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.....

"Steve" wrote in message
...


I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to region..


It also varies from judge to judge and from year to year. There's a creek
here (Rochester NY) where lots of guys like to go trout fishing, including
the pigs who can't seem to carry their garbage out with them. So, almost
100% of the land along the creek is now posted. A buddy of mine got around
the problem by wading the entire length of the creek to get to where he
wanted to be. One of the landowners made a stink about it, so they both
ended up in front of the town justice about 12 times so far. The 200 year
old law says landowners can't restrict the waterway if the creek is
navigable. This landowner says he's never seen anyone try to navigate the
creek, but there are canoes present all through the warm weather. His lawyer
pointed out that the law was written for logging barges, not canoes. The
judge has basically told the landowner to get a life, and camp along the
creek to find out who's REALLY trashing the woods, because it's clearly not
my friend.

What a mess.

"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.

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

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

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.....

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

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

"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

Go to http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ and click on your state and you'll
find a searchable data base of state laws. I bookmarked the site.

"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?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss
wrote (with possible editing):

....snip

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..."

Larry,

Which body of water? NY has lakes, rivers, and tidewaters.

--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com