NYCkayaker HARP organization

[ralph diaz]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mark handy" nycmhandy at yahoo.com

You have good questions that I will try to answer from memory:

> How did the HPBG decide what actions to take?  Was it consensus-based,
majority rule, weighted majority rule, or based on what individuals decided
to do on their own after discussion?<

We met only a few times in order to agree to agree to have something called
the HPBG.  The summary notes of our few meetings were circulated to anyone
who was there and then to others who showed interested based on what they
were seeing (notes were sent to the individuals and organizations as well as
openly to nyckayaker).

Actions were taken as situations arose.  The first one was in answer to an
attempt to limit night paddling and rowing or ban it as well as to have
specific places at which only there one could cross the river.  We did some
interesting experiments with night lights at the DTBH and found what seemed
to work best to make paddlers visible, basically to try to look, in terms of
lights, as would a small boat.  We circulated the report and showed it to
the Coast Guard and the harbor committee of private users of the harbor
(businesses mainly).  Having taken action on our own to show a responsible
approach to lighting the adverse movement against us backed off.

Other actions such as the ones I mentioned in the previous email just came
up.  A core group of us addressed these and passed on our findings to the
larger group.

> What were the members -- individual persons, organizations, or both?  How
many people came to meetings?<

The initial meetings had about 15 organizations represented.  We never met
afterwards.  The groups grew to about 25 as individuals in groups heard
about what we were doing and asked to be included in our communications and
lent their organization names to our "letterhead" i.e. a list of groups who
were supported HPBG.

> Was it focused on waters adjoining Manhattan below 125th Street?<

Basically yes, albeit the jet ski incidents went up as far as off Northern
Manhattan and out to Brooklyn waters.  Obviously some of our
recommendations, such as lighting, were used as far as Cold Spring.  Ferry
traffic was concentrated actually below 50th Street.  So there was little
need to look to further out waters.

> Off the top of my head, I would be inclined toward a pretty formal
organization, with bylaws, officers, dues, and the like. I would make
members of individuals only, but with an option for organizations to enter
all their members as HARP members at greatly reduced rates (maybe $10 versus
$30 a year).  Creating such a HARP would be a lot of work and would trample
on our individualism a bit, but I'm not convinced that a less structured
group could get anything decided.  Also, a highly structured group, with
titles and a budget and clear decisions, could present itself to the
powers-that-be more impressively.<

Your idea is an ambitious one.  I personally have never found kayakers (and
I am certain rowers as well) inclined to submit themselves to such a tightly
knit structure.  The attitude that prevailed when I first started paddling
these waters in the 1980s is the old Treasure of Sierra Madre "we don't need
no stinking badges."  I imagine it continues to a large degree today.  I
thought the the very loose HPBG group accomplished some big things because
it was not weighed down with structure.  It also went after practical
solutions to threats directly rather than have a set global plans or
particular agenda.  The only agenda was keeping our waters open and safe for
us.  Simple and sweet like apple pie and motherhood and not likely to get
emboiled in internecine battles and turf struggles.


> I would join such a HARP, or probably any HARP.  But I have some doubts on
whether City paddlers are ready to support any unified body. We aren't
directly threatened with more regulation at this time. The recent, real
threats of loss of access and storage downtown were answered, as far as I
know, in a non-unified way.  If we won't rally against a real threat, will
we rally against a conjectured threat?<

I agree with your premise in general.  But it is good to have something in
place to deal with the ad hoc threats that spring up.  We are just speaking
of having enough organizations that have a membership agreeing to have
something in place, a HARP, that can spring into action and convey to the
outside world that it represents x number of groups that have y number of
human powered boaters who represent voting power; that is something
politicians will listen to.

> Also, would we be called HARPies?<

Speak for yourself :-)

ralph diaz

BTW, there are an awful lot of savvy people down in the harbor who can
organize this such as Erik, Tim Gamble of the DTBH etc.  I have been away
from the scene for nearly four years but I am certain a lot of good other
leadership talents have sprung up.

I think starting with something fairly loosely organized is best.  It is a
situation where Less can be More or at least seem to be more.  You ever see
what a cat does when it wants to establish its turf against a bigger menace?
It bristles out its fur, stands up tall and sideways to its threat giving
the appearance of an imposing looking mass.  That is all you really need.