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

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by David Ess

For those of you complaining about capitalism, how do you like marinas under different systems, say, as as in Cuba? Anybody know what marinas were like in the old east block? Also, if some boater complains about price, some marina owners probably complain about boaters trying to live a lifestyle they cant afford.

Classic forensics ploy - too clever by half - the false dichotomy. Nice try, but generally only works on people with two digit IQs. I would wager a lot of dough that no one on this forum is advocating for Cuban-style socialism.
Speaking for myself, what I want is private industry for discretionary economic activities where business is constrained by law and regulation regarding safety, monopolies, false advertising, etc.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rsementi

Capitalism lowers prices. The costs of all goods Abd services are going up everywhere. Not because of capitalism but because of the fiat money printing machine that our fed bank and treasury is responsible for. It sucks that they are evicting you but if there are people waiting in line to get full service and willing to pay for it, then that is absolutely fair.

I don't think it is right if the wealthier boat owners out bid the middle class boat owners, who worked just as hard for their money, until the shorelines which includes marina berths which assumably were meant to become berths available broadly to the public, and are, after all public lands, to become the exclusive domain of the super rich so the marina operator can maximise his profit, because that's where it's going.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Marinas occupy water next to the land, generally referred to as shorelines, which, in most areas cover the land from the high tide line outward.



The point is that in almost all maritime areas, and this includes many if not most other countries in the world, those shorelines are recognized as publically owned and the public has rights to access and enjoy those shorelines.

.

I think there is a bit o misconception in your analysis.

If you are contemplating building a marina, your first task would be to arrange to purchase the upland from the legal owner (State or Individual) who has clear title.
Once secured you apply for a Foreshore Lease from State to be allowed the Rights to build a breakwater and docks in that area in front of the upland.
Next following engineering an environmental studies and compliance you finally apply for building permit to begin.

Upon completion, That section of Shoreline is now enclosed in a private structure called the Marina and while theoretically the tidal flat inside is still "Public Domain", since it is under a State Lease structure, there is no access other than by boat.

This seems fair to me since there is plenty of undeveloed Foreshore on either side of the Marina development.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Gerrit Coetzee

The cry for help, is a cry to acknowledge the situation, and then for like-minded cruisers to apply economic pressure in the capitalistic system, to down prices.

What a weird thing to say. Apply economic pressure 'to down prices'? What on earth does that mean? Organize a boycott? My oh my, I am just CERTAIN that would generate huge amounts of sympathy. Sorry, but I am with Mike on this one - this is just a business determining what the market will bear. If somebody swoops in and grabs that berth at the new price, argument over. Actually not - if it goes fast they will kick someone else out and raise it further. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work. Complaining about capitalism in a primarily capitalist country is like complaining about gravity.
What happened to the OP feels bad to him to be sure. He has my sympathies, but on the open market that is worth diddly.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I...Upon completion, That section of Shoreline is now enclosed in a private structure called the Marina and while theoretically the tidal flat inside is still "Public Domain", since it is under a State Lease structure, there is no access other than by boat...

I doubt if it is that clear cut. Often marinas allow public acces to the walkways and viewing piers. I'm pretty sure that they didn't do that out of charity, it was negotiated and required in the terms of the lease.

But the subject is the evictions (by the raising of rates) of tenants deemed less profitable and the inevitable, eventual, consequence that what was once public shoreline now becomes an enclave solely of the wealthy.

You are entitled to the view that this is fine, but I'm not of that view.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by lestersails

...Actually not - if it goes fast they will kick someone else out and raise it further. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work. Complaining about capitalism in a primarily capitalist country is like complaining about gravity.
What happened to the OP feels bad to him to be sure. He has my sympathies, but on the open market that is worth diddly.

Even in a capitalist country unfettered open markets sometimes need some regulation especially when it comes to auctioning off a rare public resource, such as our shorelines. I think it is appropriate, and some locales apparently agree, that restraints on rates and the reservation of lower cost berths go along with the granting of the lease, since it was an allocation of a public resource for a private use, and the marina operator needs to take that into consideration when he goes into business. If the profit margin is not great enough he should put his capital to work on a different project.

I really don't see how it is right (and don't say "that's just capitalism") that we allow a business to buy the rights to a public resource, owned by all, and then to sell it off piece by piece to the 1% until the rest of the public is excluded forever. If that is capitalism, I'd say it should be adjusted a little.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I really don't see how it is right (and don't say "that's just capitalism") that we allow a business to buy the rights to a public resource, owned by all, and then to sell it off piece by piece to the 1% until the rest of the public is excluded forever. If that is capitalism, I'd say it should be adjusted a little.

I agree, it isn't morally right, but it is part of the standard modus operandi of capitalism. The conversion of public goods into private ones is a continual fact of this system. Dating all the way back to the 16th century and the enclosures which converted previously public fields into private ownership, we see a continual push for more and more of "the commons" shifted into private ownership.

In many cases, this creates great benefit to society. Private ownership is a key cornerstone to the massive wealth and development we've seen in our capitalist countries. But it can also be a huge negative as well, as a common resource comes under exclusive control of the wealthy few.

This is a much broader criticism of capitalism, and indeed private ownership, than the one presented by the OP. I tend to agree with you that things like access to waterfront should be largely maintained as a public good. Some jurisdictions take this view, but others don't.

[Opie91]

Marinas are acting like this boom is never going to end. This whole problem is going to fix itself in the next few years or so. Once all of the people who bought their COVID boats realize the amount of work, time and $$$ you need to pour into ownership they will be getting out of the market. This will mean cheaper boats, open slips at marinas and hopefully lower prices.

To the OP. When this happens don't forget how they held the door open for you when they wanted more $$$. Capitalism works both ways.

[Joli]

I'm curious why some think waterfront property cannot be privately owned. How is it different then 20 acres of wooded property? A marina is a marina, no different then a farm working to make a profit.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Joli

I'm curious why some think waterfront property cannot be privately owned. How is it different then 20 acres of wooded property? A marina is a marina, no different then a farm working to make a profit.

The water is a commons, and something that all citizens should have reasonable access to. That's the starting point.

Of course there's private ownership of waterfront property, but something like a marina requires a few different approvals, and at that time, the public (through government) has some input on the project, and can stipulate that there's public access to the extent possible, and that the marina is going to reasonably meet the needs of the local boaters, not just the rich ones. Negotiations happen.

[rossdv8]

Is there still a place for Co-Operatives in a Capitalist world?
Is there still land available on suitable waterfront, deep water creeks etc. that is affordable for a co-operative to purchase?
Could such a Co-Op be set up as a legal entity entitled to some sort of Government assistance (as a Recreational Body) to make this more likely to succeed?
Are there any 'sort-of-retired' or 'planning to retire', legally qualified yachties who are wondering whether they will have a place to keep their yachts once they leave the legal profession and go cruising - who might want to band together to help the 'little people' make something like this happen?

I know this is only speculation, and I can already see gaping holes, particularly as I live in another country. . .

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by Joli

I'm curious why some think waterfront property cannot be privately owned. How is it different then 20 acres of wooded property? A marina is a marina, no different then a farm working to make a profit.

Waterfront property is privately owned in many cases. The property ends at the high tide line. Below the high tide line is considered the waterway and everyone has free access to the waterway.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I doubt if it is that clear cut. Often marinas allow public acces to the walkways and viewing piers. I'm pretty sure that they didn't do that out of charity, it was negotiated and required in the terms of the lease.

But the subject is the evictions (by the raising of rates) of tenants deemed less profitable and the inevitable, eventual, consequence that what was once public shoreline now becomes an enclave solely of the wealthy.

You are entitled to the view that this is fine, but I'm not of that view.

The businesses plan for Marina Developments goes this way.

The Upland property is the real profit center with Retail banks, stores, resteraunts, Hotels, Apartments etc.....

The Marina's purpose is to be the visual bait to draw the public into spending at their upland tenant's establishments.

Marinas by themselves are not very profitable so depend on that upland revenue from Tennant.

So creating a public boardwalk, to view the lovely yachts makes perfect business sense to increase upland property values

In the OP's case, if the upland is limited to just maintenance and the Marina owner's needs to keep his workforce active and employed, setting conditions for maintenance inside his Marina is within his right.

Average lifespan of a floating docks marina is 35 years, so factor complete replacement every 35 and you will see why some Marinas without much upland income get to that crunch point and double their mooring rate without much notice.

[MicHughV]

I can't speak for other parts of the world ....or the USA....but in Florida..."submerged" land belongs to the State of Florida...plain and simple. What do I mean by "submerged land" ? a good question, but basically anything below the mean high tide line. A river, canal, swamp, it doesn't matter. Even vegetation can demarcate a a wetland boundary.

Only a few, and I mean very few individuals "own' submerged lands, usually grandfathered in from way back, most anyone else has to "lease" their dock space, be it a private dock or commercial venture from the State...this off course, requires a lengthy permit process with all sorts of curveball rules and regulations, requiring both FDEP and USACOE permits, plus a variety of other State agencies....
These leases are typically granted on a yearly basis and require....off course...a fee...which must be renewed.

I can tell you from experience, that trying to start a new marina operation, will be a long and costly battle with the end result not a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination. Besides the above agencies, one must contend with many other State agencies too many to summarize here.

There are many reasons the FDEP will not grant such a permit, which is beyond the scope of this thread.

The long and short of it is quite complicated. To operate a marina is far more than simply renting out dock space.

In addition, there is the complication of " riperian" rights, which basically extend a waterfront property's owner property line out into the water, subject again, to a variety of issues.

Further complicating the issue is " dredging". One can't simply start dredging willy nilly. The mud on the bottom also belongs to the State, which has numerous complicated requirements for it's removal.....and once removed, it must be taken to special designated dredge spoil containment sites, known as DMMA's....Dredge Material Management Area's, in other words, it can't simply be tossed off to one side. These DMMA's are often miles away from the actual dredge operation.

The "bulkhead protecting the marina is yet another major hurdle....not to mention the "navigable channel"...etc..etc...

I can go and and on about this issue, as I've had a long history with the ins and outs of it all.

It's a very tough business for any marina operator.

I would imagine that similar rules and regulations apply elsewhere.

As a boat owner, one tends to see things only from a personal level, but there is a lot more to it than simply that.

A marina owner or operator has to dance on a tight rope to keep it all flowing correctly. Add in recent condo developments and such like, supply and demand, and all of the above, marina operators have to have savvy operating skills to keep their doors open.

As a boat owner, I decry the seemingly blatant and over the top price gauging for a dock slip, but I can see and understand why.

Nonetheless, marina operators need the general boating public to rent their slips in order to make it all work.

From my perspective, you can only squeeze so much blood out of a stone. Why buy a boat, only to be charged insane amounts to keep it somewhere. This cannot be perpetuated.

Sure, rich folk, can absorb the price hikes, but even they have limited tolerance.

I cannot say where or how this will all unfold. This recent Covid thing has added yet another twist, but certainly, it seems that the whole marine industry is in a precarious situation.

[Pelagic]

What I don't understand about all this resentment about Marinas is that we all use them to differing degrees

From an occasional charter or sail on a friends boat to the accommodation of a Superyachts as a home port . This creates jobs, businesses and distributes the wealth from the more affluent to the community

Yacht owners can also forget that their combined assets INSIDE a marina far outweigh the cost of the Marina itself.

Say in a 300 slip marina, the average cost from small to Superyacht is $305k .
That is $105 million, so the yacht owner should really hope that Marina has a good upland cash flow, to keep the marina well maintained .