Quote:
Originally Posted by boatman61
What has Fair got to do with it.. thats spoilt brat talk..
If they are meeting their legal obligations more power to them.
|
+1 boatman61
A couple of different issues as I see it.
For a marina, this is my general feeling (since we are talking generalities here). If you are keeping up your end - then good for you and you have every right to any amenity that anyone else in the marina has (especially a public marina) even if they don't like the look of your vessel or it really cannot move. When you cannot keep up your end, eg.
dock fees, power & or
water bill, or in the case of some private marinas keeping your boat clean per the marina agreement, then you can be subject to getting kicked out, which is very problematic at best. At the high level, this process is much akin to getting people to leave a property for non payment of rent or - even more difficult - getting someone kicked out of an HOA community if they let their house appearance run down and/or not follow HOA guidelines. This is mostly a long, involved process, and can be costly for all involved in both terms of time and
money. I think this is one reason that marinas do confiscate derelict boats, but not as often as some would like.
If your boat becomes so decrepit that it starts to sink or break apart, it then becomes a more severe issue as it can quickly become more of a potential hazard via
fuel spill, ecological damage, fire, etc. that may enable the removal process to proceed quicker.
For a moorage (at anchor/buoy) - the question becomes a little more difficult for me. If your vessel (able to navigate on its own or not) is in such disrepair that it may become a hazard to others (again - starting to fall apart, sink, etc) then removing it should be a priority for the local/regional/state
government for the
safety of others. Maybe not fair to the owner or other persons
living aboard, but in this case the good of the community is paramount.
If the vessel is not moving and is not in good appearance, but is anchored or otherwise moored securely then it should no more have to move than the world traveling super yacht moored in the same basin. Appearance or
living aboard status should not be the deciding factor in this case.
As stated above, many governmental entities have or are in the process of trying to limit the stay of
live aboard boats or non self-propelled boats in a particular place for a variety of reasons. Many of these reasons are valid, harbor entrances, narrow channels, etc. - but many are just to appease the "better half" of society so that unsightly boats are not visible. I am not a fan of this type of regulation, unless for safety, but if it comes to that, then I believe that the governmental entity is also obligated to not
lease, sell or otherwise allow, any private mooring to occupy the space either. It is not ok to legislate against one type of boat or living status and then allow the private mooring to accommodate a different of vessel; whether it can move on its own or not. The private mooring takes up the public waterway space every bit as much as the non-propulsive boat does, the only difference being the type of boat normally on one of these private moorings.
In our limited travels over the last 3 seasons (limited to the
PNW and Alaska), we have encountered many more private moorings that have inhibited our
anchoring than we have encountered a "non-propulsive" anchored or moored boat inhibiting us from anchoring in a particular location.
YMMV
Ron