|
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"bowgus" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... 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 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 Hello Mr. Bowgus: A simple way to explain the different official watercraft is that the Federal Government of Canada has the task of setting out the laws under several statutes. Rules of the road are set by the Federal Goverment under the Collision Regulations. They have the right to designate who will enforce these laws. In Navigatable Waterways, the enforcement could be City, Provincial or Federal Police. The other statues and/or Provincial statues and/or municipal statues can be enforced by whomever has the local jurisdiction. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:07:21 -0500, "Leanne" wrote:
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 Don't remember it. Interesting, though. What's REALLY scary is this nonsense where each little waterfront fiefdom has domain over the water 1 mile from shore. Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
In order to try to spoil boating around HHI, the entire area was
declaired a no-wake zone. No wake zones are being used to spoil boating across the country in the same manner. There is also a law against anchoring out off of the billionaires at HHI and shrimp trawlers are forbidden from even being in the waterways around it. Money talks in Columbia. FBI proved you can buy a SC politician for around $2200. Remember "Operation Lost Trust"? On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:14:20 -0500, "Leanne" wrote: "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 Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:53:03 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
wrote: Can you imagine a WalMart in the middle of Hampton Park? Walmart wouldn't last 24 hours in the middle of Hampton Park. It would simply be shoplifted clean! I have a friend who owns a liqour store not far from Hampton Park. You gotta see it to believe it....(c; Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
EVANS ET AL. v. ABNEY ET AL.
Basically, because the covenants of the bequest were not enforcable the city had to return the property to the heirs. John Wentworth wrote: "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? -- 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?
The boat is comming along fairly well with a wet bottom expected
sometime in the Fall. THe web site OTOH is sucking hind tit right now. I did get some stuff about the watermaker and the rudder posted recently though. Wayne.B wrote: 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 :-) -- 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 W4CSC wrote:
In order to try to spoil boating around HHI, the entire area was declaired a no-wake zone. No wake zones are being used to spoil boating across the country in the same manner. I dunno, Larry. You're an unusual sight. Perhaps the folks on Hilton Head enjoy looking at you as you creep by in your jetski boat. Cheers. ------------ Was this a great country or what? Bush-The Great Divider. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
"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. |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
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. :-) |
Anyone familiar with maritime law?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com