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

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I think an interesting segue in this discussion is:

What "should" be the rights for fulltime liveaboards, in the USA, living on a US registered boat?

Many people assume someone living on a nice sailboat has a lot of disposable income. But if this is their only residence, both are working hard to save freedom chips, paying income taxes etc...

Should they be given better residence rights and protected from eviction if they can prove their need to have a stable address?

No, you have no more 'right' to live in the marine you want, anymore than in the house you want.
Indeed, you have no right to a house, but can rent or buy one you can afford.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. This is why no functioning state allows unfettered capitalism to operate. I doesn't -- isn't intended to -- incorporate any other societal values and needs.

It's also why I said, at the beginning, that the OP's circumstances is just capitalism operating as intended.

Mike, no state allows unfettered capitalism(=respect for property and free markets), because they like power and like violating property and markets, to varying degrees, depending on the jusisdiction. Theyre like mafias in that way.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

I still haven't figured out what the problem is?

If someone raises the prices on your insurance you either shop around, cut the level of coverage or do without. If your tax district raises your property tax you either pay it or move. If your landlord raises the rent, you either pay it or move. What is the issue here?

Median property values in Cape Cod have gone up 40% in the past 2 years and the property tax rate has only gone down 4%. Inflation is running rampant.
Are businesses just supposed to eat the increases? What is the alternative?

I know you are not trying to be dense, but the advice, "you either pay it or move' ignores two facts which we've been highlighting from the first posts.

• Shorelines are a limited resource. You may not have a place to move to.
• Shorelines are defined to be a public resource, not solely the province of the ultra rich.

Those people who say "let the market function. If normal people can't afford it, they should have gotten more rich." just have a different political view point than I do.

[David Ess]

Someone mentioned COOP ownership, and even called that "good socislism". But capitalism does not preclude such joint ownership of property at all. So if some old mom/pop marina is considering selling out to a big company, the tea nothing wrong with current residents buying it jointly and forming any sort of coop they like.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Capitalism is ... not about providing any entitlement to anyone so contrasting that with what some laws dictate about property use should be self-evident. They are mutually exclusive.

I believe that's what I said. The point being that the other interests of society are codified in laws that are limits imposed to ensure that commercial or personal activities don't step on those interests.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Someone mentioned COOP ownership, and even called that "good socislism". But capitalism does not preclude such joint ownership of property at all.

Agree. I think some are confusing capitalism with the legal structure of the for-profit corporation. If you create a for-profit corporation, my understanding is that you are obligated to maximize shareholder value (stock value and profits/dividends).
You can instead create a non-profit corporation. Public-benefit nonprofit corporations are organized primarily or exclusively for social, educational, recreational or charitable purposes by like-minded citizens and are distinct in the law from mutual-benefit nonprofit corporations in that they are organized for the general public benefit, rather than for the interest of its members. They are also distinct in the law from religious corporations.
Both for-profit and non-profit corporate entities can exist in a capitalist economy, because, again, the means of production are owned privately.


I don't know what the legal status is for a co-op compared to a non-profit.

So back to our marina owner. If it is privately held (not leased from the government) s/he can structure it as a for-profit or a non-profit entity. Simplest case is s/he owns 100% of the facility, and it is up to him/her alone to decide how much to charge for any service s/he provides. Totally up to them - as Mike said, many many posts ago, that is how capitalism is supposed to work.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I know you are not trying to be dense, but the advice, "you either pay it or move' ignores two facts which we've been highlighting from the first posts.

• Shorelines are a limited resource. You may not have a place to move to.
• Shorelines are defined to be a public resource, not solely the province of the ultra rich.

Those people who say "let the market function. If normal people can't afford it, they should have gotten more rich." just have a different political view point than I do.

There are lots of limited resources. All land is a limited resource. In our current system, that does not give anyone the right to that resource.
Where is it written that shorelines are a public resource? I would like them to be, but I just don't think that is generally true (except for the very, literally, narrow definition of the strip of dry sand below the high water line.) In many, many places, at least in the US, people own waterfront property and exclude others from it.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I think an interesting segue in this discussion is:

What "should" be the rights for fulltime liveaboards, in the USA, living on a US registered boat?

Many people assume someone living on a nice sailboat has a lot of disposable income. But if this is their only residence, both are working hard to save freedom chips, paying income taxes etc...

Should they be given better residence rights and protected from eviction if they can prove their need to have a stable address?

We are need to have a stable address and all free to choose where and how we live, most in their “only” residence. Living aboard deserves no special right or consideration and certainly no protection from eviction for cause.

Why should liveaboards have any right the rest of us don’t enjoy?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

History teaches us that, had it not been for the absence of regulatory constraints in the early 20th century, there would have been no industrial revolution.

While some government intervention is arguably a value to today’s society, dependence on entitlements continues to be our biggest problem and is the genesis of flawed perceptions like we are entitled to shoreline access. The shoreline is freely available to anyone willing and able to bear (read - pay for) the value attached to it. I hate cliches but the free lunch one seems to resonate in a number of comments here.

There's a couple of right wing economist fundamentalist whoppers for you.

That regulatory constraints would have prevented the industrial revolution may be a theory of some uber right wing economist, but it is the farthest thing from a fundamental, universally accepted truth.

Dependence on entitlements is our biggest problem? The Marie Antoinette school of social morality!

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by lestersails

There's a couple of right wing economist fundamentalist whoppers for you.

That regulatory constraints would have prevented the industrial revolution may be a theory of some uber right wing economist, but it is the farthest thing from a fundamental, universally accepted truth.

Dependence on entitlements is our biggest problem? The Marie Antoinette school of social morality!

Nonsense

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

History teaches us that, had it not been for the absence of regulatory constraints in the early 20th century, there would have been no industrial revolution.

History actually teaches us that the Industrial Revolution happened in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But it is a fact that regulatory restraints are seldom formulated for situations that have not yet occurred. Most recent example: the internet revolution; regulations are still 10+ years behind the technology and its use/abuse.

... flawed perceptions like we are entitled to shoreline access. The shoreline is freely available to anyone willing and able to bear (read - pay for) the value attached to it. I hate cliches but the free lunch one seems to resonate in a number of comments here.

Few rights are absolute. It's accepted (in the countries we're considering) that the waters are a common good, and as such, reasonable access must exist and not be constrained or reduced by private interests. So when shoreline comes up for (re)development, permission for that development often requires consideration for reasonable public access.

Anyway, in my neck of the woods, the point is usually moot, because most existing or new marinas close to cities are joint public/private ventures, often on leased public lands.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

History teaches us that, had it not been for the absence of regulatory constraints in the early 20th century, there would have been no industrial revolution.

While some government intervention is arguably a value to today’s society, dependence on entitlements continues to be our biggest problem and is the genesis of flawed perceptions like we are entitled to shoreline access. The shoreline is freely available to anyone willing and able to bear (read - pay for) the value attached to it. I hate cliches but the free lunch one seems to resonate in a number of comments here.

Can you support your claim with any evidence? I don't recall this lesson from history,

All functioning societies embed all sorts of so-called "entitlements" in custom, law and regulation. They are community expressions of values outside the purview of simple economics.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by lestersails

There are lots of limited resources. All land is a limited resource. In our current system, that does not give anyone the right to that resource.
Where is it written that shorelines are a public resource? I would like them to be, but I just don't think that is generally true (except for the very, literally, narrow definition of the strip of dry sand below the high water line.) In many, many places, at least in the US, people own waterfront property and exclude others from it.

"(except for the very, literally, narrow definition of the strip of dry sand below the high water line.) "

YES, That! That is what we're talking about. That is what you need for a marina and that is the part which is public.

As for "where is it written?"

In the US it varies from state to state. Here are a few:
Historically:
Beachfront property law has evolved from ideas that date back to ancient Rome. Romans regarded the beach as “public dominion,” captured in an oft-cited quote from Roman law: “By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind; the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.” Judges in medieval England evolved this idea into the legal theory known as the “public trust doctrine” – the idea that certain resources should be preserved for all to use. The U.S. inherited this con...


Florida,
The public has a right of access along the beaches and shorelines of Florida situated below the “mean high tide line” (see diagram below). Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution clarifies that the state holds the land seaward of the mean high-tide line (MHTL) in trust for the public.

Texas:
the nation’s first open beaches law, the Texas Open Beaches Act of 1959, which defined all land below the vegetation line as belonging to the state for use by the people.

"It is declared and affirmed to be the public policy of this state that the public, individually and collectively, shall have the free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to and from the state-owned beaches bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, or if the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over an area by prescription, dedication, or has retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public, the public shall have the free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to the larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico.


New York
The New York State Public Trust Doctrine says that anything seaward of the mean high water mark on the beach is public land, and anything landward of the mean high water mark on the beach is private property.

41% of the shoreline in New York is publicly owned, according to Pogue P. and Lee V., 1999," "Providing Public Access to the Shore: The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs," Coastal Management 27:219-237

Hawaii:
All beaches in Hawaii are open to the public, with the exception of certain Federal Government areas. That's right—there are NO private beaches in Hawaii! According to the Hawai'i Supreme Court, any land below the highest wave line is considered state property and open to the public.

California:
For more than 40 years, the California Coastal Act has ensured that the public has the right to freely walk the sands of any beach in the state. It doesn't matter who owns the property fronting the beach—up to the mean high tide line, all beaches in California are, by law, public beaches.

Some portions of California's beaches are in fact privately owned, but according to the California Coastal Act public access begins where the sand is wet (below the mean high tide line).


Other states:
Under common law, the states own the portion of the beaches that lies between low and high water marks; the so-called "wet sand" is thus open to anyone. But it has never been made clear whether a person has the right to cross private property to gain access to that public land.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

History actually teaches us that the Industrial Revolution happened in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But it is a fact that regulatory restraints are seldom formulated for situations that have not yet occurred. Most recent example: the internet revolution; regulations are still 10+ years behind the technology and its use/abuse.
Few rights are absolute. It's accepted (in the countries we're considering) that the waters are a common good, and as such, reasonable access must exist and not be constrained or reduced by private interests. So when shoreline comes up for (re)development, permission for that development often requires consideration for reasonable public access.

Anyway, in my neck of the woods, the point is usually moot, because most existing or new marinas close to cities are joint public/private ventures, often on leased public lands.

You might want to read the entire link.

As to access to the shoreline, no one suggested access is or should be free and no where is that right enumerated.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by David Ess

No, you have no more 'right' to live in the marine you want, anymore than in the house you want.

Indeed, you have no right to a house, but can rent or buy one you can afford.

I'm not a lawyer so probably wrong, but isn't there a Rental protection agency set up in the US?
It job is to protect renters from unscrupulous landlords and unfair evictions .
In the OPs case, they signed a standard Rental contract for their residence, now this landlord has added new unscrupulous terms or face eviction.

If that was a house would the Tennant not have legal rights ?

If not, what are Rental protection agencies set up for?