Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[Therapy]

[QUOTE=goboatingnow;1344173]

I am not arguing the illegality of stealing , merely pointing out that stealing coffee and Nutella might be evidence of some desperation.

Merely pointing out that which has been obvious from early on. Let's speculate further into mental illness shall we? NO. let's not OK?

" overstaying their welcome" I don't beleive they were invited. Are they abiding by the law

That has never been denied.

If yes then not much you can do

. No ****? Really?

Of not then apply the sanctions.

N/A

Funny how no law enforcement has acted.

There has been a little but then again, you came in in the middle and have not gone to links etc. So you may no know.

That's very unusual in my experience in the US. Its one of the most active policed states I've ever lived in.

Well, that is interesting. Not me.

Must be some reason no ones acted

Because it IS LEGAL. But you don't get it still.

Over and out.

[nimblemotors]

Um, someone who owns a boat has something, a boat.
That is more than a lot of other poor people.

I think it is important to allow people to live on their boats and anchoring should be free.
But I don't get what is so hard to understand about moving along. The city built a marina, development happens. A forward looking city often places 'low-rent' percentage as part of development rights. Who built the guest dock there? Maybe they should be a bigger one?

If the boat is broken, fix it or move it somewhere else.
If a car breaks down in front of my house, I don't say oh well, just stay there for 10 years, no problem. It is always the abusers that get laws created,
and laws are always imperfect, eg 10 days limit when it takes 30 days to get a new part delivered, now you are breaking the law.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Um, someone who owns a boat has something, a boat.
That is more than a lot of other poor people.

I think it is important to allow people to live on their boats and anchoring should be free.
But I don't get what is so hard to understand about moving along. The city built a marina, development happens. A forward looking city often places 'low-rent' percentage as part of development rights. Who built the guest dock there? Maybe they should be a bigger one?

If the boat is broken, fix it or move it somewhere else.
If a car breaks down in front of my house, I don't say oh well, just stay there for 10 years, no problem. It is always the abusers that get laws created,
and laws are always imperfect, eg 10 days limit when it takes 30 days to get a new part delivered, now you are breaking the law.

If a car breaks down on the public highway in front of your house , YOU can't do anything about it. Unless the laws allow you to.
Normally local ordinances allow the authorities remove such cars.

In this case that hasn't happened and there nothing YOU can do.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Because it IS LEGAL. But you don't get it still.

Oh I get it just fine Tks

The vagrants should have the decency to tug their forelocks, express an apology for blocking m'luds views and just push off quietly to some other dumping ground

No you don't get it. You really think these people feel an obligation to a world like they have found themselves in , really , seriously

Dave

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Oh I get it just fine Tks

The vagrants should have the decency to tug their forelocks, express an apology for blocking m'luds views and just push off quietly to some other dumping ground

No you don't get it. You really think these people feel an obligation to a world like they have found themselves in , really , seriously

Dave

and thus the public outcry and "pressure to move on" legal or not...because these people DON'T seem to feel an obligation to anyone at all....

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

16 years of Republician governors gets you !!


Dave

Dave, you really need to do some homework before you make ridiculous comments. We have a democrat governor and have had a democrat controlled state senate and house in Massachusetts for over 60 years.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Dave, you really need to do some homework before you make ridiculous comments. We have a democrat governor and have had a democrat controlled state senate and house in Massachusetts for over 60 years.

Yes correct me of I'm wrong , from memory , before the current democratic gov you had four republican governors ending in the bold Mitt, who I beleive adopted very liberal policies. I lived there when Dukakis was governor I never mentioned the state senate or house. ( which I'm well aware of is demrocratic , just buzzing you )

I don't think you can blame the incumbent for everything lol.

Dave

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Um, someone who owns a boat has something, a boat.
That is more than a lot of other poor people.
.

And I thank my lucky start every day, that I purchased a sailboat when I could afford it. Without it I would really be up the creek, er, as it were.

But I don't really consider myself poor even though most folks would say that I am. My back yard is to die for and I've not had a utility bill in many years.

Oddly enough I do agree that it's best when/if folks move along. Just that for some, for whatever reason, they don't have the wherewithall to do so.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

ROFLMAO. Your funny....

Go ahead and do that now. There are no laws being broken by the three boats in question. Well maybe with the frenchy and the visa thing. But as they are not Hispanic, its probably a non-issue to INS.

Let me know how that works for ya...

The word that occurred to me isn't 'nice', so instead I'll just state the people needed the least by the boating community are those who try to use publicity and motivate public agencies to intervene on their behalf. A certain road to formal anchoring restrictions. You will obtain an outcome you will regret.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Wrong

The word that occurred to me isn't 'nice', so instead I'll just state the people needed the least by the boating community are those who try to use publicity and motivate public agencies to intervene on their behalf. A certain road to formal anchoring restrictions. You will obtain an outcome you will regret.

Now that as a view I can agree on. However it unfortunately it is the only way , when a " right" meets a " resistance" someone has to rule.

Dave

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Now that as a view I can agree on. However it unfortunately it is the only way , when a " right" meets a " resistance" someone has to rule.

Dave

That depends upon the right in question and type of resistance. One size does not fit all.

What's missing in this conversation are references to federal, state and local laws presumed to permit municipal enforcement against, and or to create restrictions upon boaters activities. As some have aptly pointed out, laws are promulgated to control peoples behaviour. If no law relating to a particular action or behaviour exists, said action and or behaviour is presumed to be legal. It makes no difference whether the action or behaviour is performed by a rich or poor, male or female, pink or orange person.

So, here we have a situation where boat owners aren't doing anything controlled or prohibited by law.

Case closed. No matter who you are, if you don't approve of perfectly legal behaviour, you cannot do anything of a legal nature to alter or prevent it. Even if 'it' is not a 'right'. This does not of course preclude appealing to public opinion or engaging in a campaign to create ordinances designed to prohibit a public nuisance, behaviour or activity.

Problem is, once you embark down that slippery slope you hazard losing control over the scope of the ordinance - which often ends up a more draconian measure than you ever believed possible. You end up affecting not only others but yourself. It always seems easier for legislators to enact laws that restrict everyone rather than to enact laws to achieve a limited desired result. Control only those who were the source of your discontent.

[markpierce]

The patrol boat shouted I was "illegally anchored" near the Suisun Bay reserve fleet a couple of Christmas Eves ago. Regulations say anchoring is prohibited within 300 feet of the ships. I was at least 800 feet away. Apparently, the security people interpret one can't anchor anywhere between shore and the fleet. Subsequent inquiry with the U.S. government was not acknowledged or responded. Regardless, I moved a couple of miles east to anchor.

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The patrol boat shouted I was "illegally anchored" near the Suisun Bay reserve fleet a couple of Christmas Eves ago. Regulations say anchoring is prohibited within 300 feet of the ships. I was at least 800 feet away. Apparently, the security people interpret one can't anchor anywhere between shore and the fleet. Subsequent inquiry with the U.S. government was not acknowledged or responded. Regardless, I moved a couple of miles east to anchor.

The distance is 500ft. I quote directly from the regulations (marine reserve fleet 162.170)

(b) No vessels or other watercraft, ex-
cept those owned or controlled by the
United States Government, shall cruise
or anchor between Reserve Fleet units
within 500 feet of the end vessels in
each Reserve Fleet unit, or within 500
feet of the extreme units of the fleets,
unless specific permission to do so has
first been granted in each case by the
enforcing agency.

[markpierce]

That's a change. Regardless, according to my first-grade teacher, 500 is less than 800.

[MarkSF]

Quite true... and I would have told them to either go away, or show me the relevant regulation.