Photo: Why I Dislike Mooring Fields

[GordMay]

Two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time.

Unfortunately, a society in which all property is private renders the propertyless completely dependent on those who own property.

An all-private (capitalist) system of property ownership can be oppressive, just as an all-public (communist) one can be; but a system that allows networks of private and public ownership (socialist commonwealth) offers the greatest scope for individual freedom and the common welfare.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by jzk

A prudent cruiser will find that there are thousands of places left in this world to anchor. The more crowded cities get with boats means the more economical boating will be for the rest of us. One of the reasons you got such a great deal on your boat is the economy of scale.

Perhaps there is a way to "purchase" the right to use the mooring from one of those that aren't using it? Our marinas don't allow this as they use the vacant spots for transients, but it sounds as if yours doesn't. Here in Chicago one might buy a mooring without even having a boat just to get in line for a slip for next year. Perhaps those people plan on having a boat "next year" but don't want to wait 80 years again, so they keep their mooring vacant.

I think your 2nd paragraph sums up the situation where I am now. People intend on using the mooring "someday", but never do. There is no marina in this spot. It's all privately owned moorings, as are the majority of them in New England. I sure would love to purchase the right to use one... would be nice.

I am not sure about the paragraph about the prudent cruiser though. As I see anchorage after anchorage (not this current one in the photo - it's been filled in for years) being filled in with moorings, just where will you cruise that is available to anchor?

It's not only the USA - Europe has the same issues as do some islands.

[jzk]

If it wasn't for capitalism and private property rights, "cruising" would consist of watching the royalty go on exploration missions in their wooden tallships.

Now, anyone can go cruising. Our first sailboat was a Chrysler 26, and I would sail that to the bahamas without any concern. We paid 5k for it.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

An all-private (capitalist) system of property ownership can be oppressive, just as an all-public (communist) one can be; but a system that allows networks of private and public ownership (socialist commonwealth) offers the greatest scope for individual freedom and the common welfare.

Gord, I'm writing you in for president of my country! (if you're running under the socialist commonwealth theme)

I may have a little tinkering to do with our constitution to get a Canadian citizen in office, but it's worth a try.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by jzk

If it wasn't for capitalism and private property rights, "cruising" would consist of watching the royalty go on exploration missions in their wooden tallships.

Now, anyone can go cruising. Our first sailboat was a Chrysler 26, and I would sail that to the bahamas without any concern. We paid 5k for it.

But if the Bahamas were filled with mooring fields (as everywhere will eventually be), it would have cost you $35/night to use that $5K boat. You would have had to stay home.

I still like Gord's hybrid system better.

[Microship]

I'm currently on the linear mooring in Eagle Harbor (Bainbridge Island, WA), and four big boats are taking up less room than one swinging on a traditional mooring. I don't know how these things work in heavy conditions, but it seems to be a useful way to pack more in... with modest capital investment (and the city makes $.25/foot/night, which is a good deal around here).

Cheers from Nomadness,
Steve

[Sandero]

One of my favorite pet peeves. Thanks Sully.

What disturbs me is the following. You take a harbor of a few hundred acres with a dock or two... perhaps a town landing which IS ideal for anchoring and mooring of boats. Boats need to be parked somewhere in the season and there is not enough dock space for sure and it's expensive and to some not as desirable as being moored out.

So what has happened because of all the boats, and the opportunity to turn moorings into cash cows, private interests have moved in and divided up these hundreds of acres and dropped in a mooring which costs less than $1,000 (not including annual maintenance) and then proceeds to charge 1,500 - $3,000 or more for the season.

So this public harbor is not producing income of about $200,000 per year to the "operators" of these moorings. Who are they? Perhaps the town itself, the yacht club, perhaps, marina XYZ and perhaps a few locals get theirs down for cost plus a yearly svs fee.

Can you anchor there and enjoy the harbor? Negative. No anchoring within 500' fet of shoreline. Can you pick up a courtesy mooring? Hell no, you payt $30-$50 per night.

So what IS the yacht club paying for its use of the land? To whom? And the Marina XYZ?

The water and the bottom belongs to the nation not the village. How was this taken for commercial exploitation?

[David M]

I tend to agree with Gord but I do understand your side as well Sully. We don't let people live on our boats or in our houses when we are not there. Its always a possibility that some guy with a 65 foot boat could tie up to a mooring whose anchor and anchor rode was only meant for a 30 foot boat.

On the other hand, these people who claim a small section of public waterway for themselves should be paying something to the taxpayers.

[GordMay]

Sully & I are not (necessarily) on opposing sides in this issue.

FREEdom is on the wain.

When I was not much younger that Sean, it was inconceivable (to me) to pay for water or television, and we joked about the impossibility of “selling refrigerators to Eskimos”.
Now, the vast majority of us buy bottled water, subscribe to (pay) cable TV, and nearly all Inuit own refrigerators.
If you're spending $1.49 for a tiny 9-ounce bottle of Evian, that's $21/gallon; and (for the greens”) it uses about 45 ounces of water to manufacture of the (PET) plastic bottle.
Capitalists want to acquire wealth; which sometimes creates wealth (sometimes it just redistributes it). This is one of the rational arguments for privately owned property - it encourages the productive use of scarce resources.

When this operator isn't in play, it gets more difficult to justify the denial of public access to those resources (properties).
Empty moorings, don't appear (to me) to be a productive use of that property.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by GordMay

<snip>

FREEdom is on the wain.

<snip>

Sorry, Gord, but unless you are making some sly reference to giving up the consumption of alcohol, freedom isn't on the "wain" (a farm wagon). Freedom is very much on the wane, however, meaning decreasing in power, intensity, importance; drawing to a close, approaching an end.

Of course, I don't have a Canadian dictionary to check, so possibly the spelling is different north of the 49th parallel.

TaoJones

[GordMay]

Would the public interest be served if a local community were moved to place 20 moorings (where “demand” existed), in a cove that could otherwise only accommodate only 10 anchored boats?

"...Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin, aint worth nothin, but its free," ~ K. Kristofferson (Bobby McGee)

Freedom isn't simply living with an absence of restraints.
True freedom in a democracy is necessarily limited, as in "Your freedom stops where my nose begins.”
Remember that the Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes came down with a very interesting ruling on one occasion. He said, "Certainly, we have freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech has limits. You are not free to shout fire in a crowded cinema, you can't say anything you want."

Thanks Tao. As you suggest, I meant to convey the idea of diminishment, as in wane (not wain, as in wagon). I don’t get your reference to abstinence, though.
I’m flabbergasted that you don’t have a proper dictionary of the English language (Cdn).

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Thanks Tao. As you suggest, I meant to convey the idea of diminishment, as in wane (not wain, as in wagon). I don’t get your reference to abstinence, though.
I’m flabbergasted that you don’t have a proper dictionary of the English language (Cdn).

Would the public interest be served if a local community were moved to place 20 moorings (where “demand” existed), in a cove that could otherwise only accommodate only 10 anchored boats?

"On the wagon" is a phrase (probably coined in the US) which refers to abstaining from the consumption of alcohol. For example, see: On the wagon When someone who previously drank alcohol ceases to do so, he/she is "on the wagon." Similarly, when someone on the wagon resumes drinking alcohol, he/she is said to have "fallen off the wagon."

I've been searching all my life for a proper Canadian English-language dictionary, but alas, without success. For now, the OED will have to suffice.

TaoJones

[GordMay]

Tao: You’re too subtle (read ‘smart’) for me - "On the wagon” would have been obvious to the upper 75 percentile* of us.

* Consider how intelligent the “average” person is (or isn’t) – then recognize that virtually half of us fall below that standard.

[Maren]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* Consider how intelligent the “average” person is (or isn’t) – then recognize that virtually half of us fall below that standard.

Funny!

... and most of us are average.

[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.