Man Gets Eighteen Months for . . .

[Chief Engineer]

abandoning a vessel on the Chesapeake

Getting There: Dundalk man gets 18 months for abandoning boat - From roads to rails to runways, Michael Dresser tracks transportation - baltimoresun.com

[scook1]

Wow!
we just had a thread about intentionally trying to sink your boat. Estimated cost of $13,000, that is pretty hefty.

[Chief Engineer]

That price is probably from the local towing pirate.......500 bucks a foot

[maxingout]

An eighteen month sentence seems a bit stiff and rather pointless. It will probably cost the state $45,000 to incarcerate him for the eighteen months. Doesn't look like a very cost effective solution.

I guess they must be trying to scare other people so that this doesn't happen to them.

[Minggat]

I guess some creeks are deeper than others.

Silppery slope. Freeing inmates -by order of the courts- in California because of overcrowding and budget constraints, or imprisoning law violators at huge taxpayer expense.

I don't think people getting paid to enforce the law should be doing the math. And the defense should never be that same math. No good answers.

Someday, when I am king......

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by maxingout

An eighteen month sentence seems a bit stiff and rather pointless. It will probably cost the state $45,000 to incarcerate him for the eighteen months. Doesn't look like a very cost effective solution.

I guess they must be trying to scare other people so that this doesn't happen to them.

Well, the judge gave him the chance to remove it and he did not. How else to enforce a court order? How else to get his attention?

It's a shame jails can no longer force inmates to work to support their incarceration. Chain gangs were a good thing.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by scook1

Wow!
we just had a thread about intentionally trying to sink your boat. Estimated cost of $13,000, that is pretty hefty.

There was an episode on the TV show "Dirty Jobs" where they removed and disposed of an abandoned boat. You would think it would be pretty simple, but with all the laws and government agency requirements to contend with, it is no longer a simple job. They weren't allowed to trim trees to get to it or damage the bottom by dragging it. So - $12,000 of that cost was to satisfy government red tape. The other $1,000 was to put it on a barge and dispose of it.

[YOGAO]

Originally Posted by rwidman

There was an episode on the TV show "Dirty Jobs" where they removed and disposed of an abandoned boat. You would think it would be pretty simple, but with all the laws and government agency requirements to contend with, it is no longer a simple job. They weren't allowed to trim trees to get to it or damage the bottom by dragging it. So - $12,000 of that cost was to satisfy government red tape. The other $1,000 was to put it on a barge and dispose of it.

Granted the red tape can be excessive, but it's there for a reason beyond just making folks jump through hoops (I think that was redundant, sorry!).

Removing a boat can bring serious and long-term damage to reefs, SAV, oyster beds, shorelines, etc, etc. In addition, you have to be prepared for the possibility of fuel/oil spillage. The red tape is designed to mitigate the damage and is necessary because a minority of "we, the people" don't respect the environment to start with.

Yes, here's hoping that the miscreant in this case is required to pay restitution, but I'm not holding my breath.

Fair Winds,
Mike

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by maxingout

I guess they must be trying to scare other people so that this doesn't happen to them.

I'm sure a large part of the stiff sentence was intended to send a message. The message, though, is two-part:

1. don't abandon boats in our bay.
2. if you do abandon a boat, then you'd better not flagrantly and arrogantly ignore the court orders that you get to do something about it.