Reclaim Our Waterfront is enlisting like-minded citizens from other communities.

Fed up with the ferries, a few friends – about 70 in all – assembled in the Bainbridge Commons Sunday evening for a meeting called by citizen group Reclaim Our Waterfront.

Buoyed by enthusiasm, the group set sail on an imaginary trip to the north shore of Eagle Harbor.

Upon arrival, its task was clear: mentally erase the ferry maintenance yard. Pretend it isn’t there. Then craft your own vision for the six-acre site on which Washington State Ferries currently mends and maintains its 28-boat fleet.

Brainstorming began. Up popped a boat haulout facility and a cafe. A foot ferry to Pritchard Park. More grass. Less concrete.

Ideas were plentiful. Still, behind the fuzziness and fawning, reality lingered. Despite boatloads of opposition, the ferry yard remains a fixture on the waterfront.

And though embroiled in litigation with the city over its decision to forgo environmental review for a portion of the facility’s renovation, WSF has continually said the yard will stay put.

To combat any skepticism, however scant, that may have existed at the close of the meeting, ROW member Wini Jones quoted famous anthropologist Margaret Mead.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world,” Jones said. “Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

So progressed a saga that pits the state – which says that by using the site as a boat yard it is has contributed to the local maritime legacy – against citizen groups who claim the ferry yard should be moved elsewhere to make way for a public waterfront.

The debate over the land stretches back for decades, across several contentious legal decisions and up to the presently stalled construction at the site.

Washington State Ferries has already finished the first of a three-phase, $38 million project designed to improve safety, aesthetics and operational efficiency at the facility while reducing its impact on the environment.

Completed over the summer, the first phase converted a walk-on slip to a drive-on slip. Phase two was set to include repairs to dock facilities and the maintenance building, among other revitalization efforts.

After ROW raised concerns about the lack of an environmental review for that portion of the work, the city filed to assume the role of lead agent for the project, which has consequently been delayed by as much as two years according to WSF.

Both sides now await a hearing examiner’s decision on the power struggle, with a ruling scheduled to come in early December, according to ROW attorney Ryan Vancil.

In the meantime, as litigation continues, local citizens – among them opposition groups like ROW and Bainbridge Island Concerned Citizens, who have been challenging WSF since the 1970s – are increasing efforts to counter what they see as bullying by the the ferry system.

Part of that effort was Sunday’s meeting, at which ROW leadership sought to energize its supporters by clarifying a community vision for the land.

Another part, Vancil said, will come later this month when representatives of ROW meet in Port Townsend with residents of other communities who have similar gripes with the ferry system.

The goal is to create a regional coalition that would be better able to impact the way WSF capital projects unfold.

“Washington State Ferries has not created a meaningful opportunity for Bainbridge Island to have a say about what happens on public lands,” said Vancil, of land that has been a shipyard since 1902 and in the state’s possession since 1962.

Members of ROW have long pointed to a series of decisions that they say entitle the public to use of the land.

A 1974 ruling by the state Shoreline Hearings Board reserved a portion of land – which at the time adjoined the state-owned ferry yard – for use as a marina and/or commercial boat facility.

In 1995, a separate agreement between the city and WSF allocated a one-acre, unspecified piece of maintenance yard property for use as a community boat yard. That transfer has yet to happen.

WSF spokesperson Joy Goldenberg said the ferry system intends to honor that agreement in phase three of the project, which would include the bulk of the new construction.

It is that phase, she said, that would most incorporate the community in the planning process.

“There has been a lot of misinformation out there,” Goldenberg said. “That has been part of the struggle. Phase three was where people were going to have an opportunity to have a voice about how the (maintenance yard) will look.”

Now, she said, pending the hearing examiner’s decision, things are less certain.

But Vancil said it is precisely the lack of community input in WSF projects that has led groups like ROW – and now similar citizen groups in other communities – to band together.

Through broader participation, they hope to have their say about the maintenance yard and the way future ferry planning takes place.

For some at Sunday’s meeting, that meant ousting the ferry yard altogether. For others, it simply meant incorporating more public uses into the existing area. Many touted the economic benefits that they say would follow the return of a public haul out facility to the island.

For more than 30 years, south-end residents Rachel and Bob Smith have championed that argument, to no avail. On paper they have seen the land carved up several different ways. But in reality there is still no public boat yard.

Ideally, they said, the land would include haul out facilities, dry storage and a marina. Rachel appealed for support from the community and said she remains optimistic.

“I think we have a good shot at getting the boat yard,” she said. “I’m not sure about whether we’ll be able to force out the maintenance facility entirely, though it would be good in many ways for the island.”

Vancil said he was encouraged by the amount of public involvement in the ferry terminal planning, including a recent community workshop held to elicit ideas about the project. He and others would welcome a similar cooperation with the planning effort for the ferry yard.

Goldenberg said there is a good reason for the differing approaches.

“The ferry terminal and the maintenance yard are two very different facilities,” she said. “One is for public use. The other is a restricted-use facility.”

Vancil cited a different reason.

“The ferry system comes in with a plan and tells the community how things are going to happen,” he said.

“But they don’t take input from the community. We’re hoping to change that.”

**********

Rock the boat

ROW maintains an informational website at www.reclaimourwaterfront.org.