Originally Posted by LoadClear
I knew Clem pretty well for 15 years or so. Stayed at his house, ate dinner with him, and he hosted my parents when they came up to visit.

He gave away most of his land in HC (as I previously posted). He donated (and continued to maintain) the docks that anyone can use, and has the post office. He regularly invited tourists to tie up, and hang out in his yard for picnics and whatnot. For someone who gave away more than he ever “took”, I’d be very surprised that he used his political position to enrich himself.

It was actually your earlier post that first provoked my thoughts.

With Clem having the desire to create a coastal community of sorts, he'd need all the special rights he could muster up to help achieve that.

Personal pursuits made by a politician might be driven by personal goals they seek to achieve not nessasarly personal riches they desire to stack up.

What good is land you're attempting to develope if it's high tide access only?

[Linked Image from wildnatureimages.com]

When the area you're in has a tide exchange of upwards of 30ft it can become very limiting on the lows, twice a day.

[Linked Image from media-cdn.tripadvisor.com]

You have to have tide land rights to reach out there so you can be accessible 24/7.

[Linked Image from mag.irnko.ir]

Driving pilings off the shore to build on adjacent to your property is one thing.

[Linked Image from apostcardjourneytravel.files.wordpress.com]

But when you reach out far into a bay and start driving pilings I'd suspected you'd have special specific rights and provisions to be allowed to do that.

[Linked Image from themilepost.com]

So that's what makes me suspect that the surrounding property owners may have some unique rights to that bay that you might not see just anywhere.

The rights to these tide lands don't necessarily roll over with a sale or gifted parcel of land, they can be held by the original owner if so desired and deeds are written accordingly.

That's one thing, but you may be able to answer another.

I'm still not seeing airplanes tied to docks in these pictures.
I'm not even seeing provisions for airplanes in the ways these docks are constructed, why?

When you were hanging out at Clems place, how common was it to see a plane taxi up the bay?

This really puzzles me and makes me think there could be some sorta rule or ordinance limiting or prohibiting the use of seaplanes in this bay.

A beautiful, protected bay like that should be a magnet for airplane owners seeking weekend and summer retreats to wisk their families away to. It'd be a pretty easy flight from Anchorage if you owned your own plane.

Why aren't they there?