Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

Slider Project/other impacts of HR2320 – The highlights
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:50 am    Slider Project/other impacts of HR2320 – The highlights Reply with quote

Thanks to Anthony for bringing this to light. As a kiteboarding, windsurfing, paddle boarding, kayaking, and fishing community, we need to make sure this bill does not get passed under the radar of the users that it will affect. Here are some of the highlights of this piece of legislation as it exists now. Please feel free to comment and correct any mistakes or misinterpretations I, or others, have made in this bills examination.

Here is a link to the original 2320 bill summary that I am referencing in quotes in the following posts:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2320


And a list of readings by the public and officials from the hearing:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Committees/HTP/2017-03-01-08-00/HB2320/Details


See the following posts for a breakdown of the bill.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

Last edited by Matt V on Tue Mar 07, 17 7:06 am; edited 2 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:50 am     Reply with quote

THE SLIDER PROJECT

Page 6, line 39

“(16)
Make rules regulating water ski course markers, ski jumps and other special use devices placed in the waters of this state. Such rules may regulate the installation and use of the devices and may require a permit.”


This should be a glaring red flag to those who use, donate time, or money to the slider project. It will even have an effect on those building their own temporary rails and sliders for single day use. Given it’s vagueness and lack of a permit fee definition, this could stop all slider projects for kiteboarders. Since a permit would need to be issued, eventually a responsible party would also likely have to be named. This seems like a good thing as we do not want people trashing up our kite spots with abandoned junk. But only the responsible slider creators would actually pull a permit anyway. Since those irresponsible enough to abandon trash in the river will never actually pull a permit, this part of the power granted to the board will have no positive benefit. Nor will it alleviate any existing problems.

But the laws main drawback is that it will likely lead to an insurance requirement for any slider project to be issued a permit. This inevitability could eliminate any of the slider projects that are currently installed. Though this may only affect a small portion of kiteboarders, all kiters who understand that insurance rates do not go down in liability issues, should be concerned with this. And with 1 accident, insurance will likely be lost and the project will be close down due to no other insurers wanting to assume the risk. Think about getting dropped from your homeowners insurance or car insurance for 1 issue. And getting dropped from insurance would end a project’s ability to secure a permit to operate.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

Last edited by Matt V on Tue Mar 07, 17 7:07 am; edited 3 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:51 am     Reply with quote

NEW “GET OUT OF TICKET” MONEY MAKER

Page 8, line 1

“153.096. (1)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, in any proceeding for a violation under ORS 830.990 or 830.997, the court may conditionally suspend all or part of any fine or penalty to be imposed on the defendant if the defendant appears personally and agrees to complete at the defendant’s own expense a Safe Boating Education Course approved by the State Marine Board under ORS 830.110 (18'), within time limits imposed by the court.”


This creates a path for another revenue stream. Though it may go to a “non-profit” entity, there is no question that a large portion of these entities exist for their own benefit and salary of those they employ. And printers/publishers will surely be lobbying board members for the contract to provide materials for these classes at…….“affordable”/“no competitive bid” prices.

Not to mention paying for a $100 class to get out of a $30 ticket when your insurance rates are not at risk of going up? Something seems off here. No one would pay more than the fine and then sacrifice an evening for a safety class if there is actually a monetary and convenience disincentive. This could be an attempt to get a law passed with reasonable fees at the time of passage, only to greatly increase those fees shortly thereafter. A lawmaker will, in the future, likely cite the low rate of usage of these courses under the current fees to push a higher rate soon after implementation of this law. So look at these “reasonable $12 and $30 fees as good salesmanship, with the end goal of $50 for the permit and $250 for a fine. Thus an incentive would be provided to take a class that could “teach you how to be safe”. But I guess $300 for a permit and fine is still only a tiny fraction of the cost of a new kite, right? We are all willing to pay that, aren’t we?

Let’s not let them get their foot in the door with the same tricks that government has been pulling since its creation. Reasonable fees tend to…… NOT stay reasonable.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

Last edited by Matt V on Tue Mar 07, 17 1:19 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:51 am     Reply with quote

REVENUES GO TO “MARINE BOARD SELECTED” CONTRACTORS

“Page 4, line 39

Grants from Nonmotorized Boating Program Fund. (1) The State Marine Board may provide, from moneys in the Nonmotorized Boating Program Fund established under section 13 of this 2017 Act, grants to public bodies, as defined in ORS 174.109, to private entities and to nonprofit organizations, as defined in section 4 of this 2017 Act, to assist in paying for costs incurred to:

(a) Provide nonmotorized boating education pursuant to section 4 of this 2017 Act; or

(b) Implement the provisions of section 6 of this 2017 Act.”


Here is the money trail - or rather where it ends. The board, as a government entity, will be rather transparent with its revenues and disbursements. However, those funds will eventually wind up in the hands of “private entities” and “nonprofit organizations”. So while we will know how much the contracts are awarded for, the contractors themselves will most likely have a great deal of anonymity as to cost, performance, and profit. Expect a huge lobbying effort by many for profit and nonprofit entities looking to get their hands on small boat user’s money that has been sent to the government under the threat of fines. A couple dozen $10,000 toilet seats = new Maserati for the director of the Small Wind Craft Safety Council, or the SWCSC (my own made up nonprofit that I am CEO of….that’s me with the new Maserati).

And here is where the board gets the kickbacks for giving this money to me. Well, maybe not a kick back. Maybe I just buy them dinner 2 times a week at the most expensive restaurant in town. Or maybe they can use my extra speed boat (that I just don’t use) on the weekends. I mean someone should use it. I am paying for the slip and the boat attendants to keep it gassed up and ready to go. Why not let nice people use it.

The point is that the “Board” is going to make the decision on how to spend your money. You will have no say as you do not elect Marine Board members, but rather they are appointed by the Governor. Remember the vagueness from the regulation on sliders?

“Make rules regulating water ski course markers, ski jumps and other special use devices placed in the waters of this state. Such rules may regulate the installation and use of the devices and may require a permit.”

Read that as the Marine Board will “make rules” that none of us will have any real say in as the Marine Board memebers are never elected or up for re-election. We will be at their mercy upon implementation of this law.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

Last edited by Matt V on Tue Mar 07, 17 7:12 am; edited 3 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:52 am     Reply with quote

EMERGENCY!!!

Page 10, line 13

“EMERGENCY CLAUSE
SECTION 24. This 2017 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2017 Act takes effect
on its passage.”


Ummmmm…………. I don’t know what to say. I mean really read that yourself again, and read closely. It is the last line in the summary of the bill. Something I even skipped over at first.

Well, maybe I just cannot keep my mouth shut on this one. An “EMERGENCY”? Really? Where? If I was an elected (or even an appointed) representative, I would not support or vote for any bill that “declared an emergency” where there was clearly none. At most, this portion of this proposed law alone makes the entire premise of this law beyond absurd. And at least, it shows the boldness and audacity of those responsible for attempting to grant these powers to the Marine Board.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

Last edited by Matt V on Tue Mar 07, 17 7:15 am; edited 4 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
250 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostTue Mar 07, 17 6:52 am     Reply with quote

So,

If this bill is passed, the Marine Board will have unlimited power that will not be held in check by the people. This will inevitably lead to more rules and regulations designed to increase revenues beyond that “Well it’s only $12 a year”……..for now. Maybe in the future the Marine board will determine that kiteboarders have more of an impact than kayakers and triple the fee for them. Or maybe the Board will just go after the Kayaking community. This would be a great strategy to divide and conquer, thus generating even more government revenue.

And please understand that this bills defeat will not be the last time we see lawmakers go after this money. The creation of this bill clearly suggests the intent of lawmakers to add another revenue stream from the users identified in this bill. This intent will not go away. The next iteration of this law will most likely proceed in a much more covert and under the radar expression, such as a small addition to another bill. If you care about these issues, keep watching.

_________________
MSN has temporarily removed commenting on our websites while we explore better ways for you to engage in discussion on the issues you care about.

View user's profile Send private message
Tidesofthesky

Since 30 Aug 2016
54 Posts
Salem, OR
 



PostTue Mar 07, 17 10:56 am     Reply with quote

Man! So many bummers in this bill. It really does seem like they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. What is up with that "Emergency" clause? With no explanation given?? It would be so sad to see the government clamp down on some of the most environmentally friendly and economically friendly sports that exist!

I understand that money is needed to maintain facilities and keep people safe on the water (even though the facilities that windsports require are some of the least demanding of any watersport). But if more money is needed, why not charge a parking/use fee at each launch that is designed to pay for the maintenance and safety at each facility? WAY simper to enforce and much more accountability, as the users would directly see the use of their funds. Then, if someone wants to launch for free from a steep, rocky shoreline, they can do so! But it doesn't even make sense to pay the same to kite at Lyle vs at the Event Site. You're not getting the same product. Just arbitrarily giving money to a government entity and getting nothing in return.

View user's profile Send private message
Nak

Since 19 May 2005
3475 Posts
Camas
XTreme Poster

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 07, 17 12:30 pm     Reply with quote

Damn, I'm glad I live in Washington! Pretty sucky day for kiteboarding when this thing passes. First off, it'll take them years to figure out a whole new bureaucracy to issue permits, and after that I think you can figure sliders will never get a permit anyway. Seriously, who will get the insurance, and what bureaucrat will ever approve the permit for such a thing? Looks like the end of sliders in Hood River for sure. And once the politicians start regulating kiteboarding, do you really think they'll stop with this?

Seriously, if you live in Oregon you need to get involved with this. We have been spared most of the nightmares they see in other parts of the country here. My worry is that this bill is going to open the door to even worse things to come.

_________________
Stay away from the jumping seals!

The CGKA is your advocate for Kiteboarding in the Gorge!

http://www.gorgekiter.com/join

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
815 Posts
Hood River
Opinionated

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 07, 17 3:03 pm     Reply with quote

Hood River state representative is Mark JOhnson.
Perhaps we can inundate Mark with emails telling him how much we love and respect him but....the proposed marine regulations would have a big negative impact on HR tourism?

Rep.MarkJohnson@state.or.us

View user's profile Send private message
snowbunny

Since 05 Nov 2013
26 Posts

 



PostTue Mar 07, 17 3:32 pm     Reply with quote

I got in touch with the Committee assistant who said they are still accepting public testimony. The place to submit that via email is:

htp.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov (and reference HB2320 in the subject)

But she also noted that most committee members do not read every comment (usually it is one of their staffers). Might be better to email the committee members directly (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Committees/HTP/Overview) so they get prompted to work on an amendment and to email your local rep. Sounded like this would likely pass committee so best to get it fixed as much as possible before it hits the floor.

At least as far as the PFD rule goes, she suggested that the PFD provision was particularly contentious, and that there might be an amendment in the works. I believe that rule at best is annoying, and at worst is life-threatening. If anyone is looking for some good language/rationale against the PFD rule to use in their communications, check out this well-written letter:

http://www.fksa.org/showthread.php?t=8307

View user's profile Send private message
Tidesofthesky

Since 30 Aug 2016
54 Posts
Salem, OR
 



PostTue Mar 07, 17 4:29 pm     Reply with quote

I sent them a message!

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
815 Posts
Hood River
Opinionated

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 07, 17 7:11 pm     Reply with quote

Great response from state rep Mark Johnson.

I appreciate your input on this issue. I would agree with you that the bill as written seems a bit excessive. I can understand the need for some practical water safety improvements but this bill would seem to create some enforcement headaches for law enforcement as well as be a burden for recreation enthusiasts. I'm not sure about the trajectory of the bill but I'll track it closely.

View user's profile Send private message
Tidesofthesky

Since 30 Aug 2016
54 Posts
Salem, OR
 



PostWed Mar 08, 17 9:11 am     Reply with quote

Idhr That's really encouraging! That seems like a very reasonable response.

Also, someone requested I post the message I sent. It was sent to htp.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov, posted above by snowbunny (since I'm from Salem, that probably makes more sense than contacting HR state rep).

Two of the goals the bill expresses to achieve are safety and education- those are mainly what I decided to address in my message, as I think the bill misses the mark on both. It's not the best thing I've written, but I just wanted to make some noise on the subject, ya know, to let them know there are people who care about it and aren't on board with where it's headed.

Here's the message if anyone's interested.

Hi,
As a kiteboarder and watersports enthusiast, I want to take the time to express my concern regarding HB2320. My concerns regard the safety of the participants in the sport, and the impact that fee collection and regulation will have on the watersports community in Oregon.

First, regarding Section 11/1 (the use of PFD's on non-motorized watercraft). I believe this requirement can be dangerous and harmful to kiteboarders.

Here is some of the common thought on the subject:

Dangerous line tangles while wearing PFDs
- Approved PFD's that work correctly with kiteboarding waist harnesses are very rare. The common PFD's generally have large buckles and straps that can easily snag on the lines used when operating a kiteboarding kite. This creates a significant hazard for the rider. A snagged or tangled line can cause the rider to lose control of the kite and be dragged through the water or across the land. I wear a wetsuit and a light vest while kiting, both of which provide a fair amount of buoyancy. I am also a strong swimmer, as are most of the kiteboarders I know.

Impact force when hitting the water while wearing PFDs
- An integral part of kiteboarding is jumping. These jumps can be 20+ feet into the air, and at fairly high speeds. In a failed jump, a rider may hit the water at an unexpected angle. Without a PFD, the rider is able to break the surface tension of the water and may emerge sore, but otherwise unscathed. A PFD increases the impact forces when hitting the water significantly. This could make a failed jump extremely dangerous, if not fatal. Kiteboards are commonly designed with foots straps, instead of boots, so that in the case of a failed jump, the rider can jettison their board from their feet and avoid the heavy impact when their board contacts the water. Requiring that a PFD be strapped to one's body can be extremely dangerous for a kiteboarder.

- Very few kiteboarding deaths are preventable with use of a PFD. We are riding floating boards, powered by giant floating kites.


Secondly, I have concerns regarding the bill's purpose as a whole.

- I do not think that Education regarding non-motorized watercraft is lacking. There are many free resources regarding non-motorized watercraft safety. Youtube is full of kiteboarding instructional videos. These cover safety, riding techniques, gear selection, etc. There are also an abundance of instructors who will teach students for a fee.

-Adding fees and permits only hinders tourism to Oregon, and places an unfair burden on participants in sports that have minimal impact on the environment, and require little to no improved access points. Most of the money collected will go towards enforcement of the new laws. I would like to see more programs that encourage rather than exploit outdoor sports enthusiasts. It is encouraging to me that so many people are enjoying outdoor activities- this makes for great tourism, decreases the toll on our healthcare system, and makes people happier! It seems that legislators see this the other way around- that outdoor sports enthusiasts are out of hand and need to be controlled.

-If funds for access and safety are lacking, I would be in favor of a launch area specific fee, charged at each launch area. This money would be used to patrol the waters surrounding that launch and to maintain the launch facilities.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

View user's profile Send private message
Occupied Columbia

Since 12 Nov 2011
337 Posts
Columbia City
Obsessed



PostWed Mar 08, 17 9:53 am     Reply with quote

Well written Tides.
It seems Oregon lawmakers would rather everyone smoke pot and sit on a couch. If you are over 18 laws should be minimal. A license, permit application and education to become a parent, I'll vote for that. As for my recreation, I'll decide for myself.

View user's profile Send private message
Tidesofthesky

Since 30 Aug 2016
54 Posts
Salem, OR
 



PostWed Mar 08, 17 11:42 am     Reply with quote

Just FYI, got a response:

The deadline to submit testimony for the first public hearing on HB 2320 has passed. If and when we schedule this bill for another public hearing and/or a work session, I will upload your testimony to OLIS as an exhibit for that meeting date.

View user's profile Send private message
Sasquatch

Since 09 Mar 2005
1490 Posts
P-town
STACKED



PostWed Mar 08, 17 3:09 pm     Reply with quote

Tidesofthesky wrote:
Just FYI, got a response:

The deadline to submit testimony for the first public hearing on HB 2320 has passed. If and when we schedule this bill for another public hearing and/or a work session, I will upload your testimony to OLIS as an exhibit for that meeting date.


Right on! Let us know and I'll submit my response. THX!

_________________
GO DUCKS!!!

View user's profile Send private message
cgka

Since 18 Jul 2006
212 Posts

Stoked



PostWed Mar 08, 17 4:23 pm     Reply with quote

Just an FYI, at today's Port of HR 'Waterfront Rec Advisory Committee' meeting, this topic was discussed among representatives from the CGKA, CGWA, a Port Commissioner and a local SUP representative.

Please keep the flow of information and feedback occurring via this posting on NWKite, it is very helpful to hear about feedback and details from communications directly with our representatives.

Mark is very much a local Hood River-ite and we are glad to hear what we would expect from him in regards to his understanding the challenges of this broadswiping legislation initiative.

If you have an additional comments to share, please share them with either the CGKA, or the CGWA so that the representatives from these different organizations also know your concerns and feedback.

Thank you
Your CGKA Board of Directors

_________________
[b:13763ca0d3]The CGKA is your advocate for Kiteboarding in the Gorge! [i:13763ca0d3] Join now: [/i:13763ca0d3]GorgeKiter.com/join[/b:13763ca0d3]

Last edited by cgka on Wed Mar 08, 17 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum