Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA25967 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com [15.255.168.31]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA21160 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nicolet.com (nicolet.com [208.137.76.180]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id NAA07314 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from nicmad.nicolet.com (IDENT:JTqqByjA2bjIQOZa/RGNPixaCEwG+qpf@nicmad.nicolet.com-DeleteThis [89.0.22.212]) by nicolet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Nicolet Instruments Corp./V1.0) with SMTP id PAA29252 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:49:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.20000204213526.007195ec@nicmad.nicolet.com-DeleteThis> X-Sender: waledisc@nicmad.nicolet.com-DeleteThis X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 13:35:26 -0800 To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis From: Claude Waledisch <waledisc@nicolet.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: SFO Mitigation - New Windsurf Site?
At 08:41 PM 2/2/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>*** Everyone! - LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS STUFF. Hit "REPLY" and
>take a moment to let us know if you agree, disagree, or decline to state
>whether you agree or not!! Just give us your input, please, because the SFBA
>and others are communicating with the airport now and you will be affected
>by what happens, so your input is needed!***
---------
>> - Water deep enough to not bottom out the fin
>> - Water shallow enough near shore beginners to touch bottom
>> - Firm bottom vs. muddy bottom to allow carrying 40 lbs. of gear out of
>> shallows
>> - Lack of debris (broken glass, re-bar, old pilings, etc.)
>> - Steady wind
>> - Wind that is not offshore for safety (ideally side shore)
>> - Consistent wind - high number of sailing days
>> - Down wind return - a friendly place to land when pushed downwind
>> - Moderate currents near shore
>> - Easy Access to Site
>> - Easy Access to Water
>>
>> Any other?
---------
I'm replying for the non windsurfers politician that would happen to read
this list.
Some locations are just irreplaceable. Everybody knows how Maui and
windsurfing are associated together. How much Maui business is affected
with the sport. Well, do you think if they close ho'okipa state park and
designate another beach as "windsurfing beach" it would work. No. If they
did, then people would stop going there and train because the conditions
have changed. The location in regard to the reef, the wind angle made it
special. Coyote point is also in a pristine location and visitors from all
parts of the world know about it and it is impossible to duplicate all the
assets listed above.
It would be the end for windsurfing in the San Francisco Bay. Coyote point
is a training ground where everyone is improving their skills. At any level.
The wonderful view from the Golden Gate with the windsurfers zooming across
from Crissy Field would disappear as the number of rescues (and death) would
increase. Learning there is so difficult and dangerous compared to Coyote
where one can progress from shore to bay, chop to swell and learn about tide
and current.
Please do not disturb this cherished bay access spot.
Claude
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:23:48 PDT