"Not really any application to us boaters."
agreed . . .
. . . hmm?
Boaters who have fully functional engines and don't stay anywhere long without moving, might not have a problem. But what about boaters(liveaboards), who don't have a mechanical(or working), means of propulsion
, who like to "anchor-out", for a while?
The problems I see coming, are municipalities and states that will now review this ruling and see, within this ruling, what they want to see.
State AG's and city solicitors/attorneys, tend to be very, "very", biased in their viewpoints and often seem to actually see/read things in a very different, often very perverse manner . . . depending on what they(or their bosses), want.
Floating house have windage, and left to the elements, will go where the wind
blows them . . . no wind
. . . no go, unless someone adds a motor
to the transom.
Aside from the added benefit of a keel
, sailboats also move at the whims of the wind, unless someone adds motor
. . . .
I don't know where I'm going with this . . . I'm not really trying to go anywhere with this.
What I am saying is, if there is any small miniscule, unintelligible, unintended, not fully spelled out verbiage in this ruling . . .
. . . then someone, somewhere, is going to apply some ridiculously mis-interpreted, part of this ruling in some ridiculously perverse manner to do something that will cost someone(I'm thinking a live-a-board sailor with no mechanical means of propulsion), lots of money