"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Multinational companies creating monopolies while consumers impulse buying of cheap crap and consuming processed food, thus destroying the local producers who believed in selling quality and natural products to their neighbors.

Trend continues to look bleak.
Big box stores, destroyed the mom and pop stores.
Now online purchasing will kill the big stores so you never get to feel the quality until delivered.

We search for the cheapest, yet lament the disappearance of quality and added service.

Citizens make that decision

Nobody said "let's kill main st", "let's ruin our diet", or "let's offshore all our good manufacturing jobs". Putting short-term profit ahead of other concerns made those decisions. Make the stuff cheap, push it hard, people buy it...profit. Corporate goals are not always social goals.

(and there are some missing levelers: why isn't Amazon, for example, collecting and remitting the sales taxes for every region they sell into? I recently bought something from the "only authorized Canadian reseller" on Amazon... it wasn't taxed.)

I am for globalization, btw. If nothing else, when you trade with a country, they usually go from being implacable foe to annoying neighbour. It's an important route to peace and understanding. But there must be balance.

Like with private exploitation of what are considered public goods (eg private marinas on waterfront) - it's possible to achieve both goals - a profitable enterprise for the owner, a marina for boat-owners, but still providing reasonable access and facilities for a larger portion of the population.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Your claim I said: "everything should be shared".

My words: "shorelines are a limited resource and should be shared"

.

A difference with no distinction.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

- join us in the fight for the right to the American Dream for ALL Americans, which means equal opportunity for rich and poor alike. No?

Take a look beyond the hyperbole and you will find we are already there. The only obstacles to achievement are self-inflicted. The only prerequisite to success is the need to eliminate the victim hood and lack of accountability you are selling and seem to have bought into.

Doing beats excuses about why you can’t do it every time.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nobody said "let's kill main st", "let's ruin our diet", or "let's offshore all our good manufacturing jobs". Putting short-term profit ahead of other concerns made those decisions. Make the stuff cheap, push it hard, people buy it...profit. Corporate goals are not always social goals.

I profoundly believe that we, the consumers, have said exactly that with our purchasing decisions. Corporate goals are not social goals for sure, they are the goals their customers and shareholders create for them. Sure some of those shareholders might be rich folk but I believe most of the big influential money is pension funds covering off the future for us consumers.

Let's take ownership and show some social conscience with our purchasing dollars.

[sailjumanji]

I keep reading statements about shorelines being government owned, or marinas built on public property. I know we all are located in different places. But in Texas the 'shorelines' are typically either beaches bordering the Gulf of Mexico, or the waters edge of bays. The beaches are public access to the applicable (I think maybe high) waterline. Even the private owned barrier islands don't dispute that. The shorelines of bays are typically not something someone would want to land on. The horizontal space between high and low water is typically limited. And beyond that it's normally private property (a lot of ranches to the south). Some areas are State owned, and many of those now are restricted bird habitats. Marinas are either City owned and run, and some are private owned but available for fee. All of the private ones I am aware of were built on private land, or dredged from private land, and weren't government conveyed. Arguing you should have rights to anchor out but come ashore to use these facilities for free, parking, trash, bathrooms, because you think shore access is a public right? I've heard it, I've seen people try it, it doesn't go far with the authorities.

The lack of shore access is probably what has kept the derelict vessel issue from drawing action in Texas.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Immigration is itself a selection process; the person who immigrates is already driven to seek opportunity, even if it means going through a long process, and they are usually leaving what we would see as unacceptably impoverished conditions. Second, they have to be acceptable to the country they are immigrating to: no criminal record, no burdensome medical conditions, and either a desired skill-set, or a willingness to do jobs that others won't. So that's a pretty motivated and able bunch already.

Very true and it shows that if you want to move up the financial ladder, it's very possible, if you are motivated (having mental or physical limitations is kind of a 3rd rail discussion). Many of these people don't speak the local language. They are often seen as outsiders and distrusted by their new community. Yet they with great regularity succeed financially.

This isn't to suggest you need to move up to uber-rich status but the idea that you can't is false.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I profoundly believe that we, the consumers, have said exactly that with our purchasing decisions. Corporate goals are not social goals for sure, they are the goals their customers and shareholders create for them. Sure some of those shareholders might be rich folk but I believe most of the big influential money is pension funds covering off the future for us consumers.

Let's take ownership and show some social conscience with our purchasing dollars.

I think you're underestimating the control that corporations have over most of our choices. And that any potential harms or downsides are downplayed or hidden from us by those aiming to profit from decisions with negative consequences. Doing the better thing shouldn't be penalized.

Claiming that it's all the consumers' fault, or that there's more than enough opportunity for everyone who wants to work... these are mostly myths perpetrated by those who benefit most from the current way of doing things.

A better balance is possible between economic and social goals, if we can put aside the myths.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...Where we differ is the notion that the government can sanction a deal to sell waterfront property along with access rights , watch the buyer develop for marketable utility and protection as a Marina, then cave into public demand that this access be free for all to come use that facility for picnics or fishing from the docks.

Use restictions and public access requirements should be stated before the property is sold or leased. Unfortunately this is not always done. Granting public access after the fact is not fair to the marina developer, not granting it all all is unfair to the public. It is a fault of the Gov organization. This would propaby need to be resolved by a court.

Second I do recognize and respect the differences in rights between Employees and Employer...

I think the contributions to a successful business which we were talking about are those which come from the community such as the roads, schools, ports, communication networks, etc, which businesses depend upon, even take for granted, to be able to do business. I'm not demeaning the employee, but that person had a fair exchange for their work. What I'm saying is that the community's contribution is important, and the business should not feel infringed upon if it is forced to share some of its success back to the public who paid the taxes and voted to build the infrastructure.

I don't denigrate the employer or business owner's vision and hard work.I just think they ought to apreciate the contribution of the community. Some times it is time for pay it back.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Very true and it shows that if you want to move up the financial ladder, it's very possible, if you are motivated (having mental or physical limitations is kind of a 3rd rail discussion). Many of these people don't speak the local language. They are often seen as outsiders and distrusted by their new community. Yet they with great regularity succeed financially.

This isn't to suggest you need to move up to uber-rich status but the idea that you can't is false.

It's certainly possible to move up, but people in certain situations have pretty easy opportunities to move up, while others have to work far harder at it for less and slower progress.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

This isn't to suggest you need to move up to uber-rich status but the idea that you can't is false.

I mostly object to the implication that everyone must work more than a 40 hour/5 day week, else they deserve to fail. Why are things backsliding for the average worker, instead of all boats raised by this ever-rising economic tide? Why does it take 2 salaries and daycare to raise a kid?

Needing a steady supply of desperate, determined, (and often undocumented) people fighting to get in, or else chickens won't get processed, broccoli picked, toilets cleaned... isn't that a moral hazard?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

... Arguing you should have rights to anchor out but come ashore to use these facilities for free, parking, trash, bathrooms, because you think shore access is a public right?...

Who (which post) has made that argument?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I am for globalization, btw. If nothing else, when you trade with a country, they usually go from being implacable foe to annoying neighbour. It's an important route to peace and understanding. But there must be balance.
.

Totally agree and for the past 36 years I have had the privilege and wonderful insight of being a trusted friend to the founder of Global Sources, which became a very successful group of Trade Publication spanning 50 years.

Back in February 1971, this was part of his first editions mission statement and his core belief.

...."Our purpose for being has much broader significance as well. We believe that the cause for world peace through freedom from want is advanced by the establishment of long-lasting and mutually beneficial trade between private businessmen in the East and the West. We are firm enough in this conviction to speak out as we see fit against those elements we judge harmful to these relationships and to this cause, no matter* what their association with this magazine.

Among the already identifiable targets for admonition are protectionism and other restrictions on free market competition, self serving bureaucracies, and opportunistic or tunnel-visioned businessmen."
........
He has never wavered from these beliefs and has been my greatest mentor on being an ethical leader and successful businessman, while I got to play with his boat.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I profoundly believe that we, the consumers, have said exactly that with our purchasing decisions. Corporate goals are not social goals for sure, they are the goals their customers and shareholders create for them. Sure some of those shareholders might be rich folk but I believe most of the big influential money is pension funds covering off the future for us consumers.

Let's take ownership and show some social conscience with our purchasing dollars.

That's the word. Unfortunately, talking smack and pointing fingers at corporations, which must include me as I own my own small ones and stock in huge ones, remains free of charge. On the subject as we lay bare our social desires here on the internet, haven't Google, Amazon and the wide availability of online shopping been nice lately?

[sinnerman]

Originally Posted by phorvati

There is always a marina for you. We are very fortunate to have options. Is it onset? Go to maybe new bedford, mettapoissett, marion. Fortunately you have only been there 2 years and you are still fresh in terms of looking. I am in a very small marina in Warren, RI. Year 4 ready passed by. Mine went up 100 to 110 per foot.

Warren RI:
I grew up right down the road in Fall River. Took a diesel engine course last year in June at a marina in Warren with Narragansett Sailing School. [ Safe Harbor Greenwich Bay's East Yard }

Small world.

Cheers

[Macrophylla]

Originally Posted by wingssail

You are victim of a trend: Wealthy will take what they want and the rest of us get what we are given.

In this case waterfront has a higher value to those who wish to develop it for profit than it does for marina owners. It is more profitable as waterfront condos than marinas. Profit rules. The marina owner does what they can to stay profitable. That means getting rid of the low profit clients and keeping the higher profit clients. You lose.

Waterfront is a limited resource which ought to be used for the public good, since the public actually owns it. In some locales certain amount of waterfront has been reserved for a variety of uses: parks, condos, boat yards, marinas, etc. Developers have fought this trend. They are winning.

Unless politicians decide to back fair usage principles for public resources this trend will continue. Don't count on it. Politicians generally have given up ethics and fairness early in their careers. They will back whomever pays them the most. There will be more "victims" (people who don't contribute enough to the profits) who will get kicked out and richer boat owners will get the berths. That is capitalism. We chose it. We get what we sow.

Consider who you vote for.

This is sarcasm right? We’re talking about facilities to support a HOBBY, and a pretty exclusive one at that, not basic human needs like food and shelter. Next thing someone will be begging for subsidized slip rates “for the children”.