Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

Ouch.

Hey Sand Castle, you are right on a couple of points for sure. The Dockmaster you described is no longer here. You definitely didn't get professional service. Also I hadn't considered the diesel turnover. Thx.

Ya, I didn't want to go to deep, but did she have a substance problem? She gave off this vibe...

Maybe just a quirky girl.

[Blue Crab]

I didn't meet her and don't know about that but the first coupla a days here several people mentioned what a _________ she was.

I apologize to Capt Bill and others for the Sea Gate thread drift.

On that note, I believe DotDun wins the Best Post in this thread award.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Anyone object to injecting a reasonable amount of objectivity into this conversation?

First, cruisers have druthers. Some insist in anchoring in none less than 30'. If you are in this conversation, why?

Others, by virtue of boat size and length of keel couldn't anchor anywhere in Orient - even if there weren't any other boats. If you are in this conversation, why?

Greatest depth I've seen mentioned thus far is in the channel @ 10'. Nobody can anchor there.

Some shoal draft boats could have anchored in 4' where the marina is now located... I could have.

The Orient anchorage appears to be most suitable for shoal draft boats drawing 5', maybe 6' and less. If your boat is in this range, then you are probably justified in participating in this conversation.

The rest of you don't have an iron in the Orient fire, and are most likely simply here stating your opinion. But, to the extent your comments may focus on the inconsiderate 'bad' boaters, bums, freeloaders, and appearance of the boats at the center of controversy - you are contributing nothing useful to resolving this debate.

Of legitimate concern is whether any of the boats are anchored in such a manner that other boaters who would anchor a reasonably safe distance away cannot swing on the hook. Seems to me if someone would complain politely enough this could be resolved. On the other hand, if said boat is on the margin of the main anchorage and must deploy bow and stern anchors to avoid going aground - I'd say the owner is doing everyone else a favour by anchoring in this spot. Other sailors are likely to anchor away from this spot, and if skilled enough will judge the swing of their boat so as to avoid colliding with the 'stationary' boat. Could be a piling, mooring ball or any other stationary obstruction. No? It just happens to be a boat. Of course if the boat is in the middle of 'prime' area, it should in response to a reasonable request either move to a spot where anchoring this way is o.k., or abandon the second anchor.

I haven't seen any photos of the creek anchorage. But, I understand it is farthur from access to land and services. Anyone who rows or paddles would naturally want to anchor closer in.

Which brings me to the next point. If we are to be considerate boaters, it seems only reasonable anyone with a motorized dinghy would be happy to anchor farther out, surrendering more convenient spots to those who row or paddle to shore.

your typical post.....

you have something valuable to contribute but the vast majority of everyone else doesn't.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

They really didn't have the ability to stop the marina. The only thing they could have done is stopped the building on shore, but they would have had a legal reason for doing so. They might have been able to use zoning laws, but this waterfont was already developed. The water side of the marina is outside of the town's jurisdiction. That is why the legislature must pass a law allowing them to control the harbor. If they had control of the harbor there might already be anchoring restrictions. You see it is not the town's harbor though it is located adjacent to the town. The harbor belongs to the federal government under management by the state government. The federal government turned management of waters below mhw and within the states territory over to the states in the 90's.

Yes, clearly the marina was originally built for profit and I'm sure the original developers did quite well. I never said it wasn't. That was over 10 years ago so get over it. I said it is not now operated for profit. The landside facilities and docks are owned by a condominium association that is by law not allowed to make a profit. It is not a business. Most of the slips are owned by individuals storing their own boats. I know one guy who bought a slip there because he wanted one in town. I don't know anyone who really expected a profit that bought a slip. The long run goal was mostly to be able to sell the slip for what they paid for it and net a free slip for what ever number of years they kept it. If the price went up a bit so what. It will probably never completely offset the taxes and condo fees they had to pay in the meantime.



With regards to Seagate Marina. SeaGate is a for profit marina, not a town. It is a business. There is virtually nothing near there in the way of businesses. There is no comparison at all to Oriental harbor.

Noted. Thanks for sharing your insight. Cheers

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Goth,

Give it up! You got caught 'farting in church'! Tuck your tail, move on, and hope the next 'church' you enter won't recognize you. Geesh!

I have done nothing wrong, and broken no city, state or federal laws. If you think I violated any law I would more then welcome seeing any proof you have.

[Coops]

It's not always the case that just because you have not broken any laws, you have not done anything wrong.

Coops.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Coops

It's not always the case that just because you have not broken any laws, you have not done anything wrong.

Coops.

You are 100% right just because I have not broken any laws doesn't mean I have not done anything wrong, In your opinion. The key words there are in your opinion.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

You are 100% right just because I have not broken any laws doesn't mean I have not done anything wrong, In your opinion. The key words there are in your opinion.

Was not judging there, so my opinion does not enter into it. But there are such things as morals and ethics that are not governed by any laws.

Coops.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Coops

Was not judging there, so my opinion does not enter into it. But there are such things as morals and ethics that are not governed by any laws.

Coops.

That's a honest and good reply. But there are many ethics that all laws are governed by, and many laws deal with ethics as well. As for morals most are subjective but the main ones like it's wrong to take something you don't own are also governed by laws as well. But I see your point.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by GothVanhellsing

I have done nothing wrong, and broken no city, state or federal laws. If you think I violated any law I would more then welcome seeing any proof you have.

Truth be told you haven't done anything wrong, immoral or unethical. You have simply drawn the wrath of some boaters who believe they are entitled, no matter how infrequently the may actually use their boat, to an anchorage free of anchor outs and live aboards. What's more, they believe they should always be able to anchor in 'prime' spots - no matter how small or shallow the anchorage may be. This is more about a clash in culture, lifestyle and economic status than anything else.

Folks who have a house they call home, store their boats in marinas and typically use them on weekends, vacations and holidays complain the loudest. Genuine cruisers typically plan well in advance, knowing where dropping the hook is possible and likely to satisfy their needs. Also, they realize it is sometimes necessary to communicate with other boaters in order to deploy appropriate scope, and yes accommodate a new arrival by re-anchoring. There has been too little effort made by the disgruntled in the Oriental affair to communicate, to encourage accommodative behaviour by the long term boaters.

The objects of their ire are people who's home is their boat. The focus in this conversation has been upon people who allegedly live on boats because they are supposedly poor and were it not for the boat would be homeless, in the street. 20 years ago, I elected to abandon a situation viewed by most people as 'living the American dream'. I owned my home free and clear. No mortgage.

My decision to abandon the 'dream' was voluntary and my objective to change the way I live was central.

I have been a cruiser, anchor out and live aboard ever since. Those of you who will destroy my ability to live my life the way I chose 20 years ago, so you can have your 'prime' location on weekends, holidays and vacations are the ones morally and ethically corrupt.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Truth be told you haven't done anything wrong, immoral or unethical. You have simply drawn the wrath of some boaters who believe they are entitled, no matter how infrequently the may actually use their boat, to an anchorage free of anchor outs and live aboards. What's more, they believe they should always be able to anchor in 'prime' spots - no matter how small or shallow the anchorage may be. This is more about a clash in culture, lifestyle and economic status than anything else.

Folks who have a house they call home, store their boats in marinas and typically use them on weekends, vacations and holidays complain the loudest. Genuine cruisers typically plan well in advance, knowing where dropping the hook is possible and likely to satisfy their needs. Also, they realize it is sometimes necessary to communicate with other boaters in order to deploy appropriate scope, and yes accommodate a new arrival by re-anchoring. There has been too little effort made by the disgruntled in the Oriental affair to communicate, to encourage accommodative behaviour by the long term boaters.

The objects of their ire are people who's home is their boat. The focus in this conversation has been upon people who allegedly live on boats because they are supposedly poor and were it not for the boat would be homeless, in the street. 20 years ago, I elected to abandon a situation viewed by most people as 'living the American dream'. I owned my home free and clear. No mortgage.

My decision to abandon the 'dream' was voluntary and my objective to change the way I live was central.

I have been a cruiser, anchor out and live aboard ever since. Those of you who will destroy my ability to live my life the way I chose 20 years ago, so you can have your 'prime' location on weekends, holidays and vacations are the ones morally and ethically corrupt.

Interesting perspective, as a liveaboard who also leaves the dock as often as weather and my long project list permits, it never ceases to amaze my that I live in a city of more than 8 million people yet often find myself the only recreational boater in the harbor.

Fully 90% of the boats in any given marina I have ever been at never leave the dock. Somehow I rather expect the case to be the same in Oriental.

[psneeld]

sounds like the reverse side of the coin named "entitled".....

anchor out, liveaboard and cruiser are not interchangeable and vary widely...they mean completely different things to different people.

there are liveaboard cruisers who have voiced a desire to be able to anchor occasionally in Oriental...knowing the harbor could be full of anything...including a ACOE dredge when they come though....no big deal...

But knowing that the vast majority of prime spots are permanently taken doesn't sit well with me and sounds like more than a few others agree.

I don't feel as "entitled" to those spots as people who have "decided" that freedom means the freedom to do anything they like as long as it sorta remains within the law and screw the rest.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Delancy

Interesting perspective, as a liveaboard who also leaves the dock as often as weather and my long project list permits, it never ceases to amaze my that I live in a city of more than 8 million people yet often find myself the only recreational boater in the harbor.

Fully 90% of the boats in any given marina I have ever been at never leave the dock. Somehow I rather expect the case to be the same in Oriental.

Among the anchor-outs it's probably 100% that never move.

[kim r]

sorry but i visited Oriental lately to see if it were someplace i would want to buy a slip- i saw the three boats that are mentioned and decided Oriental is a pigsty- these kinds of liveaboards ruin it for everyone else- if your boat doesn't make the picture a beautiful thing- take yourself out of the picture. Oriental is ruined

[kim r]

By the way- there are some very nice businesses and restaurants right where these boats are hanging out - they ruin the experience for everyone - especially when they are in rags and hanging out with their dogs in the park in front of the waterfront- i am so disappointed that they are still there every time i go back-