Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Go to http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ and click on your state and you'll
find a searchable data base of state laws. I bookmarked the site.

"Larry Weiss" wrote:

I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss
wrote (with possible editing):

....snip

We are talking about the US of A, New York State in particular, and
maritime law only because that's where my poor memory recalls it may have
existed.

Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the
waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only
(the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy
Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few
years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim
it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that
they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be
misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to
waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather
than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side
seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just
looking for something official to cite, one way or the other.

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

Larry,

Which body of water? NY has lakes, rivers, and tidewaters.

--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry W4CSC wrote:


The town could simply condemn the land for public use.....like they'll
do to your house if some politician owns the acreage next door and the
politician wants to sell it to the state for that new road the
politician wants.

Government can take your land any ol' time they want, actually.

They can't really do that. The major park in Macon was donated to the
city by a Senator Bacon for the use of the "white women and children of
the city". When the city could no longer inforce that covenant, the
heirs of the estate sued to get title back. Went all the way to the
USSC. The city couldn't possibly afford to buy it back so now our only
real park is a shopping center.

Can you imagine a WalMart in the middle of Hampton Park?

--
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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry Weiss wrote:


We are talking about the US of A, New York State in particular, and
maritime law only because that's where my poor memory recalls it may have
existed.

Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the
waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only
(the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy
Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few
years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim
it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that
they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be
misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to
waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather
than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side
seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just
looking for something official to cite, one way or the other.

The city is blowing smoke. If any such law existed there could never be
private marinas or yacht clubs.

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the land
less the value of the original bequest.

--
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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry,

Do you remember the case on Bay Point last year where a man was
assaulted on the beach? It might have been provoked, but it ended
up with the Sheriff, DNR, and the Port Royal cops out there and
no one wanted to claim jurisdiction. This happened supposedly
below the high water mark which the owner's rep claimed was
theirs too. The problem then came up that 'IF' this property was
originally a 'KING'S' Grant from the 18th century, and if it was
still conveyed to them, then they did have the right to claim all
land to the water. One man went to the hospital and then it was
all sort of hushed up. I wonder just how many King's Grants that
are actually still valid within South Carolina. This new owner
developer has ruined a beautiful place to go surf fishing and
spend a weekend on the beach. For years people have gone out
there which is only reachable by boat.

Leanne


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
In South Carolina, the public has rights to the beach 100 ft
inland of
the high water mark, letting us use the beach at high tide
without
stepping on some rich guys domain.

To counter this right, the "cities", gated waterfront
communities like
Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, Hilton Head Island, bought
their way
into another state law letting the municipalities have domain
over the
public's water out ONE MILE from that beach. So, they simply
write an
ordinance preventing the public from getting to the beach in
their
boats or some such nonsense.

I haven't seen any city gunboats protecting the billionaires
from the
commoners, yet, but that is just a matter of time.

State law says if I want to take the jetboat into the beach at
Kiawah,
I must do so in a no-wake condition. So, we went. Someone
from the
beach houses came out screaming and yelling at us, threatening
to call
the Kiawah Kops. I told him I'd be glad to explain to a cooler
head
South Carolina law. The cops came, in force! I had violated
their
"space". The cops threatened to arrest me if I didn't get in
my boat
and get off "their beach". I pressed for an arrest, but seeing
the
threat tactic wasn't going anywhere and not wanting to test
state law,
they got back in their pickup truck and drove away. We stayed
on OUR
beach for a couple of hours with the jetboat anchored off the
sand
before going elsewhere.

Property owners think just because their property BORDERS on
the
public's beach, the beach becomes their property. It's not
true in
SC....(c;

I'm still here......



On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:57:46 -0800, "Steve"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide
mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is
public.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington
state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and
Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or
something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state,
a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach
out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I
think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property
owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring
near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that,
especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to
region..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions




Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
I just remembered what one lady down in Beaufort, SC, said to
the
newspaper when they were discussing a new marina going into a
creek
near her home. She was opposed to them installing "a floating
trailer
park" in the creek to spoil her view. That's what property
owners
think of your boats......"floating trailer parks".

There was also a case on Hilton Head where someone was fishing in
a creek off someone's land and the lady disliked them spoiling
the view that her state rep. daughter tried to get a law passed
about restricting the waters to a distance (I can't remember the
exact amount, something like 300 yards)of private property. Then
we have the problem that there are very few creeks that are wider
than that. It didn't pass because it ended up being a federal
jurisdiction. Btw, the daughter is no longer in public office.

Leanne
s/v Fundy

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 +0000, Larry Weiss wrote:

The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only
(the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy
Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed).

I can't talk to the maritime part, but in New Jersey, the state has gone
after towns that limited ocean beach access to town residents and won. I
believe the claim is that the *state* owns the rights, not the town.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
x-no-archive:yes


Larry Weiss wrote:

I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

I think this depends a lot on where it is you are talking about. For
one thing, what country? And why would you think maritime law had
jurisdiction? I would have thought that ordinary laws applied in most
inland or near coastal waters.

I don't think maritime law applies to an ordinary creek or lake or
something like that. No one has to allow someone else to cross their
property to launch a boat for instance, or to allow people to come
ashore by dinghy and party on the beach that they own. But there is
some law in Annapolis (Maryland) that says something to the effect
that any street that ends in the water has to allow dinghies to land.
I think that is far from usual though.

I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.

In some cases, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, like in the ICW. I
walked up on the Boot Key Harbor bridge today, and the bridge tender
came out and talked a bit. He said the Coast Guard had jurisdiction -
that the channel was part of the ICW (I'm not sure that he's right
about that) and that they said the bridge had to be manned 24 hours a
day 7 days a week so that access could be maintained. I asked him why
not leave the bridge open at night, and he said that if they did that
the emergency people couldn't get to the radio tower on Boot Key.






grandma Rosalie

USCG also patrols lots of inland waters. Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, and most
of the large river systems. At least in California, if the waterway is
navigable then you can not block it. This does not mean someone has to let
you across their property to get to the water. About 30 years ago, Butte
Creek in Central Calif was blocked by the farmers running fences across the
small river. Was a great fishing and duck hunting venue. Local judge
floated down the river in a canoe, cutting the fences. He ruled it was a
navigable waterway, and could not be blocked. Seems as if local area do
list some areas as enviromentallay special areas and block boat access.
Latest is the City of Berkeley and the waterfront commission has ruled
(couple of weeks ago) out boat and people access to some coves on San
Francisco Bay. These coves have been fished and even hunted for as long as
I have known them. I fished them 50 years ago from the shore. May be court
dates in the future for this. But may not be anybody with enough money to
fight the city, so they win anyway.
Bill

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

I can't talk to the maritime part, but in New Jersey, the state has gone
after towns that limited ocean beach access to town residents and won. I
believe the claim is that the *state* owns the rights, not the town.


I think that with more research we would find that the Federal Gov. has
jurisdiction over all waters that connect to the ocean or coastal water
(what ever). The local control of these waters has been granted to local
authorities, but these grants have restriction and limitations such as
public access, free access (the reason there must be draw bridges, etc)..

Some of the above was reveled and argued during the court challenges
regarding free anchorage in San Diego Bay.

Not an expert and still puzzled over a lot of what goes on around the
coastal waters.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry Weiss wrote in message ...
"Rosalie B." wrote:

x-no-archive:yes

Larry Weiss wrote:

I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

I think this depends a lot on where it is you are talking about. For
one thing, what country? And why would you think maritime law had
jurisdiction? I would have thought that ordinary laws applied in most
inland or near coastal waters.

We are talking about the US of A, New York State in particular, and
maritime law only because that's where my poor memory recalls it may have
existed.

Basically we are talking about a local town public park and marina on the
waterfront. The park is supposed to be for use by town residents only
(the park land was donated to the town in 1942 by descendants of Teddy
Roosevelt and that strict covenant is in the deed). Over the last few
years, the town has stopped enforcing this restriction. Officials claim
it is because of a law, which they are unable to cite, which states that
they can not restrict access to the water. I believe they may be
misinterpreting a law meant to prohibit restricting a boat's access to
waterways from the water (which I recall hearing about somewhere), rather
than a person's access to the water from land. Nobody on either side
seems to be able to cite any law from either perspective. I'm just
looking for something official to cite, one way or the other.

Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html

Has the town used any government grant money for improvements to the
marina? That money usually comes with conditions that the courts may
say overrides any covenents. The city of San Francisco banned PWC
with a 1/4 mile of the city shoreline few years ago, and of course
many jetskiers cried foul. The ban went into affect, but access to a
couple of marinas had to be allowed since they used Wallop-Breaux
federal funding to make improvements to the launch ramps and other
facilities. So the restricted area around SF has a couple of
corridors where PWC are allowed to get to the ramp and gas docks.