The controversy over "Captain Jay" continues

[Jim Cate]

G'Day all,

On the overflow from treatment plant issue, I'll quote our well known Australian Cruising guide author Alan Lucas on the subject:

"When a sewage treatment plant releases one hundred megaliters of untreated sewage it is an 'incident'. When a yachtsman releases one liter of untreated sewage it is a CRIME."

We have repeatedly seen that when these massive dumps have taken place that after a few days of frantic beach closures and sampling programs the problem miraculously goes away and the beaches are reopened, designated as safe once more. Nature has taken care of a gigantic insult. Yet we are told that a few boaters cause untold environmental damage with the release of their sewage.

I remain skeptical.

Cheers,

Jim

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

I can't speak specifically for Gulfport, but just about everywhere else I have researched and learned about anti-anchoring ordinances it turns out that behind the push there is someone or a few someones looking to make money off of the situation. The average citizen doesn't know or care anything about boats at anchor, and I bet if they were asked to vote would prefer to keep the waters free for everyone to share and use. Chances are there are a lot of boaters in a place like Gulfport who at least occasionally anchor out and enjoy it, and probably wouldn't be too happy if they were told they couldn't anymore. In St. Augustine the city wanted to expand the marina and build a breakwater, and they got the bright idea to make all those freeloading anchorers pay. In Sarasota Marina Jacks has been trying to outlaw anchoring for decades, in order to force people to come into the marina or pay for a mooring. They have an incredible sweetheart deal with the city that basically gives them all the revenue from the mooring field, while the city pays for its construction. They even managed to get most of the local sailing club's moorings declared illegal, so more business for the city mooring field. In Marathon, same thing. The city was going broke maintaining their mooring field, which is only partly full most of the year. They needed hundreds of thousands of $$ in county funds just to keep going the past few years. So, someone came up with the bright idea to charge $22 to land your dinghy, while also further restricting the area you can anchor. In New England several towns have had legal action taken against them when investigations learned that often the harbormaster was in cahoots with local businessmen who controlled all the mooring space in the harbor, and of course "friends" mysteriously got moorings while others were on long waiting lists for years. Look deeper into the motivations behind these laws and it is often about money.

Not every issue is about money and not every issue needs to proclaim class warfare between the "haves' and "have nots." I am not a proponent of big government but I am a proponent of maintaining a fair, equitable and properly regulated environment that is the distinguishing feature between civilizations and Third World countries. For anyone who has traveled widely, the first thing one notices once leaving the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand is the lack of regulations that order and control civilized countries. It is apparent in every aspect of those countries and it is exactly why they are "Third World." Should there not be parity between the landowners who have paid in the millions for their homes and/or businesses and those who wish to recreate in the waters that abut their properties. Should a man's dream home have to look at a homeless encampment of derelict boats when it is the failure of the local government/authorities to enforce laws on the books? Should real cruisers who actually move their boat from point A to B be disallowed to anchor because the derelicts have ruined it for everyone. No one is calling for a police state and no one is going to grade a boat cosmetically as a requirement to anchor, but everyone on this forum certainly knows what a derelict boat looks like whether they want to admit it or not. Why not require a boat to have a functional engine and sails and have the capacity to move the boat when necessary? This would not apply to a boat undergoing a reasonable repair but rather boats that are floating homeless shells without the capacity to move. If we cannot address these issues fairly for everyone involved, our anchoring rights will be limited if not completely disallowed. Governments have a responsibility to maintain their laws/codes and to protect the rights of all,not just a few. Otherwise, we'd all be living in the Wild West.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Not every issue is about money and not every issue needs to proclaim class warfare between the "haves' and "have nots." I am not a proponent of big government but I am a proponent of maintaining a fair, equitable and properly regulated environment that is the distinguishing feature between civilizations and Third World countries. For anyone who has traveled widely, the first thing one notices once leaving the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand is the lack of regulations that order and control civilized countries. It is apparent in every aspect of those countries and it is exactly why they are "Third World." Should there not be parity between the landowners who have paid in the millions for their homes and/or businesses and those who wish to recreate in the waters that abut their properties. Should a man's dream home have to look at a homeless encampment of derelict boats when it is the failure of the local government/authorities to enforce laws on the books? Should real cruisers who actually move their boat from point A to B be disallowed to anchor because the derelicts have ruined it for everyone. No one is calling for a police state and no one is going to grade a boat cosmetically as a requirement to anchor, but everyone on this forum certainly knows what a derelict boat looks like whether they want to admit it or not. Why not require a boat to have a functional engine and sails and have the capacity to move the boat when necessary? This would not apply to a boat undergoing a reasonable repair but rather boats that are floating homeless shells without the capacity to move. If we cannot address these issues fairly for everyone involved, our anchoring rights will be limited if not completely disallowed. Governments have a responsibility to maintain their laws/codes and to protect the rights of all,not just a few. Otherwise, we'd all be living in the Wild West.

And there you have it.

[sailorchic34]

My only issue is the functional engine bit. Some sailboats don't have engines and do nicely. The Pardey's did a bit O sailing without an engine. So maybe just having the ability to move is the important part...

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Should there not be parity between the landowners who have paid in the millions for their homes and/or businesses and those who wish to recreate in the waters that abut their properties. Should a man's dream home have to look at a homeless encampment of derelict boats when it is the failure of the local government/authorities to enforce laws on the books?

If the Lord in his castle does not want to look at the peasants he should live somewhere that the peasants are not such a visual problem.

But the good news in this circumstance is that Capt Jay is likely to be part of the 47% getting on a train heading east come November .

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

If the Lord in his castle does not want to look at the peasants he should live somewhere that the peasants are not such a visual problem.

But the good news in this circumstance is that Capt Jay is likely to be part of the 47% getting on a train heading east come November .

As to the first statement, that is why the evil Lord in his castle bought the home. Unfortunately, he is the victim of poor and ineffective government that cannot enforce the laws on the books. When he bought the home, it was not something he bargained for in the deal. It is, however, what he gets. Secondly, Capt. Jay is not the problem, he is the symptom. Perhaps our good friends in Jolly Old England would welcome their long lost brother to their happy shores. Although, some might say the 'ol Cap might be missed. Do you think we ought to take a poll in Gulfport?

[avb3]

And here I thought the Lord bought his place to envelop himself in all its glory, including the ambience that sailboats provide.

[Travelnik]

And now, a break in the controversy...

Kangaroo Fight - YouTube

OK, back to the controversy!

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by dsmastern

And now, a break in the controversy...

OK, back to the controversy!

that fight wasn't as serious as the one going on here

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by rognvald

As to the first statement, that is why the evil Lord in his castle bought the home. Unfortunately, he is the victim of poor and ineffective government that cannot enforce the laws on the books. When he bought the home, it was not something he bargained for in the deal. It is, however, what he gets. Secondly, Capt. Jay is not the problem, he is the symptom. Perhaps our good friends in Jolly Old England would welcome their long lost brother to their happy shores. Although, some might say the 'ol Cap might be missed. Do you think we ought to take a poll in Gulfport?

I didn't say the Lord was evil . But I do think he is a lazy bugger!

In ye olde days he would get on his horse, ride out of his castle and do something........or send some of the staff . Nowadays "his" staff is da gubberment - the answer therefore is for him to get better staff, of course that means getting off own backside (even if nowadays not also onto a horse).

IMO the situation described is a perfect illustration of the confusion that some folks have over money. They think having some gives them power over others - it doesn't. It just gives them the opportunity to exert power, whether that be by modern day political means / putting hand in own pocket via taxes or by sending the staff out on horses dressed in armour to remind da peasants who iz boss .


I am sure jolly olde England would welcome Capt Jay with open arms . But that be a place well North of here - seperated by several hundred miles of water , and one more half wit over there won't exactly stand out .

FWIW, over here living on boats is illegal! - for all.........of course a blind eye is turned both to those who do so as a choice and for the some for whom it is not.

Most of our homeless live inside (except a few who choose not to - and that mostly in the summer as our homeless are not all stupid ).....the basic idea is to spend money (both via Charities and from da Gubberment) to help folks get back onto their feet, even if not to be (again?) a net contributor then at least to reduce future costs - pretty much on a "one day it could be me" basis.....always will be some who don't make the grade - that's the cost of doing business - no point writing the rules around the freeloading scounger (for they will always be amongst us!). IMO a mark of civilisation as to how a community deals with folks on the bottom rungs (whether they go there by choice or not).

and the side effect is the fact that we don't have to step over them in the street (no bridges here ), nor look at them from our squillion dollar beach front castles .

errrrr..........what was this thread about?

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by avb3

And here I thought the Lord bought his place to envelop himself in all its glory, including the ambience that sailboats provide.

A Morris? Hinckley? Swan? Oyster? Amel? . . . . . .No, Capt. Jay.

[sailorboy1]

so I did a web search on Captai Jay and still do't know what he has to do with the sign that was posted at the start of this thread

after reading all I could find on him, mosting in The Patch, he doesn't even sound like the same guy as he is made out in this thread

he does't sound like a bum, just someoe of limited funds who has had some bad luck

maybe it is time to just close this discussion and let some find a ew cause to get all whipped up on

[justwaiting]

The title to this thread was designed to put another spin on a problem, why? Maybe so some could feel good about themselves, maybe so that they could get their post counts up.

What Pee's me off the most is that it also denegrades the effort of CF members and others in the community who got off their butts and did something. Many did not approve at the time and some of the posts on here are no more than i told you so ...

Steve and the crew knew what they were doing and the likely outcomes but decided to give Jay a chance. They also demonstrated that the problem was not boats or saliors, rather that there was (and is) a social problem.

Rant over

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by rognvald

A Morris? Hinckley? Swan? Oyster? Amel? . . . . . .No, Capt. Jay.

Don't most of the Hinckley's, Swan's, Oyster's etc tie up to the yacht clubs??? You don't really expect someone with an Oyster to anchor out now, do you..

This discussion is sort of like the folks that move to a big house in the country only to realize after the fact that the feedlot 1/2 a mile a way smells like Cow poop when the wind is right. The problem to the home owner is the farms and cows that have been there for 100's of years.

Same can apply to places like Richardson bay in cali. There have been boats anchored there since people showed up. Well Spanish and English folk anyway.

Now the people with 20-30 million dollar homes on the hill complain about those boats that were there before the people moved in. To them every boat anchored in the bay is a derelict. Even though 60-70 percent are in what I would say is pretty good condition. Oh sure there are a number even the rats don't live in, but fewer of those every year.

[rognvald]

"Don't most of the Hinckley's, Swan's, Oyster's etc tie up to the yacht clubs??? You don't really expect someone with an Oyster to anchor out now, do you.." Sailorchic34



Please excuse my failed attempt at irony in re: the infamous Captain. However, would you suggest I relinquish my land rights to the Iroquois nation who hunted the woods and streams before my ownership. Or perhaps the deer, pheasant and coyotes who have lived here for millenia. Are they also entitled to my home?