It’s an unfortunate day when an islander of lesser means waves the white flag and moves away.

Some Eagle Harbor liveaboards say they’re about to

do just that, feeling the pinch of regulatory, economic and

perhaps even social pressures. At a hearing on harbor

management issues last month, one long-time anchor-out declared his intent to jump ship and head to the mountains, while others gamely vowed defiance.

At issue are city plans to establish an “open water marina,” a designated anchor-out zone in a harbor now haphazardly crowded with 75-100 boats and perhaps 20 harbor dwellers. City officials say they’re being goaded to establish the marina area by the state; a shoreline plan amendment now before the City Council wouldn’t establish the zone, but would meet a state deadline to allow establishment in the future should the city so choose.

Liveaboards have opposed the open-water marina, not least because it would impose cost on what has heretofore been an ultimately affordable living arrangement: free. And in a community where “economic diversity” is increasingly defined by whether you can afford a Range Rover or just an Escalade, the idea of dropping anchor on the fringe of island society – living “off the grid” – is certainly appealing. Who among us, on some level, doesn’t yearn to?

Liveaboards have been joined in their opposition, ironically enough, by activists who want them out of the harbor altogether and slyly want the city to miss the state’s deadline. Meanwhile, more dispassionate observers are sympathetic to the plight of anyone trying to get by, but question the propriety of squatters in public waters. Harbor dwellers count on police, fire and other public services for which they don’t pay taxes, the argument goes; whenever the Waterfront Park porta-potty gets pumped out, somebody’s paying for it. Should liveaboards contribute something toward their lifestyle?

We’re not sure how to reconcile such divergent views, but failing to adopt the proposed shoreline amendment certainly won’t do it. We urge the council to pass the amendment to move the discussion forward.

Why? Eagle Harbor is a limited resource for which demand and competition will only increase. The same regulatory tide against which the liveaboards swim also flows against the construction of new, more conventional shoreline marinas; all the while, more boaters crowd Puget Sound and our local waterways. Those waterways need effective management – if not today, then surely soon.

What is “regulation,” but a way to manage infinite demands on finite resources?

We sympathize with today’s liveaboards, who have passionately and articulately explained how well their lifestyle works for them. But can they say how it will work for everybody, should more of us decide to drop anchor too?

Those are all discussions for another day; the shoreline plan amendment before the council is merely a way to keep that conversation going. It won’t boot anybody out of the harbor, but it will give the city the tools to work for a solution that best serves the community.

Not today’s liveaboard community, necessarily – the Bainbridge Island community, including the liveaboards.