To the Editor:
Every town harbor has the problem of vacant private moorings, while the mooring waiting lists grow longer. There are some legitimate reasons for a vacant mooring. Most town harbors have developed a fair and equitable way of allowing temporary use of vacant moorings before the mooring is reassigned to the next person on the waiting list, per mooring use regulations. The town of Tisbury is the only town that has been leasing vacant private vessel of record moorings. It’s allowed in the waterways regulations, but that does not mean it follows all state and federal laws and permits. It doesn’t. That’s why other towns don’t lease private moorings.
This illegal and unfair regulation has been questioned for a long time. It’s common knowledge that the town gets paid two times for these moorings, once by the permitholder paying the yearly mooring fee that averages around $300, and then by the lessee, who pays about $1,700 per year. Plus the permitholder pays all maintenance.
So the town makes 100 percent profit, with no investment in the mooring. Attempts to at least reimburse the permit fee have been ignored. To make it worse, this 100 percent profit has motivated the town to abuse discretion by holding vacant moorings for years in violation of town waterways mooring use regulations, when the mooring should have been reassigned to the next person on the long waiting list.
Profit for the town proves more important than fair and equitable mooring assignments through the waiting list. This is a DEP violation. This has all been documented, and the select board has refused to act on it.
Now the Army Corps has stepped in. Leasing of private moorings is not authorized by the Army Corps. It has to stop. All the profit from leasing private moorings is not only unethical, it is illegal. Should everyone who paid these illegal lease fees get their money back? To make it legal to lease moorings, the town would have to take over all private moorings, get an Army Corps permit, then lease them back to the public. The harbormaster has attempted to do this, but has been stopped. It’s not the answer. No other town has chosen to go in this direction, for good reason. It’s time to revise the mooring permit fee structure in a way that is fair and equitable to permit holders and the town. There are some great examples from other harbors. And it is
absolutely time for the town to give up the moorings held for profit in violation of its own mooring use regulations, and reassign them to the next people on the waiting list.
Lynne Fraker
Vineyard Haven