Photo: Why I Dislike Mooring Fields

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by Hud3

Why not sell it to the next guy? Capitalism at work!!!

Ha ha ha!

I like Hud's interjections into serious posts. He brings a good little joke in to lighten the mood. Well done!

I guess that's why I don't have a good kitty. Too generous. Too many ethics. I used to be trusting too, but after doing business in NYC... I learned.

[Sandero]

Sully,
OT nice web site.. change your wording of "repairs" to "yacht systems services" or something. If I want an X installed it's not a repair - it's an upgrade.

[Morgan Paul]

[quote]Wait... WHAT????!?!?

I can live drop a mooring in LI for $250/yr

Yes here is the aplication: http://www.brookhaven.org/DesktopMod...403&PortalId=0

plus the price of my mooring?

Call Silver Bay Marine 631 689-8262 . It will cost you about 900 dollars.

Am I *required* to take it out of the water in the winter?

Yes. You would have to remove the mooring from Dec - May.
Cost to take it out, store it, put it back in is about 400 dollars.

Are there other restrictions that would prevent me from living/working there,

You would have to pay a non resident parking fee of 350 dollars per year. The hard part would be parking the dingy and in the winter you would have to anchor and move the boat around because there is a law on the lenght of time you can anchor.

new neighbor??

Stay in Maine. Port Jeff doesn't need another bum.

Paul

[Weyalan]

It is my understanding that around here, anyone can grab any private mooring that is unused, with the proviso that if the owner of the mooring turns up before sunset, they are obliged to move.

[tomdidit]

Wey,

So, if the owner was out for a moonlight sail with his significant other, or someone he wants to be his significant other for the day, and they came back after sunset, YOU own the mooring ball because it is AFTER SUNSET?
The world can't work like that....anywhere! Not fair!

[hellosailor]

Sean, have you looked to see WHERE you can drop a Brookhaven Township mooring? Short answer, the Great South Bay, which would have filled in by now if the ACE didn't keep opening up the inlets. Even in a cat, you might find some, ah, restrictions on where and when you could take it. Very reasonable rate--if you can deal with the geography. Bellport, Mastic, etc.

(I'd stick in a chartlet, but "inert image" only wants web links today.)

[Alexei]

Originally Posted by thims

My mother (a kindergarten teacher) taught me an Aesop’s fable about a "dog in a manger" and how not allowing someone to use something you were not using is a social "sin". I still believe that, but far too few other people do. As for private property rights, It is IMHO far and away the largest factor in our all too quickly deteriorating society. Any kind of resource is up for grabs and it is not so it can "encourage the productive use of scarce resources", at least not in practice. It is so some pork barreled high roller who has connections with means beyond his own can acquire the "private rights" to something that was either privately or publicly held by others implicitly. Usually the exploitation is immediate "1. Control of the use of the property and 2. The right to any benefit from the property" but if it cannot be immediately exploited then "3. A right to transfer or sell the property or 4. A right to exclude others from the property." kicks in. Soon every drop of water every molecule of oxygen and even the absence of anything else will be "owned" by private interests and be unavailable for use by anybody or anything else. We have carbon credits (the right to pollute has been a popular sell for decades), and now carbon sequestering (wow, I can't believe the lawyers got that pig to fly). It won't end 'till there is nothing left to own. BTW that is why I love cruising and cruising people, they tend to opt out.

Flame suit on.

I'm not sure I accept your premise that our society is "quickly deteriorating". It's changing, surely, but change is inevitable. Are all the changes that have happened in, say, the last 40 years for the better? No, not really.....but then we've had a bunch of hippies running the show for the last 20 or so (and by that I mean the baby boomers), so could you really expect things to NOT be screwed up? That said, there have been many many changes that are decidedly for the better (I would argue more for the better than for the worse). Besides, things tend to go in cycles, so I wouldn't be surprised for the bad to be corrected over time. It generally seems to work out that way.

Before you go bemoaning the evils of private property, take a look at those societies in history that did not acknowledge private property rights. Without exception, societies like that result in despotism and complete control by a priveledged few, misery and poverty for the majority of their citizens, major war with other nations, and mass murder. Sortof makes the inconvenience of maybe not getting the exact mooring or anchorage you want seem sort of trivial, doesn't it?

John Adams once stated "Where property rights are not held sacred, freedom is impossible". A very smart man, there. But then, the US' founders were all very smart men.

-Alexei

PS - Oh btw, CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a harmless, naturally occuring molecule that is emitted by every living animal, by volcanos, by limestone....hell, it's emitted everywhere. Plants like it a lot, too. We really need to stop the libel against CO2. It's truly tragic, and will be the cause of much impending despotism of the type discussed above if it isn't stopped.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Alexei

... John Adams once stated "Where property rights are not held sacred, freedom is impossible". A very smart man, there. But then, the US' founders were all very smart men...

The founding fathers were also all privileged property owners.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The founding fathers were also all privileged property owners.

The pesky Golden Rule again.

One of these days................one.....of.....these.....days!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Alexei

John Adams once stated "Where property rights are not held sacred, freedom is impossible".

I think a few million homeless would disagree….”move on ya bum!”

[Alexei]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The founding fathers were also all privileged property owners.

Very true.

And therefore they should not be listened to or admired, is that it? We should only pay attention to good thoughts from destitute people, because rich folks are evil?


I may be reading a bit much into this, but that sort of flippant dismissal based on something irrelevent (probably spelled wrong sorry) just pisses me off.

[thims]

I have no problem with private property rights and think that a world without them would be miserable as Alexi said. There does though have to be a balance between private and public property rights. Just like pure democracy or pure socialism, if elements of the other are missing, are social disasters. A balance is what seems to work best. What irks me is when private interests usurp a public commodity. It seems a popular trend (at least here in Canada) to sell off public interests to private concerns sometimes interests that were paid for dearly with public funds. The benefactors of this are always (and I mean always) friends of the brain trusts that are selling them. I rarely see any resistance to this as though the people in large part believe the politicians know best and are working in their best interest. They are not! I wish the lawmakers would enact legislation to punish public servants who do not act in the public interest. That might help. But that would limit the "advantage" to pursuing a career in politics. Show me a system where only righteous community minded individuals are attracted to serve while retaining private property rights and our other freedoms and I will work tirelessly for the rest of my days to see it come about. The system we here in Canada share with our other democratic kin is pretty darn fine. I just wish in my heart of hearts that the people who administrate it (or people in general) were less corruptible and self-interested.


ps Well said Alexi

Originally Posted by Alexei

PS - Oh btw, CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a harmless, naturally occuring molecule that is emitted by every living animal, by volcanos, by limestone....hell, it's emitted everywhere. Plants like it a lot, too. We really need to stop the libel against CO2. It's truly tragic, and will be the cause of much impending despotism of the type discussed above if it isn't stopped.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Alexei

... I may be reading a bit much into this, but that sort of flippant dismissal based on something irrelevent ...

I’m sorry if my flippant remarks (intended to be humourous) seemed like a “dismissal” of your founding fathers character & integrity. It was NOT meant that way.
It was meant to put their philosophy into perspective. As establishment members of the propertied (often slave-owning) class, they would be naturally inclined to represent the interests of that community.

Earlier, I said something akin to thims’ sentiments:

Originally Posted by thims

I have no problem with private property rights and think that a world without them would be miserable as Alexi said. There does though have to be a balance between private and public property rights. Just like pure democracy* [*he should have said capitalism] or pure socialism, if elements of the other are missing, are social disasters. A balance is what seems to work best ...

[thims]

Right Gord. I don't know why I get those two (democracy and capitalism) mixed up.