"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...

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..."

You may have a bitch of a case on your hands, and a very interesting one,
too. As I mentioned in another message within your thread, a friend of mine
has already been through this regarding creek access. What he's finding out
is that the laws in NY (and most other places where waterways were
important) were written a LONG time ago, and may need to be overhauled. Many
of the precedents relate to hunters crossing lumber company lands in the
Adirondacks, or loggers floating trees down rivers and annoying landowners.
This stuff is hard to interpret for situations like yours.

If I were you, I'd talk to some business owners in town and find out who's
cozy with whom. There's usually a good reason why a business is permitted to
skirt the law. The reason is almost always the good 'ol boy network, and
cash.

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"

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/

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. :-)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
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. :-)

I believe the answer is obvious: Oyster Bay. (Equivalent answers: Port
Washington, Old Brookville, and others). Don't want none of that riffraff
hanging around.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:01:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I believe the answer is obvious: Oyster Bay. (Equivalent answers: Port
Washington, Old Brookville, and others). Don't want none of that riffraff
hanging around.

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

Ahh yes, probably right. I guess you can discriminate as long as you
do it fairly. :-)

"Wayne.B" wrote:

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. :-)

Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over and
enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the
other infidels that are the problem ...

As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was
merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the
locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by
people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is
conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local
taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals,
and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating
the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset.
The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law
says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting
the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats,
not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up.

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

This reminds me of the situation in Boston with the Harborwalk - a 43 mile
walking path that circles the entire harbor, except for the airport. It was
possible because access to the water was guaranteed by old laws. It means that
the fancy waterfront condos, marinas, and hotels have to provide a walking path
along the docks.


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

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. :-)

Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over and
enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the
other infidels that are the problem ...

As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I was
merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the
locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed - by
people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is
conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by local
taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals,
and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating
the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset.
The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law
says they must allow access to the water. I think they are misinterpreting
the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their boats,
not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up.

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

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...

Sorry Wayne, its not about the water or the dock. Please come on over
and
enjoy Oyster Bay anytime. We love alien infidels like you. :-) Its the
other infidels that are the problem ...

As far as the issue at hand goes, I didn't clearly explain it because I
was
merely looking for a possible legal citation. But if you must know, the
locals are concerned about the Town Park being over used - and trashed -
by
people from New York City who are coming out by train (the station is
conveniently next to the park). Since it is a local park maintained by
local
taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by
locals,
and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not
treating
the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset.
The Town says they can not enforce the residents-only rule because the law
says they must allow access to the water. I think they are
misinterpreting
the law; that if there is such a law, it applies to boaters on their
boats,
not people on the land. I'm looking for something to back that up.

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

It's a good cause they're fighting, then, if visitors trash the place. That
happens upstate at some of the state parks, with one major exception which I
won't divulge because it's spotless. :-)

Rather than waste a few billion dollars on a legal battle, wouldn't it make
more sense to jack up the littering fines to an absurd level, hire
plainclothes cops on the weekends, and tell them to raise holy hell until
visitors either toe the line or go elsewhere? Let the park police handle
that nonsense at Jones Beach or Robert Moses.

I was at RM once on a chilly October day. There must've been all of 20
people, mostly fishermen. But, there was one asshole who tossed down a
blanket in the sand 10 feet from a sign that said "No Radios". A park cop
went over and asked him to shut it off. The wind was whistling in my ears,
so I didn't hear the conversation - just saw the body language. There was
some finger pointing for maybe 30 seconds, at which point the cop used his
foot to put the guy face down on the blanket, cuffed him, and literally
dragged him into the building by the wrists.

That's what I'm talkin' about. It's beyond me why anyone would leave a noisy
place or a dirty place, presumably where they live, so they can make noise
and more litter.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:13:31 GMT, Larry Weiss
wrote:
Since it is a local park maintained by local
taxes, and since the covenant specifically states it is to be used by locals,
and since the out-of-towners (a.k.a. "the other infidels") are not treating
the park or the park rules with any respect, the locals are getting upset.
============================================

I think the answer is strong enforcement of the existing laws or maybe
a few new ones if needed. If necessary, form a community association
and hire a private guard to remind people of the rules and call the
village constable if the hint is not taken. The real problem is
offensive behavior, not people from NYC. Larchmont Manor Park had a
similar issue years ago in Westchester and solved it. The guard is
always there during daylight hours. He's about 80 years old but has
good eyes and keeps a firm grip on things without being offensive
about it. It is probably one of the most pristine and enjoyable parks
on Long Island Sound, and has been for a long time. If anyone fired
up a boom box or dropped a candy wrapper, the guard would be on the
radio to the village police in about a microsecond.