Photo by drtana

Photo by drtana

The effort to keep Jack’s Boathouse open on the waterfront site where it has sat since 1945 suffered a major defeat last week when a judge tossed out a lawsuit aimed at stopping the boathouse’s eviction. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of U.S. District Court ruled last Thursday that Paul Simkin, who has run Jack’s Boathouse since 1999, was not entitled to an injunction blocking the transfer of the site to a new contractor selected by the National Park Service.

Jack’s Boathouse was told last December that NPS was canceling the month-to-month rental agreement it entered into with the District government in 1982 and transferred to the federal government in 1987 when the Park Service took over the Georgetown waterfront. In response, Simkin argued that because of various amendments to the deed that authorized the transfer, the land should actually be back under D.C.’s control with him as the tenant.

However, Kollar-Kotelly was unmoved by that argument. In her ruling, which was first reported by the Georgetown Metropolitan blog, she wrote that Simkin “lacks constitutional standing to request a declaratory judgment that the District ‘never effectively transferred’ administrative jurisdiction to NPS.” One of the reasons she cites is the fact that previous owners of Jack’s Boathouse did not challenge the change in jurisdiction. Similarly, the judge found that Simkin was informed of NPS’ plans to turn the boathouse site into a contracted concession by last August, giving Jack’s Boathouse plenty of time to come up with a bid.

Simkin did not submit a bid, and last month, NPS announced that B&G Outdoor Recreation, Inc., a Massachusetts firm that operates boat rental facilities in the Boston area, would take over the location. Barring any more efforts by Simkin to prevent the installment of a new operator, that location, at 3500 Water Street NW, will see a new boat rental company for the first time since 1945, when Jack’s Boathouse opened to canoers, kayakers, and other Potomac River navigators.

District Court Opinion