Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

There are a whole lot of homeless out there. They don't have a "Right" to be homeless, they just are. So tonight at home, Imagine having no job, no home, no bed to sleep in, no car, no tv and not alot of money and maybe no family. What would you do?

Not hard to imagine... Been there, done that. Lost my job, no benefits... What did I do? Picked up a paint brush, showed up at a construction job site in old clothes and asked if they needed help... the second site said yes... then worked six days per week/14 hours per day in the sun painting houses at age 42. Six months later, formed my own house painting business.

Respectfully, The people in the boats pictured at the anchorage are not "homeless" they're living in a boat which happens to be their home. They are simply choosing to not follow the rules. They can hoist the sails anytime and move on.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The boats in question appear to be SAIL BOATS. How much money does it cost for them to move along and become a nuisance someplace else and give the locals a break?

When I anchored many times in Dana Point, CA it was understood 10 days max in the harbor. When I anchored in Mahon, Menorca... 10 days max. What's so hard to understand about local towns and cities making rules to follow?


While anchored anywhere, you're a guest in THEIR town, city or country. Some people seem to think that just because they're in a boat, that they have special squatters rights to the anchorage.

AH, Sausalito has a 3 day anchoring limit in Richardson bay. Yet boats are there for years, some forever. Sometimes things happen, engines break, sails get shredded or more likely the money runs out. Many anchor outs are just trying to keep a roof over their heads while they try to turn their life around and or eak out an existence. There are no special rights to be poor. It can be a surprising easy slide to the bottom of the food chain.

[familycruisers]

[QUOTE=Kenomac;13439 They are simply choosing to not follow the rules. They can hoist the sails anytime and move on.[/QUOTE]

What rules were those again, just so we're clear?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Respectfully, The people in the boats pictured at the anchorage are not "homeless" they're living in a boat which happens to be their home. They are simply choosing to not follow the rules. They can hoist the sails anytime and move on.

Interestingly enough in Marin (ok it's california), the anchorouts are considered homeless as they have no fixed abode and mostly no address. Living in a boat, like living in a car is not a fixed abode. Most states call that homeless,

I assume when you worked your way up it was not during the last / current rescission where there were very few buildings under construction.

[familycruisers]

The same reason that says we can anchor in anchorages and doesn't include a limit is the same reason we give up our search and seizures rights, Admiralty law. Be it immoral, unfair, or unjust. In the end it is what it is.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

So in the old picture we have 17 boats behind the breakwater. In the new picture we have maybe 70 boats behind the breakwater if you count all the boats resident in the Marina with 6 or so in the anchorage. If even 11 of the slips in the marina are rented to transients then to the town it's a break even on the number of transient boats in the harbor, and more than half are paying for the privelege. Sounds to me like as far as the town is concerned this is a win. If another dozen or so are locals down for the weekend sitting on their boats but spending money in town instead of some other town then the town really wins. My guess is that people that stay in Marinas at $2/ft spend more money in town than people who anchor out. Those cheapskates among us (i.e.me) who just want to anchor probably don't mean a lot to the town. I have to wonder how many of those boats that are anchored out in the old picture would have used the marina if it had been available. I think it's pretty nice that the town has a free dinghy dock, the free town dock and is seriously talking about another free town dock. Despite the lack of anchoring space (for boats with taller masts) I think that Oriental is a great town. Last year I spent several weeks there getting some work done on the boat and really enjoyed the stay. This is a very cruiser friendly town.

I agree completely, but between the marina development and crying about wanting to get rid of a couple undesirables to make room for a couple transients, it sounds like the town wants to have their cake and it too.

Nothing wrong with that I suppose if you don't mind the that the little guy gets screwed but what is this post all about anyway? According to the title of the post it's "Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC" where "we" are those who don't have wads of cash or are those who simply prefer to anchor out are the little guys.

Why does this matter to anyone? Well if you're a cruiser OR a liveaboard it means that if you want to visit or live in Oriental, bring your wad of cash and plan on staying in the marina develpoment because if you want to stay on the hook you're not really welcome and should go elsewhere.

Not sure exactly how "cruiser friendly" this town really is to cruisers who are on a budget.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Nobody has a "right" to be a freeloader and anchor in one place indefinitely. I'm at anchor four months of the year, and I expect to have to move around and obey the rules in any given anchorage. 'Nuff said. Only in America do people debate the "rights" of freeloaders. Other countries don't put up with this nonesense.

Of course you have the right to be a "freeloader", you are entitled to whatever the law allows. Bs that free medical , free schooling , dole , public pensions. In many countries these are provided from the general tax revenue irrespective of whether the receiptent ever paid taxes.

If there are no laws YOU can't decide just to make up your own.

I've seen people anchor for months in bays in France.

Anyway 4 months might be considered " freeloading "

Dave

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by familycruisers

What rules were those again, just so we're clear?

The length of stay limit in an anchorage.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

On the one hand you say what's moral or fair are hopelessly abstract and unworkable. Yet in the next breath you decry attempts to drive individuals away as "not acceptable". Based on what? Your own moral code? Fairness? There is no law against applying such pressure. So by your reasoning its completely above board (by the way, libel in the US is very hard to prove and completely inapplicable here). So by your "if there are no written rules..." credo, a mob's pressure on an individual to leave should be perfectly fine. Its quite funny that you then go on to talk about having cake and eating it after trying to do exactly that. You are hopelessly conflicted and cannot think your way out of a paper bag. You should let this go.

There are stacks of laws in the US about oppression.

I am not conflicted at all. I respect the rule of law in a properly constituted democracy. In the absence of a law , it is therefor entirely legal to carry on as Prinadomna did. Arguments about decency etc do not apply.

Attempting to drive people out because you view them as undesirables is unjust and in many cases in breach of various laws.

The solution is to apply the rules to all , not just to target those you don't " like"

No conflict just clear thinking
Dave

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I assume when you worked your way up it was not during the last / current rescission where there were very few buildings under construction.

I worked my way up twice from zero assets. The first time during the 1990-92 recession.... lost the house then baqgged groceries and reversed shopped at BJ's wholesale club. The second time I went from zero was immediately following 9/11 and the stock market crash... painted houses. So yes, times were bad both times I was out of work. Didn't look for a handout, no excuses, just got on with life, two small kids and a wife.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I worked my way up twice from zero assets. The first time during the 1990-92 recession.... lost the house then baqgged groceries and reversed shopped at BJ's wholesale club. The second time I went from zero was immediately following 9/11 and the stock market crash... painted houses. So yes, times were bad both times I was out of work. Didn't look for a handout, no excuses, just got on with life, two small kids and a wife.

Admirable but I don't understand the relevance

Dave

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Admirable but I don't understand the relevance

Dave

Paint enuf house's and you can buy a Oyster and not have to anchor in Oriental...?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Admirable but I don't understand the relevance

Dave

That's because you didn't bother to read the entire post where sailchic asked me a question regarding when I was out of work. I was simply answering her question. Yes it does relate to all the "homeless" excuse makers we have here in the USA. Dave, I believe you live overseas where it's maybe not quite as easy to live off the fat of other peoples wallets like here in the US. Here, millions make a living doing just that as "victims." Which is why I go sailing... to get away from it.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Admirable but I don't understand the relevance

Dave

Self-aggrandizement, guns, and feral cats are never off topic in any thread.

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

There are stacks of laws in the US about oppression.

That's a laugh. Please name one law that would apply to anyone applying pressure to have those anchor-outs leave. There is none, and in fact under your logic much more "persuasive" avenues are available. After 20 years of practicing law, I have learned not to continue to debate someone who has no embarassment at saying the most ridiculous things.