Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Burnt_broccolini t1_j9or9pk wrote

This is one persons opinion masquerading as a news article. There is no magic fix to ‘decertify’ a navigable waterway or move the yacht club.

I’m also mad that they didn’t maintain the bridge and now the cost to replace it is outrageous. It literally has nothing to do with the yacht club, boats, or navigable waterway.

The guy who wrote this ‘article’ has his own agenda that doesn’t seem to be reliant on facts

29

sihtydaernacuoytihsy t1_j9pl4ac wrote

Dude, the headline starts with the word "Commentary." It's not masquerading as anything, OP just linked us to an editorial.

The author is quite clear on his "agenda", and musters many facts to support his position. That's how editorials work...

6

Burnt_broccolini t1_j9puug3 wrote

Agreed but looking at some of the comments, the fact that this is one persons opinion isn’t clear to everyone.

His “facts” are his interpretation of reality. This bridge is not a subsidy of the DYC pleasure boats. That’s untrue.

The way that he talks about ‘navigable waterway’ being the motive for a costly repair is also untrue. It’s the lack of maintenance that is causing a costly repair.

The yacht club does not create a need for a drawbridge. Several commenters are not understanding that. The water is a navigable waterway per federal AND state definition of what a navigable waterway is. Moving the yacht club does nothing for that definition.

I get that you can tell that he has an agenda, but a lot of people seem to be missing that.

3

TheColonelRLD t1_j9qggf4 wrote

I guess what hasn't been explained, why does the yacht club not create the need for the drawbridge. Reading the article, it sounds like the yacht club is the only public space the bridge is connected to. Are there other properties aside from the yacht club that the bridge is connecting to?

Like if the yacht club were 'moved', and the bridge was disassembled and removed, would there be other things that are now disconnected?

Because the article does make it sound like the bridge literally leads to a yacht club and that's it. Like a small island with one property on it or something.

0

-CalicoKitty- t1_j9qkkdm wrote

People don't drive across the bridge to get to the yacht club, they drive their boats under it. The bridge needs to be replaced either way, but the argument is that it would be cheaper if it wasn't a draw bridge. Sounds like it's not that simple though, because even if the yacht club didn't exist, the bay is considered navigable by state and federal law.

5

Burnt_broccolini t1_j9qlnrp wrote

Using Google maps it looks like it also leads to Malibu beach and Savin hill beach.

The alternative to a drawbridge is just a higher bridge that boats can go under without an operator. Removing the bridge and having no bridge is not an option, it’s also a street that cars go over. It’s Morrissey boulevard. The yacht club does not create the need for the drawbridge nor does it change the fact that a new bridge might be needed due to lack of maintenance. The author of the ‘article’ is just putting out his opinion mixed with misinformation.

**edited to remove my opinion and stick to the facts

2