Minutes - Council - 06/09/1998 - Public Hearing

Home

convenient scapegoats because they feel powerless to control the natural erosion of the river along their property and other areas and desperately want to find somebody to blame for it. There is, however, one thing that can be done to control erosion that has already been proven to help. Property owners along the river can do what many others have already done along this and other rivers in the past. Even the City of Anoka has done this near the dam and City Hall. They can take responsibility for their own shoreline property by spending some time and money and properly installing Rip Rap landscaping. It's fine with the DNR as long as you follow their guidelines (I've already checked on this, twice) and ,in fact, they encourage the idea. So, instead of wasting time and energy blaming others, why don't the proponents of this ordinance direct their time and energy toward something that can actually help retard the natural erosion process. But, maybe the real issue here for proponents of this ordinance is not erosion at all. Maybe the r~al issue is one of"peace and quiet". If that is the case, it would be nice if the proponents of this ordinance would be more forthright and up front about it and not hide behind the bogus issue of abnormal erosion. If what really bothers those who originated this ordinance is the increasing noise and commotion on the river, then as I alluded to earlier, I can sympathize with you. If we are going to restrict traffic on the Rum river with a "no wake" 'zone in some way, then let's do it together for the right reasons. Are personal watercraft or "Jet Skis", their noise and speed and the disruption of "peace and quiet" the real issue here? These craft have been at the middle of a continuing statewide debate over their proper use for years. In just this morning's St. Paul Pioneer Press, an article begins with the headline "Upper St. Croix to ban personal watercraft". The decision was "based on complaints from anglers and canoeists who argue that the machines, commonly called Jet Skis are a nuisance... Mainly, it's the noise." According to an article in the October 24, 1997 issue of the Anoka County Union by Kimberly Knutson concerning this "no wake" issue in Ramsey and Andover, it was stated by Sylvia Frolik, Ramsey zoning administrator that "State law prohibits jet skis from exceeding no-wake speeds in areas of the river which are less than 200 feet in width, which describes most of the Rum". State law has since been recently amended widening that restriction to 150 feet from a shoreline. In other words, Jet skis cannot go beyond a "no wake" speed on a river 300 feet or less in width. I don't think the Rum is 300 feet wide anywhere along its length. If State law already makes the use of "Jet Skis" on the Rum river by anyone other than law enforcement illegal at greater than a "no wake" speed, then let's enforce the existing law and be done with it. I believe that this would go a long way toward curing the real and more pressing issue of"piece and quiet". Wouldn't that be more sensible than to use the blunt instrument of a "no wake" zone that affects all motorized watercraft along the entire length of the River? If"speedboats" and water skiers prove to still be a "peace and quiet" problem to some on the lower end of the river, then maybe extend the Anoka "no wake" zone upriver another mile or so to cover the affected properties and leave the rest of the river alone. Such an extension would prove to be slightly more of an inconvenience than currently to those navigating up river, but I believe it would probably be acceptable to most boaters. Should subsequent development in Andover and Ramsey warrant,