Does anybody wanna sign up for a posse or am I gonna have to go out there like Gary Cooper? We have to do something about what's starting to happen :af:

Last winter as the RISAA show I held a raffle with the proceeds to go to the NCSWFC Children's Fishing Derby and the establishment of a shoreline access defense fund. Unfortunately, my placement at the booth I was in wasn't great and everyone was in a plug-mugging frenzy, so I only ended up with enough to make a donation from the Angler's Art to help with our Children's Derby.

But the establishment of a defense fund was - and still is - high on my list.

It will take volunteers, raffles, etc for fund-raising to pay for public awareness things and perhaps attorney's fees - I'm gonna try to get it rolling, but I need help.

I'm not doing this to set myself up to be head potato of the outfit, but I do know a lot of people statewide and particularly on the Island (Aquidneck) who could help us.

I know there are other clubs and organizations that try to do what they can but there needs to be - I think - a watch-dog pro-active organization to see that access and fishing rights are maintained by us everywhere in Little Rhody.

Anyone up for it? It's an idea whose time has come, I think - you've got a lot of places that are on the ragged edge of being shut down to fishing by way of parking bans and some that already have right now - expect more to come soon if we don't do anything.

Does anyone have any ideas on this - I like the Save Our Shore name (SOS - RI) -

Sorta catchy....

Crafty,

Count me in, I'd be glad to help in any capacity I can.

It sounds like the more involved, the better. Definitely, folks at RISAA and even RIMS should get involved. If this crap keeps up pretty soon access will be limited to state parks, if that.

Thanks, Ben - I'll be in touch soon -

Crafty,
PM sent

Chuckles - we can use this site however you want to help out - the only thing I don't have much of - sadly - is time...

Sound like a good idea....

Personally, I think a good idea would be to get some money together, and sue the next person or town that tries to cut off access.

If a ruling came down that the cities and towns really do not have the right to close or restrict access, we would be golden. The ownership of the ROW's should actually be in the hands of the CRMC. The interpretation of the RI Constitution by the cities and towns is not in the spirit of the law. In the 21st Century, restricting parking could easily be interpreted as form of hindrance.

The current strategy of showing up at the various town meetings and fighting each proposed closure on a case-by-case, while not without victories, is a failed strategy when viewed in the aggregate. We are on our way to becoming Connecticut with respect to access.

I'll give money so long as I know we'll get a day in court. How do you feel about going through RISAA? They have a committee in place and I believe a lawyer is on it.

Thanks to all who responded either by posting or thru PMs :btu:
we're all time-starved, I know, I have 2 full-time small businesses and one part-time - and starting anything as the season has just begun ain't easy. Hell, we all want to fish after last winter, but I don't think it will take all that much to get it rolling - everybody I talk to - and not just fishermen - has their shorts more than a little twisted over it. All the pieces are pretty much in place already, we just have to connect the dots.

You're absolutely right, Joe - rather than fight a series of skirmishes, we (Rhode Island surf-casters and bait fishermen and others with shore access concerns) need to nuke 'em. I would think the Black Point case would serve perhaps as a precedent but I've gotta read the decision - I think former Atty. General Jim O'Neill was the lawyer on that one - another old Narragansett lobster guy me and my wife know. But this IS a CRMC issue, not on a town or city level and is directly addressed in the State Constitution.

But you are right in that the CT people are bringing the CT mindset with them in regards to shore access - I told my wife a couple of weeks ago that I was noticing a lot more CT plates on cars around town and yesterday they outnumbered MA plates, which we always saw more of than RI tags here in Newport.

Hmmmm...maybe it tells me that the MA people are getting priced out and the CT people are moving in to fill the void and scoop properties that don't seem so very expensive to them vis-a-vis current waterfront/waterview parcels in the Nutmeg state. Whatever the reason, they're showing up in greater numbers - I know that they're causing access problems in South County now according to the locals I talk with on the mainland. And they're starting to cause problems here as well. This is not a diatribe against people from CT in general (yeah, I mean you Ben and Krispy too - I don't want you two to toss me overboard during the First S-B Leg) - but that seems to be their M.O., IMHO. Like I said, wait'll they get rolling on the Ocean View in Watch Hill - it won't be pretty. You guys who like to fish the Light better be ready.

Thanks, too for the offer, John re the site - perhaps you could set up a 'Coast Watch' Forum or something for things of this nature...that alone would be a great way to keep us all informed or have members submit observations or questions.

I wasn't yet aware RISAA was on the case - great news, they have a lot of clout - I'm not yet a member but will be soon. There are also other organizations with similar concerns that are on board - it seems like everybody is rowing the boat in the same direction which is encouraging.

But don't let it slip by on us - go to the Middletown Town Council meeting if you can at all on June 7th at 7:00 PM -

I'm going to post an email forwarded to me by Dennis Zambrotta, President of the NCSWFC from the RI Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation - it explains the details of the case a bit.

Thanks again, guys - this affects us all - we are all in this together (unless you would only like to fish RI State Parks as Ben said).

The following emails were forwarded to me by DZ - it's from RIRockhound, so I don't think Bry would mind if it was seen here -

The other is from Fran and Bill Mileski, a very nice young couple who are both avid surfers - their parents are friends of ours and they had my wife and I shoot Fran and Bill's wedding a year and a half ago -

It will fill you in a little on how the situation has unfolded so far -

Good Morning Fellow Surfrider Members:

This will be one of several reminders that you will be receiving regarding an issue that has popped up in Middletown relating to parking and access to the water at the end of Tuckerman's Road in Middletown.

I have attached an Email from one of our Middletown members, Fran Mileski, that explains the issue in more detail; however, in a nutshell the situation is as follows: The Middletown Town Council had an unopposed 1st hearing on a proposal to adopt an ordinance banning on-street parking at the end of Tuckerman's Road. The proposal is scheduled for its second hearing on Monday, June 7, 2004 at 7:00PM at the Middletown Town Hall. If unopposed at the 2nd hearing, the ordinance will likely pass.

The proposed ordinance is being sponsored by the owner of a newly constructed home on Tuckerman's point and will effectively limit use of the CRMC access point as the closest public parking (Purgatory Chasm) is a 10-15 minute walk away and has a 30 minute time limit.

The RI Chapter will be present at the next Town Council Meeting to speak in opposition to this unreasonable limitation on public access.

Based on past Town Council experience, it is critical that our Middletown residents appear and participate in this process. While outsiders are free to speak their piece, Towns want to hear from THEIR residents. The longer you have been a Middletown resident and the more often you have used the Tuckerman's access to surf, fish or just walk the beach, then the more your voice is needed. Even if you choose not to speak, please stand up and becounted, the more Town residents at the meeting the better.

Mark your calendar now,

Monday, June 7, 2004
7:00PM
Middletown Town Hall

As with all formal appearances, please dress and present yourself respectfully. Suits & ties are not required (although they do score points, you'd be amazed at how professional attire gets you noticed because it blows away traditional surfer-stereotypes). However, I do strongly recommend that you leave the baggies, t-shirts & slaps at home.

I will try and send out more reminders as the date draws near. We may also try and organize a brief pre-meeting to discuss protocol & strategy. Feel free to contact any of the board members or Fran or Bill Mileski if you have questions.



All-

I just got back from a Middletown town council meeting, and witnessed a council vote on the first reading of an ordinance to ban parking at the public right of way to Tuckerman's in Middletown . The new owners of newly constructed waterside mansions adjacent to the right of way hired a lawyer, who quickly convinced the Town Council that, since they pay "very high taxes", that they should be able to enjoy their road frontage, which apparently they "can not" because of the parking of a few cars intermittently.

We occasionally drop in there, for example at sunset, just to casually walk to the rocks and enjoy the view, not to mention at other times the waves. Denial of this parking effectively shuts down the practical use of this right of way, because the nearest allowed public parking is at least a ten minute walk in either direction (east end of first beach, west end of second). I have parked there enough to unofficially quantify the parking as no more than two or three cars at a time, which are normally vacant, because their occupants have gone fishing along the rocks (or strolling).

Anyway, I would appreciate opinions on the likelihood of there being any hope to win a battle against this. The lawyer asked for his clients to have the same protection from parked cars as residents at the First Beach end of Tuckermans.. although I would guess that was to avoid a collection of cars whose owners are going to enjoy First Beach without incurring its parking situation (and fees).

I feel like this may be doomed, and I'm bummed. One councilperson said something about these public rights of way to the water being ancient, and that they preceded development, and that they should be revisited as "development issues". This really depresses me, since I always thought the intent of the rights of way (access to shore) were to protect the public in exactly this situation, and the mission seems lost on the council.

Aquidneck Island is all about the water, and the many small battles lost on issues similar to this, all add up to a large loss for those who want to enjoy its beautiful resources.


Fran and Bill

Damn Connecticut Carpetbaggers! :af:

People from CT suck!:smash:

I dont mind.... :D
It sucks though, that was where I grew up pluggin the rocks...:af:

And WW... it's just the rich, yuppie non-fishing carpet baggers we dont like, we can deal with you and krispy et al.:D :D

Yeah, Bry, I hear ya - and how about swimming on the west side of the point where the landowners have erected a chain-link fence across a ROW WITHOUT anybody's - meaning town or state - consent - :af:

Yeah, Ben - youse guys are okay - you both smell like fish :rotf2:

Im a Nuu Yowka living in exile :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think I knew that Krispy - see, I knew there was something about ya I liked - I mean outside of your fondness for blooooberries :laughs:

I'll say one thing the town council are a bunch of suckups. Middletown sucks. If people show up in numbers and let it be known that this cannot be tolerated maybe there is some hope, but the extreme yuppie-ism that is taking over Aquidneck Island is starting to get rediculous. Pretty soon MHS will have a lacrosse team, oh sorry they already do. Knowing the people of Middletown and Newport that sling bait and ride waves,if the ban goes into effect there will be some payback in the realm of rancid bait and wire cutters.

One councilperson said something about these public rights of way to the water being ancient, and that they preceded development, and that they should be revisited as "development issues". So this is progress? OxenSheize - it's greed and simply being selfish

its just those that were born in Ct , richer than pigs and buy up land and dont allow access . come in my back yard for access to the water and the booby traps go off !

its a good thing to stop them from refusing access . and a more common problem in all the coast states . Remember Greenwich lost their court battle to keep "non residents" out . but parking is still an issue and if you want in a lot big $$$ .
I think rich people should live in the mountains so they can better look down on us !

Well, John, the sheizer could hit the proverbial fan on this one.

Bryan did have a good point - as hard as it may be, we gotta contain ourselves and make a good appearance - and any kind of retribution will only weaken the outcome if they use vandalism as another reason to take away what is already ours.

Most all of these people buying the waterfront properties and building are nouveau riche - with the newly acquired wherewithal to do ALMOST anything they want. We have to posse up to let them know that just ain't the case, when it comes to the constitution of THIS state and our riparian rights - which are our and our children's birthrights.

Trust me, as a fourth generation Newporter whose family has worked for the very wealthiest people in the country, there's a very big difference between 'rich' and 'wealthy'. The old money families have always been gracious and kind for the nearly 150 years we've dealt with them - and believe me, they have as little use for the nouveau crowd and social climbers as we do.

You may very well find yourselves very surprised to find out just who your staunchest supporters are going to be ;)

Stay tuned.

I'll be there ! I'm not happy when people try to restrict my access to the water.

ya know, I don't get in here much, but as a CT fisherman frequently in Rhody, you can certainly count on my support in whatever way I can.

The notion that Council members need to readdress the ROW issue as ancient is an oxymoron... the fact that it isANCIENT is the precise reason why it should stay on the books "for all posterity".

The notion of a defense fund is a good one; it implies that the money will be used to defend access rights and that would be a huge asset to the cause. A good first step would be to find out how much an attorney would want to show up at the next meeting and present a counter argument, and then how much they would want to sue a town over a previously closed area in order to get a precedent that could be cited with respect to the next closure issue that is certain to arise.

When one party shows up at a council meeting with a lawyer to articulate their concerns about an issue – any issue - and those who hold a counter position do not show up with professional legal representation, it is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight. A ruling from the Rhode Island Supreme Court could have a sweeping effect, not only for the current closure issues, but for the previous ones as well. If a representative can get a bill passed that ensures parking at the ROW’s, that could also have a blanket effect.

Rhode Islanders do not need to be divided before they are conquered – we already are divided. Even though there are many counties and towns throughout the country as big as our state – we still identify ourselves as from this town or that. For example: I live in West Warwick and they are most likely to put casino gambling in my town if it passes on the ballot, regardless of my objections. Why should there be separate rights for quality of life depending on the affluence of the community? I can’t park on a street in Middletown because the noise is disruptive – yet a Middletown resident will be able to come and gamble in my town. What is that?

If a local government can quell a firestorm over closure by providing access for locals only and that remedy is supported, that is not a victory. We should not accept a solution that provides anything less than free and unfettered access for all.