Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[sailorchic34]

Looks like there are two basic sides to this discussion. One side wants to have the anchorage for their personal use and the other side wants the anchorage for their personal use. ... HUM.

So lets kick out those nasty liveaboard squatters, so we can use the anchorage instead.

Or, gee we'll spend more money in town so we're more deserving and entitled to the anchorage. We're richer, so we're better. There is a caste system well underway in the US.

In the end, the result is the same. The anchorage is too small for everyone so somebody will have to dingy in from a 1/4 mile further away. Oh the horror.

Somewhere along the way it seems that society as a whole has lost compassion for their fellow man. Now a days its all about entitlement... on both sides.

Grow up and put your big boy panties on. Lordy what a bunch of fussy two year olds.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, Boating and anchoring is governed by admiralty laws which oddly enough existing before the founding of the US. They were incorporated into US laws at the start of this country They were not written to protect the land owner or community, but to protect shipping.

So legally GVH is not breaking any laws. He is abiding/complying by admiralty law. The people breaking the current laws are the ones threatening, dare I say harassing, to have the CG chase him off for their own personal gain.

Now is it morally right to anchor or homestead on one spot for years on end. Probably need to ask the American Indians what they think. Life is not fair. Just because someone is richer then another does not mean that they are more deserving of an anchoring location.

There have always been anchor outs and most likely there always will be. They come they go. For the most part they are not hurting anything. Except for some folks self rightest indignation that is.

Great post!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Looks like there are two basic sides to this discussion. One side wants to have the anchorage for their personal use and the other side wants the anchorage for their personal use. ... HUM.

So lets kick out those nasty liveaboard squatters, so we can use the anchorage instead.

Or, gee we'll spend more money in town so we're more deserving and entitled to the anchorage. We're richer, so we're better. There is a caste system well underway in the US.

In the end, the result is the same. The anchorage is too small for everyone so somebody will have to dingy in from a 1/4 mile further away. Oh the horror.

Somewhere along the way it seems that society as a whole has lost compassion for their fellow man. Now a days its all about entitlement... on both sides.

Grow up and put your big boy panties on. Lordy what a bunch of fussy two year olds.

Ace....

[nimblemotors]

There is a HUGE difference between one person hogging a resource,
and on the other hand people SHARING it.
If one can't appreciate the difference between the two, there is no hope for rational discussion, which btw, this topic has long gone past it.

[ohdrinkboy]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

Sorry you feel that way. You mean decent and communal thing to do like politely asking someone to move? As for the inflammatory nature of how towndock has handled this. I just keep pointing out what they said then, what they say now now, and how the two are not the same. My message from day one has always been the same. I am not doing anything that has not lawfully been done before with no one caring. Now because they don't like a boat in the harbor I should forfeit my rights to be there, after what clearly has been a smear campaign. I am not the one printing letters asking people to use government agencies to harass, or saying we should use loud speakers to blast anyone out of anywhere. I will be moving as soon as the wind shifts so the tide is not so high under the bridge. Not because of the Cape dory "to someplace not within walking distance of the businesses" clown. But because after 4 months one of the people on the town board who I have known for a long time Asked me nicely to move in the fall snow bird season.

Legal issues aside....
You keep focusing on the towns people having the decency to just ask you to move before posting a "smear campaign." What about the decency for you to move on before forcing the towns people to ask you to move?

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by familycruisers

Pretty much the way we see it.

I'll bet anyone $1 the silver-tongued developer of the marina who talked the Town of Oriental into giving up their birthright was probably from New York City and is responsible for any number of similar "improvements" up and down the coast. Doubtful he was around town long enough to he spend much of his profits there.

Simpsons did an episode about it.

Marge vs. the Monorail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

There is a HUGE difference between one person hogging a resource,
and on the other hand people SHARING it.
If one can't appreciate the difference between the two, there is no hope for rational discussion, which btw, this topic has long gone past it.

Thing is there just is not enough "resource" to go around in Oriental . Its a dinky town with a small anchorage they made even smaller. I for one don't see the difference if the anchorage is full of short term or long term boats. Its still full and I'll just anchor elsewhere. No biggy.

Somebody is always going to have that best anchoring spot. Sometimes its you for a week sometimes its me. But there are tons of other locations to go.

There are a lot of poor folks living full time on the water. Some like me move about a bit. Others tend to stay in one location, moving about just a little. I am amazed at the amount of single women anchoring off sausalito.

So the question I put to you is. Where should the anchor outs go? There are no designated anchor out anchorages/ Lets put the po folks here spots. Just wondering.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

There is a HUGE difference between one person hogging a resource,
and on the other hand people SHARING it.
If one can't appreciate the difference between the two, there is no hope for rational discussion, which btw, this topic has long gone past it.

Your right if the town didn't let a private Marina take most of the anchoring space this would not be an issue

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by ohdrinkboy

Legal issues aside....
You keep focusing on the towns people having the decency to just ask you to move before posting a "smear campaign." What about the decency for you to move on before forcing the towns people to ask you to move?

Move on i live here, I can vote here, My mail comes here. I love how the town dockers say that well bloblity bla bla boats hardly have ever anchored long term, when the letter that started it planly says in black and white that the Cape Dory I love using the free dock and leaving ass says every time he has come here over the last 10 years there has always been long term boats in the harbor. It's almost laughable the fine people at town dock don't even read the guest letter that started all of this.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Delancy

I'll bet anyone $1 the silver-tongued developer of the marina who talked the Town of Oriental into giving up their birthright was probably from New York City and is responsible for any number of similar "improvements" up and down the coast. Doubtful he was around town long enough to he spend much of his profits there.

Simpsons did an episode about it.

Marge vs. the Monorail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep in mind that the town does not own the anchorage and never owned the bottom where the marina is built. Have you people ever heard of riparian rights? This by definition gives waterfront land owners certain rights to do things like put docks and other structures in the water directly adjacent to their land. The waterfront in Oriental is mostly privately owned and that gives those owners rights to do things like build a marina in navigable waters. As long as the owner meets the legal permiting requirements there is really nothing that can be done to prevent it. The town never gave away anything, it wasn't theirs to begin with. I don't know who originally owned the land adjacent to the marina, but one local guy owns most of the rest of the land now and it might have been him. The funny thing is that he is the same guy that is planning to sell the land to Walmart. For those thinking that the town can stop Walmart you should note that the proposed site for the store is outside of the city limits. Other than whine about it there is not much the town can do.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Keep in mind that the town does not own the anchorage and never owned the bottom where the marina is built. Have you people ever heard of riparian rights? This by definition gives waterfront land owners certain rights to do things like put docks and other structures in the water directly adjacent to their land. The waterfront in Oriental is mostly privately owned and that gives those owners rights to do things like build a marina in navigable waters. As long as the owner meets the legal permiting requirements there is really nothing that can be done to prevent it. The town never gave away anything, it wasn't theirs to begin with. I don't know who originally owned the land adjacent to the marina, but one local guy owns most of the rest of the land now and it might have been him. The funny thing is that he is the same guy that is planning to sell the land to Walmart. For those thinking that the town can stop Walmart you should note that the proposed site for the store is outside of the city limits. Other than whine about it there is not much the town can do.

Bill to a point your right but that marina took more water then their property allows for. That grab of waters in the public trust went mostly unchecked. The reason I say mostly is because the maria wanted even more of that space and if they had their way they would of taken the water all the way to the channel.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

Bill to a point your right but that marina took more water then their property allows for. That grab of waters in the public trust went mostly unchecked. The reason I say mostly is because the maria wanted even more of that space and if they had their way they would of taken the water all the way to the channel.

If I remember correctly the Marina docks come out to about the end of the condos that face the marina along the water front. I assume, but don't know that the property the condos are built on extends a bit past the end of the condos, as buildings are not usually built right to the property line. Those condos were a part of the original marina development. It would seem to me that their riparian rights would have given them the right to put docks in up to that property line. Are you saying they grabbed water beyond the property line, towards the channel? The problem I have with the Marina is the fact that they sold the slips as a dockuminium complex. While riparian rights give you certain rights of use to the water directly in front of your property, it does not confer ownership. If you don't own it, how can you sell it? State law says that all submerged bottom below MHW is the property of the state. Someday these dock owners are going to loose a suit and their deeds, but since the county (and City?) is making a fortune in taxes off of these "owners" the local governments are no going to press the issue.

[ShaktiGurl]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Looks like there are two basic sides to this discussion. One side wants to have the anchorage for their personal use and the other side wants the anchorage for their personal use. ... HUM.

So lets kick out those nasty liveaboard squatters, so we can use the anchorage instead.

Or, gee we'll spend more money in town so we're more deserving and entitled to the anchorage. We're richer, so we're better. There is a caste system well underway in the US.

In the end, the result is the same. The anchorage is too small for everyone so somebody will have to dingy in from a 1/4 mile further away. Oh the horror.

Somewhere along the way it seems that society as a whole has lost compassion for their fellow man. Now a days its all about entitlement... on both sides.

Grow up and put your big boy panties on. Lordy what a bunch of fussy two year olds.

Yep! Exactly how we feel.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Keep in mind that the town does not own the anchorage and never owned the bottom where the marina is built. Have you people ever heard of riparian rights? This by definition gives waterfront land owners certain rights to do things like put docks and other structures in the water directly adjacent to their land. The waterfront in Oriental is mostly privately owned and that gives those owners rights to do things like build a marina in navigable waters. As long as the owner meets the legal permiting requirements there is really nothing that can be done to prevent it. The town never gave away anything, it wasn't theirs to begin with. I don't know who originally owned the land adjacent to the marina, but one local guy owns most of the rest of the land now and it might have been him. The funny thing is that he is the same guy that is planning to sell the land to Walmart. For those thinking that the town can stop Walmart you should note that the proposed site for the store is outside of the city limits. Other than whine about it there is not much the town can do.

Maybe I missed something along the way but I thought the real crux of the problem here is that a marina was built which encroached on the anchorage.

As a result, transients and local businesses have been pitted against liveaboards and derelict vagrants who seemingly have every right not to move. Unlikely I could get someone to move and make room for me in a tight spot if I am a late comer to any other anchorage, even if only a night.

"Sorry, can't help you, we were here first, I have to think about my own safety, you should have come earlier, there's plenty of room outside the breakwater" is the usual reply. First come first serve.

This notion that somehow a landowner sold a property to someone who built a marina/condo development that extended into a navigable waterway (generally not included in riparian rights) and the Town was powerless to stop it is beyond me.

There has to be more to it and what I have read on the Towndock.net suggests to me that there was little resistance from the community and they gave it at least tacet approval if through nothing other than their own inaction motivated in part by greed.

Now that all of this hands-changing and money making is said and done with some people don't like the consequences of their own short sighted apathy.

I can say with certainty I would have fought the development were I a local resident and if I lost the fight I would be pointing at the project's proponents, and the other people complaining about it who didn't participate in the fight, saying I told you so.

I am entirely pro development, but only when it happens on previously developed properties. It's already messed up and as far as I am concerned you can put up a highrise if you want, just make it tasteful.

On the other hand it is very difficult to undo the things we do to the environment. The changes we make to the land and seascape when we build structures are very often permanent.

People are as powerless as they allow themselves to be. When it's your community and your environment, are you gonna fight for it or just complain about it after the fact?

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Delancy

Maybe I missed something along the way but I thought the real crux of the problem here is that a marina was built which encroached on the anchorage.

As a result, transients and local businesses have been pitted against liveaboards and derelict vagrants who seemingly have every right not to move. Unlikely I could get someone to move and make room for me in a tight spot if I am a late comer to any other anchorage, even if only a night.

"Sorry, can't help you, we were here first, I have to think about my own safety, you should have come earlier, there's plenty of room outside the breakwater" is the usual reply. First come first serve.

This notion that somehow a landowner sold a property to someone who built a marina/condo development that extended into a navigable waterway (generally not included in riparian rights) and the Town was powerless to stop it is beyond me.

There has to be more to it and what I have read on the Towndock.net suggests to me that there was little resistance from the community and they gave it at least tacet approval if through nothing other than their own inaction motivated in part by greed.

Now that all of this hands-changing and money making is said and done with some people don't like the consequences of their own short sighted apathy.

I can say with certainty I would have fought the development were I a local resident and if I lost the fight I would be pointing at the project's proponents, and the other people complaining about it who didn't participate in the fight, saying I told you so.

I am entirely pro development, but only when it happens on previously developed properties. It's already messed up and as far as I am concerned you can put up a highrise if you want, just make it tasteful.

On the other hand it is very difficult to undo the things we do to the environment. The changes we make to the land and seascape when we build structures are very often permanent.

People are as powerless as they allow themselves to be. When it's your community and your environment, are you gonna fight for it or just complain about it after the fact?

Frankly I don't know what was where the Marina complex is before the marina was developed, but this was basically a fishing harbor and still is to a great extent. I seriously doubt that the marina shoreline was pristine. The owner of the local seafood plant still owns much if not most of the property around the harbor.

I would argue that riparian rights almost always extend to navigable waters. Do you really think that most docks don't extend into water deep enough to float a boat? The marina definitely does not extend to the navigation channel into the town harbor itself or to the navigation channel under the bridge. It seems to me to cover just about 100% of the available space directly in front of the land side of the development, from property line to property line and out about 200-250 feet. It would not surprise me if they asked for more space and were denied it during the permitting process. There's probably another 100 feet of water available before they encroach on the channel going under the bridge.