36' Rule for Liveaboard

[john61ct]

Again point is not keeping the marina tidy.

It's doing so without thinking smaller boats are the problem

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Again point is not keeping the marina tidy.

It's doing so without thinking smaller boats are the problem

Who told you this or are you simply assuming?

In both the RV and marina world, I've talked to owner/managers and basically been told, it's a lot easier to refuse someone for an easily definable age or size rule than a much more subjective appearance rule...and it works out well because for liveaboard, there is a strong correlation between size and appearance.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by mack2465

Marinas are privately owned businesses they can make any rules they wish. If you wish to dictate the rules go buy a marina.

Many marinas in the United States and other places in the world are publicly owned. All are subject to shoreline regulations. environmental, and other rules including non-discrimination.

In Seattle, in 1960, extensive privately owned land, including shoreline, was confiscated by US Congress and turned over to the Corp of Engineers to build a marina for the "public good". This marina is now operated by the Port of Seattle, still, ostensibly, for the "Public Good". A similar approach has been used elsewhere so to say that they can make any rules they like is probably debatable.

And the truth is that the Port raised rates and set rules following market trends and this marina had a very positive net cash flow and underwrote other, less profitable, Port operations. It is really quite cheeky for a government to take land and money from the public, and build a marina for the public and then charge the public high rates to use it so that they can fund other operations, AND then go so far as to say, "some of you are undesirable and you can't be here".

The excuse used for the higher rates was that they were only trying to get a fair return off of the value of the land, (which they got for free). That is a crock. The land was not taken to provide whatever could be the highest profit to the Port, it was taken to give the public a marina.

I'm not sure where Port of Seattle stands on this issue now, but elsewhere rules pertaining to liveaboards benefit some at the expense of others, and to say they are derived from some sense of public good is hard to swallow if small boats, owned by less affluent persons, are excluded from liveaboard status, while larger boats are permitted.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by cohort

liveaboards tend to ….they use more services (showers, pump outs, laundry, parking, etc),

This is a commonly stated claim, however studies have shown that it is not exactly true. Parking for instance. Marinas usually consider parking needs based on weekend demand (so that the neighborhoods nearby don't complain) but on weekdays when only liveaboards are around the parking lots are nearly empty. The issue is similar for other marina services, and many are priced to cover any additional usage.

The "hassle" factor of liveaboards presenting themselves to marina staff and wanting to know why the water isn't on, for example, is real, but not a good reason to get rid of liveaboards.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

it's a lot easier to refuse someone for an easily definable age or size rule than a much more subjective appearance rule

What is easy for management should not IMO be the priority.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by mack2465

Marinas are privately owned businesses they can make any rules they wish. If you wish to dictate the rules go buy a marina.

In some (many?) states the water below the docks is state owned with the state leasing the dock rights to the marinas. Therefore it is a very legitimate desire for the taxpayer-boater for the marina rules to reflect or at least not to forget that fact.

[mack2465]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

In some (many?) states the water below the docks is state owned with the state leasing the dock rights to the marinas. Therefore it is a very legitimate desire for the taxpayer-boater for the marina rules to reflect or at least not to forget that fact.

Right they lease the dock rights which gives them the right to set the rules. Tax payer does not give you any say over leased property. Once leased according to law it is no longer public.

[Cadence]

How does this get into legality issues? Rules can be put in private marinas of municipals, As someone said, don't like it buy a marina.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

What is easy for management should not IMO be the priority.

Sure it should. Business (even public marinas are typically expected to turn a profit) need to operate in a profitable manner.

Letting undesirable boats (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong) drive off more profitable customers is a great way to lose money. Getting into pissing matches over boat condition, is not a great way to keep customers happy and spending money and tends to use up valuable staff time. If you can cut off unprofitable customers right at the start, that is a smart business decision.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...doesn't matter if it's right or wrong...

Well, it does matter; right or wrong still matters in our country. So if we take private or public land and put a marina there we should expect some fairness to all of the public in the way its operated. Cutting out the little guy because you want to encourage more profitable customers and restricting liveaboards to reduce the hassle of dealing with people who expect to get the services that they pay for is reprehensible. A marina operated for the public benefit cannot be allowed to do that.

Originally Posted by mack2465

Right they lease the dock rights which gives them the right to set the rules. Tax payer does not give you any say over leased property. Once leased according to law it is no longer public.

When the state sets conditions in the terms of the lease then the operator must follow those rules. If the state does not impose rules for the benefit of the public we need new state officials. Fair and non-discriminatory practices in facilities which use publicly owned land or water rights should be expected of all operators.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sure it should. Business (even public marinas are typically expected to turn a profit) need to operate in a profitable manner.

Letting undesirable boats (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong) drive off more profitable customers is a great way to lose money. Getting into pissing matches over boat condition, is not a great way to keep customers happy and spending money and tends to use up valuable staff time. If you can cut off unprofitable customers right at the start, that is a smart business decision.

Well put.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Letting undesirable boats (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong) drive off more profitable customers is a great way to lose money. Getting into pissing matches over boat condition, is not a great way to keep customers happy and spending money and tends to use up valuable staff time.

Junky looking setups, fine, but just banning shorter boats across the board IMO is unjust and should be prohibited.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Junky looking setups, fine, but just banning shorter boats across the board IMO is unjust and should be prohibited.

My experience is it's really not across the board...it's easy to play dumb if a well kept 32' boat shows up and forget to check if it meets the length requirement.

Business is not about social justice. Plus do you really want to stay at a marina where you aren't welcome?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

My experience is it's really not across the board...it's easy to play dumb if a well kept 32' boat shows up and forget to check if it meets the length requirement.

Business is not about social justice. Plus do you really want to stay at a marina where you aren't welcome?

Valhalla, do you realize that what you just suggested is dishonest and corrupt?

You say, have a rule but enforce it only when you want to.

That is not the moral high ground.

I can't operate that way. Maybe you can.

I know a New York Property tycoon who could use a man with your ethics.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Valhalla, do you realize that what you just suggested is dishonest and corrupt?

You say, have a rule but enforce it only when you want to.

That is not the moral high ground.

I can't operate that way. Maybe you can.

I know a New York Property tycoon who could use a man with your ethics.

Not at all. If you don't meet the rules, they have the right to deny you a slip. They made it clear right up front in the rules. No one enforces rules 100% or do you think cops pull over each and every car doing even 1mph over the limit? Discretion in enforcing rule is normal and nothing unethical about it.

They typically don't tell you the purpose of the rule, just the rule. If you are slightly smaller and don't meet the purpose, it's perfectly acceptable for a private business to use discretion to not enforce it. (public marinas are different and unfortunately often are run with very little discretion)

If you have a boat that fits into the slightly too small category, thank those who don't present themselves and their boat well for these types of rules.