Captain's Conundrum
As the heat of argument over East Hampton Town's proposed ferry legislation has cleared, a consensus has emerged: No one wants vehicle ferries to land anywhere in town. The course of action for the town, therefore, is to move ahead with that part of the legislation that bans vehicle ferries without delay and to rework the rest of the proposal.
There is nothing in the Town Code now to regulate the vessels that come and go in our waterways, except for a five-mile-an-hour speed limit in harbor channels and for a parking requirement that marinas provide one and a half spaces for every boat slip. That is the rule regardless of whether the slip accommodates a small runabout or a boat large enough for hundreds of vacationers.
East Hampton is long overdue in regulating the effects of large vessels. It is mandatory for the community to control the shoreside support services large vessels might need or desire as well as the parking and traffic they would generate. The technology that makes a large craft move at high speeds also has to be addressed, given possible deleterious effects on shore and sea life.
Richard Whalen, the assistant town attorney who wrote the draft legislation with help from Stop the Ferry and its lawyer, Russell Stein, is to be commended for its comprehensiveness. He has raised the public consciousness about the impacts of large vessels. Had there been no existing party boat or ferry operators here, the legislation might have sailed without controversy.
Where his draft ran into trouble was in Montauk. There Capt. Paul Forsberg, who runs party boats and the only ferry service in town, mustered an army to support what he believes to be his right to expand without municipal oversight. Unfortunately, the town missed an opportunity to write less controversial legislation by failing to include those who would be affected in the drafting process.
If the place we live in is our castle, the place we do business in is our sanctuary. Or so it seemed on Oct. 24 at the hearing on the ferry legislation. Captain Forsberg is adamant that he should be able to replace an old boat with a larger one, which he has under construction, and says the town has no reason to worry about whether he can provide enough parking. He and his attorney also argue that since his operation is in existence it should not have to comply with new laws.
This is misguided. Government would be hamstrung if it did not have the right to consider and contend with pre-existing conditions. It does so all the time in zoning matters, and tries, where possible, to bring uses that do not conform with up-to-date laws into conformity to as reasonable an extent as possible.
In the Viking Fleet's case, it should be simple to survey the number and capacity of the boats and the size of the acreage and to grandfather existing uses - both on land and sea. Beyond that, it ought to be possible for the town and Captain Forsberg to negotiate an equitable solution to the fact that he has a new and larger boat under construction. While it cannot be grandfathered if it isn't in operation, it wouldn't be fair to penalize Captain Forsberg for making what must have seemed at the time a legitimate investment.
The solution to the Viking Fleet's particular situation ought not to deter the town from enacting a wide-ranging law to guide boat owners and ferry operators in the future, and soon.