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

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

You state the obvious, however, we aren’t debating the right of free speech, religion, a speedy trial, etc… but I can’t seem to find any right or entitlement to the shoreline being free.

[Pelagic]

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles...eviction#toc-2

freedom from harassment and illegal eviction - this could include things such as changing the locks, cutting off your water or electricity supply, interfering with your belongings or threatening verbal or physical behaviour - the law offers protection to tenants in these circumstances, always seek advice immediately - the Environmental health department in your local council can investigate*

notice to quit - all tenants have the right to 28 days' written notice to quit before any court action to evict can start

due process of law - if a landlord ends a tenancy, but the tenant refuses to move out, the landlord can only recover possession through court proceedings

[MicHughV]

Yes, we have had several noted squabbles here by those millionaires and billionaires that live along Florida's coast.

The crux of the matter is that these rich folk don't want the rest of mankind, walking along the beach in front of their mansion as it disturbs their sense of well being.

It's a tug of war between the mansion owner's " riperian" rights, and the State's right to land seaward of the high tide line.

ie, us poor folk can only walk on the beach in front of the McMansion during low tide.

From there it gets more and more complicated, as the McMansion owner doesn't want his mansion blowing away in a hurricane and wants to construct a seawall in front of his property. The location of his proposed seawall is determined by the CCCL line.This is the CCCL line, a description of which is below:

The Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) Program regulates structures and activities which can cause beach erosion, destabilize dunes, damage upland properties, or interfere with public access. CCCL permits also protect sea turtles and dune plants.

Several other laws and codes can also be brought to bear, not only on the ocean, but anywhere where there is water.

It's kinda like this....I dig a big hole in my back yard, which fronts on the ICW...and the hole fills with water. No problem there, but now I decide to dig a ditch from "my" hole to the ICW, so I can paddle my canoe from my back yard out to the ditch.
The ditch now connects waters of the State to my hole via the ditch....and guess what, my hole is now their hole.
Ok, this is a simplified explanation, but I'm sure you can get my drift.

I'll throw one more curveball at ya.
For instance, you live on the St, Johns River, but the powers that be have decided to expand the harbor. Your house, and your neighbors house is exactly where the port expansion is planned to be.
What's gonna happen next ? It's your house, and you have lived there for 50 years.

Simple, your house is going to be taken away from you by right of " Eminent Domain". Yes, you can fight this, but you will lose, but it's ok, you do get paid for it.

I throw all these little odds and ends out there to elaborate the fact that it's not all that simple.

Interestingly enough, a hurricane can neither read nor write, requires no permits and follows no rules, and can cause wanton destruction and mayhem more or less exactly as it wants.

The Abaco's in the B'mas is a clear example. Between hurricanes, rules and regulations, being a boat owner is surely a labor of love.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

You state the obvious, however, we aren’t debating the right of free speech, religion, a speedy trial, etc… but I can’t seem to find any right or entitlement to the shoreline being free.

Huh? How does this in any way respond to my question? You made a claim which you said is based in historic fact:

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

I have never heard of such a thing ... not even close. So I asked you to support this apparently fantastical statement. What has "free speech, religion, a speedy trial", got to do with any of this?

As to my other point; that societies express a lot of values and priorities that are not captured by the economic system, through custom, law and regulations ... again, I have no idea how your response is remotely related. "Free speech, religion, a speedy trial" are values that most of our societies value, but so are clean water, access to green spaces, and yes, some also have access to the waterfront as a value.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

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

It naturally follows that if there's something that's to be shared by the public, there must be reasonable public access to it. No-one said "free", but it has to be reasonable.

This is all splitting hairs; we both know that there are processes where when new marinas are proposed, or existing marinas to be redeveloped, there are permissions and permits to be obtained, for which the proposals are reviewed in light of the needs of the area. And, in the states I've visited, there's always state launch ramps and usually several state- or municipally-run marinas. Which is pretty clear support of the public right to reasonable access.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It naturally follows that if there's something that's to be shared by the public, there must be reasonable public access to it. No-one said "free", but it has to be reasonable.

This is all splitting hairs; we both know that there are processes where when new marinas are proposed, or existing marinas to be redeveloped, there are permissions and permits to be obtained, for which the proposals are reviewed in light of the needs of the area. And, in the states I've visited, there's always state launch ramps and usually several state- or municipally-run marinas. Which is pretty clear support of the public right to reasonable access.

Exactly, in the new Marina negotiations I've been involved with, discussions with the elected leadership has been more about mutually beneficial agreements.
In return for our investment, they would provide a good road, power and services to a defined point and we would provide public access for small boats, training and a performance guarantee.

[David Ess]

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!

I deny that its 'right wing' for some of us to say that your property should be respected and that people allow you trade freely.....thats what capitalism is.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It naturally follows that if there's something that's to be shared by the public, there must be reasonable public access to it. No-one said "free", but it has to be reasonable.

This is all splitting hairs; we both know that there are processes where when new marinas are proposed, or existing marinas to be redeveloped, there are permissions and permits to be obtained, for which the proposals are reviewed in light of the needs of the area. And, in the states I've visited, there's always state launch ramps and usually several state- or municipally-run marinas. Which is pretty clear support of the public right to reasonable access.

The word 'reasonable', just like the word 'fair', is too subjective to be of any use at all.

[ixnax]

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.

"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."

??? Now you're just making stuff up. Look, maybe you should find a nice deserted stretch of the peoples shoreline, exercise your inherent right to the commons, beach your boat, and plant your flag. If that's no good then maybe get a permit to build your own personal dock. That is unless, as a sovereign mariner entitled to use the publics beach at your will, you don't need no stinking permits. Just explain it to the cops as you have schooled us greedy, nasty, ignorant fools here and you'll be fine.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David Ess

The word 'reasonable', just like the word 'fair', is too subjective to be of any use at all.

Some would disagree; workable compromises can be reached between parties if there are clear principles and good will.

[markpierce]

Government owns, in the final analysis. all the land. If you pay property taxes, you are effectively paying rent. I even pay property taxes (directly to the government) on the berth I rent!

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Some would disagree; workable compromises can be reached between parties if there are clear principles and good will.

By saying that "some would disagree", you're showing that its subjective....otherwise they wouldnt disagree.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Government owns, in the final analysis. all the land. If you pay property taxes, you are effectively paying rent. I even pay property taxes (directly to the government) on the berth I rent!

At least when they feel like confiscating it, sometimes theyll pay us something for it. Usually not what the market says it's worth, but instead some snivveling burocrat.

[David Ess]

I know some guys who advocate another alternative, that marinas be nationalized, and subsidized, sort of like the USPS, etc. In this manner they would have their boating lifestyle supported by all taxpayers. But hey, socialists are like that.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by David Ess

I know some guys who advocate another alternative, that marinas be nationalized, and subsidized, sort of like the USPS, etc. In this manner they would have their boating lifestyle supported by all taxpayers. But hey, socialists are like that.

That's probably taking it too far in the other direction. The problem I see is when, say, the upper 50 percent of society can afford to have at least a small boat if they want. And then costs start to rise dramatically and things quickly start heading to where only the top 10 percent can afford a boat of any kind. A change like that happening, especially rapidly, is an indication that something might not be working and it should be assessed for whether something to control the situation would benefit society overall or not.