Coast Guard Authority ???
 

Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a "routine"
safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state registration fully
within US waters and obviously not suited for long offshore travel without
cause?

I am not asking because of anything that has happened. I have never been
stopped or checked by the US Coast Guard in freshwater or sal****er. I am
just curious about their legal authority.

The vehicle in question would currently be being operated in a safe and
legal manner following navigation guides, traveling at legal speeds, and
being operated in a courteous manner to other craft. All registration
numbers being current and properly displayed and lights being in full
correct operation or not required if during daylight hours.

The reason I ask is because I have a small craft I was thinking of using to
do some bay fishing. I bought it as a shell and rigged it out as a bass
boat. I wired it, installed the outboard, and otherwise rigged the boat
myself. I am confident that the basic stuff is all done correctly, but I
would hate to get hassled and cited because I used an automotive fuel line
(which I didn't) or something like that.

I am very careful to try and meet the appropriate safety regulations, and I
have only ever had a safety check done on one of my boats once in the past.
An Imperial County Sheriff's Deputy stopped me for violating a speed reg on
the Colorado River. I argued the reg was not properly posted and
un-enforcable. He decided to do a complete safety check and not cite me
for the speed violation. Obviously he felt I had a case, but he wasn't
going to let me go without citing me for something.

I have had my fishing license checked many times while fishing, but I have
never had game officials do this. I have heard the Coast Guard can be anal
rententive about things. I hope to avoid that type of experience. I do
have all required safety gear, and my craft is rigged correctly to the best
of my knowledge. I have read several more recent publications on safe boat
operation, and I took a small craft certification course with the Coast
Guard Auxilary about 25 years ago.

Anyway, I take all appropriate steps with my craft to avoid violations, but
I am curious about the legal authority and circumstances I may run into.


--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

Yes, they can board you at any time.

And for any reason, probable cause NOT required.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:40:17 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
said:

Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a
"routine"
safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state registration fully
within US waters and obviously not suited for long offshore travel
without
cause?

http://www.jcrobbins.com/documents/boarding.htm


Interesting read. Also, interesting that one paragraph seems to indicate
that their are limits while others say their aren't. Also, interesting that
all limits are ambiguous.

Of course the biggest arguement about the value of their warrantless
searches and lack of need for cause it is also valid for private homes on
dry land. Not legal, but valid.

Amazing that with the various changes in our country in many ways we are
becoming worse and more oppressive in than the country we fought so hard to
make ourselves independent of over 200 years ago.

--
Bob La Londe
www.YumaBassMan.com

They kind of edited my comments in that article. The Coasties were young
and nervous but they were courteous and professional. When they found that
one of the crew was from the same home town as one of the boarding party
they got down right friendly. That didn't stop them from making a detailed
inspection of our log and charts, checking the whole boat from chain locker
to lazerette and using a chemical wipe on all the surfaces. The cutter
tagged along for another half hour while they ran tests on the wipe.

Evidently the USCG has an enforcement agreement with Haiti and at the time
the South coast of Hispanola was a major drug route. Had the French owner
been on board he might have objected when we were hailed but I was not going
to get on the VHF and claim French sovernety with my South Georgia accent in
the face of that big cannon on the cutter's foredeck.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
news:1119634116.4bda1948b3517220db2fffefd0dfa380@t eranews...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:40:17 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
said:

Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a
"routine"
safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state registration fully
within US waters and obviously not suited for long offshore travel
without
cause?

http://www.jcrobbins.com/documents/boarding.htm


Interesting read. Also, interesting that one paragraph seems to indicate
that their are limits while others say their aren't. Also, interesting
that
all limits are ambiguous.

Of course the biggest arguement about the value of their warrantless
searches and lack of need for cause it is also valid for private homes on
dry land. Not legal, but valid.

Amazing that with the various changes in our country in many ways we are
becoming worse and more oppressive in than the country we fought so hard
to
make ourselves independent of over 200 years ago.

--
Bob La Londe
www.YumaBassMan.com

Ahoy The
Interesting read, true. All I can say is that twice in coastal waters,
and once in international waters have been stopped by US gov't
ships.(Wouldn't identify themselves at 3am offshore, but warship
silhouette hard to disguiseG)

Rule #1)They out-gun you=be polite
Rule #2)Be excrutiatingly polite, they're nervous about being
blown-away by someone popping out of forward hatch. Always keep BOTH
your hands in plain view.
Result=no problems, in fact the officer nonchalantly over-looked clear
violation of holding tank sin.

Allan

Ahoy The
Interesting read, true. All I can say is that twice in coastal waters,
and once in international waters have been stopped by US gov't
ships.(Wouldn't identify themselves at 3am offshore, but warship
silhouette hard to disguiseG)

Rule #1)They out-gun you=be polite
Rule #2)Be excrutiatingly polite, they're nervous about being
blown-away by someone popping out of forward hatch. Always keep BOTH
your hands in plain view.
Result=no problems, in fact the officer nonchalantly over-looked clear
violation of holding tank sin.

Allan

The last time the Canadian Coast Guard came on board my sailboat they were
polite.
We were in peas soup fog and a few miles offshore from the US boarder. I
asked them for ID and radioed my position with the name of their vessel and
time to their HQ. They were wearing heavy duty leather boots and I kindly
asked them to wipe their feet before coming on board. They had no problem
with my request.
Last year the RCMP ask for permission to come aboard my boat while in
motion. I went to the same routine and contacted their detachment. They
inspected my safety equipment. The heaving attached to my life buoy was
found not secured to the boat. They checked the rest of the boat and gave
me a safety sticker. Other boaters I know got fined for not having the
proper safety gears or sailing while under the influence of alcohol or
recreational substances. In this area when using a cell phone we can press
*16 and contact the Coast Guard.

"LEnfantduVent" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ahoy The
Interesting read, true. All I can say is that twice in coastal waters,
and once in international waters have been stopped by US gov't
ships.(Wouldn't identify themselves at 3am offshore, but warship
silhouette hard to disguiseG)

Rule #1)They out-gun you=be polite
Rule #2)Be excrutiatingly polite, they're nervous about being
blown-away by someone popping out of forward hatch. Always keep BOTH
your hands in plain view.
Result=no problems, in fact the officer nonchalantly over-looked clear
violation of holding tank sin.

Allan

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:24:34 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
said:

Of course the biggest arguement about the value of their warrantless
searches and lack of need for cause it is also valid for private homes on
dry land.

Most homes are considerably less mobile than a vessel. That's why, for
example, the rules are different for searches of a car as against searches
of a home.

In theory a warrant or sufficient PC is required to search a car or other
motor vehicle in the US. A basic moving violation is not considered PC for
a search. Practice and legality don't always go hand in hand.

--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

1. Authority? Yes, they call it a "Safety Inspection". Actually those High
School grads have Federal powers of arrest, same as a FBI Agent.
2. Technical knowledge to determine the manufacturers intended use for your
fuel line? Not! The ones I've had contact wouldn't notice if your outboard
was mounted upside down and on the wrong end of the boat.
3. Anal retentive? A friend was boarded while cruising the Carib and had to
wait topside while his boat was trashed, when he went to survey the damage
and restow just about everything he found the Coasties had emptied all but
one round from his revolver and hid the rounds. Didn't make much sense to
him either.
During the "Inspection" the Coasties found unpainted fiberglass on the
inside of the hull in the bilge and wanted to drill a hole to see if he was
stashing something. My friend asked that if they wanted to drill holes in
his boat, please do it above the waterline (should be under 2. I suppose).

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a
"routine" safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state registration
fully within US waters and obviously not suited for long offshore travel
without cause?

I am not asking because of anything that has happened. I have never been
stopped or checked by the US Coast Guard in freshwater or sal****er. I am
just curious about their legal authority.

The vehicle in question would currently be being operated in a safe and
legal manner following navigation guides, traveling at legal speeds, and
being operated in a courteous manner to other craft. All registration
numbers being current and properly displayed and lights being in full
correct operation or not required if during daylight hours.

The reason I ask is because I have a small craft I was thinking of using
to do some bay fishing. I bought it as a shell and rigged it out as a
bass boat. I wired it, installed the outboard, and otherwise rigged the
boat myself. I am confident that the basic stuff is all done correctly,
but I would hate to get hassled and cited because I used an automotive
fuel line (which I didn't) or something like that.

I am very careful to try and meet the appropriate safety regulations, and
I have only ever had a safety check done on one of my boats once in the
past. An Imperial County Sheriff's Deputy stopped me for violating a speed
reg on the Colorado River. I argued the reg was not properly posted and
un-enforcable. He decided to do a complete safety check and not cite me
for the speed violation. Obviously he felt I had a case, but he wasn't
going to let me go without citing me for something.

I have had my fishing license checked many times while fishing, but I have
never had game officials do this. I have heard the Coast Guard can be
anal rententive about things. I hope to avoid that type of experience. I
do have all required safety gear, and my craft is rigged correctly to the
best of my knowledge. I have read several more recent publications on
safe boat operation, and I took a small craft certification course with
the Coast Guard Auxilary about 25 years ago.

Anyway, I take all appropriate steps with my craft to avoid violations,
but I am curious about the legal authority and circumstances I may run
into.


--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:09:20 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
said:

In theory a warrant or sufficient PC is required to search a car or other
motor vehicle in the US. A basic moving violation is not considered PC
for
a search. Practice and legality don't always go hand in hand.

Grossly oversimplified. That's why I said the rules for vehicles are
"different." I don't intend to give you a dissertation on the differences,
but you can get a pretty good idea at
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/jurissep.htm.

Sea Lawyers. Sheesh!

LOL
--
Bob La Londe
www.YumaBassMan.cm

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "MMC" said:

Actually those High
School grads have Federal powers of arrest, same as a FBI Agent.

And of course in a good and just system, only Ph Ds would have arrest
power,
right?

Gimme a break.

But of course, and if we paid better we might be able to get them. LOL.

--
Bob La Londe
www.YumaBassMan.cm

Bob La Londe wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
http://www.jcrobbins.com/documents/boarding.htm
Interesting read. Also, interesting that one paragraph seems to
indicate
that their are limits while others say their aren't. Also, interesting that
all limits are ambiguous.

One day back in the early 80's a couple of gun-toting sociopaths decided
to rob a store or a bank in Ottawa and ended up killing an officer. That
same day, my crew and I cleared customs in the St. Lawrence on a rented
alco-barge (houseboat) heading for Alexandria Bay, NY. We must have
looked like what the border people were looking for. Say what you want
about "limits". When the USCG cutter hailed us, with what I recall were
4 guys on the foredeck with what appeared to be M16's (I don't know for
sure, I don't know guns), flak-jackets and helmets, I wasn't going to
argue about limits. I told everyone onboard to get out on the deck
facing the cutter with their hands in plain sight as I came along side.

"Bob La Londe" wrote in
:

Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a
"routine" safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state
registration fully within US waters and obviously not suited for long
offshore travel without cause?


Absolutely....ad nauseum! On my little jetboat, it wasn't unusual to have
my fire extinguisher "inspected" 3, 4 or 5 times on a Saturday...even with
the USCG Auxiliary's seal-of-approval prominently displayed on the side!
It meant nothing to the CG crews, Dept of Natural Resources swat teams in
the camo boats in their flak jackets and Army greens, City cops guarding
the no wake zones, County cops guarding nothing in particular.

I used to tell people I drove and "inspected vessel" because my boat was
inspected far more often than that silly little cruise ship at Union
Pier...(c;

They can't haul your ass over in your car on I-26 without justifiable cause
or there's big trouble. But, they can haul your ass over and tear apart
your boat any ol' time they get a hankerin' to! Nothing on the water is
"illegal search and seizure" any more...even before 9/11/01.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

"same as a FBI Agent". The FBI Agent would have time to mature a little and
get A LOT of training before given these responsibilities.
When I joined the Navy at 18 years old, you and your neighbors wouldn't have
wanted me to have that kind of authority ;)

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "MMC" said:

Actually those High
School grads have Federal powers of arrest, same as a FBI Agent.

And of course in a good and just system, only Ph Ds would have arrest
power,
right?

Gimme a break.

"MMC" wrote in
:

When I joined the Navy at 18 years old, you and your neighbors
wouldn't have wanted me to have that kind of authority ;)



I guess that's why Navy didn't want me to have a gun and bullets at the
same time....(c; I've stood watch with a .45 automatic with no shells many
times. Once this happened in Malta when one of the divers grabbed the
watch's .45 and put a hole in a gondola taxi because the driver was ****ing
on the side of his dive boat. The international incident cooled when they
took away our ammo and assured the Maltese it couldn't happen again, but
noone ****ed on our small boats after that, either. Gondola drivers never
went near them!

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

Just took a little convincing?
MMC

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
"MMC" wrote in
:

When I joined the Navy at 18 years old, you and your neighbors
wouldn't have wanted me to have that kind of authority ;)



I guess that's why Navy didn't want me to have a gun and bullets at the
same time....(c; I've stood watch with a .45 automatic with no shells
many
times. Once this happened in Malta when one of the divers grabbed the
watch's .45 and put a hole in a gondola taxi because the driver was
****ing
on the side of his dive boat. The international incident cooled when they
took away our ammo and assured the Maltese it couldn't happen again, but
noone ****ed on our small boats after that, either. Gondola drivers never
went near them!

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

Since they are a part of "Homeland Security" I wouldn't doubt you can
disappear into a Gitmo type facility for no reasonable reason. Even
before 9-11 the "War" on drugs let them do what they wanted. I remember
a story of the CG's drug dog barking at a docked boat, the boat
subsequently ransacked in a search, 15-20 inspection holes drilled into
inaccessable areas, nothing found (WMD's?), the owner told he was free
to go. No apologies from the CG, no recourse for the owner. Sam

In article ,
Larry W4CSC wrote:

"Bob La Londe" wrote in
:

Does the US Coast Guard have the authority to stop, search or do a
"routine" safety check on a vessel of US registry or US state
registration fully within US waters and obviously not suited for long
offshore travel without cause?


Absolutely....ad nauseum! On my little jetboat, it wasn't unusual to have
my fire extinguisher "inspected" 3, 4 or 5 times on a Saturday...even with
the USCG Auxiliary's seal-of-approval prominently displayed on the side!
It meant nothing to the CG crews, Dept of Natural Resources swat teams in
the camo boats in their flak jackets and Army greens, City cops guarding
the no wake zones, County cops guarding nothing in particular.

I used to tell people I drove and "inspected vessel" because my boat was
inspected far more often than that silly little cruise ship at Union
Pier...(c;

They can't haul your ass over in your car on I-26 without justifiable cause
or there's big trouble. But, they can haul your ass over and tear apart
your boat any ol' time they get a hankerin' to! Nothing on the water is
"illegal search and seizure" any more...even before 9/11/01.

You can sue them for damages, and it actually has been done. Usually if
they were very destructive, and nothing was found, they settle "Out of
Court" because the US Attorney doesn't want his forth coming "Political
Career" tarnished by some "Way Overboard Coastie" screwing the pouch.
Also the District Admiral doesn't want to smear his "Command" with
incidents of BAD PR, from such public outcries, of some "Overzellious
Junior Officer". Every group has it's Rambo's...but in the Military
they get stomped on fast if the don't make the case..... Just remeber
that this all takes place After the Fact... and after a whole lot of BAD
Press....

Me

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:11:58 -0400, Larry W4CSC
wrote:



They can't haul your ass over in your car on I-26 without justifiable cause
or there's big trouble. But, they can haul your ass over and tear apart
your boat any ol' time they get a hankerin' to! Nothing on the water is
"illegal search and seizure" any more...even before 9/11/01.

Hi,
A question.

I am sailing to the east coast of the US early next year after I cross
the Atlantic. I have a valid 10 year visa (we had to apply for one at
the Madrid US embassy even though if we fly in we get an automatic 3
month visa), and don't carry or use dope of any kind.

What concerns me about all of this is not the boarding by the US
Coastguard, but the stories of searches being done and damage caused
by the searchers. I have heard one where the tops of the water tanks
were cut open - and that in international waters. I can understand and
appreciate the need and benefit to stop foreign flagged yachts in
international waters due to the drug trade and don't mind at all being
searched. What I don't want is having to repair damage at my time and
expence.

Question: has anyone had any bad experience of this kind?

FWIW
When we arrived at the Customs wharf in Australia (well before 9/11),
there was a yacht moored to the wharf that had been stripped down
inside in an attempt to find illegal weapons and drugs. The yacht had
been intercepted after a tip that the owner was running guns. He
claims that he is a collector and that the box of hand grenades were
part of his collection. The case went to court. If he wins then
Customs has to make good the damage. If he loses, they don't. Is it
the same with the US Coastguard or any officials if they find that no
offence has been committed?

Another point, as a New Zealand registered yacht we cannot be boarded
by any other officials than Customs or Quarantine ones in Australian
ports (excepting police if we are commiting a crime) as we come under
Customs control. I believe that this is part of international law but
I may stand to be corrected.

Everywhere we have been stopped by coastguards or other officials in
the world so far they have always asked first (politely) if they can
come aboard.

I think you are seeing our ingrained resentment as US citizens to exceptions
to our rights to privacy. The USCG may inspect your boat but unless you are
transporting something that might be perceived as a threat you have nothing
to worry about. A case of hand grenades would definitely qualify as a
perceived threat.

Since the Bahamas raised their crusing fees we have been routing through the
Old Bahama channel on deliveries. Being so close to the Dubyas dreaded Cuba
we get boarded 1 or 2 times every trip. The Coasties have always been very
professional and have been very careful not to do any damage.

Where it gets kind of outrageous is in some Florida waters where everyone
from the county deputies to game wardens think they have supreme powers.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:11:58 -0400, Larry W4CSC
wrote:



They can't haul your ass over in your car on I-26 without justifiable
cause
or there's big trouble. But, they can haul your ass over and tear apart
your boat any ol' time they get a hankerin' to! Nothing on the water is
"illegal search and seizure" any more...even before 9/11/01.

Hi,
A question.

I am sailing to the east coast of the US early next year after I cross
the Atlantic. I have a valid 10 year visa (we had to apply for one at
the Madrid US embassy even though if we fly in we get an automatic 3
month visa), and don't carry or use dope of any kind.

What concerns me about all of this is not the boarding by the US
Coastguard, but the stories of searches being done and damage caused
by the searchers. I have heard one where the tops of the water tanks
were cut open - and that in international waters. I can understand and
appreciate the need and benefit to stop foreign flagged yachts in
international waters due to the drug trade and don't mind at all being
searched. What I don't want is having to repair damage at my time and
expence.

Question: has anyone had any bad experience of this kind?

FWIW
When we arrived at the Customs wharf in Australia (well before 9/11),
there was a yacht moored to the wharf that had been stripped down
inside in an attempt to find illegal weapons and drugs. The yacht had
been intercepted after a tip that the owner was running guns. He
claims that he is a collector and that the box of hand grenades were
part of his collection. The case went to court. If he wins then
Customs has to make good the damage. If he loses, they don't. Is it
the same with the US Coastguard or any officials if they find that no
offence has been committed?

Another point, as a New Zealand registered yacht we cannot be boarded
by any other officials than Customs or Quarantine ones in Australian
ports (excepting police if we are commiting a crime) as we come under
Customs control. I believe that this is part of international law but
I may stand to be corrected.

Everywhere we have been stopped by coastguards or other officials in
the world so far they have always asked first (politely) if they can
come aboard.

Glenn Ashmore wrote:


Where it gets kind of outrageous is in some Florida waters where everyone
from the county deputies to game wardens think they have supreme powers.


If you have a documented vessel, don't you tell these good ol' boys to
take a flying F**K at a rolling donut?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote in
ink.net:

If you have a documented vessel, don't you tell these good ol' boys to
take a flying F**K at a rolling donut?


You do that in Charleston Harbor and you'll find yourself in the Charleston
County Jail. Noone in law enforcement cares a damn about your documented
vessel or your big yacht. If it's cruising inside South Carolina, it's
subject to every little fiefdom in the place. I've been inspected 5 times
in one day by 4 different sets of bureaucracies....even in camo
flackjackets.

As a matter of fact, we have a law that says 1 mile to seaward is the
city's line in all waterways, even the Atlantic Ocean. Jetski riders are
WELL aware of this little poke of the stick. It is used to keep them off
the exclusive beaches of the waterfront mansions. Of course, there's a
little problem with that....There ARE no exclusive beaches in SC. They can
keep you from parking on their roadways with miles of no parking signs, but
the BEACH, on the other hand, is PUBLIC PROPERTY and they can do nothing to
stop you from pulling your boat up on it. The public's property line on
the beach is 100' up the beach from the high water mark, which puts their
house on the public property after a big storm...(c;

A condo owner called his local rent-a-cops on Kiawah Island's gated town to
run us off "his beach" when we pulled two jetboats up on it. The cop made
lots of noises until I asked him to write me up for it so I could sue the
town. He backed off when I handed him my waterproof laminated copy of SC
Code. He had no idea the law even existed. We stayed most of the day.



--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:24:34 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
wrote:

Amazing that with the various changes in our country in many ways we are
becoming worse and more oppressive in than the country we fought so hard
to
make ourselves independent of over 200 years ago.

Yes, and it gets worse every day.

Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.


--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

"Bob La Londe" wrote in news:ZtWdnZnDb-
:

Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.


I think it very appropriate for r.b.c. because when they start confiscating
the houses, we'll ALL be living on boats like the rest of the
refugees...(c;

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
"Bob La Londe" wrote in news:ZtWdnZnDb-
:

Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.


I think it very appropriate for r.b.c. because when they start
confiscating
the houses, we'll ALL be living on boats like the rest of the
refugees...(c;

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

In article ,
Peter Hendra wrote:

Everywhere we have been stopped by coastguards or other officials in
the world so far they have always asked first (politely) if they can
come aboard.

If you say "No", they will just point the "Big Guns" at you and ask
again......

Me

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that to create jobs or a higher
tax base falls under "public use" or "public good" or whatever term was
needed, and now allows governments to expropriate private citizens
property and resell it to developers. Sam

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.

I couple days ago the US Supreme Court ruled that a local jurisdiction could
employe emminent domain to sieze private property for private use if its
part of a development plan for an area.

i.e. A city really wants developer to build a high ticket (revenue
generating) shopping mall, and a few hold out home owners won't sell. The
city can sieze the land and turn around and sell it to the developer. That
is pretty bad, but its worse. Many cities have an independent developement
corporation that is an independent corporation that doesn't answer to the
voters. They can use that to do things that would not be legal for the city
to do like sell property below market value without voter approval or public
bid.

Got a prime piece of river front with a view. You can pretty much count on
losing it if somebdy want to build a hotel there now.
--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian Whatcott wrote in
:

wealthy developers

Step one will be if we QUIT ELECTING THE SOBs INTO OFFICE!

NOONE in real estate needs to be an elected official regulating real
estate....duh...

Stupid voters....did it to themselves.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

Me wrote in news:Me-
:

If you say "No", they will just point the "Big Guns" at you and ask
again......

Me



Oh, I thought that was the IRS....(c;

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:32:16 -0400,
Larry W4CSC wrote:
"Bob La Londe" wrote in news:ZtWdnZnDb-
:

Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.


I think it very appropriate for r.b.c. because when they start confiscating
the houses, we'll ALL be living on boats like the rest of the
refugees...(c;



then they'll decide to steal the boats too.

"Eminent domain, it's latin for steal..."

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

"Me" wrote
"Jim Carter" wrote:
Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your
house
for a private development?"

Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......

Where does the Constitution forbid or limit Eminent Domain? Not saying it's
fair but unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to rule
as the majority just did.

Brian Whatcott wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield


In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

And don't forget, they have to *pay* for the property, usually more than
it's worth.

Some of you should try living in some other countries so you can learn
how good the one you're in is.

Stephen

Dave,

Actually, to be precise, what they are doing is forcing you to sell it
whether you want to or not. If you don't agree that the price is fair
value, then you can take that up in the courts as well.

However, I agree that the change to the commonly accepted meaning of
"public use" is a really bad precedent, and should be re-adressed by congress.
Don't forget that even our constitution can be amended by congress and
the state legislatures if there is enough popular pressure. Our problem
as a society is getting people to turn off the TV long enough to get involved
(sigh).

Did you see the thread about the bills introduced recently that would force
the NWS to limit free access to weather information? Talk about a bad
precedent!! In addition to reading about it here, I also read about it in
my local (Austin) newspaper yesterday.

Don W.

Dave wrote:

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded as
equivalent to "public use."

Did you see the thread about the bills introduced recently that would force
the NWS to limit free access to weather information? Talk about a bad
precedent!!


Dave wrote:
Frankly I can't get too worked up about it. I don't feel any more entitled
to feed at the public trough than the next guy just because I've got a boat.
Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?

Fresh Breezes (your tax dollars at work)- Doug King

"Dave" wrote in message

Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed
populist
rhetoric.

I don't think you get it yet. The commercial services WILL NOT BE PAYING
ANYTHING for the data that we the tax payers have paid to have gathered.
That means it is FREE to the commerical services. They will NOT BE BUYING
ANYTHING. The "guvmint" will JUST GIVE IT TO THEM!

It will not save or earn the government one thin dime. We will still be
paying for the weather satellites, the observation stations, sounding
balloons, weather radars, hurricane hunters and people to compile and
analyse the data. We just have to pay for it again in order to see it.

It stands to reason that if a company gets an almost 100% finished product
for free from the government and is then given a virtual monopoly to resell
it back to us (including the government) at very little expense with no
liability for its accuracy, that is about as close to a "Guaranteed Profit"
as it gets.

That is pretty simple. Now what part do you not understand?

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com