Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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..."

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Matrimony ... yeah yer waters cut off all right ... oops ... maritime ...
hmm ... I dunno. But ... there's lots of private property on rivers, lakes
etc up here ... and there are also access roads that are not to be blocked
.... helps the rural fire trucks to fill up for one thing.

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...
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..."

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

And there are laws against extending property out into a waterways by land
filling if that's what you mean.
"bowgus" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Matrimony ... yeah yer waters cut off all right ... oops ... maritime ...
hmm ... I dunno. But ... there's lots of private property on rivers, lakes
etc up here ... and there are also access roads that are not to be blocked
... helps the rural fire trucks to fill up for one thing.

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...
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..."

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
x-no-archive:yes


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.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state, a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that, especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

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

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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..."

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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

In South Carolina, the public has rights to the beach 100 ft inland of
the high water mark, letting us use the beach at high tide without
stepping on some rich guys domain.

To counter this right, the "cities", gated waterfront communities like
Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, Hilton Head Island, bought their way
into another state law letting the municipalities have domain over the
public's water out ONE MILE from that beach. So, they simply write an
ordinance preventing the public from getting to the beach in their
boats or some such nonsense.

I haven't seen any city gunboats protecting the billionaires from the
commoners, yet, but that is just a matter of time.

State law says if I want to take the jetboat into the beach at Kiawah,
I must do so in a no-wake condition. So, we went. Someone from the
beach houses came out screaming and yelling at us, threatening to call
the Kiawah Kops. I told him I'd be glad to explain to a cooler head
South Carolina law. The cops came, in force! I had violated their
"space". The cops threatened to arrest me if I didn't get in my boat
and get off "their beach". I pressed for an arrest, but seeing the
threat tactic wasn't going anywhere and not wanting to test state law,
they got back in their pickup truck and drove away. We stayed on OUR
beach for a couple of hours with the jetboat anchored off the sand
before going elsewhere.

Property owners think just because their property BORDERS on the
public's beach, the beach becomes their property. It's not true in
SC....(c;

I'm still here......



On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:57:46 -0800, "Steve" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


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.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state, a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that, especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

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

Steve
s/v Good Intentions




Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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".



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 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.....

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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?

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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

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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry Weiss wrote:


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.

The city is blowing smoke. If any such law existed there could never be
private marinas or yacht clubs.

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.

--
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,

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


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
In South Carolina, the public has rights to the beach 100 ft
inland of
the high water mark, letting us use the beach at high tide
without
stepping on some rich guys domain.

To counter this right, the "cities", gated waterfront
communities like
Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, Hilton Head Island, bought
their way
into another state law letting the municipalities have domain
over the
public's water out ONE MILE from that beach. So, they simply
write an
ordinance preventing the public from getting to the beach in
their
boats or some such nonsense.

I haven't seen any city gunboats protecting the billionaires
from the
commoners, yet, but that is just a matter of time.

State law says if I want to take the jetboat into the beach at
Kiawah,
I must do so in a no-wake condition. So, we went. Someone
from the
beach houses came out screaming and yelling at us, threatening
to call
the Kiawah Kops. I told him I'd be glad to explain to a cooler
head
South Carolina law. The cops came, in force! I had violated
their
"space". The cops threatened to arrest me if I didn't get in
my boat
and get off "their beach". I pressed for an arrest, but seeing
the
threat tactic wasn't going anywhere and not wanting to test
state law,
they got back in their pickup truck and drove away. We stayed
on OUR
beach for a couple of hours with the jetboat anchored off the
sand
before going elsewhere.

Property owners think just because their property BORDERS on
the
public's beach, the beach becomes their property. It's not
true in
SC....(c;

I'm still here......



On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:57:46 -0800, "Steve"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


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.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington
state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and
Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or
something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state,
a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach
out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I
think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property
owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring
near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that,
especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

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

Steve
s/v Good Intentions




Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 +0000, Larry Weiss wrote:

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).

I can't talk to the maritime part, but in New Jersey, the state has gone
after towns that limited ocean beach access to town residents and won. I
believe the claim is that the *state* owns the rights, not the town.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

I can't talk to the maritime part, but in New Jersey, the state has gone
after towns that limited ocean beach access to town residents and won. I
believe the claim is that the *state* owns the rights, not the town.


I think that with more research we would find that the Federal Gov. has
jurisdiction over all waters that connect to the ocean or coastal water
(what ever). The local control of these waters has been granted to local
authorities, but these grants have restriction and limitations such as
public access, free access (the reason there must be draw bridges, etc)..

Some of the above was reveled and argued during the court challenges
regarding free anchorage in San Diego Bay.

Not an expert and still puzzled over a lot of what goes on around the
coastal waters.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

Larry Weiss wrote in message ...
"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.

Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html

Has the town used any government grant money for improvements to the
marina? That money usually comes with conditions that the courts may
say overrides any covenents. The city of San Francisco banned PWC
with a 1/4 mile of the city shoreline few years ago, and of course
many jetskiers cried foul. The ban went into affect, but access to a
couple of marinas had to be allowed since they used Wallop-Breaux
federal funding to make improvements to the launch ramps and other
facilities. So the restricted area around SF has a couple of
corridors where PWC are allowed to get to the ramp and gas docks.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...

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..."

You may have a bitch of a case on your hands, and a very interesting one,
too. As I mentioned in another message within your thread, a friend of mine
has already been through this regarding creek access. What he's finding out
is that the laws in NY (and most other places where waterways were
important) were written a LONG time ago, and may need to be overhauled. Many
of the precedents relate to hunters crossing lumber company lands in the
Adirondacks, or loggers floating trees down rivers and annoying landowners.
This stuff is hard to interpret for situations like yours.

If I were you, I'd talk to some business owners in town and find out who's
cozy with whom. There's usually a good reason why a business is permitted to
skirt the law. The reason is almost always the good 'ol boy network, and
cash.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...


Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html


That's a really good article.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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 need to spell out exactly how you want it done before any
agreement and have an attorney check it out to be sure they have to
comply to the terms of the agreement.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

Huh? Do liveaboards have a reputation for being thieves??? Or do people just
object to them hanging their laundry over the rails to dry?

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:52:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
. com...


Some of the cases referenced in this memo may be a start.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html

That's a really good article.

Agreed.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"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?

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:48:56 GMT, Larry Weiss
wrote:

"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.

We have a similar problem locally. There is a lake/pond in town that
is owned by the town along with the adjoining land, but an adajacent
town owns the water rights, thus basically owning the lake/pond. No
boats, no fishing, no nuttin'. Can't remove weeds, can't do anyting
to improve the habitat because it will affect the water supply. The
dimwit that runs the water works never even graduated high school,
doesn't understand the nature of the problem and won't do anything
about it other than do nothing. It is very frustrating because the
local sportsmen have put up a lot of money to hire an attorney for the
town, but the town doesn't want to challange the neighbors on the
matter and the town attorney has stated that private monies in this
matter are illegal...it's just a freakin' mess.

Engineers were hired to do a study, create an action plan and, in
theory, IMPROVE the quality of the water delivered to the pumping
station, but when the plan was presented to the appropriate boards,
our friend rejected it out of hand because he couldn't understand how
sediment settling basins before the water intakes worked - once the
water is dirty, it's dirty according to him.

Meanwhile, all this haggling isn't getting the lake/pond any better.

Idiots.

Sorry for the rant.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:55:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote:

Larry W4CSC wrote:

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".


At too many small marinas, there are boats apparently abandoned by their
owners, and these boats are deteriorating and in some cases, starting to
sink. There are several marinas on Rockhold Creek in Deale, Maryland,
where this is the case. If I were a property owner on that waterway, I'd
probably oppose construction of a new, small marina in my eyesight for
that reason.

My Contender is at a marina where abandoned boats are hoisted out, put
on a back lot and auctioned after the obligatory 6 months, certified
letter and all that other legal stuff. A lot of the other marinas in
the area do much the same thing and more of less to the same degree.

What amazes me is that some of these boats are pretty nice even if
they are a little older.

It seems to be far less a problem at the larger marinas in our area.
Perhaps the managers of those facilities actually manage them.

I'm also not a fan of "liveaboards" at marinas, unless there are strict
rules against eyesore boats and trash and effluent dumping that are
actually enforced.

We have some liveaboards on the bigger vessels, but no overwinter
liveaboards - all boats out by the 15th of December or gone by then.
I actually don't mind the liveaboards - I haven't had anything clipped
from my boat yet.

Huh? Do liveaboards have a reputation for being thieves??? Or do people just
object to them hanging their laundry over the rails to dry?


Interesting - I see how you could have interpreted it that way, but
that's not what I meant.

I meant that the liveaboards prevent that kind of activity because of
their presence - not that they do the clipping.

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"

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

Heh - sneaky little devils. :)

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"

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?

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

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

In article ,
Larry Weiss wrote:

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.

I'm confused. Do you think that only town residents should use the park
and marina, or not?

For some reason, I believe that while the water may be "free" for use,
improvements on same need not be. For instance, people can be required
to pay to use docks and moorings, or can be restricted from their use.

Personally, those waterside communities that open up their waterside are
more inviting, but I have no problem if they say "2 hour limit" or such.
I avoid places that restrict public access to public spaces, or charge
highly for the privilege.

--
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/

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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. :-)

Anyone familiar with maritime law?
 

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 :-)