The City Council Wednesday assured another year of full employment for our hired attorneys, and for those pinstripe-clad opponents who are making a good living challenging the council’s land-use decisions.

It could have been worse. By dropping the island-wide moratorium on new dock and bulkhead applications, the city rendered moot the grievances of a Manitou Park Boulevard couple whose application for a bulkhead had been refused multiple times by the planning department.

The council did, though, unanimously vote to continue the moratorium for Port Blakely in order to adopt a ban on any new single-user docks in that harbor. In so doing, it waded into a considerably tangled legal thicket.

In the first place, a Superior Court judge has already declared the city’s island-wide moratorium to be illegal – both beyond the city’s authority, and in conflict with state law. Limiting the moratorium to one geographic area doesn’t address those issues; unless the city prevails on appeal, the new moratorium will be invalid as well.

More critical is the issue of whether a ban on single-user docks in Blakely Harbor is legal. Dock-ban proponents express confidence, pointing to language in the state Shoreline Management Act declaring the public interest to take priority over private wants; to decisions from the Shoreline Hearings Board upholding various jurisdictions’ limitations on docks; and to a letter from the state Department of Ecology that they believe supports the city’s proposed limitations.

But the situation is considerably more murky. The same statute that exalts the “public interest” also assigns “priority” to “single-family residences and their appurtenant structures,” and specifically exempts docks costing less than $5,000 from regulation, arguably declaring single-user docks to be consistent with the public interest.

The Shoreline Hearings Board has indeed upheld a variety of dock limitations, but has also repeatedly noted that it does not have jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims, such as claims that private property has been “taken” for public benefit, thus sidestepping the heart of the dock-ban issue.

The written comments from the Department of Ecology applaud the city’s motives, but as to legality, could offer no more suport than a single provision of the state shoreline law that Ecology says “may support” dock limitations.

A further wrinkle: a court could uphold a dock ban, but declare the ban to be a “taking” of a property right for which compensation must be paid at who-knows-what cost.

We don’t think decisions should be avoided simply because they may bring a lawsuit – we applaud the heightened environmental sensitivity on the island, and recognize that, like a lot of other benefits, it is not risk- or cost-free. But we wish the city would do a better job of assessing and weighing the costs.

We’re especially nonplussed by the city’s unwillingness to poll Blakely Harbor residents to find out how many actually want docks. The city’s position appears to be that a ban has drawn support from the broad community, whose rights control. Yet that begs the critical question, and simply assumes that the public-over-private argument is correct. And if only a very few people want docks, it might be possible to resolve the problem through covenants, avoiding the whole legal hassle.

Ultimately, these questions belong to the citizens and taxpayers who are footing the bill. Do you want your tax dollars spent in an effort to keep Blakely Harbor dock-free, with no guarantee of success? The council members unanimously say yes. You might want to let them know what you think.