Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oddly enough the reason roads were first being paved in the US was for all the cyclists. The automobile came after.

Sorry I was staying too focused on the thread, so had to do a little blonde drift....

Just remember to Larry Ellison and the like, pretty much every one of us has a derelict boat and is a bum. Its all relative.

Lucky for me I can be a bum-ette anchored in a fairly pristine location without any other bum's or the NIMBY folks around.

Even more ironically, with the move towards hybrid and electric cars, several states are looking to change the rules to tax high MPG cars as they aren't paying thier fair share.

(By the way, the bike argument is an interesting tidbit but was never a major factor in the expansion of the road system.)

Laws are restrictive in nature. They are usually made when people fail to reasonably restrict themselves voluntarily. If you go back 50 yrs ago, there were no laws against sexual harrasement, so by your logic that anything not prohibited must be legal, was it legal and more importantly "right" to goose the secratary when she bent over 50 yrs ago?

This guy needs to be careful. He's rallying the troops to enact anchoring rules.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Tom.B

I would bet the farm that you are not registered with the Pamlico County Tax office.



As an atheist, I am glad you said that. Still, do you or do you NOT believe that is within the rights of the community, either through residential pressure (like you are experiencing) OR through laws and regulation, to control their own space? (within the boundaries of the State and US Constitution) Yes, you are currently OUTSIDE of the boundaries of the town, but they have asserted that because they people have been accused of taking advantage of that space, used their taxpayer provided services, caused (arguably) unrest among it's citizens, and disrupted potential revenue to commercial interests that they rely on to survive (tourism), they attempted to get the NC Legislature to grant them control of that space. They, of course, failed at the first attempt, but it will not likely be the last.

I suspect that there is a lobby, or at least a few political campaign contributions at stake, from the handful of marina owners that exist in Oriental putting pressure on town leaders to keep you guys there. The less people at anchor, the more people in marinas... But it's only a theory.

Should the community have the ability to force out someone lawfully there because they don't like their life style. That argument gets used a lot doesn't it? Because when you get down to brass tacks that's really what your asking. No a community should not have that power. Just like they should not have the power to kick out homeless, or say African Americans, or any other group that same argument has been used for.

[goboatingnow]

This guy needs to be careful. He's rallying the troops to enact anchoring rules.

But thats fine, if a community has the power and authority then set the rules, However in the absence of theses rules, "you can't make it up as you go along ". what I see here is a kind of "phew whats that smell" syndrome.

its kinda ugly isn't it when you get to thinking like that . Its like when I see "No Vagrants" as if people elect to be vagrants and then congregate to annoy people.

Surely the community could invite the cruisers to a meeting or two, try and understand the issues and seek a compromise , has that been tried and if so what was the outcome.

dave

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

But thats fine, if a community has the power and authority then set the rules, However in the absence of theses rules, "you can't make it up as you go along ". what I see here is a kind of "phew whats that smell" syndrome.

Bull. This anchorage apparently has been working just fine without "rules" for decades. Do you really believe the only thing that can/should guide behavior is written rules?

[psneeld]

As long as the boats that are there now are gone by the time I get there..it's OK with me...otherwise I'll call the USCG, EPA, State of NC registration and environmental guys, Customs, Immigration, Health Department, DEA and a host of other agencies to clear the way...

I'm sure one of them can clear the way so some of the rest of us can enjoybthe scenery.

I'll be coming through in December for a heads up...I was disappointed last December and last March that it looked like the same old boats were still hogging the harbor.

I did ask nicely in my last post for them to move....if I see them on harbor cam two weeks befor I arrive..out go the e-mails to all my buddies in the government...

I'll be glad to donate money to the "get the heck out fund" ...just so that possibly hundreds of other decent, non-hoggy type cruisers can enjoy the inner harbor anchorage.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Bull. This anchorage apparently has been working just fine without "rules" for decades. Do you really believe the only thing that can/should guide behavior is written rules?

Read up on the "tragedy of the commons" to see what happens in the absence of rules, Expecting humans to live in peaceful uncontrolled harmony has not been successful in general.

If you have no rules, then what the OP is doing is fine, Arguments against him boil down to optics.

Humans do better in structured situations, we tend to be naturally exploitative, hence the need for boundaries.

I mean the argument " you need to move, cause your []hogging nice spots [] ruining my view []you smell []maybe you steal things ( tick as appropriate) really simply boils down to good old segregation.


have a read of this admittedly long article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...i-ghettos.html

Sounds similar ???, yet by law the Uk forces social integration !, not the opposite

Dave

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Laws are restrictive in nature. They are usually made when people fail to reasonably restrict themselves voluntarily. If you go back 50 yrs ago, there were no laws against sexual harrasement, so by your logic that anything not prohibited must be legal, was it legal and more importantly "right" to goose the secratary when she bent over 50 yrs ago?

Actually, society is always changing, so the laws change to reflect the shifting social economical pressures. 200 years ago women who exposed an ankle were considered slutty. 2000 years ago women could be stoned to death for not being a virgin when married.. Gee 200 years ago slavery was legal. But times change, mostly for the better.

Of course even with the laws there is still sexual harassment, but that's besides the point.

In the current social economical situation, there are going to be anchor outs if for no other reason that it allows someone unemployed or on a small pension to live reasonably well and not live on a park bench or car as way too many people are doing nowadays. They are there, have been before and will be again.

Admiralty law says that the first vessel anchored in a location has the rights to that spot. Pretty much first come first served. Pretty much that way everywhere in the world, and been that way for a really long time.

When I anchor in Richardson bay it never crosses my mind that joe blow anchor out has the better spot. They are there first, so I accept it and anchor further out. No biggy or at least not worth worrying about.

Oriental took a small anchorage, allowed a marina to be built and shrank the anchoring space to a postage stamp size. Even if there were no anchor outs, its still too small for the amount of boats that would want to use it.

To me its a non issue. Does not matter if there are 3, 6 or no anchor outs the space available is just dinky. Not everyone will fit there no matter what.

Why even worry about it.

BTW I am an anchor out too, just a bit more mobile.. I prefer the term gypsy myself. But I do pay taxes to a county. Mind you its not very much money, But I do pay it gladly.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Read up on the "tragedy of the commons" to see what happens in the absence of rules, Expecting humans to live in peaceful uncontrolled harmony has not been successful in general.

If you have no rules, then what the OP is doing is fine, Arguments against him boil down to optics.

Humans do better in structured situations, we tend to be naturally exploitative, hence the need for boundaries.

I mean the argument " you need to move, cause your []hogging nice spots [] ruining my view []you smell []maybe you steal things ( tick as appropriate) really simply boils down to good old segregation.


Dave

not always...define common decency....

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by psneeld

As long as the boats that are there now are gone by the time I get there..it's OK with me...otherwise I'll call the USCG, EPA, State of NC registration and environmental guys, Customs, Immigration, Health Department, DEA and a host of other agencies to clear the way...

ROFLMAO. Your funny....

Go ahead and do that now. There are no laws being broken by the three boats in question. Well maybe with the frenchy and the visa thing. But as they are not Hispanic, its probably a non-issue to INS.

Let me know how that works for ya...

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Read up on the "tragedy of the commons" to see what happens in the absence of rules, Expecting humans to live in peaceful uncontrolled harmony has not been successful in general.

If you have no rules, then what the OP is doing is fine, Arguments against him boil down to optics.

Humans do better in structured situations, we tend to be naturally exploitative, hence the need for boundaries.

I mean the argument " you need to move, cause your []hogging nice spots [] ruining my view []you smell []maybe you steal things ( tick as appropriate) really simply boils down to good old segregation.


have a read of this admittedly long article Apartheid UK: How a controversial law to integrate social housing in new developments is creating mini-ghettos | Mail Online

Sounds similar ???, yet by law the Uk forces social integration !, not the opposite

Dave

I was the first one to invoke the tragedy of the commons notion on this thread, thanks for validating it. But note that its called a "tragedy" for a reason. Yours is a sad worldview, and merits pity.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

ROFLMAO. Your funny....

Go ahead and do that now. There are no laws being broken by the three boats in question. Well maybe with the frenchy and the visa thing. But as they are not Hispanic, its probably a non-issue to INS.

Let me know how that works for ya...

Actually it's all about realizing freakin' the basics of the world....

Whether you are right or wrong....it doesn't matter and it's better going with the flow...

While none of the anchored boats might be actually breaking a law...many of those agencies I actually do have some contact with could make life so miserable for those boaters that they might wish not only they weren't in Oriental but anywhere in the US.

It's simple.... enjoy...move along...that basic rule of decency is every place humans gather to enjoy the sights...for those that don't get it...expect the backlash...simple as that.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by psneeld

not always...define common decency....

A way of imposing ones societal norms on those that prefer otherwise. it was once " common decency" to love people up for homosexual acts for example. It was once : common decency" for a women who married to be banned from working in the civil service.

should I continue.

[goboatingnow]

While none of the anchored boats might be actually breaking a law...many of those agencies I actually do have some contact with could make life so miserable for those boaters that they might wish not only they weren't in Oriental but anywhere in the US

wow, is the wife washing your white bag as we speak. The rest of us start to reach for the revolution when we hear them words. I think you just defined tyranny.

dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

I was the first one to invoke the tragedy of the commons notion on this thread, thanks for validating it. But note that its called a "tragedy" for a reason. Yours is a sad worldview, and merits pity.

pity me not , tis the burden of pragmatists the world over.

dave

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by psneeld

It's simple.... enjoy...move along...that basic rule of decency is every place humans gather to enjoy the sights...for those that don't get it...expect the backlash...simple as that.

We obviously have two completely different definitions of decency. So If I'm in your way, I should move aside and let my betters through.

Hum...Still laughing!