The Navy Yard gate was closed at 1:45pm on Friday. We were warned this might happen "The gates at both ends of the WNY Riverwalk will be open during base working hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal Holidays. Exceptions to these operating hours will be made when restricted access is necessary to accomplish Navy operations. The Navy may block or restrict access without notice for safety or operational reasons."
This 'trail' runs through a military installation. What do people expect? The option is to deny access 24/7.
Posted by: ontarioroader | May 02, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Some states, like Hawaii, that the public must ALWAYS have access to the beach. Always.
Can DC pass a law stating that residents must ALWAYS have access to the rivers edge? ALWAYS?
Posted by: Mr Share | May 02, 2011 at 03:14 AM
DC could pass that law, but typically local/state laws aren't legally applied to the higher govt. authority, in this case the federal govt.
(Similarly, state institutions are typically exempt from local zoning and building regulations.)
There would be a way to keep access open, but it would involve having at least one person on duty, CCTV, etc., although it would probably take a long time to get it set up. It would be worth doing.
Posted by: Richard Layman | May 02, 2011 at 06:05 AM
It is possible that security was increased at all military facilities over the weekend in anticipation of the Bin Laden and Ghadafy strikes. I can't blame the Navy Yard for an excess of caution under the circumstances. You are correct that the military would prefer to close bases to the public as Fort Belvior did in the years after 9/11.
Posted by: Rootchopper | May 02, 2011 at 09:53 AM
I agree with Rootchopper. Lets see what happens in a few weeks.
Posted by: SJE | May 02, 2011 at 10:49 AM
I think there are more options than the status quo and closing access 24/7. These include having a guard or using CCTV as Richard mentioned, moving the security perimeter back so as not to include the promenade or recognizing that is it infinitesimally unlikely that the promenade would be used to commit an attack on the Navy Yard or that the Navy Yard would be the target of an attack or that closing the perimeter wouldn't just cause an attacker to just go elsewhere and do the same damage, which means closing it is pretty much useless.
Posted by: washcycle | May 02, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Yes, but closing the gate is a very easy and effective option to minimize risk.
Posted by: SJE | May 02, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Easy? yes. Effective? unclear. Is there even a risk? The only attack on a US military base that I can think of was by an American soldier (Ft. Hood). What are they afraid of, and does closing the promenade prevent that?
Posted by: washcycle | May 02, 2011 at 05:51 PM
That is not the worst news by far; those white signs in the picture say 'no bicycling' which renders that boardwalk useless for bicycle commuters to U.S. DOT and points west.
Posted by: john | May 02, 2011 at 06:19 PM
Easy? yes. Effective? unclear. Is there even a risk? The only attack on a US military base that I can think of was by an American soldier (Ft. Hood). What are they afraid of, and does closing the promenade prevent that?
Do we really even need a military, for that matter? The last invasion of the US that I can think of was during the War of 1812 (or the Civil War, depending on how you count). We can convert all of the military installations in DC into parks for our Cyclovias!
Posted by: nestor | May 02, 2011 at 10:51 PM
nestor - you ignore fact (Pearl Harbor, the first WTC attack, 9/11) and the full purpose of the military, which does more than just respond to attacks. [Though I believe up until WWII we had a very small standing army]. It is not unreasonable to expect the military to justify its chosen security perimeter - and to do so with something more than a strawman argument.
Posted by: Washcycle | May 02, 2011 at 11:08 PM
Washcycle,
Oh come on. Let's put aside 1) the fact that I was clearly being sarcastic and 2) that the first WTC attack, and 9/11 were not invasions, *and* 3) that Pearl Harbor *was* an attack on a military base (so you *can* think of one), *and* 4) that 9/11 included an attack on a the Pentagon, which may not be a military base, but is pretty close. What you seem to be suggesting is that the military has an obligation to explain why it has chosen not to give the public 24-hour access to its property. What kind of explanation, exactly, would satisfy you?
Posted by: nestor | May 03, 2011 at 12:15 AM
I work at the Navy Yard, but just a paper pusher, not an official voice of either the Navy or the WNY. I know that at times the promenade floods at high tide (especially at the extreme East end of the yard. When this occurs the Promenade is closed -- I'm not saying this is the reason for Friday, but it can happen unexpectedly, and may appear disconnected from the actual weather.
Posted by: Mike Essig | May 03, 2011 at 07:51 AM
nestor, I think you're right. If they had closed the promenade at Pearl Harbor we could avoided WWII altogether.
Rather than getting into an argument about what is an invasion and what isn't.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the military has an obligation to explain why it has chosen not to give the public 24-hour access to its property.
Yes.
What kind of explanation, exactly, would satisfy you?
An analysis of the costs and benefits of closing it. This should include an attempt to quantify the risk leaving it opens represents.
Posted by: washcycle | May 03, 2011 at 08:36 AM