In article ,
Larry Weiss wrote:

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.

Ahhh! That's very different!

First, I believe the marina can and should be physically secure against
all but "residents, boat owners and their guests". Anyone else on the
docks is trespassing. That's common sense.

Since the covenant includes the park as part of the marina (note the
shift in viewpoint), the physical restriction should be extended to
include it.

Access to the water is maintained.

The physical barrier need not be a fence, expensive, or even high; just
a definite demarcation. The town may have to patrol it for a while, but
that should pass.

--
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/

(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."

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
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.

I don't think maritime law applies to an ordinary creek or lake or
something like that. No one has to allow someone else to cross their
property to launch a boat for instance, or to allow people to come
ashore by dinghy and party on the beach that they own. But there is
some law in Annapolis (Maryland) that says something to the effect
that any street that ends in the water has to allow dinghies to land.
I think that is far from usual though.

I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.

In some cases, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, like in the ICW. I
walked up on the Boot Key Harbor bridge today, and the bridge tender
came out and talked a bit. He said the Coast Guard had jurisdiction -
that the channel was part of the ICW (I'm not sure that he's right
about that) and that they said the bridge had to be manned 24 hours a
day 7 days a week so that access could be maintained. I asked him why
not leave the bridge open at night, and he said that if they did that
the emergency people couldn't get to the radio tower on Boot Key.






grandma Rosalie

USCG also patrols lots of inland waters. Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, and most
of the large river systems. At least in California, if the waterway is
navigable then you can not block it. This does not mean someone has to let
you across their property to get to the water. About 30 years ago, Butte
Creek in Central Calif was blocked by the farmers running fences across the
small river. Was a great fishing and duck hunting venue. Local judge
floated down the river in a canoe, cutting the fences. He ruled it was a
navigable waterway, and could not be blocked. Seems as if local area do
list some areas as enviromentallay special areas and block boat access.
Latest is the City of Berkeley and the waterfront commission has ruled
(couple of weeks ago) out boat and people access to some coves on San
Francisco Bay. These coves have been fished and even hunted for as long as
I have known them. I fished them 50 years ago from the shore. May be court
dates in the future for this. But may not be anybody with enough money to
fight the city, so they win anyway.
Bill

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:33:21 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
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.

I don't think maritime law applies to an ordinary creek or lake or
something like that. No one has to allow someone else to cross their
property to launch a boat for instance, or to allow people to come
ashore by dinghy and party on the beach that they own. But there is
some law in Annapolis (Maryland) that says something to the effect
that any street that ends in the water has to allow dinghies to land.
I think that is far from usual though.

I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.

In some cases, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, like in the ICW. I
walked up on the Boot Key Harbor bridge today, and the bridge tender
came out and talked a bit. He said the Coast Guard had jurisdiction -
that the channel was part of the ICW (I'm not sure that he's right
about that) and that they said the bridge had to be manned 24 hours a
day 7 days a week so that access could be maintained. I asked him why
not leave the bridge open at night, and he said that if they did that
the emergency people couldn't get to the radio tower on Boot Key.

USCG also patrols lots of inland waters. Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, and most
of the large river systems. At least in California, if the waterway is
navigable then you can not block it. This does not mean someone has to let
you across their property to get to the water. About 30 years ago, Butte
Creek in Central Calif was blocked by the farmers running fences across the
small river. Was a great fishing and duck hunting venue. Local judge
floated down the river in a canoe, cutting the fences. He ruled it was a
navigable waterway, and could not be blocked. Seems as if local area do
list some areas as enviromentallay special areas and block boat access.
Latest is the City of Berkeley and the waterfront commission has ruled
(couple of weeks ago) out boat and people access to some coves on San
Francisco Bay. These coves have been fished and even hunted for as long as
I have known them. I fished them 50 years ago from the shore. May be court
dates in the future for this. But may not be anybody with enough money to
fight the city, so they win anyway.

Berkeley - figures. ;)

Anyway, there is precidence and "prior practice" here for somebody
with half a mind to take the city to court.

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"