(snip)
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..."

Try going to city hall and asking about any local ordinances on the issue.
Is this area of water isolated (I'm assuming that it's not if there's a
marina)? Does the marina need to utilize the waterway for vessels to access
a larger body of water? I found a website for you to check. Since a lot of
the laws are waterway specific, you'll have to browse through them and see
which applies to your area. Check www.nyss.com/NYS.html. Good luck.
--
swatcop

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
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.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

On 5 Feb 2004 10:53:30 -0800, (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
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.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Later,

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

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

"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..."

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2004 10:53:30 -0800, (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
message . ..
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.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Later,

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

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies?

"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 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies?

I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :)

Later,

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

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

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.