SailNet Community banner

41 - 57 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
I am still not really understanding the argument that because you pay rent in a marina that you are paying taxes to the community. I’ve heard that before and don’t buy into it. Everyone in the marina is doing that.

BTW you can’t claim residency on that argument, unless you establish that marina as you permanent residence.
I think for voting purposes you can do that.

Every boat in the marina therefore is paying taxes to the community then. The marina is a for profit enterprise. In its P/L under disbursements it has a section for property taxes, mortgage , rent , insurance etc. All for profit
stores, enterprises etc are built the same. Let’s take a car was for example.....do you consider every patron of the car wash contributing to the real estate taxes in the community. Doubtful you would view every time you spend money anywhere you believe you contribute to the taxes in the community. If you do believe that then everyone is contributing. However the people who own real estate pay double then.

In the case of permanent live aboards like houseboats, etc. where people live full time in one spot and are not cruising I can sede your point of view. Like I said previously I believe that is only a very small segment of liveaboards as many more marinas restrict people from living aboard than allow it.

The concept of municipal marinas with liveaboards is a west coast thing I think. I haven’t see any on the east coast in my limited travels

I was not suggesting that an individual who rents a slip is "directly" paying property taxes, but yes, that individual is "indirectly" paying property taxes. The renter is paying a fee to the property owner. The property owner, in turn, is using some of the payment from the renter to pay the property taxes on the marina. If property taxes on the marina double, you can bet that the marina owner is going to increase his rental fees.

The same is true of a car wash owner. Each time someone pays to have their car washed, some of that fee will be used by the property owner to pay his property taxes, as well as his water bill, soap bill, utility bill, wages for employees etc. So yes, in essence, every time someone pays to have their car washed at a car wash facility, they are indirectly paying property taxes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
https://www.uscg.mil/readings/Article/1548177/authorities/

I found a list of the Coast Guard’s authorities on their website at the address above.

14 USC § 89 gives them the authority for vessel boardings. Congress gave them this.

The US government has a website https://www.govinfo.gov/ where you can read the legislation, if anyone is interested.

I also found an interesting article on the topic (see below), which referenced some law review articles that explore the topic.

https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime/the-fourth-amendment-rights-vs-boarding-power-of-the-united-states-coast-guard/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I've spent the majority of my adult life defending your right to complain about what you don't like about our system of laws, and that was MY CHOICE, but the USCG inspections that you are railing against are not intrusions for no reason or for the purpose of harassment, they are in place for your safety and/or the safety of others.

Consider the thought of being the one person who refuses to leave your home during a hurricane, because "no one can make you leave, it's you right to stay", and then when you call for help when the roof blows off your house and flood waters start rushing in, who do you call? Now you have to put others in danger to come save you because it was your right to stay.

As an American you have the right to do almost anything you want, but in order to preserve that right, you must accept the laws and regulations that allows you those rights. Or you can run for Congress and change the laws you don't like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Precisely the same way the police know my Jeep is not carrying 2 tons of blow.

I don't believe the boarder patrol can stop me on the streets of Chicago and search my Jeep without probable cause.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
I don't agree with their specific agenda for writing blog, but there is information that supports my opinion. The CG has no more legal authority than the boarder patrol.
Actually Dave, the Coast Guard has considerable more legal authority then the Border Patrol when it comes to enforcing US law on US waters and in the high seas when dealing with US vessels. here is even legal authority for the CG to exercise authority ashore under certain conditions. The CG's authority is among the broadest of any law enforcement agency. As several have pointed out, the CG's authority to board vessels without probable cause or suspicion has been upheld by the courts numerous times over the years. You may not agree with it, but that would be for Congress to change. That's not to say there cannot be abuses by CG boarding teams or poor judgement as to when to conduct a boarding, it happens, but such things do not change their authority. There are ways to redress those grievances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
......If property taxes on the marina double, you can bet that the marina owner is going to increase his rental fees....
This is the salient point. When it was just raw waterfront land, the taxes were a small fraction of what they become the moment you add high density occupancy. It doesn’t matter whether the tenants live aboard or not. Their existence drives a multiplication of the taxes, they didn’t exist prior, which are ultimately paid by those tenants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
The mobility of the boat is why it falls under the jurisdiction of the CG. Like has been said, I have never seen the CG board any houseboats or vessels at the dock.
This argument does not hold water, as my Jeep is waaaay more maneuverable than most any boat, and certainly more maneuverable than any sailboat. I could easily gain access to the boarder through a remote creek or even a field. There are miles worth of boarder along norther MN that I could get to much faster than trying to sail a 24 ft boat from Chicago to Lake Huron.


Actually Dave, the Coast Guard has considerable more legal authority then the Border Patrol when it comes to enforcing US law on US waters and in the high seas when dealing with US vessels. here is even legal authority for the CG to exercise authority ashore under certain conditions. The CG's authority is among the broadest of any law enforcement agency. As several have pointed out, the CG's authority to board vessels without probable cause or suspicion has been upheld by the courts numerous times over the years. You may not agree with it, but that would be for Congress to change. That's not to say there cannot be abuses by CG boarding teams or poor judgement as to when to conduct a boarding, it happens, but such things do not change their authority. There are ways to redress those grievances.
Laws are completely irrelevant. It is only the constitution that has authority. The laws that establish the Coast Guard do so under the need to protect the boarder, and insure taxes are collected, neither of which apply to a 24 ft sailboat on southern Lake MI. It should also be understood, that to use any public access port of entry into Lake MI requires a yearly Coast Guard safety inspection sticker.

There are two issues with previous cases regarding boarding. All cases so far have been brought in the context of serious illegal activity. This means the court is predisposed to have little sympathy for the defendant. It should also be noted that many minority court opinions have disagreed with entry without probable cause.

I've not found any court opinion that specifically addresses the inconstancy of protections granted to the owner of a car vs a boat that is on waters that do not have reasonable access to a foreign boarder, such as southern Lake MI.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
This is the salient point. When it was just raw waterfront land, the taxes were a small fraction of what they become the moment you add high density occupancy. It doesn’t matter whether the tenants live aboard or not. Their existence drives a multiplication of the taxes, they didn’t exist prior, which are ultimately paid by those tenants.
And the prices of the other land owners will increase , the car wash will increase , and the prices of stores will increase.....its all part of same the P/L equation.

Density is a two edge sword. Allowing more people requires more investment in infrastructure. The more people the more wastewater mediations is needed. The more people the bigger the law enforcement. The larger schools. High density has an equal and opposite reaction.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
Laws are made. If the appear to contradict the Constitution, then they go to the courts for interpretation.
Many laws have been thrown out of modified if they are interpreted by the courts including SCOTUS to be unconstitutional. Accordingly many laws are upheld by the courts to be constitutional.

It’s just that you don’t agree with the law. The law is not unconstitutional. You could accept that. Once you do you can work with others to pass a new law or change the one in place.

Just understand that many may disagree with you, possibly a majority. The right to own a boat is not an inalienable right. It is a right with a restriction that you can be searched by the CG. As decided by the courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
So you are stating that a law can contradict the constitution?
Cut it out, you’re just being stubborn or trolling. The law has been upheld as constitutional, it does not contradict. Simple, straightforward. No debate.

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re delusional enough to think you’ll change anyone’s mind here, let alone change the law you dislike by making your case here. Lobby your representative to Congress. Otherwise, you’re just repeating yourself to create an argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Daveinet;2051629732 Laws are completely irrelevant. It is only the constitution that has authority. The laws that establish the Coast Guard do so under the need to protect the boarder said:
Sorry Dave, I would have to disagree with your analyses on several points. First, the idea that the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress are completely separate things is really too simplistic. Yes, the Constitution "trumps" laws... but it does so only when and if a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) determines that a specific law (or part of one) conflicts with the Constitution. Neither the Constitution nor statutes can be read separately. In the case of CG boarding authorities (specifically 14 USC 89), the courts have repeatedly held they are consistent with Constitutional principles, that is the search & seizure limitations of the 4th Amendment. Thus, until the Supreme Court reverses that holding, we have to accept (not like necessarily, but accept) the fact CG boarding authority is Constitutional. You also state that the laws that "establish" the CG are only applicable to border crossings and "tax collection." If that were the case, they would say so. Indeed, some CG authorities are in fact limited to customs statues, but again the primary CG authority to board vessels, 14 USC 89 is not. Had Congress wanted it to be so limited they could have. Neither the language of the law, the legislative history or the interpreting court decisions do so. You are correct in that the great majority of court cases interpreting CG authority do deal with drug and other major violations. That is so because they are the ones where a lot was at stake for the defendants and it was worth going to court. There are few, if any, legal challenges to a CG "safety inspection" boarding. That doesn't mean there is any less CG authority. Finally, just a small point of correction, you stated that "to use any public access port of entry into Lake MI requires a yearly Coast Guard safety inspection sticker." There is no such thing. There are "courtesy" safety inspections offered by the CG Auxiliary and other organizations, but the USCG does not (and has never) issued such a sticker. If some local facility is requiring a courtesy exam sticker, that is not any federal requirement.

Again, there are legitimate concerns over the broad extent of the CG's boarding authority and how it is implemented. Perhaps in the 21st century some of the rationale is no longer applicable. But unless and until Congress or the courts change these (constitutional) authorities they are what we have to live with.

Lot's of good law review and in depth discussion out there that can provide all the court and historical references.
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
8,235 Posts
This issue has come up several times over my career with varying degrees of USCG power.
The first time I ran across it was in Honolulu, in the Ala Wai Yacht Harbour. A Honolulu city police officer came to the boat looking for someone. His first question was whether the boat was documented. When we said yes, he refused to come aboard to search for whoever stating only the USCG could board. He was polite, as were we, but it was an eye opener for a 22 year old. Since then a documented boat lost this special status, long story.
Second, the USCG may only board vessels of those nationalities in international waters that they have an agreement with. American vessels pretty much anytime with a few exceptions.
One of those exceptions was if the vessel was a private residence, more or less permanently secured to a private dock (not a marina) and being used as a primary dwelling. Then the USCG was required, just like any other LEO, to secure a warrant with just cause. Been there and with the help of the ACLU stopped the forceful entry without just cause or complaint just to check heads, which set national perimeters, at least until the Constitution and Bill of Rights went flying out in the bath water with passing of the Patriot Act. Terrorists; ONE, Constitution & Bill of Rights:ZERO
 
  • Like
Reactions: contrarian

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
the Constitution and Bill of Rights went flying out in the bath water with passing of the Patriot Act. Terrorists; ONE, Constitution & Bill of Rights:ZERO
BINGO. As my wife told me: money, sex and power make the world go round and, if you ever wonder why someone does something, look for one (or more) of these.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I'm guessing the same rationale that undergirds LE's right to search a car without probable cause, aka the "vehicle exception" exception to the generally applicable warrant requirement, also applies to boats, because they are mobile and could be removed quickly while LE obtains a warrant. In the contrary. Up here in the frozen North the MN supreme court ruled that a warrant is required for an ice fishing house because they are semi permanent and cannot be moved in a flash like a car. However, with the advent and burgeoning popularity of "wheel houses," which are fish houses that have their own integral wheels that can be cranked up and down fairly quickly, it would be an open question whether the vehicle exception would apply to them, but still not the old style fish houses on skids. Appellate courts like bright line rules because they are easier for LE and the public to apply. In any event I can think of no sailboat not welded to a pier, like the supply ships seemed to be in my days in the USN, to which the vehicle exception would not apply. Thay does not mean LE would have carte blanche to stop and search a vessel. They should at least have reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity is afoot, which they may develop during a safety equipment check, which I believe are allowed without any cause at all. So keep your crack pipes in the llazarette I guess is the lesson.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
I'm guessing the same rationale......
I followed your point on rationale. To be clear, the government's right to board a boat has been specifically adjudicated as it's own unique right and held in the Supreme Court. There need not be any comparison to land vehicles at all. It's maritime law. To get granular, the 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and the court essentially deemed maritime searches to be reasonable.

The law's genesis is from import tax collection, where there are not outward signs of who paid or didn't pay, or whether there was smuggled cargo aboard. Random checks had to be made. The same applied today to drugs, contraband, human trafficking, safety violations, etc, etc.

Many don't like the lack of freedom, as a general premise to what formed our country, which is a valid opposing point of view. However, I've never heard a viable alternative. Those trying to beat the system would be happy to use whatever mode to reach the shore we deem exempt from inspections.

While many get all riled up over the fact that most boardings are done for safety, there is a law enforcement principal behind it. Well known in criminal justice study is that the size of the punishment is not well correlated to deterring crime. What deters crime is the odds that you'll be caught. Many examples, if you think about it.
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
Top