Tacoma Urbanist

Jan. 17, 2008 at 12:28am

Tacoma: Sperry Dock Cited for Nuisance

(Artist rendition of what the Chinese Reconciliation Park would look like with two extra ships.)

Chinese Reconciliation Park & Tahoma Salt Marsh(left), Current ships center, future (if the permit is approved) on the rightThe proposal to place two more diesel burning ships on Schuster Parking adjacent the Chinese Reconciliation Park and Tacoma neighborhood is running into increaing opposition and issues with the City of Tacoma:

The Tacoma News Tribune reports that the City of Tacoma has issued a "notice of citation" against the owners of Sperry Dock:

Posted by David Seago @ 04:52:08 am

One of our operatives in Old Town alerted us to a temporary win for opponents of a plan to moor two more large ships at Sperry Ocean Dock off Schuster Parkway in Tacoma.

On Monday, city public works officials sent dock owner Gary Coy a formal notice of violations of the city's nuisance code.

Tacoma government and civic groups appears to be opposing the dock expansion as well.

==>On November 12, 2007, the North End Neighborhood Council passed a resolution against the dock expansion.

==>On December 10, 2007 Metro Parks passed a resolution against the dock expansion.

==>On December 27, 2007, Stadium District passed a resolution against the dock expansion.

==>On January 7, 2008, Dome District Development Group wrote a letter against the dock expansion.

Commentary:

Tacoma community groups have lined up against the proposal.  None have supported it.  Tacoma has long worked to complete the esplanade from the Museum of Glass to the City of Ruston.  Expanding the number of ships in this location would make a continuous walkway on Tacoma's waterfront for residents impossible.

The existing dock certainly has some value.  Government officials from the state and federal level may be needed to work with local agencies to find another place for the ships other than the residential side of Tacoma';s waterway.

More Information

Group Opposing Expansion of Sperry Dock : Walk the Waterfront

Tacoma Weekly Article


NW Asian Weekly




comments [6]  |  posted under tacoma, washington

Comments

by Jake on 1/17/2008 @ 10:59am
I am against the addition of more ships but I was always under the impression that there will be no plan for extension of the esplanade along Schucter Parkway. The countinual "waterfront walkway" for that section is the sidewalks that already run along the parkway.

Could be wrong.

by Erik on 1/17/2008 @ 11:03am
I am against the addition of more ships but I was always under the impression that there will be no plan for extension of the esplanade along Schucter Parkway.

Alot of people have worked to try have a continuous walkway.

The most significant document I have showing it is the Tacoma City Club Report: Dome to Defiance in May of 1988 which is a 40 page analysis recommending it. Unfortunately, it is not available online.

by Jake on 1/17/2008 @ 11:55am
"Alot of people have worked to try have a continuous walkway. "

Yes but I believe the continuous walkway includes the sidewalks already on Schuster Parkway. There is no room for a walkway along the water unless it is built over water (with the Sperry Dock removed) or the railroad tracks are removed.

by Erik on 1/17/2008 @ 12:37pm
. There is no room for a walkway along the water unless it is built over water (with the Sperry Dock removed) or the railroad tracks are removed.

Very true, thats why there is an increasing call to have all of the ships moved out. Metro Parks Commissioner Ryan Mello suggested that they be moved to Bremerton.

by Republican (By Default) on 1/17/2008 @ 12:44pm
It always amazes me that Tacoma is so contradictory. On one hand we want businesses to come to and stay in Tacoma. Then on the other hand we drive them away. No wonder the downtown is dead.

This seems to me to be a key piece of infrastructure for the military presence in Tacoma (I'm not an expert). If we continue to chip away at them, the bases will be closed and we will lose a lot of jobs, residents, tax revenue (sales and property) as well as a long valued piece of Tacoma and its place in the world economy.

The world is watching (when they bother to take notice of Tacoma). So be careful how you treat the people and businesses that are already here. You just might scare away someone that you'd like to see move here.

by Erik on 1/17/2008 @ 1:22pm
It always amazes me that Tacoma is so contradictory. On one hand we want businesses to come to and stay in Tacoma. Then on the other hand we drive them away.

Yes, its always a challenge to know what regulations to put in and which ones not to. I think th question comes down to whether the regulation is a holdover from an antiquated belief about an industry (microwinery) and the nexus between the proposed regulation and the problem to be solved. Also, is the regulation narrowly tailored to accomplish the task that it purports to.

Tacoma is still paying for its pollution problems of the past with its aroma and Asarco.

Potential employers want to know that a city provides a relatively clean enviroment for its employees. No one wants to locate in a polluted city.