The problem is that is exactly the point. There is a legal difference between the two and people that don’t know what that difference is, take that bit of mis-information and run with it……..
Again, I acknowledged the legal differences. I simply made a plea for you and others to think about this in human terms rather than technical legal terms for just a moment. The human terms being that if you put aside your own selfish demands for leisure and recreation for a minute, and just consider the fact that no one (sailors included) really want anyone in a traveling conveyance of any sort setting up shop in their backyard, you might at least see the argument has more than just your side and pov that might be considered legitimate.
I understand that for some of you, it's simply impossible to consider any counter argument to your demands as you feel entitled to your "right" to park on top of people who have actually invested in an area and call it there home. "Why, it's my right!! Screw those stupid McMansion dwelling jerks!"
Frankly, you sound just like them. Welcome to America, land of the entitled, where no one gives a crap to consider others I guess. Meh.
The RV/boat analogy is extremely weak and I can see your wanting to talk around it. Falling back to "because we don't like it" is sounds a little like you're the ones whining, but at least it's honest.
Parking restrictions presume safe parking alternatives. Anchoring regs presume no safe alternatives--due to depth, channels, bottom, weather conditions, etc.
Parking laws regulate the use of the road. Anchoring laws regulate the use of open water. They aren't analogous. The infrastructure planned and built to safely accommodate vehicles has no logical parallel with sea water. "We want to the government to make our water view the way we like it." may be reasonable where RV's have safe man-made alternatives. But it would override all the considerations that normally govern anchoring. It would be like saying planes can land at an airport but they can't park overnight because you don't like to look at them. Water isn't the same as dry land and boats aren't the same as RVs. Air is actually a much better analogy than roads.
The only genuine argument I've seen so far is yours: "We don't want to see (those other peoples') boats when we look out at the water". Not to sound unkind, but too bad. I can understand the motivation, but you knew what you were getting when you bought the place. The boat owners who live a block back from the water have rights, too.
PS--You sure you want to start throwing the words "whiny and entitled" around?
Yup, always a clever move to turn the tables and accuse those you disagree with with what they actually said to you first. Well played, lol..
Anyway, like I said in prior posts - I see nothing wrong with homeowners expectations of quiet enjoyment of their property and homes. 200' is more than reasonable imo.
When Captain Onions and Admiral Peppers pull up in their pos 70's era 27 footer and set up shop "living the dream" (which often seems to consist of stinky cooking, booze, smokes, and the early morning/late afternoon hilarity of dropping/pulling anchor as Captain Onions berates poor Peppers as she tries her best to deal with his freaking out over the process), I can see why no one would want them around. Get a job and buy your own million dollar views, or at the very least keep your desperate attempts at obtaining paradise on a Burger King budget down the waterway a piece (200' sounds like a decent start..).
Before you get your oxygen bottles in a knot over that last paragraph, let me add this emoticon
so you see there is a bit of jest interspersed in the reality I just wrote. Happy Pappy?