Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

...
But here we have a fellow American (handicapped war vet?) possibly getting something for free and the outcry is deafening. And now Americans fight amongst themselves for the scraps our elected officials left behind. Why not turn that animosity towards the people who got us here in the first place?
[/FONT]

This has nothing to do with being a Vet or foreign wars or politicians but with a few boats hogging a very limited public space. It's about sharing.

[Kiwi303]

Originally Posted by Sand Castle

Sir.
You are my new hero.
Well said.

I used to live in a Navy town. The Navy really don't have a sense of humor about their safety parameters.

I think the Bumfuzzles found that when they went to grab a burger by Dinghy from the burger cart on the pier next to the Navy pier in Sydney....

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

der·e·lict
ˈderəˌlikt/
adjective
adjective: derelict
1. in a very poor condition as a result of disuse and neglect.
"The boats in the harbor were derelict and pink"

2. (of a person) shamefully negligent in not having done what one should have done.
"He was derelict in his duty to his county"

noun
noun: derelict; plural noun: derelicts
1.a person without a home, job, or property.
"Derelicts who could fit all their possessions in a small boat"

It's so easy to throw away as trash those who we do not like. We label them, then let the mob dispose of them. The idea of sharing or helping is rarely broached.

1. The boat in the picture clearly meets the definition, so it is the proper term.
2. The "throw away the trash" is a spurious arguement.
- There has always been a need to balance rights when they come into conflict between two groups. (sleeping on a park bench is a perfect example)
- The right to anchor in public waters is centered around allowing transit of the waterways and securing the vessel from danger. It is not intended to allow someone to live permanently in the public domain.
- The right to anchor is balanced against the rights of those who would be damaged by it. Derelict boats hurt property values and drive away tourists hurting local buisnes. So there must be a balanced approach.

I'm curious if the OP bothered to contact his representative in a calm and logical manner to discuss why it was a bad idea to create rules. I suspect not because he was busy (?) waiting for them to ask him to leave, which presumably would have elicited even greater wails of abuse and discrimination. Comes across as rather passive/agressive.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Doodles

This has nothing to do with being a Vet or foreign wars or politicians but with a few boats hogging a very limited public space. It's about sharing.

This is it in a nutshell..everything else is just background noise....

just like the twits that overstay at the free dock....

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=psneeld;1341189]This is it in a nutshell..everything else is just background noise....

just like the twits that overstay at the free dock....[/QUOTE]

[DaleM]

I have been going down to Oriental for 15 years. I have had a boat in a marina near there for years, we just moved there this year.

The issue is not about anchoring rights. That argument is a deflection, a smoke screen. The issue is about permanent unregulated moorings. (And before someone says they are anchored, they have not moved this summer. If they claim they are anchored then leave for a couple of months and then come back). Oriental has no regulations when it comes to anchoring but in the past boats would anchor, stay a while, then move on.

The real issues are:
A cruiser friendly town where cruisers stop a while then leave.
A very small anchorage that can hold six boats well, plus the free dock can hold two more.
Now four boats have taken up permanent anchorage. Four out of six spots.
Now only four cruisers can anchor / dock free and it used to be eight.
The permanent boats are taking away your rights to visit the town.
Two of the boats drug during the last storm and were aground, one leaking diesel into the harbor.


Let me tell you what is going through my mind. I used to like to go to Beaufort, NC for the weekend. It has become a permanent and unregulated mooring field. I now have to anchor very far away to dinghy into town. Is this going to happen to Oriental but at a quicker pace because of the smaller area?

So why shouldn't I put down a mooring and move my boat there first to get my spot and quit paying dock fees? Tell me why I shouldn't do that? There are no laws on the books to stop me. If I did that and just a few others did that then no one could see Oriental by boat unless they paid for a slip.

I know someone that has a derelict boat and has quit paying slip fees. Why shouldn't they move the boat there where it is free and permanent and block your use of the harbor?

If I'm thinking about putting down a mooring then so are others. If the town leaders don't do something, then this town will be shut down as cruising destination within a year and it will be shut down by semi-permanent anchors (unregulated moorings).

The town has no choice but to do something, but what? There are many people there that are former cruisers or want to cruise in the future. Everyone hoped that the permanent boats would take the hint and leave. Now they may have to regulate, something no one wants to do.

Dale

[tamicatana]

It would appear that other states are learning the lessons that Florida has, and now Florida is installing city/state run mooring fields.... look to Florida for your paradigm

--and BTW, yes, it IS just like sleeping on park benches, or bum camps - not tolerated on land, shouldn't be on water either.

[captain58sailin]

You always hear a lot of about rights, not so much about responsibilities. They go hand in hand. You may have the right to do something, but you also have the responsibility not to abuse that right, you also should have consideration for your fellow citizen. You don't go into a small harbor like that and set up camp and keep others from the same facility. After a reasonable amount of time the onus is on the individual to move out. One of the reasons that we have become overburdened with laws is because people have lost their sense of fair play, it doesn't matter what the intent of the law is, it only matters what the actual law is about. We have become a society of barracks room lawyers. That is plain sad.

[CatInHand]

How about Admiralty Law, Law of the Sea and more than 3000 years of convention going back before the Phoenician?

Then... Head out to the sea. Pretty sure that the area around land has always been treated differently.

Let me point you to the lease that Bainbridge has signed allowing them the right to administer Eagle harbor.

http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/d.../dnr_lease.pdf

Bainbridge does not own Eagle harbor. They lease it. And there are rules and requirements to the lease.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for posting that. As it shows, the cost of maintaining the harbor and its surrounding area is borne by someone else, in this case the citizens of the City of Bainbridge Island.

[Dennis.G]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

You always hear a lot of about rights, not so much about responsibilities. They go hand in hand. You may have the right to do something, but you also have the responsibility not to abuse that right, you also should have consideration for your fellow citizen. You don't go into a small harbor like that and set up camp and keep others from the same facility. After a reasonable amount of time the onus is on the individual to move out. One of the reasons that we have become overburdened with laws is because people have lost their sense of fair play, it doesn't matter what the intent of the law is, it only matters what the actual law is about. We have become a society of barracks room lawyers. That is plain sad.

The most sensible statement I have read in this thread.

(except I don't know what a 'barracks room lawyer' is )

[captain58sailin]

When I was in the military, there were always these guys that were handing out advice to the rest of the guys, because they had read some of the military rules, and made them the resident experts on what the higher ups had the authority to do or not to do. Problem was they didn't have the complete picture so if you followed what they said, you found yourself in hot water with the officers, with no excuse.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Because there is a difference between cruising and someone taking up residence on a derilict boat. No different than when a city condems a house because it's not kept up or the taxes aren't paid.

We've always felt welcome anchoring out (even in supposedly cruiser hating florida) but we are actually cruising. Usually anchoring for a night or two a couple weeks at most.

So by your logic, if I have no right to be offended, the OP has no right to be offended that they are trying to get rid of derilick boats?

There are no 'derelict' boats in oriental harbor. That is what the towncrock website calls boats it doesn't like, their lack of marine knowledge in no way makes the boat derelict just because they call it that. Granted some of the boats are not as pretty as a new $300,000 catamaran, but not every house here in town looks brand new ether. Do you believe a town be able to force a person to move if they don't like the color of their house?

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

der·e·lict
ˈderəˌlikt/
adjective
adjective: derelict
1. in a very poor condition as a result of disuse and neglect.
"The boats in the harbor were derelict and pink"

2. (of a person) shamefully negligent in not having done what one should have done.
"He was derelict in his duty to his county"

noun
noun: derelict; plural noun: derelicts
1.a person without a home, job, or property.
"Derelicts who could fit all their possessions in a small boat"

It's so easy to throw away as trash those who we do not like. We label them, then let the mob dispose of them. The idea of sharing or helping is rarely broached.

Our politicians voted thinking only of their own jobs and in doing so created a shift in wealth we haven't seen since the Great Depression. And once again, 50% of this country's wealth lay in the hands of the uber-rich. These same politicians cut the taxes so deeply that local, state and the federal government are going bankrupt.

In the meantime we are spending trillions fighting wars. And once again, those politicians who are in the pockets of defense contractors are happily spending our hard earned tax dollars to keep their campaign war chests fat.

Where's the outcry?

But here we have a fellow American (handicapped war vet?) possibly getting something for free and the outcry is deafening. And now Americans fight amongst themselves for the scraps our elected officials left behind. Why not turn that animosity towards the people who got us here in the first place?

[I][SIZE=2]"The boats in the harbor were derelict and pink"
LOL Love the and pink

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

[I][SIZE=2]"The boats in the harbor were derelict and pink"
LOL Love the and pink

Yeah.. Drat those pink boats.

[boatman61]

One question for the 'Vet'...
you were the other side of the bridge... why the move...? can't be just because of the shoulder... you still have to get to shore and the creek past the bridge aint that wide..
Also the two others also look small enough to get under... why stay in a relatively exposed anchorage when the creek offers better shelter...
I'm all for backing a valid gripe but need better reasons... not a possible row that might have started in M&M's on a Friday night.
As for the French... surely a complaint to Immigration would get some results... or have they got their Green Card..
Oh... and there's a boat looking much like theirs for sale for $3K on Towndock..