Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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

"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.

We have a similar problem locally. There is a lake/pond in town that
is owned by the town along with the adjoining land, but an adajacent
town owns the water rights, thus basically owning the lake/pond. No
boats, no fishing, no nuttin'. Can't remove weeds, can't do anyting
to improve the habitat because it will affect the water supply. The
dimwit that runs the water works never even graduated high school,
doesn't understand the nature of the problem and won't do anything
about it other than do nothing. It is very frustrating because the
local sportsmen have put up a lot of money to hire an attorney for the
town, but the town doesn't want to challange the neighbors on the
matter and the town attorney has stated that private monies in this
matter are illegal...it's just a freakin' mess.

Engineers were hired to do a study, create an action plan and, in
theory, IMPROVE the quality of the water delivered to the pumping
station, but when the plan was presented to the appropriate boards,
our friend rejected it out of hand because he couldn't understand how
sediment settling basins before the water intakes worked - once the
water is dirty, it's dirty according to him.

Meanwhile, all this haggling isn't getting the lake/pond any better.

Idiots.

Sorry for the rant.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

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.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:55:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

Huh? Do liveaboards have a reputation for being thieves??? Or do people just
object to them hanging their laundry over the rails to dry?


Interesting - I see how you could have interpreted it that way, but
that's not what I meant.

I meant that the liveaboards prevent that kind of activity because of
their presence - not that they do the clipping.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

Heh - sneaky little devils. :)

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rG8Ub.19221 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.

Just out of curiosity, what is the Supreme Court case that decided this? In
Shelley vs. Kramer the court ruled that restrictive covenants are
unenforceable, how does this play into the heirs getting the property back?

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Hmmm ... on the Rideau, I see RCMP and OntarioPP (OPP) boats. On the St
Lawrence (cdn side) and the Ottawa I see OPP (and Coastguard on the St
Lawence) boats ???

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
We are talking about the US of A, New York State in particular,
.........................lots of snip...................
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

Larry: In Canada, the "Navigable Waterways" are under Federal
Jurisdiction.
I don't know about NY State, but , why don't you write to your State
Attorney General Office, and find out the full story? It may be that the
Town has the rights to the park land but not the water. That's the way it
is here.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

In article ,
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.

I'm confused. Do you think that only town residents should use the park
and marina, or not?

For some reason, I believe that while the water may be "free" for use,
improvements on same need not be. For instance, people can be required
to pay to use docks and moorings, or can be restricted from their use.

Personally, those waterside communities that open up their waterside are
more inviting, but I have no problem if they say "2 hour limit" or such.
I avoid places that restrict public access to public spaces, or charge
highly for the privilege.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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


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, why would the good people of Oyster Bay want to block access to
their dock by alien infidels like me (from NY, CT, FL and where ever)?

Is the dock getting over crowded or is this just a territorial thing?

You're reminding me of why I've always had issues with Long Island
towns. :-)

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:03:57 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com

=================================

Glenn, how's that boat coming along? As the proud owner of a Spade
anchor, I believe I'm entitled to periodic project updates :-)