Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Sand Castle

Please allow me to invalidate what you have just written with actual fact...

1. I said barter with sweat equity. I did not say get paid. (related to this, if you are in NC, you might notice the thousands of Latin Americans in the construction industry - go watch a house being built sometime. Do ALL those guys have work visas? I bet 10% if INS enforced seriously in NC, new home starts would go bust!)

2. Rules. Shoplifting, vagrancy, and panhandling for starters. Tried and convicted. Not to mention their boat never has been seen pulling in for a pump out.

3. "before their feet touch the ground". Uh. You do realize we're talking about the government, right? Due process and all that? A slight reputation for inefficiency?

fine , i see none of these thing infringing their right to anchor there. or is it that you don't "like" them so they have to go.

dave

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

There is that whole can't work in the US without a green card thingy. So they can't just get a job at wally world. No green card, no workie.. Thats how the US works. Well most places too.

Correct. In theory you are right. In practice, in NC it is statistically different.

And my words were generally - barter with sweat equity. Nothing stops them from "volunteering" and nothing has prevented anyone in Oriental from giving them "gifts". But they've been happy to panhandle and shoplift instead.

Their choice. I'm not making it up.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, Boating and anchoring is governed by admiralty laws which oddly enough existing before the founding of the US. They were incorporated into US laws at the start of this country They were not written to protect the land owner or community, but to protect shipping.

So legally GVH is not breaking any laws. He is abiding/complying by admiralty law. The people breaking the current laws are the ones threatening, dare I say harassing, to have the CG chase him off for their own personal gain.

Now is it morally right to anchor or homestead on one spot for years on end. Probably need to ask the American Indians what they think. Life is not fair. Just because someone is richer then another does not mean that they are more deserving of an anchoring location.

There have always been anchor outs and most likely there always will be. They come they go. For the most part they are not hurting anything. Except for some folks self rightest indignation that is.

+1 , the alternative is known as mob rule.

dave

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

As for the inflammatory nature of how towndock has handled this.

Now because they don't like a boat in the harbor I should forfeit my rights to be there, after what clearly has been a smear campaign.

I am not the one printing letters asking people to use government agencies to harass, or saying we should use loud speakers to blast anyone out of anywhere.

But because after 4 months one of the people on the town board who I have known for a long time Asked me nicely to move in the fall snow bird season.

Goth -

Allow me to extract the flaws in your comments

1. Inflammatory nature of town dock. Printing "letters to the editor". Wow. How inflammatory. So you have an opinion, and the rest of society should shut up and like it? Are you a fascist?
2. Smear campaign. Towndock has done no such thing. They did an article on the French boat. My daughter did competitive cheer-leading for 5 years - your drama-queen approach to this argument really doesn't help you - and I've seen some drama queens!
3. Asking people to use government agencies. This was a letter by an individual who has the right idea because the town has not enacted an anchoring time period in their tiny anchorage like many other towns in NC.
4. Blasting loud speakers - another letter by an individual written tongue-in-cheek if you read it in context. Which you didn't.
5. Ask me nicely. HELLO. What? The entire town should bow down and ask you to have some common sense and share? Are you not capable of deducing that for yourself that you might cruise around from time to time and not be part to fomenting this very controversy? DO you really believe that someone should send you a nice card to ask for your departure?

Sir. Respectfully,

Your arguments have been selfish, whiny, evasive, narcissistic, and elitist (as a veteran you should have more rights than others??), your examples circumspect, your assignment of blame inaccurate and misguided, and you have undermined your whole argument.

And you have blown a perfectly good argument of you have a right to your lifestyle - you do - and the law allows you - for now - anchorage in that one spot - FOREVER.

And now you are upset because people have commented that you are very obviously abusing your rights to the detriment of others.

Your argument is really a good one, but your points to justify are bogus if not pathetic.

I applaud you that you have taken this on directly. I truly do. But seriously you have killed your argument with your weak if not poorly targeted justifications.

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

fine , i see none of these thing infringing their right to anchor there. or is it that you don't "like" them so they have to go.

dave

1. I say nothing about his rights. The law allows him and others to anchor there forever. His (and others actually) doing so impacts public opinion into civil action - like making a new law about anchorages. Staying forever in a tiny anchorage is honestly not reasonable in this case, since the intention of that particular anchorage has been for visiting boats. He has become a resident.
2. I actually admire the lifestyle. It's the selfishness of the collection of squatters in a tiny anchorage I don't appreciate. Something's wrong with that - that others cannot feel free to enjoy the same space.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Sand Castle

1. I say nothing about his rights. The law allows him and others to anchor there forever. His (and others actually) doing so impacts public opinion into civil action - like making a new law about anchorages. Staying forever in a tiny anchorage is honestly not reasonable in this case, since the intention of that particular anchorage has been for visiting boats. He has become a resident.
2. I actually admire the lifestyle. It's the selfishness of the collection of squatters in a tiny anchorage I don't appreciate. Something's wrong with that - that others cannot feel free to enjoy the same space.

Yeah... I feel the same way about a beautiful place called 'Bluebell Woods' where I used to play as a 10yr old... bludi council estate now
No more woods.. definitely no bluebells... I think its this thing folk praise and worship called 'Growth'...
50 yrs ago no one would give a ****... but today... more sailors... and a hamlet is now a town...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, Boating and anchoring is governed by admiralty laws which oddly enough existing before the founding of the US. They were incorporated into US laws at the start of this country They were not written to protect the land owner or community, but to protect shipping.

My point exactly, they were written to protect shipping. When you create a permanent structure with no intent to be involved in shipping, you are at best using a loophole and are clearly outside the intent of the law. It may be legal but as we have demonstrated just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it isn't wrong. (you seem too hung up on when laws were made not the fact that they change to address people abusing common sense.)

So legally GVH is not breaking any laws. He is abiding/complying by admiralty law. The people breaking the current laws are the ones threatening, dare I say harassing, to have the CG chase him off for their own personal gain.

A whole lot of nothing. Unless he is violating laws, the CG isn't going to do anything. Also, you are missing the point, this guy is stiring up a hornets nest that will galvanize the system to change the laws.

Now is it morally right to anchor or homestead on one spot for years on end. Probably need to ask the American Indians what they think. Life is not fair. Just because someone is richer then another does not mean that they are more deserving of an anchoring location.

So true, life isn't fair. Just because you want to live in a mansion doesn't make it a "right". No one is saying it's wrong for him to anchor there OCCASSIONALLY. The problem is when he takes it over to the exclusion of all other uses for long durations.

There have always been anchor outs and most likely there always will be. They come they go. For the most part they are not hurting anything. Except for some folks self rightest indignation that is.

When they come and go, there is generally little concern with them. When they take up permanent residence, there has always been conflict. For the most part I would agree they do no harm BUT when they do and get on thier high horse for some self rightest indignation, it doesn't endear them to the general community and because the general community doesn't differentiate, they give the cruising community a bad reputation.

When this thread started, I was of mixed opinons. I don't like lots of rules and regulations. The more I hear the entitled attitude to abuse the hospitality of this lovely town the less I'm inclined to support his view.

I think I'm going to send a note to the city suggesting a 2 week limit makes sense to enact so "cruisers" can visit.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

When this thread started, I was of mixed opinons. I don't like lots of rules and regulations. The more I hear the entitled attitude to abuse the hospitality of this lovely town the less I'm inclined to support his view.

I think I'm going to send a note to the city suggesting a 2 week limit makes sense to enact so "cruisers" can visit.

Will that be in every 30 days... or 12 months...

[goboatingnow]

I read through the TownDock letters to the editor, I would regard many of them as racist and inflammatory, especially towards prima donna. The basic tenant was the french are vagrants and we don't like vagrants spoiling our view etc etc.

It would seem no one sat down with these cruises/liveaboards and actually discussed the issues and sought a compromise or a resolution. Seemingly its easier to throw stones from afar. I do not see well meaning charity as "talking" to them.


The lack of rules always leads to situations like this. Thats why unfortunately we have them

the basic tenant of the capitalistic system is within the law i can hog resources to my hearts content. i can acquire more land , build bigger houses, etc irrespective of whether its fair or reasonable or even "decent". the cruisers are within the law.

i suspect if it was a big rich yacht ( if it could fit) spending lots of money, you wouldn't see letters to TownDock.

All I see is bullying.

Also, you are missing the point, this guy is stiring up a hornets nest that will galvanize the system to change the laws.

nothing wrong with that at all. it would seem it need some regulation and thought as to the intended use of the anchorage.

It may be legal but as we have demonstrated just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

"wrong" is a moral judgement , best left to the church pulpit and angels on a pin debates.

The problem is when he takes it over to the exclusion of all other uses for long durations.

there is a bus lane where i live , its frequently empty, yet i am excluded ( for very long periods) , according to you , i should be entitled to my "fair share".

Sorry , lack of appropriate local ordinances, lies behind the root of this issue. bellyaching is just that . if you want to control it, then control it with the application of just law.

What was attempted however was simple plain intimidation.

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I read through the TownDock letters to the editor, I would regard many of them as racist and inflammatory, especially towards prima donna.

I do not see well meaning charity as "talking" to them.


What was attempted however was simple plain intimidation.

1. Please point out and link to the racist letter.

2. A local charity has been providing the French boat sympathy and material supplies.

3. Letters to the editor expressing dissatisfaction and dismay are hardly intimidation. Please point out and link to the intimidating letter.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry , lack of appropriate local ordinances, lies behind the root of this issue. bellyaching is just that . if you want to control it, then control it with the application of just law.

What was attempted however was simple plain intimidation.

Using this line of thinking, we then need laws governing farting in church!!?

[tamicatana]

Maybe some or most of you haven't done an ICW trip.

Whereas some folks just dawdle along and spend a few days or maybe more in an anchorage/dock/whatever, I suspect many more just spend one night. Time is of the essence as the days grow shorter in Fall, and you gotta get somewhere. Delivery boats, folks on short schedules, suchlike

These one-nighters do spend money. You dock/anchor, having spent your day dealing with boat wakes, shallow spots, current, and so you just want to stop the boat, take a rest, go eat, wash your clothes, maybe see something. But eating, washing, getting supplies, seeing something all takes money and that goes to wherever you've stopped.

These ICW'ers are certainly directly impacted by people who take up limited space. I'd suggest the overnighters cumulatively outspend long-term'ers, especially since it's obvious these long-term squatters are just that, squatters, who don't spend money.

So the city is losing money, and the travelers are losing out as well, having to either spend money or time going somewhere else.

Hope your conscience is feeling good about that, while you insist on your "rights." Yeah, it's all about you and The Man puttin' you down.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I read through the TownDock letters to the editor, I would regard many of them as racist and inflammatory, especially towards prima donna. The basic tenant was the french are vagrants and we don't like vagrants spoiling our view etc etc.

It would seem no one sat down with these cruises/liveaboards and actually discussed the issues and sought a compromise or a resolution. Seemingly its easier to throw stones from afar. I do not see well meaning charity as "talking" to them.


The lack of rules always leads to situations like this. Thats why unfortunately we have them

the basic tenant of the capitalistic system is within the law i can hog resources to my hearts content. i can acquire more land , build bigger houses, etc irrespective of whether its fair or reasonable or even "decent". the cruisers are within the law.

i suspect if it was a big rich yacht ( if it could fit) spending lots of money, you wouldn't see letters to TownDock.

All I see is bullying.

nothing wrong with that at all. it would seem it need some regulation and thought as to the intended use of the anchorage.

"wrong" is a moral judgement , best left to the church pulpit and angels on a pin debates.

there is a bus lane where i live , its frequently empty, yet i am excluded ( for very long periods) , according to you , i should be entitled to my "fair share".

Sorry , lack of appropriate local ordinances, lies behind the root of this issue. bellyaching is just that . if you want to control it, then control it with the application of just law.

What was attempted however was simple plain intimidation.

The basic tenet of capitalism ISN'T whether you can hog resources. And you're trying to mix capitalism with rules of society or civilization when these are complementary ideas, not different alternatives.

Capitalism is about the attempt to set up markets that can self-regulate, vs exercising central control. Civilization is about setting up rules so we can live together.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand that when someone moves into someone else's space, there is likely to be conflict. If you're outnumbered when you do this, you're likely to end up on the losing side.

In this case you have to try and comprehend the common good. While people might be reasonable about letting someone else enter their space for a visit, particularly when they're spending money, it doesn't take a great amount of imagination to grasp that they'll be less happy when someone moves in and sullies the view without contributing to the local community. And no, buying a few beers and groceries doesn't really contribute all that much over the long haul. You can make the argument that the long-termer is blocking tourism, not supporting it.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

+1 , the alternative is known as mob rule.

dave

It's also called "majority rule", and is the inspiration for democracy.

[Delancey]

What a joke! I finally read the bile on Towndock.

The Town of Oriental gave up the anchorage for a for-profit-marina and now folks complain there is no room for transients to anchor? Shouldn't transients be staying at the fancy marina? What a bunch of idiots.

Good luck with construction of the new Walmart the town approved. Guess they never heard of a thing called "globalization" which just kills me when a French boat in their midst, sponging off local do-gooders and stealing, is causing them to get their panties all in a bundle.