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

[akei]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sounds like capitalism operating as designed.

given that there are severe gov restrictions on opening up a new marina or mooring, I'd say this is more akin to crony-capitalism than real unfettered capitalism...

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by JAFO

There's some baloney here alright, but it's not mine.

By definition, a Capitalist is someone who uses the leverage of their capital, to acquire more capital. If they are not doing that, they are not a Capitalist, no matter how much they try to kid themselves.

And I have a very clear picture of how a capitalist economy actually works. But the actual Capitalists are a very small minority. The rest just tell themselves they're Capitalists, because that's more palatable than admitting they are nothing but resources, cattle, for those who actually are Capitalists. Claiming to be part of the oppressor class, rather than one of the oppressed, lets them sleep better at night.

Sorry, but you just don't get it. Small business capitalists are sometimes levering their excess capital for no more than a better daily life. They are still capitalists. Even in a utopian economy where we are all trading non-gmo duck eggs for range free asparagus no one will be parting with a duck egg unless they see greater value in the asparagus. That isn't oppression. That is nascent capitalism. That raises everyones dinghy.

[JAFO]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

To me, this is a Tragedy of the Commons situation. We already agree that the waters are held in trust by our government for the common good. I think the disagreement lies in extending this concept to shoreline property.

Hehehehehe... thank you!

[JAFO]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I started with only the clothes on my back at 16, and worked my way to a comfortable retirement by learning skills, and starting my OWN business under CAPITALISM.

This would be impossible under ANY other system.

Strange.. there are millions of people in China, who started their own business from almost nothing, who would disagree strongly with this claim.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by JAFO

Strange.. there are millions of people in China, who started their own business from almost nothing, who would disagree strongly with this claim.

Excellent point and why we should avoid labels and look more into the reality on the ground.

PRC decided to encourage private business under Party guidelines to boost its economy.

That worked incredibly well as Chinease businessmen had unfettered access to a huge workforce, Direct Foreign Investment and well oiled regulatory authorities who made convienient decisions to promote amazing production growth to become the world's leading economy

Developing China: The Remarkable Impact of Foreign Direct Investment https://g.co/kgs/CRZfUb

The cards are now stacked completely against fair trade policies as the multinationals and the social media magnates all have a shared vested interest in maintaining the status quo..

On the plus side, watching this interconnected world eat its tail, will hopefully prevent a shooting war

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by wingssail

No Macrophylla, My post was not sarcasm.

I am a citizen of the US and we, as citizens, all share, and are entitled to, that part of the country, and its natural resources, which are deemed public and which have been held in reserve for us all.

It doesn't matter if you consider use of the shorelines for a marina berth to be a "hobby" or not. That usage is for all of us anyhow. Just as, for example, hiking trails in a national park could be considered a hobby.

But in my case this is my life, it is not a hobby, and if I get pushed out by some guy richer than me I will feel that he is not only taking my slip, something I've paid for for man years, but part of my life.

I know it's inconvenient, but we have to acknowledge that demanding exclusive use for our personal boat in a given piece of space is NOT anything like a hiking trail or any other public space that anyone can temporarily use but no one claims for their personal exclusive use. When we add that we are owed exclusive personal use of a public resource by virtue of having had exclusive use of that resource longer than anyone else it's even worse! Again, it's important to look at this from everyone perspective. Is the fact that Uncle Sam moved me around every 2-3 years while, ironically in this instance, serving to rescue boaters in distress mean I should be behind those who were fortunate enough to stay in one place so they could "pay for many years"? You can certainly understand why those folks getting exclusive use of that slip as long as they want it over the guy who was out risking his life for those same boaters might not seem terribly fair either?

[danstanford]

Wing, where does the line exist with respect to public vs private? We aren't making any more of any spaces just like we aren't making any more waterfront.
Not to be ingenuous, but would it be ok if someone kicked in your door claiming they had a moral right to shelter? Far fetched example, yes, but on the same line of thinking.
To be fair, I do agree with your assertion that public spaces should be available to all but the marina in question is not public space any more as people are paying for its existence, maintenance, and use.

[Larry Florida]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

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.

Producing a trade publication is not at all the same as doing international business. A superficial perspective vs being in the trenches.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

Producing a trade publication is not at all the same as doing international business. A superficial perspective vs being in the trenches.

Lol,
By 1988 there were 7 publication groups, 35 monthly publications covering worldwide trade sources for subscribers and interviewing over 3000 manufacturers daily on new products and commodities

With offices in almost every country there was nothing superficial about his perspective of doing international business.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I am a citizen of the US and we, as citizens, all share, and are entitled to, that part of the country, and its natural resources, which are deemed public and which have been held in reserve for us all.

.

Where does it say any of that?

There are some spaces legally designated as ‘public’ where a segment of that applies, however, the premise that all shoreline is included is unfounded wishful and largely naive thinking. As your premise is wrong, so to are any judgments you draw based on it.

And national parks charge admission.

[Bycrick]

Heated, sound-bite rhetoric aside, pretty much every government, particularly successful ones, have found themselves in the same position. They have "common resources" which they need/want to do something with that they see as "beneficial" to somebody. Whether it’s kings giving land/serfs to nobles in return for raising an army, or giving half the land in a 20-mile-wide swath from Omaha to California to the railroad companies, or giving thousands of acres to the electric company to build a dam and lake to create power (see Lake of the Ozarks), or giving 160 acres of land taken by force to anyone who was willing to live there and farm it.

Why is the "common good" of a bunch of boat owners who want low-cost slips superior to the "common good" of non-boat owners who want a condominium to live in?

Who’s going to invest in building a marina, or an apartment building, or much of anything else if the potential return on investment is limited to what the poorest or cheapest potential user is willing to pay?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Why is the "common good" of a bunch of boat owners who want low-cost slips superior to the "common good" of non-boat owners who want a condominium to live in?

Who’s going to invest in building a marina, or an apartment building, or much of anything else if the potential return on investment is limited to what the poorest or cheapest potential user is willing to pay?

I don't think that's really the issue.

The first issue is that the OP is unhappy about not having a slip lease renewed, ostensibly because the marina wants it for a higher-value customer. I think everyone agrees that one of the perils of a short-term slip lease is that it's not guaranteed to be renewed... and there's really no recourse or obligation on the part of a marina (or society) to provide the OP with a long-term slip at a preferential rate. It's a market, marinas rent slips, and boat-owners lease them.

On the broader topic of what can private developers can do with shoreline property... yes there is definitely a public interest to be considered, and there's usually a negotiation about what will be permitted to be done on the property. For example, up here there's a strong push to keep shoreline as accessible as possible, so most private shoreline developments usually include some commitment to a public right of way (eg a waterfront path), as well as public space, like a courtyard, food concessions, etc. Often it's a win-win, given the commercial prospects of that public space.

In the case of a private marina, there might also be some discussion about what the boating market is actually short of. If there's a big demand for small slips, the developer might need to agree to put in a percentage of those, as well as the luxe big slips they really want to do. And so on. You might claim this is unfair, but since the developer is wanting all the benefits of being on the water (a shared and limited resource), then they need to convince the public that their development will be a net positive. And usually a workable compromise is arrived at, and the developers still do well.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think that's really the issue.

The first issue is that the OP is unhappy about not having a slip lease renewed, ostensibly because the marina wants it for a higher-value customer. I think everyone agrees that one of the perils of a short-term slip lease is that it's not guaranteed to be renewed... and there's really no recourse or obligation on the part of a marina (or society) to provide the OP with a long-term slip at a preferential rate. It's a market, marinas rent slips, and boat-owners lease them.

On the broader topic of what can private developers can do with shoreline property... yes there is definitely a public interest to be considered, and there's usually a negotiation about what will be permitted to be done on the property. For example, up here there's a strong push to keep shoreline as accessible as possible, so most private shoreline developments usually include some commitment to a public right of way (eg a waterfront path), as well as public space, like a courtyard, food concessions, etc. Often it's a win-win, given the commercial prospects of that public space.

In the case of a private marina, there might also be some discussion about what the boating market is actually short of. If there's a big demand for small slips, the developer might need to agree to put in a percentage of those, as well as the luxe big slips they really want to do. And so on. You might claim this is unfair, but since the developer is wanting all the benefits of being on the water (a shared and limited resource), then they need to convince the public that their development will be a net positive. And usually a workable compromise is arrived at, and the developers still do well.

Very well said. Annapolis, Maryland is dealing with many of these issues now as they try to update their policies. Their current policy was designed to preserve their working waterfront, however many of these commercial businesses have since shut. They still want to maintain their waterfront nature yet need to find a way to balance all of the competing interests while maintaining the viability of marine businesses.

[rbyham]

I feel your pain. Makes me thankful I'm in a no service marina. :-) actually this might be something to consider strongly look for a marina that doesn't involve those other complications in the way of services. Thinking more broadly if this trend continues I wonder if moving to a personal mooring ball where that might be allowed under state law will become an affordable option?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

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.

The legal immigrants with much more difficult situations do it regularly.

No everyone doesn't start from exactly the same point but far too many stand around pointing to their starting line while others are busy running for the finish line.