FWC Derelict Enforcement Marathon

[barnakiel]

Then look at the date on the bill. Stuff written long ago when the land was ample, the people were few and the apparent dangers were many.

Sticking to old texts and making them holy is a sure road to disaster and unhappiness. How we live changes and so should the rules we live by.

All modern laws should be periodically reviewed by default, and adjusted as found necessary.

All old texts predating modern democracies and human rights should be banned and burnt at stake.

We cannot live in the present sticking to bills and visions taken down ages ago. If we do, then good luck and I am sailing on.

b.

[GordMay]

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by rognvald

" It is not a bunch of rights bestowed upon "we the people" but in fact is a bunch of prohibitions upon the government not to infringe upon "we the people". " Island Time 025



So, may I assume that you are not aware or have never read America's "Bill of Rights?" I don't think your above statement makes any sense to those who know and understand American History. These "Rights", as named and delineated by our Founding Fathers, are clearly defined and may be viewed in the following link. Good luck and safe sailing

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

Rog, not quite. Gord reprinted the preamble. The text of these indicate they are the first ten AMENDMENTS to the constitution. They are "popularly" called the BoR, but, to nitpick, they are consistent with the earlier point by Island Time.

For example, read Amendment 1.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Then look at the date on the bill. Stuff written long ago when the land was ample, the people were few and the apparent dangers were many.

Sticking to old texts and making them holy is a sure road to disaster and unhappiness. How we live changes and so should the rules we live by.

All modern laws should be periodically reviewed by default, and adjusted as found necessary.

All old texts predating modern democracies and human rights should be banned and burnt at stake.

We cannot live in the present sticking to bills and visions taken down ages ago. If we do, then good luck and I am sailing on.

b.

So, B,
Based upon your above sentiments, why not abolish all the foundations of a country/government and return to anarchy and chaos--a world where anything goes and there is no foundation for an orderly society? And, how would a society function if all laws were transitory and based upon the whims of those in power. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were a legal foundation to create an orderly, just and fair society, in theory, and have proven over the last 200 plus years to have been flexible enough to change in an ever changing world. However, its basic tenets and principles instituted by our Founding Fathers have remained, for the most part, inviolate. Without the above documents, the State would become all powerful and human rights would disappear forever. We are at a crossroads in our country where Americans will soon have to choose between a continuance of our founding principles of a Capitalist Democracy or morph into a One World, Big Brother elitist oligarchy where personal freedoms no longer exist: abolish free speech, take their guns, unreasonable searches and seizures, rights to a fair trial, states rights, etc.--the signposts of a dictatorial state controlled government. There has never been a society in the History of Mankind that has been able to exist without a codified list of rules by which to live. All great societies: Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Greece, French, German and British empires and our own American Empire have become great because they were driven and lived by a codified system of laws that governed the actions of the people. And, how could any serious student of History ignore the effects of Europe's Magna Carta in the civilization of Europe that led to the greatest period of intellectual growth--the Renaissance and set the foundation for orderly societies until today? To elevate "modern democracies" as an example of perfection is analogous to to comparing Andy Warhol to Rembrandt Van Rijn. Good luck and safe sailing.

[rognvald]

[QUOTE=Stu Jackson;2245299]Rog, not quite. Gord reprinted the preamble. The text of these indicate they are the first ten AMENDMENTS to the constitution. They are "popularly" called the BoR, but, to nitpick, they are consistent with the earlier point by Island Time.

For example, read Amendment 1. [/QUOTE

So, Stu,
Is it now politically incorrect to use the term "Bill of Rights?"--- a term used by all constitutional lawyers, historians and political scientists? Does it change their intent, meaning or import? I have to admit, as a person who is well conversant with our legal history, this is nothing short of absurd. We, as a nation, are suffocating under a heavy blanket of PC and rewriting of History that is meant to destroy the status quo and replace it with something that has little or no connection to the truth and history of our past. The smoke signals are clear: we, as a nation, are in serious trouble. Good luck and safe sailing.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by rognvald

So, B,
Based upon your above sentiments, why not abolish all the foundations of a country/government and return to anarchy and chaos--a world where anything goes and there is no foundation for an orderly society? And, how would a society function if all laws were transitory and based upon the whims of those in power. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were a legal foundation to create an orderly, just and fair society, in theory, and have proven over the last 200 plus years to have been flexible enough to change in an ever changing world. However, its basic tenets and principles instituted by our Founding Fathers have remained, for the most part, inviolate. Without the above documents, the State would become all powerful and human rights would disappear forever. We are at a crossroads in our country where Americans will soon have to choose between a continuance of our founding principles of a Capitalist Democracy or morph into a One World, Big Brother elitist oligarchy where personal freedoms no longer exist: abolish free speech, take their guns, unreasonable searches and seizures, rights to a fair trial, states rights, etc.--the signposts of a dictatorial state controlled government. There has never been a society in the History of Mankind that has been able to exist without a codified list of rules by which to live. All great societies: Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Greece, French, German and British empires and our own American Empire have become great because they were driven and lived by a codified system of laws that governed the actions of the people. And, how could any serious student of History ignore the effects of Europe's Magna Carta in the civilization of Europe that led to the greatest period of intellectual growth--the Renaissance and set the foundation for orderly societies until today? To elevate "modern democracies" as an example of perfection is analogous to to comparing Andy Warhol to Rembrandt Van Rijn. Good luck and safe sailing.

The US constitution requires a super-majority to amend. The UK, for instance, which has no single document that is a "constitution," can amend any of its laws with a simple majority. It gets along OK.

The "inviolate" US constitution has been amended 27 times. Some of the amendments were HUGE changes to the basic tenets and principles established by the Founding Fathers. It is not a sacred text.

The majority rules, even as to derelict boats.

[a64pilot]

Just my opinion, but I think this thread was very informative and to the point and a topic that likely affects a lot of cruisers.
So lets try not to let it go down the political hole?
It hasn't yet, I don't think, but maybe we can get back a little more specifically to the keys and derelict / pre-derelict boats and enforcement?

[Island Time O25]

I firmly believe that the costs of disposal of derelicts are grossly exaggerated. Precisely because since it usually involves the gov't it becomes the proverbial "$1,200 hammer or $6,000 toilet seat". I do not see the real at cost disposal of on the water or on the hard boat as being above $1,000 unless graft, greed, government or all three are involved. How much does it take to get 2 marina workers to raft up the derelict boat to a 20ft Boston Whaler and to bring her to docks or launch ramp - $100-150 max for an hour or two worth of work? Then a quick haul out, another $100-150 and a trip to the disposal site, another $150-200 depending on the distance, which usually take these boats for under $500, often $200-300. Add spill/workers comp insurance, etc and you have about $1,000 give or take per boat on average. Not the $10,000s we are being scared with.

PS When you will be challenging my estimates remember that you will be operating with the numbers given to you by the industry which include their obscene profits (such as "salvage" bill for a few mile tow in the thousands) and I am giving you the actual costs gleemed from working close with a local hauler and knowing his real costs not what he bills the customers, usually the insurance companies or the non salty boat owners.

[a64pilot]

The cost of disposal has to be inflated somehow, I've seen $200 to $250 a ft tossed around and I can't see how it could cost $6,500 to dispose of a 26' sailboat, but like you said I can't see how a government funded hammer can cost what it does either.

I would think if the lead was salvaged that the actual cost would be minimal

[rognvald]

[QUOTE=Cottontop;2245336]The US constitution requires a super-majority to amend. The UK, for instance, which has no single document that is a "constitution," can amend any of its laws with a simple majority. It gets along OK.

The "inviolate" US constitution has been amended 27 times. Some of the amendments were HUGE changes to the basic tenets and principles established by the Founding Fathers. It is not a sacred text.

The majority rules, even as to derelict boats.[/QUOTE

Perhaps 64 has a point in regards to some thread drift, but I have always felt that discussions of this nature have a natural tendency to do so when statements of "fact" do not comport with accepted knowledge and in this case-- History. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, there have been only 4, in my opinion, that have significantly changed the document: the 13th--Slavery;14th--Due Process;15th--Voter's Rights and the 19th--Women's Vote. The rest were largely "administrative" amendments that tweaked the document as our country changed. So, the term "inviolate" has certainly been the case in the meat and potatoes of the document. Another problem we have is that opposing political views interpret the document differently which is why we have a Supreme Court to flesh out these contradictions but, as has been recently witnessed, a change in Supreme Court justices may well signal the death of our Constitution in coming years. This remains to be seen. So, in regards to the enforcement issue of derelict boats in the Keys, it is a positive step in the right direction to insure the continuation of anchoring rights for those of us who take to the sea. Good luck and safe sailing.

[Stu Jackson]

[QUOTE=rognvald;2245332]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Rog, not quite. Gord reprinted the preamble. The text of these indicate they are the first ten AMENDMENTS to the constitution. They are "popularly" called the BoR, but, to nitpick, they are consistent with the earlier point by Island Time.

For example, read Amendment 1. [/QUOTE

So, Stu,
Is it now politically incorrect to use the term "Bill of Rights?"--- a term used by all constitutional lawyers, historians and political scientists?.....

No, not at all. And I never said PC, you did. What the heck does that have to do with it.

The point, and again nitpicky like I said the first time, is that Island Time was right (pi!). They are not a list of rights, they are a defined limit on the govt.

That's all, simple. Not trying to be argumentative at all.

PC? I agree with you. Safe rooms/spaces for those little girls who leave their Nebraska or Kansas homes to go to college are plain nonsense.

But PC from the last century (and you're old enough, too, to remember, right?) was originally for adding civility to public discourse. One of the candidates could use some of that!

The "new PC" is frightening.

[Captain Bill]

I'm not in Marathon, but at a marina in central Florida. There is an old wooden Chris Craft 40 foot power boat on our dock that has sunk 3 times in three weeks. It has a tarp around it to slow the water intrusion but it still sinks on a regular basis. No towing company will tow it. They're afraid it will sink while being towed. There are a couple of travel lifts within a couple of miles but they refuse to lift it for fear it will crumble. I also heard he tried to get a crane and barge to come get it, but they too refused to have anything to do with it. So there it sits sinking once or twice a week. How is this owner to dispose of this boat? This boat clearly meets all of the criteria for being derelict yet there is no way for the owner to dispose of it. The Marina wants him out of here so I suppose the only solution is to get someone to tow it out and let it sink. Of course if the authorities ever find out who towed it they will probably be arrested along with the owner. I for one have a problem with putting people in jail for not complying with a law when there is no means of doing so.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by rognvald

...................Another problem we have is that opposing political views interpret the document differently which is why we have a Supreme Court to flesh out these contradictions but, as has been recently witnessed, a change in Supreme Court justices may well signal the death of our Constitution in coming years. This remains to be seen. ....................

Balderdash.

The refusal of the Senate majority leader to hold hearings on a nomination is far more dangerous than the nominees themselves.

Others may feel that the tilt of the Court in the past 20 years is more dangerous than what "might come to be", but being a student of history, as you are, that has been the case ever since the beginning of the country.

But to the OP, the laws on the books should be used rather than inventing new ones.

A real question in search of an answer:

What stops existing LE from utilizing the laws already on the books?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

I'm not in Marathon, but at a marina in central Florida. There is an old wooden Chris Craft 40 foot power boat on our dock that has sunk 3 times in three weeks. It has a tarp around it to slow the water intrusion but it still sinks on a regular basis. No towing company will tow it. They're afraid it will sink while being towed. There are a couple of travel lifts within a couple of miles but they refuse to lift it for fear it will crumble. I also heard he tried to get a crane and barge to come get it, but they too refused to have anything to do with it. So there it sits sinking once or twice a week. How is this owner to dispose of this boat? This boat clearly meets all of the criteria for being derelict yet there is no way for the owner to dispose of it. The Marina wants him out of here so I suppose the only solution is to get someone to tow it out and let it sink. Of course if the authorities ever find out who towed it they will probably be arrested along with the owner. I for one have a problem with putting people in jail for not complying with a law when there is no means of doing so.

Could you rig a canvas sling on a big spreader or use multiple straps on the spreader or wrap-it/strap-it and pull it up on the beach to dismantle?

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Again, BS! You are the one being ignorant here.

Nobody can drag a broken down mobile home to the city park and expect to live there for free and poop behind a tree. Your broken down boat is no different. Passing through? Fine. Set up residence? Nope, no way.

Careful now, you are talking about a significant percentage of my neighbors here in Santa Cruz. The ones with broken down mobile homes are the higher end of the spectrum; most just have a stolen bicycle or shopping cart.

How do you enforce rules against people whose life improves when they go to jail?