Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Jim Carter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anyone familiar with maritime law?

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


  #2   Report Post  
Larry W4CSC
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anyone familiar with maritime law?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:57:11 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

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.

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.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....
  #3   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #4   Report Post  
John Wentworth
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #5   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #6   Report Post  
Larry W4CSC
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.....
  #7   Report Post  
bowgus
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #8   Report Post  
Jim Carter
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone familiar with Sears Sea-Vee 15' fibreglass? Ian Burton General 0 July 24th 03 09:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017