Laserfiche WebLink
Hanley commented on the impacts of water levels and wind and indicated it appears those who <br />originated this ordinance forgot about or dismissed altogether these rather obvious and basic <br />facts about river geology. He suggested that they would have us take a giant leap to the dubious <br />conclusion and assumption that because some watercraft are occasionally speeding by and <br />creating wakes, it must then follow that these wakes are to blame for causing the abnormal <br />erosion prone spots on the River. Mr. Hanley asserted the issue being dealt with are the forces of <br />nature which are beyond our control and does not believe a no wake zone designated to control <br />erosion on the Rum River is a good idea. At best, it is a well-intentioned misinterpretation of the <br />natural world. He noted the bends and tums of the Rum River make it a wonderful river for <br />canoeing and he does not believe it would do much for this experience to have no wake buoys <br />around every turn. Mr. Hanley stated it is his view and others that the proponents of this <br />ordinance are "barking up the wrong tree" and shooting at the wrong target by pointing their <br />fingers at boat owners and fishermen as convenient scapegoats because they feel powerless to <br />control the natural erosion of the River along their property and other areas. He suggested that <br />property owners along the River have options to control erosion by installing rip rap landscaping. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanley suggested the real issue for proponents of this ordinance may be one of peace and <br />quiet and if this is the case they should be more forthright and not hide behind the bogus issue of <br />abnormal erosion. He commented on a previous comment made by the Zoning Administrator <br />regarding State law prohibitions on jet skis and advised that it has been recently amended <br />widening that restriction to 150 feet from the shoreline. He suggested that the City enforce the <br />existing law rather than using the "blunt instrument" of a no wake zone that affects all motorized <br />watercraft along the entire length of the River. Then, if speedboats and water skiers prove to still <br />be a "peace and quiet" problem to some on the lower end of the River, maybe the City should <br />extend the Anoka no wake zone upriver another mile or so to cover the affected properties and <br />leave the rest of the River alone. He stated he hopes local government chooses a less restrictive <br />option conceming the Rum River and keeps the freedom of the majority of the citizens in the <br />forefront of their decision. <br /> <br />In response to Councilmember Haas Steffen, Mr. Hanley suggested the area of the no wake zone <br />be extended form Anoka to 153rd Avenue which would cover those residents who have had to <br />deal with the erosion problem. Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that this would encompass <br />Zone 4. <br /> <br />Scott Newman, 16411 Dysprosium Street NW, stated that his property is just north of the scout <br />camp and golf course and the Rum River at his back yard is very shallow and difficult for boats <br />to pass. He stated he still has some erosion but it is not from boat traffic. Mr. Newman noted <br />there are laws in place to protect small boats and watercraft and if the problem is jet skis they are <br />prohibited from the Rum River now so a new law is not needed. He noted that for the resident <br />from Coon Rapids a no wake zone will cause him a hardship as it will for him to get to his <br />fishing area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beahen asked where the Casale family lives. It was indicated that those <br />supporting the no wake zones all live in the Rivers Bend neighborhood. <br /> <br />City Council Public Hearing/June 9, 1998 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />