk in the interim for more info.

It's not unusual for poorly considered proposals like this one to get endlessly deferred, until they fade into oblivion and/or the council members are distracted by newer shiny objects.
 
Last edited:
Oliver1329 said:
Does anybody have any updates on this? The voting was taken on March 14 and I can't seem to find any information on it.
Click to expand...
I, along with another member of SFF stirred the pot pretty good and now have the Spokane Riverkeeper and others involved. There will be alot of changes for the better going forward.

This a reply from Parks and Rec Dept.

Subject: RE: Feedback on Riparian Rehab

Good morning all, I appreciate the comments and suggestions. After thinking about this over the past couple months and over the weekend, I have a suggestion on how we move forward.

The ordinance is a tool in the toolbox to allow us to enforce when necessary, not the manual how to evaluate and perform the job.

I believe there needs to be added clarity in the resolution that outlines a roadmap on how to gather the details, not providing the details.
  1. Currently we list three areas of concern to prohibit use. I would suggest stating that these are three priority zones, not prohibiting the entire area.
    1. Prohibiting use in certain areas within the priority zones would need to include these considerations before proceeding
i. Create a stakeholder group including staff and agencies to identify critical areas within the priority zones
ii. Establish a plan and projected outcomes
iii. Identify necessary steps to perform the work including funding sources, permits and approval (e.g. habitat management plans, restoration and maintenance plan)
iv. Create an outreach plan around these identified critical areas within the priority zones
Listing these types of steps in the resolution will assist in the expectations internally and externally. We have performed many successful restoration projects and they do take time and resources.

Anyways, this is what has been swirling in my head. Hopefully this makes some sense.
Let me know if I’m off base.

Thanks,


Garrett Jones, PLA | Director of Parks and Recreation | City of Spokane Parks & Recreation
|Desk: 509.363.5462 | gjones@spokanecity.org | SpokaneParks.org
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Old406Kid said:
I, along with another member of SFF stirred the pot pretty good and now have the Spokane Riverkeeper and others involved. There will be alot of changes for the better going forward.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Proposals that restrict law-abiding citizen use of the Spokane River environment actually encourage greater abuse by the criminal element.

A good example of reduced crime/abuse rates being fostered by increased citizen access are the parking improvements at the Sandifur bridge, as well as the development of the disc course by Downriver GC. Police calls for both sites have significantly been reduced.
 
Last edited:
krusty said:
Thank you! Proposals that restrict law-abiding citizen use of the Spokane River environment actually encourage greater abuse by the criminal element.

A good example of reduced crime/abuse rates being fostered by increased citizen access are the parking improvements at the Sandifur bridge, as well as the development of the disc course by Downriver GC. Police calls for both sites have significantly been reduced.
Click to expand...
As you well know, a 6 a.m. float can be a real eye opener.
 
Old406Kid said:
I, along with another member of SFF stirred the pot pretty good and now have the Spokane Riverkeeper and others involved. There will be alot of changes for the better going forward.

This a reply from Parks and Rec Dept.
Click to expand...
what a dickweed. i called and left at least 10 voicemails trying to talk to this guy and he never returned my call once.
 
"Listing these types of steps in the resolution will assist in the expectations internally and externally. We have performed many successful restoration projects and they do take time and resources." id be curious to hear his examples..... i dont think riverfront park counts as "rehab"
 
krusty said:
Police calls for both sites have significantly been reduced.
Click to expand...
do you have a source for this claim? not trying to be a dick but im currently doing a bunch of research on enforcment and river trends, and have made multiple FOIA requests to aid me. if you have a real source for this, i would love to add it into my data set.
 
sal_the_salmon said:
do you have a source for this claim? not trying to be a dick but im currently doing a bunch of research on enforcment and river trends, and have made multiple FOIA requests to aid me. if you have a real source for this, i would love to add it into my data set.
Click to expand...
Just coversations with SPD patrol people.

Are they responding to your Public Records Requests? Remember, under WA Public Records law they are not required to compile or create records tailored to the request. You only get what exists, in original form.
 
Last edited:
sal_the_salmon said:
do you have a source for this claim? not trying to be a dick but im currently doing a bunch of research on enforcment and river trends, and have made multiple FOIA requests to aid me. if you have a real source for this, i would love to add it into my data set.
Click to expand...
Thanks for what you're doing, I'm interested in your findings...please keep me posted.
My backyard is a hundred yards or so from the dirt pullout below the Rifle Club and even that spot has alot of interesting 'nighttime goings on'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top