We are going to park our vehicles on the public street in front of some random house.
Some of us are going to exit our vehicles and walk onto the public sidewalk in front of the random house.
We are going to set up grills and lawn chairs and barbecue some food. We'll have our radio on full blast. We'll get drunk and have a good ol' time. Maybe I'll even poop on the sidewalk.
Some of us will stay in our vehicles and turn the music on full blast. We'll curse and fling beer cans out our windows. Maybe we'll take our clothes off, and have sex in our vehicles.
Afterwards, we'll drive off and crash into something. Hopefully not you.
The sidewalks and streets are for everyone, right?
Stick to your guns, Town Board. It's the right thing to do. (I agree with your proposal.)
Here's a link to the Proposed Town Resolution.
Here's the resolution: Proposed Boats and Boating Resolution
Here's the link to the Town Board Meeting from 4-17-2012
Here's the link to the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan.
Here's the link to NYS Navigation Laws.
Here's the link to Federal Navigation Regulations.
Here's the link to Federal Navigation Regulations by subject.
Finally, NYS Laws, Boating Safety Education (right now, NYS law says only those under 18 have to take a Boating Safety Course before they pilot a boat. Any moron over 18 can drive a boat WITHOUT having to take a safety course.)
Here are some helpful links to other Town/City Boating Codes:
Town of Greece Boating Code
"§ 65-11. Regulations and prohibitions; enforcement. A. No vessel shall be operated in Lake Ontario contiguous to the Town of Greece within 200 feet of the shore, a dock, pier, raft, floating object or an anchored or moored vessel at a speed exceeding five miles per hour, unless such vessel is being operated near such shore, dock, floating object, pier, raft or anchored vessel for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in water skiing to take off or land."
Town of Webster Vessels Code for Irondequoit Bay.
"§ 216-4. Restrictions on operation. A. Every vessel shall be operated in a careful and prudent manner, in such a way as not to unreasonably interfere with or endanger any other vessel or person, but in no event shall a vessel be operated at a speed exceeding 25 miles per hour unless such vessel is being operated for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in waterskiing to be towed, in which case no such vessel shall be operated at a speed exceeding 35 miles per hour. B. No vessel shall be operated within 200 feet (NYS Navigation Law updated to 300 ft) of the shore, a dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel in a manner or at a speed that causes a wake that unreasonably interferes with or endangers such dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel, but in no event at a speed exceeding five miles per hour, unless for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in waterskiing to take off or land."
City of Rochester Boating Code for water adjacent to City Parks - which doesn't technically regulate speed to a number or anything - but there's a lot of rules. I will try to find anything relating to speed later. They pretty much "privatize" the water adjacent to the Park with this part:
"§ 79-7. Boating.
A. No person shall operate, sail, row or paddle a boat, raft or canoe in or adjacent to park property, except in areas designated by the Commissioner for such use, and then only in strict conformance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules or regulations."
You are not allowed to operate any vessel "IN or ADJACENT TO park property, except in designated areas."
§ 79-19. Acts requiring permits.
A.
No person shall commit any of the following acts within
a park, except authorized employees or persons with written permission from
the Commissioner:
(14)
(15)
Anchor or tether any watercraft within the boundaries
of any park, except at sites specifically designated as docking facilities.
Possess or consume any alcoholic beverage.
Looks like a precedent has already been set for a municipality to "privatize public waters".
Interestingly, chapter § 79-9. deals with fishing and hunting - and please, don't molest the wildlife!
There is no excuse for ignorance now. You have the responsibility to educate yourselves of the rules....and while you're whining about the Nanny Government or the Town Board taking away your rights and government intrusion......then expect them to "'learn ya the rules cuz it's their job"....I laugh. I laugh out loud.
INFORMATION BOATERS ARE CIRCULATING:
Totally inaccurate, and in some instances wrong petition. 947 people signed an inaccurate and wrong petition. Link.
Inaccurate petition with my answers in red:
Totally inaccurate picture and wrong information on this facebook page. Link.
Here's the picture they have on there with their inaccurate lines drawn on:
Here's an accurate representation from YNN: Link.
Video:
Here's my picture with lines on it:
FIRST TWO COMMENTS:
Hi Monroe Piping! :)
FACEBOOK COMMENTS FROM BOATERS:
LMAO! Hurry up and look at this before they close it or delete it.
Genesee River Boaters Public Facebook Page.
And boaters wonder why they're stereotyped and the few bad apples make them all look bad? At least there are a couple of rational ones on there. Eh - don't worry about it being deleted or closed....I copied it and screen shot it and blocked out the names....so it's here for reference.
BOATERS SAY IT'S MARGE'S FAULT:
It's funny what a difference two years makes. Back in 2010, on Marge's Facebook Page Notes Section, they "police themselves" by putting up some explanations and "helpful solutions", another note in 2010 about not allowing boats to enter from the Lake, and yet another note in May 2011 saying they would try out allowing boats again...but because of the constant issues and problems, had to stop allowing it in July. They tried.
Best part about it is some of the comments from current "pro boaters" back then - seems a lot of them sympathized and some even said that the property owners own the beach to the water line.
How times have changed, eh?
Here's the pages and comments: Sea Breeze Beach Neighborhood Marge's FB Comments FYI No North Entry at Marge's FB Page Comments Coming to Marge's by Boat 2011 FB Page Comments
BOATERS HAVE MOVED ON FROM THE WATER AND NOW WANT THE BEACH:
THEY THINK IT'S A FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLAND:
Here's the link to the NYSDEC Wetlands Program.
It is NOT a Federally Protected Wetland. The bulldozer can be there. If it was a Federally Protected Wetland, there would be more rules and regulations for that beach, and restricted public access to the beach. (The green on the map is the protected wetland in the area. The red star is the area for the proposed resolution.)
Here's a Federal Wetlands Map Link.:
BOATERS SAY THE RESIDENTS THERE DON'T OWN THE BEACH:
Here's one page of the Deed to one of the properties along that strip of the Lake by the pier - it states that they own to the waterline. There should be no question of who owns the beach in front of the homes. (Names and some addresses are blocked out. I got the information from the Monroe County Property Info website.)
BOATERS DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS PAY TAXES ON THE BEACH PRIVATE PROPERTY:
This link will take you to Monroe County's 2012 Tax Map for Irondequoit.
Here is the area that the pro-boaters claim the homeowners aren't paying taxes on, even though the map shows the beach is included in their tax map.
Here is a link to the Irondequoit Tentative 2012 Assessment Roll.
Here is a link to Monroe County's Website where, on the right hand side, you can click on the "view/pay taxes online" link and be directed to the property tax portal. You can enter an address and look up the history on the property, (the land value, the assessment, the depth of the property etc.) and see if they are paying taxes on their private beach.
Unless someone has a link to a current tax map that shows them not paying taxes on their private beach, I am going to assume that they are paying property taxes for their private beach because of the links I just visited.
BOATERS STATE THAT THEY DON'T PAY TAXES ON THE BEACH:
MONROE COUNTY PUT UP THE FENCE AND THE SIGN SAYING IT IS PRIVATE:
 |
MAX SCHULTE D&C Staff Photographer |
LETTER TO EDITOR 5/6 Link to D&C
FACEBOOK COMMENTS FROM Here.
FACEBOOK COMMENTS FROM here.
BOATERS THINK RESIDENTS ARE PHOTOSHOPPING PICTURES TO GIVE TO THE D&C:
I blew up the picture, and can clearly see that it is not a man (as the commenter claimed) to the right of the umbrella and that the woman's head is tilted to the right, probably on her cell phone (the commenter said that the man's head was cut off and boats added.)
But, never mind the woman on her cell phone.....what grabbed my attention, was the person at the bottom right of the picture, with their ghostly white ass hanging out. Lovely.
FINALLY, BOATERS MAKE GOOD POINT ABOUT RESOLUTION - SEEMS TO THINK TOWN IS REGULATING SPEED ALL ALONG LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE FOR IRONDEQUOIT BORDER 1,500 FT. FROM SHORE - STILL NO PROOF THAT RESIDENTS AREN'T BEING TAXED ON PROPERTY:
WHY I DON'T THINK THEY ARE REGULATING SPEED ON LAKE ONTARIO ALL ALONG SHORELINE IN IRONDEQUOIT - WAITING ON CLARIFICATION FROM THE TOWN:
Still don't have a link to those tax maps, eh? Here's my explanation of why I think they aren't regulating the speed limit to 25 mph all along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
I have an e-mail in to the Town, and I am waiting for their response to my question.
Got an answer this morning (5/15) from the Supervisor herself:
If I am understanding the e-mail correctly:
- The Town IS regulating the speed on Lake Ontario within 1,500 feet from shore along the contiguous border of Irondequoit to 25 mph. They are NOT regulating the speed to 5 mph within 300 feet of shore for the entire shoreline of Lake Ontario in Irondequoit - only in "the zone".
- The Town is making "the zone" on Lake Ontario 300 feet from shore from the pier to Lake Bluff (instead of 450 feet) that will regulate tethering, mooring, anchoring, or drifting and speed to 5 mph.
- The Town is taking out 91-4 Part C (2) of the proposed resolution - nobody (not even residents and their guests) will be allowed to tether in "the zone".
I suppose that if they discuss this at tonight's meeting - it might be clarified for everyone.
Update: Watching the TB meeting and MJD said they would discuss, amend, and probably vote on the Boating Resolution at the Special Town Board Workshop Meeting on Monday, May 21st.
According to an article on 13Wham:
"Irondequoit Town Supervisor Mary Joyce D'Aurizio said she met with another board member and about 40 residents to come up with ideas and compromises about the boating issue.
She said she expects the issue will be discussed at Tuesday night's board meeting. D'Aurizio anticipates an amendment to the proposal, which could lead to another round of public hearings before the town takes any action."
Here's the article:
96 comments:
Actually, I'm a douchebag.
Get it right, will ya?
How many bales of hay did it take to put together that straw man of yours?
I read an article that quoted someone as saying the lake is for everyone.
I agree with that.
I also think the sidewalks and streets are for everyone, but I would not be allowed to park my car in front of anyone's private property and proceed to set up a grill and party in front of their house, would I?
Why should it be any different for private property owners along the lake?
Or, are they excluded from such consideration?
Now, does anyone have any type of argument FOR the boaters who abuse their "rights" on that stretch of the lake?
Or, are we just going to call names and come up with witty one liners?
I can do that all day. My kinda discussion!
Ok Jax, if you are going to poop on the sidewalk I hope you are going to use a Wegmans bag and pick it up... ;)
I never thought of this issue the way you put it on this blog. I think you have made great points.
I would love to hear the other side without name calling.
If name calling is all the boater's can come up with, they maybe in a sinking ship...
Gurgle-gurgle...
Nope - not gonna pick it up. I'm a jerk. Plus, my bale of hay should cover it up nicely.
I'm wondering how much authority the Town Board has to make this "buffer" along Lake Ontario.
The Town Code currently only deals with Irondequoit Bay - they are adding Lake Ontario to it, and adding a 100 ft. to the "buffer zone".
I don't know if they have the authority to regulate the lake.
Can't wait to watch the meeting tonight! If the comments there are as creative as the couple on here....should be interesting!
Watching the meeting - a lot of good points and speakers - on both sides.
One thing that keeps coming up is the "opposition" mentioning "navigable waters" and that the town's resolution would limit the boaters from navigating the lake.
They aren't trying to stop anyone from navigating the lake. The resolution clearly states it's for boats (or jet skis) anchoring or tethering together. They don't want anyone doing that (anchoring or tethering) 450 ft from shore.
It's everyone's lake, and yes, everyone has the right to navigate through those waters. The town isn't denying that right.
I don't think everyone has the right to tether their boats together or anchor close to shore.
They certainly do not have the right to go onto a private beach or trespass on property.
Never mind the poop, you caught my attention with the sex part.
I'm not cleaning up after that either! :)
and all this time I thought this was a respectable site
Ha! Never.
If I have a respectable site....then....I couldn't be a douchebag, and that would just be wrong.
I wear that badge with pride.
douche bag: somebody who you think is a complete retard and doesn't know anything about what they're talking about.
....
You are anything but....
First off I don't think you are a DB Jax. So you speak your opinion and you are sarcastic. I love it!
I too thought many great points were made at last nights meeting. I was surprised to see so many land owner's do public input in favor of the resolution. I really thought that there would be more boat owner's speaking out against the proposal.
The room was packed, good job to both sides on coming out. Many speakers did have pictures to prove their case and if I was a waterfront property owner I sure wouldn't want 100 boats floating so close to my property. I would be very concerned for my children's safety.
I do wish after public input concluded that the TB would have had some discussion on the issue.
So now what? Did I miss when they said this would be discussed and decided on?
Cheri,
MJD did say at the meeting that there wouldn't be any decisions made or any resolutions approved last night....that it was just the Public Hearing on the matter.
One of the articles I read said that the boaters and residents along the lake were going to have meetings.
Unfortunately, the boaters who will attend the meeting are probably not the ones who are creating all the problems.
There are a couple of issues I have with the wording of the resolution - and ultimately - I wonder if the ordinance will stop the problems from happening. You can't regulate stupid.
I also don't think it's up to the Town Board to "educate the boaters" - as one speaker last night said. It's just common sense, and courtesy - something their parents should have taught them.
It doesnt matter if she said when they would discuss it again because even when she says it, she doesnt follow thru on it.
I could not disagree more regarding the new resolution. The people who own the houses SHOULD NOT have to deal with people coming onto their property that is for sure. They should also be able to get in and out of their "front yard" when they would like but here is the thing, There is already a law/codes in place regarding this but NO ONE is enforcing it!!!! How many people said they call the police and no one comes~WHAT?!!!! How many cops do we have? Do we or do we not pay for town police, sheriffs, coast guard police, border patrol and troopers? They should have someone sit there and regulate the owners rights of 15 ft into the water (as their property line) and 300 feet as the navigational waters. Write tickets, make arrests, whatever and after a month I believe the idiots who ARE causing the problems will go away.
Not all boaters are a problem and while the photos were nice,they do not represent a daily problem (or even weekly one)
If they dont enforce the rules now what makes anyone think they will enforce the next one and then where do we stop?
Couldnt agree more with your last 2 sentences!
Once again our supervisor shows she has no patience or restraint she also shows how underutilized the town atty is (has he ever said a word)
Usually before a public HEARING the resolution is read aloud (which it was) but then it is usually explained. Usually by the attorney. It was not as evidenced by the several people who came up asking for clarification (which by the way also wasnt answered)
Usually the town would then have expert witnesses (according to mr freedman) explaining WHY this resolution is coming before the community.
Though it was evident it was coming before the community because the people living on the lake have had enough, there was no real expert witness.
I would have liked to see how many calls are made each summer in regards to this strip of waterway, how many calls are ANSWERED and why they are not (as evidenced by the speakers who say no one ever comes)
A law is a law is a law but no matter what you have on paper, it will make no difference if the laws are not enforced. And it seems to me, the current laws are not enforced so why would the new ones be?
"It doesnt matter if she said when they would discuss it again because even when she says it, she doesnt follow thru on it. "
So true. I'm still waiting on the SBWD repayment plan info, any changes to the Master Plan info, any info on the "modifications" to the PILOT for Congel (An article I read said the three entities and counsel were working on that), and I'm still waiting on some architectural drawings from Legacy for the public to see....so....I have kinda given up on expecting anything from them. Besides, it's a bi-partisan board who love the Town and are working in the best interests of the Town and we should just trust them on everything. Never question. Can't be negative. (That was sarcasm, in case anyone didn't notice.)
"If they don't enforce the rules now what makes anyone think they will enforce the next one and then where do we stop?"
I agree with that, but wonder how much "teeth" the current law has?
What do they do....just drive up and say "you have to leave" and then leave it at that? Are they allowed under the current law to write tickets or arrest people for tethering or anchoring? The trespassing I can understand as being "addressable" by some means of tickets or arrests....but hanging out in the water isn't illegal as far as I know. Some NYS laws prohibit tethering of boats in certain waterways, or near piers, or in an area that creates a hazard....but is this stretch considered a "prohibited area" for that? I know it's not allowed at Durand - public swimming area and all - and if that's a safety issue at Durand, it should be a safety issue anywhere swimming happens. Nobody made a fuss about Durand not allowing boats to tether....why the fuss now? I don't see the big deal about a law regulating tethering or anchoring so close to the shore of private homeowners.
When I was younger, before I could swim well, we would anchor out pretty far and swim in to the public sandy beach with our life jackets on, take them off at the public beach, play, then put them back on and swim out to the boat and go home. We never disturbed the homeowners on the lake and didn't feel it was our "right" to swim in front of their homes at all. Even though the lake is for everyone, we always kept a respectable distance away from their shoreline.
"Once again our supervisor shows she has no patience or restraint"
Ha. You know what part bothered me?
When that Dan Quinlan guy got up to speak at public input....MJD had to make a comment about being called names by him (which he said he didn't do) on some website. She repeated it a few times. WTF? Who cares what names someone calls you on a website? If they give respectable input at the meeting, then there should be no problem, and no reason to mention that at all at a meeting....unless....you're trying to gain sympathy from the crowd.
I thought it was inappropriate to bring that up at all at a meeting. Ridiculous. It really pissed me off.
i completely agree!! And he even said something like thanks for chastising me or something like that. He stated a few times that he personally never called her names.
The other thing that bothered me I bet she now set us up for ANOTHER lawsuit when she instigated a comment from that lady asking how she would like the boats in front of her property. Similar to Legacy and the Cell Tower, she has implied that she has a postition on these legislative issues...
"she instigated a comment from that lady asking how she would like the boats in front of her property. Similar to Legacy and the Cell Tower, she has implied that she has a postition on these legislative issues..."
I'm kinda iffy on that one. In a way, I do agree that it shows she is kind of "implying" that she has a position on a legislative issue....the lady did comment that these people chose to live on the lake and that they'll just have to put up with it. I think it was a valid question to ask....since that lady lives on the bay...if she would like that in front of her property.
I'm not really sure if it shows she has already made up her mind about it and will vote a certain way or not.
I thought it was great that Dan Quinlan said that about her chastising him.....and even if he did call her names on a website...so what? His comments at the meeting were respectful and his input was fine.
I'm sure they all sit around and say lovely things about people like Barone and Ament....or anyone really. Like, they never talk shit about anyone? Ever? Never call people names at all? Doubtful.
I wonder what website it was...I tried searching a bit, but didn't find much of anything.
Anonymous who left a comment on April 18, 2012 11:46 PM -
For some reason, your comment is not showing up when I hit publish. I will post it myself here, and if it happens to show up later, I will delete this comment. Sorry 'bout that!
Anonymous said...
I'm astonished that the shoreline residents have been complaining for so long without getting any attention from local/county police & government, Coast Guard or INS.
I support Town attempts to control noise, lewdness, littering, close to resident homes. "Navigation" implies movement, not, as the man said, setting up an unauthorized marina.
I'm more concerned that just anybody can get off a boat and come ashore with the expectation that nobody will stop them.
The lady who owns Marge's mentioned that the trespassers carry coolers of beer. How does she know it's beer?
It could be heroin. It could be explosives. (During Prohibition, that's how Rochester got its liquor - by private boats and yachts that pulled up close to shore and met with other boats.)
Our first line of defense is the civilians who report something that shouldn't be.
April 18, 2012 11:46 PM
I tried a bit as well, but didnt find anything.
As an FYI "That meeting has now been scheduled for noon to 1 p.m. next Thursday, April 26 in the Broderick room at Town Hall, 1280 Titus Ave., Irondequoit. The public is welcome."
The public is welcome? At 100 in the afternoon? So it is welcome but not really wanted in my opinion,
Here is my opinion, for what it is worth...I think the board made a large mistake that I believe we are all becoming too familiar with (this town atty is a waste of money)
At the beginning of the hearing the resolution should have been read (which it was) and then someone should have read what the current law is. After that they should have stated (by a professional or expert) why this law isnt sufficient. If it is because no authority figure shows up, I have an issue with that as they are all making $85k plus.
Then the resolution should have been explained. Before all the yays and nay people paraded up there. Several people asked what the resolution means and NONE received clarification!! What the hell kind of public hearing is that?!!!
I remain convinced that is the current law is not enforced why does anyone think a new law will be?
How about this>>> No tying up of boats at all. Why does any boat need to be tied to another? (And again, I dont know what the current law is) As the people in favor said, having the line be tied to a visual landmark, I believe that seeing boats tied together is also a visual tell.
I do not think it is right to tell boaters, swimmers, taxpayers, etc that they cannot enter the waters closer than 450 to a persons home. In public water.
Enforce people who are ignorant and selfish who are entering people private properties. Fines, arrests, whatever...after a month of heavy handed enforcement maybe they would get the message.
"As an FYI "That meeting has now been scheduled for noon to 1 p.m. next Thursday, April 26 in the Broderick room at Town Hall, 1280 Titus Ave., Irondequoit. The public is welcome."
The public is welcome? At 100 in the afternoon? So it is welcome but not really wanted in my opinion"
I agree. A tactic that has been used for many years by many administrations.
"At the beginning of the hearing the resolution should have been read (which it was) and then someone should have read what the current law is. After that they should have stated (by a professional or expert) why this law isnt sufficient...the resolution should have been explained...Several people asked what the resolution means and NONE received clarification!! What the hell kind of public hearing is that?!!!"
I agree with this too!
"I remain convinced that is the current law is not enforced why does anyone think a new law will be?"
Agree - but, what is the current law on "tethering"? Is there one? If there is, what is the distance from shore allowed for tethering?
"No tying up of boats at all. Why does any boat need to be tied to another? (And again, I dont know what the current law is)"
Sorta agree - I don't know what the current law is either - but - in reference to the resolution that says "only the property owners and their guests would be able to tether (at the most) three boats" - I don't agree with that. If tethering boats together creates a safety issue, then I don't think the property owners there should be allowed to tether so close to shore either. If it's a safety issue....it's a safety issue for anyone...and by that I mean within a certain "safe" distance from shore.
Tethering boats together protects the boats from drifting into one another and causing damage. Friends meet on the lake and gather to talk, party, or fish. With a respectable crew on boats, tethering enhances the enjoyment of the boater. I feel that as long as they aren't infringing on anyone's rights or creating a hazard or overstepping their boundaries and jeopardizing anyone's safety - tethering is fine. I don't think it should be allowed close to shore. I believe it becomes a safety issue then. For everyone.
"I do not think it is right to tell boaters, swimmers, taxpayers, etc that they cannot enter the waters closer than 450 to a persons home. In public water."
Nobody is saying that. Even with the resolution as it is written, you can still enter the water within that 450 ft. They can still boat there. Water ski (within the rules of NYS), jet ski, or swim. The resolution states it is for tethering or anchoring. They are NOT stopping anyone from navigating the water in that area.
"Enforce people who are ignorant and selfish who are entering people private properties...after a month of heavy handed enforcement maybe they would get the message."
I believe that has been done. Maybe the "heavy handed" approach would work....for one summer...then the next summer it would happen all over again. How much in resources is wasted on controlling this crowd every year? Why haven't the current laws been able to take care of the problems? Because, the current laws do not have any "teeth" to stop the problems from happening.
Marge's has been there for decades. So has SeaBreeze. So has the pier. So has Don's and Vic & Irv's. Why, in the past 5-10 years has it gotten progressively worse?
If people can't control themselves and jeopardize the safety of people (especially children!!!) - then I'm all for making laws that prohibit the "tethering or anchoring" of boats close to shore.
Nobody is trying to stop anyone from swimming, navigating, or entering the water in that half mile stretch of beach.
I really wanted to attend the meeting but taxes prevented me from doing so.
My thoughts:
- There are laws on the books already that cover this. Why create new laws? There is to much of a tendency to add laws because the old ones "are not doing the job" If the old ones do not work, then get rid of them and write new ones that are practical and address the real points of the issue and that can be enforced.
- I do not think the town board should be creating what is essentially marine law. That is for the Sheriff's Department. In other words, I think it is over reaching their authority. The town can and should, however, be willing to help a citizen in getting their concerns heard at the appropriate venue.
- We should look at other areas and see how this is handled. For example, in California all beach is public property. How do the ultra rich, with homes overlooking the ocean, handle problems and who or what has authority over that property?
- This is a potential bag of snacks for the town board. They, in essence, are increasing the holdings of a few private property owners at the public's expense with no compensation in return. This could be a very bad precedent. It is also not consistent with other actions regarding private property concerns and encroachment thereof.
- Everyone's castle should be respected and not encroahed upon. But if one knowingly buys property that borders public space, then one should expect some reasonable level of noise or disturbance due to the normal and expected use of that public way.
- Thus, home owners should be able to expect people to stay off their property, which is currently defined as 100 feet off shore. And boaters should be expected to show some decorum and respect while using the public waters.
A little background on why I have the opinions I do on this issue:
I grew up in Irondequoit. We recreated for many, many years on Irondequoit Bay, and on the Lake in and around Irondequoit. My family has owned a cottage on the Lake (not in the harbour) of Henderson, N.Y.
I am well aware of the "unwritten rules" of recreating on any body of water, as well as some of the more common "written" rules.
I water ski, I canoe, I kayak - not so much around here, but mostly up at our cottage. It's not so congested up there, and people are knowledgeable and respectful when out on the Lake. I've never, in the 45 years I've been going up there, have ever had a problem with a boater.
Once, a few of the kids from a couple of cottages down had their jet skis out in front of our cottage when my kids were swimming.
They were awfully close and did not pay attention to me when I stood at the end of our dock and waved at them and yelled to get away.
We don't have a sandy beach, we have a rocky beach. Sometimes, the kids and I would just sit on the beach and throw rocks into the water, or play the "who can hit the dock post" game.
I decided at that moment to throw rocks into the water. It's perfectly legal to do so, and since there are no laws regulating when and where I can throw rocks off my private beach property.....I can do it.
If they didn't have the common sense to stay far enough away from kids swimming - then I don't have enough common sense to throw rocks far enough away from jet skiers.
I am a girl. I throw like one. If I can hit your jet ski....you are too. fucking. close.
Wrong? Maybe. Jeopardizing THEIR safety? Probably. At the time I was furious, and thought them lucky that I didn't swim out to them and tear them off their jet skis and rip their jugulars out with my teeth. I was THAT pissed.
These little shits should have known better, and their grandfather who owns the cottage a few down would have probably agreed with me. He used to take me fishing all the time when I was little, I grew up with him. He never did come and say anything to me or my family - the jerks stopped zooming by so close to shore, so, in my opinion....problem solved.
Like I said, I'm a douchebag....so it's probably a good thing there are more tolerant people who live on that stretch of the lake...cuz I would be handling things a lot differently. I'd start out nice, but if you challenge me? I will react. I'd video tape everyone and get close ups of their faces and youtube the shit out of it. I'd launch bottle rockets - and please, call the police if I do. I'd LOVE for them to show up. Really.
Greg,
Very good points, but....
"Thus, home owners should be able to expect people to stay off their property, which is currently defined as 100 feet off shore. And boaters should be expected to show some decorum and respect while using the public waters."
But, some of them are NOT showing decorum. Home owners expectations are NOT being respected.
In one article I've read, the MC Sheriffs said the area has been a trouble spot and deputies respond to daily calls for harassment, lewd behavior and loud music.
The current law is not working. I'm curious as to why more people aren't arrested if it's considered "private property" 100ft. from shore - I am also not sure on "tethering/anchoring" laws within a 100 ft. from their shore or if it's illegal or not.
I think the 450 ft. is a little far to force boats to tether, but can understand wanting to use a "visual cue" - although, I do think it is a little laziness on their part.
IF "tethering/anchoring" close to shore is illegal, then yes....there needs to be a more concerted effort to ticket/arrest those who violate that law. I'm not so sure it is illegal though.
Boaters and jet skis still have the right to enter, and navigate within that 450 ft. limit they are proposing. People can still swim there. Enter and exit the water. Water ski. Canoe. Kayak.
I continue to scratch my head how our Town Government handles hot button issues like this and others in our Town. A little more due diligence and outreach by the Supervisor could have avoided this current shit show. Hold an open house or public discussion before holding public hearings on proposed law changes. Very simple!
I am opposed to this law for the simple reason that it sets a precedent and it is a lazy way to address the real problem.
I know the Lake and Bay well and typically there are only a few dozen days in the summer where the Lake is calm enough to moor on the west side of the pier. Other days, boats moor on the east side of the pier or else infiltrate the coves or calm areas on the Bay. I live on the Bay. I would love to have a law that prohibited boats from mooring within 450 feet of my house. How about this madam Supervisor? Have you ever had a boat full of fisherman talking loud and carrying on conversations at 5:30am 50 feet from your bedroom window? Happens at my house all the time. I live with it.
The policing problems the Authorities complain about is pure bullshit. We have a few speed boats on the Bay that sound like jet engines, breaking noise ordinances yet for the past 10 years, the Sheriffs cannot seem to catch them or ticket them. On any given summer day there are 4 or more agencies policing the Bay and Lake. Coast Guard, Sheriff, DEC and Park Police.
Hold these agencies accountable and give them access to the shore if need be to watch for problems. One non-uniform individual w binoculars on shore could easily spot and radio problems to a nearby boat to ticket and make arrests.
This is a complete waste of our taxpayer dollars with all the time our Supervisor and staff are spending on it, not to mention legal fees and possible litigation if it is passed.
I also noted several speakers who claimed they had interests in the lakefront in question don't even hold title to land along the lake.
Finally, I am sick and tired of Fran Beth being a windbag on this that and every other issue. Face it Fran, you own a house that was allowed to be a bar along time ago. You have no parking or other code compliant facilities. God forbid there is ever an emergency in your tavern! It is like the world according to Marges. Hey Fran, let a Sheriff perch him or herself in the upstairs of your house, I mean tavern and watch for problems!!
Here are some references to the Town and NYS laws for anyone interested.
Current Town Code for Irondequoit Chapter 91. BOATS AND BOATING
NYS Navigation Laws
§ 44. Noise levels on pleasure vessels
2.(a) ...can't exceed a stationary noise level of 90dB(A) when subjected to a stationary sound level test as prescribed by SAE J2005.
(b) exceed a noise level of 75dB(A) measured as specified in SAE J1970. Provided, that such measurement shall not preclude a stationary sound level test as prescribed by SAE J2005.
§ 45. Reckless operation of a vessel; speed
2. No vessel shall be operated within one hundred feet of the shore, a dock, pier, raft, float or an anchored or moored vessel at a speed exceeding five miles per hour, unless such vessel is being operated for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in water skiing to take off or land or such vessel is required to run at full throttle through an established course to measure the vessel's decibel level
§ 45-aaa. Special provisions relating to speed on Irondequoit bay.
1. No vessel shall be operated on Irondequoit bay, which is located within Monroe county, at a speed exceeding twenty-five miles per hour.
2. No vessel shall be operated in the channel between Irondequoit Bay and Lake Ontario or within two hundred feet of the shore, the channel, a dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel in a manner or at a speed that causes a wake that unreasonably interferes with or endangers such dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel but in no event at a speed exceeding five miles per hour, unless for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in water skiing to take off or land.
3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any vessel competing in or practicing for a regatta or boat race over a specified course held by a bona fide club or racing association, provided that due written notice of the date of the race has been given to the appropriate law enforcement agency at least fifteen days prior to such race, pursuant to the provisions of section thirty-four of this chapter, and all provisions of this section have been complied with.
4. Any person who operates a vessel in violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation punishable as set forth in section seventy-three-c of this article.
5. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any town or county from continuing, adopting or enacting any other local laws, resolutions or ordinances related to persons operating a vessel within its limits, but no such municipality shall have the power to make less restrictive any of such provisions.
....continued.....
§ 45-b. Regulation of beaches
Except when prohibited by reason of the laws of the United States, the board of trustees of a village may adopt, amend and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with law, with respect to regulating the use of beaches in or adjacent to the village and regulating swimming and bathing in open waters exposed to the public, including the use of underwater diving devices for swimming and fishing, within or bounding the village or such beaches to a distance of fifteen hundred feet from the shore, including any waters within or bordering a village in the county of Nassau or Suffolk, and requiring the owners or operators of any bathing beaches, bath houses or other places charging a fee to the public for the use of such facilities to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public in waters adjacent to such premises.
The provisions of this section shall be controlling notwithstanding any contrary provisions of law.
§ 46. Vessel regulation zone
1.
(a) The board of supervisors or other legislative governing body of a county, or, should no action on the matter be taken by such board or body, the governing body of a city or incorporated village, by a three-quarters vote of its members, may establish a vessel regulation zone and within the limitations prescribed by this chapter, adopt regulations for the use of a lake or part of a lake or other body of water within the county, or in case of a city or incorporated village of the part of said waters adjacent thereto, if it shall deem that such establishment of a zone will promote the safety of the people and be for the best interests of the county, city or incorporated village.
§ 46-a. Regulations of vessels
(1) The local legislative body of a city or the board of trustees of a village may adopt, amend and enforce local laws, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of this state or the United States, with respect to:
a. Regulating the speed and regulating and restricting the operation of vessels while being operated or driven upon any waters within or bounding the appropriate city or village, including any waters within or bordering a village in the county of Nassau or Suffolk, to a distance of fifteen hundred feet from the shore.
b. Restricting and regulating the anchoring or mooring of vessels in any waters within or bounding the appropriate city or village to a distance of fifteen hundred feet from the shore.
§ 48. Negligence in use or operation of vessel attributable to owner
Operator
§ 49-a. Operation of a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
§ 49-b. Operating a vessel after having consumed alcohol; under the age of twenty-one; per se
§ 49-c. Termination of unsafe operation
Part 3 - PLEASURE VESSELS
PART 3-A Penalties
(a) Every person convicted of a violation of this section, other than a conviction for a violation of subdivision two of this section, shall for a first conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars; for a conviction of a second violation, both of which were committed within a period of twenty-four months, such person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than four hundred dollars; upon a conviction of a third or subsequent violation, all of which were committed within a period of twenty-four months, such person shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars and the revocation of the registration of the personal watercraft.
(b) Every person convicted of a violation of subdivision two of this section shall for a first conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars; for a conviction of a second violation, both of which were committed within a period of twenty-four months, such person shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than four hundred dollars; upon a conviction of a third or subsequent violation, all of which were committed within a period of twenty-four months, such person shall be punished by a fine of not less than four hundred dollars nor more than eight hundred dollars.
BOATING SAFETY EDUCATION
US Coast Guard Federal Navigation Regulations
US Federal Regulation Rules by subject.
Excepting the frequent "Thank you very much" replies, Ms. D'aurizio has started to take on the tone and tenor of her predecessor Ms. Heyman when engaging residents that address the Town Board.
What is it about second terms that bring this tone about?
I think it is that the job is tough and that the Town is tough.
Thanks FOILS. Unfortunately, none of the laws on the book already that you have cited above are properly or regularly enforced. Therein lies the problem.
That is part of it, that the current laws are not enforced, and I agree with everyone who says that the current laws need to be addressed better.
There is NO NYS Law that regulates tethering or anchoring close to shore.
I believe that is a big problem and it creates a safety hazard for everyone. Not just the people who live there.
I think 450 ft. is a little excessive - but would have no problem with a 200 ft. tethering/anchoring law. I don't even think the residents or their guests should tether or anchor within 200 ft. from shore.
At Durand you can't tether - you also can't exceed 5 MPH within 500 ft. of the shore. I think it's the same for Charlotte too.
I also agree with the other anonymous that said this was handled (once again) SO wrong. If they've been working on this resolution/law for 2 years - involved parties (boaters, homeowners, taxpayers, conservation committees etc.) all should have been attending meetings that the TB organized.
While the Town is well within their rights to regulate the waters 1,500 ft. from shore, as NYS law permits them to do - they definitely could have respected the rights of everyone (boaters and homeowners) by holding meetings and gathering input and recommendations.
I think the residents have a valid bitch about what happens right in front of their homes 20 to 50 ft off shore involving anywhere from 50 to 150 boats at any time-holiday or not, weekend or not...I really don't care when it is, I find it unacceptable to jeopardize anyone's safety.
"I live on the Bay. I would love to have a law that prohibited boats from mooring within 450 feet of my house. How about this madam Supervisor?"
Great idea! Maybe the Town Board would consider amending the law - especially for Irondequoit Bay since it is a smaller enclosed area than the Lake.
I believe the current special law for Irondequoit Bay states that all vessels must not exceed 5 MPH within 200 ft. of the shore, the channel, a dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel. Lake Ontario shoreline residents have 100 ft. less than you for that 5 MPH speed limit.
Isn't it nice that Irondequoit Bay has a special law just for the residents along the shores of the public Bay?
Somebody just private messaged me to tell me the 200 ft., 5 MPH speed limit along the shore of the Bay is for erosion control.
What?!?!
Are you kidding me? Why do I have to give up my rights for a little erosion? Irondequoit Bay is a public body of water!
Erosion only happens and is a problem during heavy rains etc., and maybe only on the third weekend of the month of July when the earth is slightly tilting off axis.
All those taxes wasted on controlling erosion - ridiculous! Another law on the books that doesn't need to be there, we have too many already. You're just taking away my rights.
And, ya know what else? You can't regulate erosion. It happens naturally. You can't legislate Mother Nature so why have this stupid law in the books? They should amend it and take it out of there.
People chose to live in a delicate, fragile area and should have some expectations of erosion.
....I know, I know...straw man argument. I agree. Especially when it deals with the safety of humans and not dirt and trees.
the laws of the bay were recently done by the towns of Irondequoit, Webster and Penfield. While I dont agree with many of their laws at least they had plenty of meetings and took years in the making.
IF tethering of boats is for safety, that peoples lives are in jeopardy, then what difference does it make if it is 10 feet, 100 feet, or 1000 feet. IF the reason is for safety that is....
You have a pier blocking one way out, you have public access to the water for swimming with that narrow strip of public beach from Culver Road - so that means "more" than the random few homeowners will be out there swimming at any given time. The general public being allowed to swim there (with no lifeguards) is a safety issue too - but hopefully people aren't stupid and just want to enjoy some sun and fun in the water without getting out of control.
I think when you have so many boats, dogs, kids, adults, and some alcohol in a concentrated area with one side totally blocked off by a giant cement pier - it's not such a good idea to tether 20...let alone a 100 boats in that area.
Tethering of 20 boats there would create a hazard in my opinion. Blocking access to and from the homes there is a safety issue. Someone has a heart attack while they're swimming and the Coast Guard or Sheriff is the closest "authority" to help that person out....the tethered boats are going to prevent them or delay them from attending to a person in need of emergency medical help.
I feel that way for all shoreline homes....there should be a limit to the number of boats that can tether in a given area at a given time - the distance would depend on the area.
We may need some middle aged female enforcement officers on the water. I think all the male officers just use their binoculars to gawk at bikini clad women boaters..
http://www.facebook.com/IrondequoitBayBoaters
http://www.change.org/petitions/irondequoit-town-board-town-of-irondequoit-ny-stop-ordinance-amending-chapter-91-of-town-code-entitled-boats-boating
Ha! That's a good reason for why the current laws have not been enforced.
But then....the middle aged female enforcement officer (who is not dead) will be too busy looking at The Situation and not even pay attention to Snookie as she fights with JWoww over who is the better DJ - and who has the better sound system (that rivals ones found in the Blue Cross Arena). Pauly D? or Jay Z.? Tough choice there.
Then, Snoop Dog over in the corner is just smokin' a blunt watching all of it with a smirk on his face.
Tony and Carmela are arguing. AGAIN.
The Gorton Fisherman is ten sheets to the wind. AGAIN.
Tim McGraw and Kenney Chesney are both shoving a whiney homeowner around because he dared to ask them to turn their music down and move so they could get out. Well, that's what they said they wanted to do - but we all know they were just starting trouble to get the boaters to leave and privatize their beach.
Another whiney homeowner is trying to get the attention of the female enforcement officer because once again she stepped in what she thinks is dog shit - but it could be human shit - but nobody gives a shit - because you can't take away boater's rights.
Meanwhile...Saul Alinsky, who has cleverly disguised himself as the female Supervisor of Irondequoit, is in the office hatching a plan to slowly take over the world one waterway at a time by imposing a (150 yards out, 880 yards across) no tethering/5 MPH speed limit Law to privatize the waters for a few select homeowners. Obama is secretly funneling money to Saul to finance the plan, because, as we all know - the health care plan was shoved down our throats....why not take our freedoms and rights away with this Law too? You know it starts with one town...then the next one will want to do it, and the next. All to protect the interests of a few connected friends and employees of the town - and there already is talk from the snooty, whinier Rock Beach waterfront homeowners who are telling the media that the trouble will just move west in front of THEIR property - and they don't want that.
See? It's already started.
The Mayans predicted this would happen.
Why even bother with wasting the taxes paying an officer to babysit "adults"? The world is going to end soon anyways, so just let them do whatever they want this summer.
P.S. - those facebook comments have been great. I'm sorry you closed it down, it was solid entertainment for me.
Serious kudos to the two ladies and one gentleman on there who genuinely seemed to take an interest in educating themselves and those who would listen by studying the issue, researching the laws, and speaking to those in authority to get the facts. To me, that speaks volumes on what an adult would do. You could tether in front of my property anytime. ;)You are respectable people, and I'm truly sorry if you feel your rights are being trampled upon. I don't think they are....but because you're so nice it makes me feel bad that you do feel that way.
I could be nice too....if I wasn't such a douchebag!
I was talking about:
This one.
Some of those comments on there....priceless!
One guy insisted that Federal Regulations prohibit the town from making this law.....but refused to cite the law in question because it's not his job to do it. It's the Town's job, he said.
Unfortunately, there IS NO FEDERAL LAW THAT PROHIBITS THE TOWN FROM MAKING THIS LAW. Fact.
You know what's really pathetic?
That a lot of the homeowners who live along the lake and bay that are supporting "the boaters" are doing so....not out of any patriotic duty to protect the "don't tread on me" rights of boaters.....but because the flotilla of boats and the few "bad apples" will move the party to in front of THEIR homes. They don't want that. It's "intrusive" if they do it in front of THEIR houses but perfectly fine if they do it in front of the homes by the pier (what they have classified as "shacks" in some of the comments I've read).
And I thought I was a douchebag.
Link.
I went to the link for the petition, and the petition has false information on it. How can you sign a petition that's totally inaccurate?
Why This Is Important
This ordinance would:
1. Severely & unfairly impact the rights and freedom of all boaters to rightfully and lawfully use and freely navigate the public waters of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay.
*No, it wouldn't. The ordinance is not stopping any boat or jet ski from entering the 450 ft. area and navigating - and the Bay is not included in the proposed ordinance. The Bay already has a 25 MPH speed limit.
The only ones who are severely and unfairly impacting the rights and freedoms of boaters are the ones tethering together to prevent boaters from entering or exiting that area by Marge's.
2. Severely increase erosion along the shoreline of both Lake Ontario & Irondequoit Bay due to the lowering of the 25mph speed limit to 20mph.
*Um, no. The Bay is staying at 25 MPH - the "no tethering" ordinance is for the Lake...not the Bay. Apparently, erosion is more important than the safety of humans.
3. Potentially incite similar actions by other Towns thereby narrowing allowable navigable areas of both waterways causing increased boating congestion and possible hazard of collision.
*The proposed ordinance is for 450 ft. out and 1/2 a mile long.
Lake Ontario is about 200 miles long and 50 miles wide. It's about 25,000 square miles. It's a big lake. I'm sure the boats could tether somewhere else that doesn't threaten the lives of humans, like they are doing right now. And again....the ordinance isn't for the Bay.
4. Possibly violate Federal & State laws and or guidelines regarding navigation of public waterways.
*Possibly? Maybe? Could be? Sorta/kinda but not really?
WTF? Do you have ANY federal law that shows the town is "possibly" violating it? I mean, just saying it over and over without proving it doesn't mean it's true.
I really hope all you boaters waste money on a lawyer that doesn't care about winning cases. Any good lawyer will tell you that you guys don't have a peg leg to stand on.
Clicked on the link to Irondequoit bay Facebook - looks like a closed group...hmmmm
It was open. That's where all those great comments came from.
I'm getting in touch with a lawyer because they violated my rights by closing down their FB page. I mean, Facebook is for everyone.
It's possible they are violating federal and NYS laws by doing that. Maybe. Ok, no...but it SHOULD be illegal!
Rather than NIMBY's we will call them NIMFY's...better than NIMPHY's I suppose...
lol
How can anything be better than a NIMPHY? C'mon. You're just being silly now. lol
Here's what is going to happen next.
Suddenly, on the D&C and some other "news" sites, and maybe even on this blog....comments will be from the "pro boaters" who create an identity to pretend to be a homeowner and/or bar patron of Marge's and make seriously nasty comments against the boaters to make the homeowners look bad.
They're sick of being characterized the way they are.
Stereotyped. Making all the boaters "look bad" because of a few bad apples.
lol I could set my watch to it.
I have to laugh, it seems to me that Republicans always want less government intrusion, until they dont.
Has anyone filed a FOI to the 911 call center to ask HOW MANY calls to the 911 center over a period of a summer? And then produced a FOI from any agency as to how many times they showed up to answer a call?
One thing we heard MULTIPLE times was how residents called the police but NO ONE responded, WHAT?!!!! WHY?!!!!!
Another thought, it is dangerous to tie up and/or anchor at the depth they currently do, correct? Then WHY OH WHY does the NEW law state that current homeowners and their GUESTS CAN tie up at that depth???? Isnt it too dangerous for them?
Ok, lets go with dangerous for a minute, any serious accidents? Fatalities? etc to prove this statement?
Anyone who has answers to these questions, I would appreciate it.
PS I do NOT think anyone should trespass on the PROPERTY of a home owner. I also believe they should actually try to enforce the laws that already exist.
I agree that they should enforce laws already on the books....but how do you enforce a law that doesn't exist?
There are no tethering laws on the books. The town has to make one to be able to enforce it.
I would hope that safety transcends political parties. This didn't just happen last summer, it's been going on for years. It's about time people are punished for tethering 20...50....100...150 boats together. Right now there is nothing the homeowners or authorities can do except ask them to leave. What good is that going to do?
As far as foil requests....the people who don't believe the residents are telling the truth or don't believe there have been that many calls to the police have every right to file an FOI request to find it out. Feel free to do that if you want.
If I park in front of your driveway and block you from getting in or out....that's a safety issue and against the law. Does someone in your house have to die or be injured to prove that? No. It's just common sense.
I've said it a few times on here that if it's a safety issue to tether its a safety issue for everyone and the residents shouldn't tether either. The resolution didn't get approved yet so maybe they will change that.
"One thing we heard MULTIPLE times was how residents called the police but NO ONE responded"
Actually, if you watch the meeting again, what I heard ONE time from a homeowner is that nobody responded.
What I heard the majority say is the IPD, MCS, and CG have supported this resolution, responded to numerous 911 calls but tell them they can only tell them to leave, or there isn't much they can do under the current laws.
How do you "punish" people or enforce laws that don't exist?
Since there are no tethering laws, they can't do anything about the constant weekend tethering of some boats or many boats that don't leave when you ask them to and they are creating a nuisance.
There aren't really "nuisance" laws on the water the same as on land.
Even that Daniele guy who was a former MC Sheriff and pro boater said it's hard to police that.
The pro boater crowd are the ones who over and over again said the authorities are not enforcing rules or laws already on the books, or implied that they aren't showing up or being "accountable" for "doing their job".
The Lake belongs to everyone, it's a public place - there are no private property lines on the water, so how do you control or enforce nuisance on the Lake? You can't, really, unless you address it with an ordinance. By creating a law or ordinance that addresses it, the problem can be solved.
It's BEEN an escalating problem, in this particular area that one of the pro boaters classified as a "garbage dump" in the media, and it needs to be taken care of.
The homeowners did not buy their homes next to a "garbage dump" - the garbage really did come to them, and they have every right to expect their Town Government to address it. People's safety is at issue. Both the boaters and the homeowners. Someone is going to tire of the constant bullshit and take care of it themselves. Someone else might get sick of the whiney homeowner and teach him/her a lesson.
It's got to be addressed by a law. Nobody can do anything about it now without a law. A specific law that the Town has EVERY RIGHT to do, 1,500 feet out from the shore.
Like I said, it's escalated every year. The ones who say they need to "police themselves" have had YEARS to accomplish this. They've failed. Completely and unequivocally. If the authority can't do anything, what can you, as a boater do?
Besides, most of them claim that they don't use this area or don't tether there or don't boat there themselves.....so....how can you police something if you're not even there?
It's funny - the rights of boaters to navigate aren't being denied. The boaters have the right to tether, apparently wherever they want to right now. It is interfering with safety, and for people to equally enjoy the water, and infringing on people's rights....but they don't care about someone else's rights...only theirs.
Mostly because they don't want the riff raff rafters to do it in front of THEIR property.
The pro boaters circulated a completely inaccurate petition about laws and what the resolution is about. Handing out wrong information to fellow boaters...and people are supposed to take them seriously that they'll "police themselves", and inform the boaters of what the rules are?
Please. Watch the meeting. How many times did pro boaters have to be told that the speed limit on the Bay is not changing - it's going to stay 25 mph., that nothing is changing for the Bay....yet....nobody listened. They had to be told over and over and over again.
Yeah, I'm real confident about their ability to police themselves.
Jesus. Here's another one.
Boaters against stricter boating laws in and around Ironddquoit Bay facebook page.
Look at the profile picture they have up with their lines saying "Off Limits To Boaters". Totally wrong and inaccurate. It's NOT off limits to boaters. Jet ski's and boats can still enter and navigate on the Lake in the area they are proposing an ordinance for. The ordinance isn't for the Bay. They have too long of an area blocked off on the Lake, the 450 ft. limit is to the bend in the pier, not the end of the pier, and for some reason think it's the same thing on the Bay. It isn't. They are spreading lies and are inaccurate.
Here's a comment they made on their page:
"Boaters against stricter boating laws in and around irondequoit bay
Saturday
Applying laws unequally will only result in confusion, lawsuits, and tension. Plus, speed limits on a Great Lake are ridiculous! Supervisor D'Aurizio and the Irondequoit Town Board MUST come to their senses!!! Nearly 1000 people have voiced their objection to these new restrictions. Wake up and be realistic!!!"
First, let's deal with the "speed limits on the Great Lake are ridiculous!" - there are already speed limits on the Great Lake that I know of....Durand and Charlotte have 5 MPH speed limits 500 ft. from shore. Other places do as well when you're underway and within distance of a dock, pier, raft, anchored or moored vessel....5 MPH. ANYWHERE on ANY waterway.
Second, let's deal with the "Applying laws unequally will only result in confusion, lawsuits, and tension."
Really? Laws are already inconsistent on the Lake for speed and being able to anchor or raft by certain things like piers, docks, rafts, channels, rivers, etc.
Does this person drive a car? Are they confused when they drive? Have they filed lawsuits because of the inconsistent laws that made them feel confused? Are they tense because there's a speed limit here and not one there?
There are inconsistent laws all over this country for driving and navigating on public roads.
I can go 35 mph in a residential area, in the city I have to go 30 mph, unless I'm in front of a school, in which case I have to go 25 mph....but is that during school hours or every day? What about Saturdays and Sundays? Fuck it, I'm just not going to drive by there because I'll become tense and confused....and maybe file a lawsuit cuz I can't figure it out.
I can turn right on red, unless there's a sign that says I can't, or one that has a schedule, then I can't turn right on red during the hours of 7-9 and 1-3 on school days....but if it's a holiday or summer vacation...I might not be able to.
OH MY GOD there's a yield sign. WTF does that mean? Jesus...what do I do? A stop sign on THIS corner? WHY? Cripes. I just can't navigate the roads with all these laws and signs and ordinances.
Holy shit, there's a roundabout....now I'm really in trouble. I'm probably going to drive around in circles all day because of the confusion. Fuck. I'm doomed.
I can go 55 MPH on the expressway, but it's 65 MPH on the Thruway. Oh my. I'm confused. I'm tense.
I think I'll just anchor my boat and tether with some friends and drink away my tenseness and confusion.
FYI:
Marge's stopped allowing boats to anchor there last year. Any pictures of boats anchoring there is a moot point now, since the bar stopped allowing it.
Imagine that. A bar on the Lake thinks things are so bad that they stopped allowing boats to patronize their bar.
Losing some income because they realize that they might have been a part of the problem - and have always been willing to work with the neighbors, and their patrons to be good neighbors.
Pictures from the past don't mean much when they stopped allowing it - therefore solving one aspect of the problem.
What have you done to help stop the problems?
Also -
Homeowners there bought their house knowing there was a bar there. They didn't buy their homes knowing trash would wash up to shore and invade their private property.
When problems happen, they talk to the owners and the owners actions speak louder than any words. The owners don't say "Fuck you. I have the right to be here, it's my property, you shouldn't have moved next to a bar then...etc."
Marge's contains their patrons so they don't trespass. The noise outside is not going on from 10 am to 9 pm. every weekend. They are not stopping the homeowners from navigating the Lake or getting out of their own front or back yards.
When the homeowners have a problem with Marge's - they tell them and Marge's takes care of it.
They don't ignore it and whine about their rights or how difficult it's going to be to follow these new rules and they are trying to work with the neighbors.
Marge's polices themselves to the satisfaction of the neighbors.
What have you done to police yourselves?
It may very well be that Marges no longer allows boaters to enter the bar. However, when every past photo of a sunny nice day at Marges or special event (on the Marges website) has a string of boats in the background, what is Marges currently doing beyond disallowing people to enter the bar?? I have spoken to many boaters who all say that Marges was the original attraction for boats to moor on sand bar and wade in for a cocktail, take a leak or get a burger. I don't blame them for taking issue with Marges trying to completely distance themselves from this issue now that it has become a problem for year round owners. As time has gone one more sand has been deposited on either side of the piers and the beach and sand bars have become larger in certain areas. It attracts swimmers and boaters. Maybe the Army Corps should dredge all the sand that has moved since 1984? That might solve all the problems???...lol
" what is Marges currently doing beyond disallowing people to enter the bar??"
I suppose what they've always done. Tell people that they aren't serving them if they come in from the Lake.
They can tell boaters that they shouldn't tether in front of their property - that's about all they can do because THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TETHERING THERE.
There isn't much they CAN do except what they've always done.
Listen to the neighbors, address what they can address, and work with the neighbors and BE a good neighbor. They are. They police themselves.
"wade in for a cocktail, take a leak or get a burger."
Marge's doesn't serve food. The patrons that go in to take a leak or have a (or their 10th) cocktail....it has escalated into a serious problem. The ones that want a burger use her property as a cut through to get to the hot dog stands. They used private property of the homeowners to get to the hot dog stands. There are signs all over that say "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" - probably because they assumed people could read. Unfortunately......
"I don't blame them for taking issue with Marges trying to completely distance themselves from this issue now that it has become a problem for year round owners."
Fran Beth has been trying to inform the public for YEARS about the issues down there. I distinctly remember a meeting from 2008 or 2009 where she did public input telling people to spread the word that customers SHOULD NOT TRESPASS on the homes property there. They need to control themselves and respect people. I can find the meeting minutes by Thursday if you want. I know she addressed the problems with the Heyman administration, and I'm sure I can get my hands on minutes from the Shantz administration that shows she has tried to solve the problems and get the info out to people.
"It attracts swimmers and boaters."
It still can. Even with the resolution as written, people can still navigate and swim there. If there's so many sandbars out there, then when they anchor out at 450 ft. it will be safer for them to swim in or play out there. They'll be able to anchor because it is 10 ft. 15 ft. deep out there....maybe less in some spots....so no...I wouldn't have them dredge that since it would help the boaters if they leave it.
People can still swim there via the public access (even though swimming without a lifeguard at a "public beach" is kinda illegal) - they can still do everything they always have done except tether there or anchor within 450 ft. of the shore.
And, I just want to warn everyone - people are starting to make this about Marge's and threatening them for codes or whatever.
I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do so you can prepare yourselves.
If you continue to fuck with Marge's, I'm going to contact EVERY Mother's Against Drunk Driving organization in the Country, and specifically concentrate on ones located near waterways - and advise them that their efforts for the road have been honorable and successful. It's time they concentrated their efforts to another cause.
I will ask them, "Did you, lovely M.A.D.D. ladies know that boats are allowed to have open containers of alcohol on there? You can't have open containers of alcohol in your vehicle....but these "death vessels headed right for your precious little children" can drink all day on their boats, and it's made even easier by the lax open container laws."
Don't doubt that I won't do it. I will. With social media these days it's easy to get the word out, and with the plethora of information on the internet, I can google the shit out of it and get stats and data that will back up my point.
M.A.D.D. has big sway with politicians....how can they deny the safety of little children all along the waterways and let boaters have open containers of alcohol on their boats?
Don't you think it was nice of me to let you know ahead of time?
Sometimes, I'm only a little douchebaggedy. I'll make up for that in the future.
Threatening Marges for Codes?? How do you know? Which codes?
When I referred to burgers I meant the hot dog stands across the street on Culver Road. People used to come in for a drink and also gab something to eat across the street. Aside from that Marges does have a bi-annual "Shots and Hots" event on Memorial and Labor Days. So they do serve some food occasionally.
I think your idea about MADD refocusing to the water is a good idea. Although there is still a good deal of work to be done on the roads. Hopefully in the near future, we can get some restitution for all the late night damage in the 590 Roundabouts from bar patrons in the area.
Some of the things I've read in comments on articles and on some of the FB pages - codes about parking, or occupancy.
Most of the people are blaming Marge's entirely - but what they don't realize is that Marge's HAS policed themselves.
What lakeside bar turns away boaters and refuses to serve them? I mean, that's a lot of money lost, and in my opinion, for a bar to do that, it has to be bad.
Marge's has accepted responsibility, has worked with the neighbors, has spoken at public input about "rules" etc., and has done everything she can to be a good neighbor.
Everyone else? Ignores it until there's a proposed law and THEN they talk about policing themselves. Too little, too late, imo.
I think Marge's not serving food helps out the hot dog stands across the street. I don't know if she minds the "cut through" people....maybe she doesn't. I think the homeowners have a problem with it and I don't blame them....private property is private property.
All I know is Marge's has tried very hard to educate, inform, and be respectful of the neighbors - they've also tried to be part of the solution, and not the problem.
They've been around decades before I was born, and hopefully will be around decades after I'm long gone.
They're good people.
Marge's is the only owner down there who makes the lake that belongs to everybody accessible to everybody, right?
Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at.....
Is Marge denying people from accessing the Lake from the Public Access area?
Is she stopping people from boating on the Lake?
Answer to both questions: No.
Imagine if only the town officials gave this info to residents and boat owners before the public hearing....I wonder how many people attended the 12pm mtg yesterday.
April 17th was the date of the Public Hearing. Obviously, the pro boaters had the resolution information well before that because they had a petition up about it, and facebook pages about it, and were commenting to the media about it.
Many stories explaining the proposed law were out before the Public Hearing.
April 13th, in the D&C.
April 12th, MPN Irondequoit Post.
April 12th, 13Wham story.
April 13th, News10 WHEC.
April 9th, Topix Forum Ann Kerrzaway creates the thread and makes the first comment, linking to the Town Resolution.
The comments on there are unbelievably ignorant. Just the title alone "Irondequoit seeks to BAN boating...." They are doing no such thing. If anyone bothered to read the resolution, understand it....then check the NYS Navigation laws, understand it....then try to inform themselves of other laws instead of just following their leader - a lot of stupidity could have been avoided.
I mean, seriously. I waited for 3 days on here to see if anyone would voluntarily offer any type of law or any link to ANYthing that showed the Town could enforce this already, or had no authority to make the law. I said "I'm not sure of the law", other people claimed they weren't sure on the laws, other people claimed they knew the laws....but NOBODY OFFERED TO LINK to anything, or cite any laws. Just threw out speculative laws. Or, none at all.
Took me 3 hours total to look through NYS Navigation law and US Federal Regulations to educate myself of the actual laws.
If there's a law that prohibits the town from doing this - then prove it. Cite the law. Educate the masses. Link to it on your "legal" petition. You think they don't own the private beach because of some 100 year high water mark rule? Prove it. Link to it.
No - we'll just speculate and spread misinformation and then expect to be taken seriously, and cry about the Nanny Government and then expect them to educate us, accuse them of being dishonest and then expect them to honestly educate us. Unreal.
I don't expect my government to educate me. I like to think for myself, thankyouverymuch.
FYI:
Looks like NYS Navigation Law
§ 45-aaa was updated recently - the Special Provisions For Irondequoit Bay changed from 5 mph 200 ft. from shore to 300 ft. from shore.
When I posted the link to it, it said only 200 ft. BUT - MJD did state (in one of the articles linked above) that the 300 ft. 5 mph speed limit on the Bay was not being changed by the Town - that it was updating to coincide with NYS Law.
Here is the text of the SPECIAL law for Irondequoit Bay.
§ 45-aaa. Special provisions relating to speed on Irondequoit bay.
1. No vessel shall be operated on Irondequoit bay, which is located within Monroe county, at a speed exceeding twenty-five miles per hour unless such vessel is being operated for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in water skiing or other water sport to be towed, in which case
no such vessel shall be operated at a speed exceeding thirty-five miles per hour.
2. No vessel shall be operated in the channel between Irondequoit Bay
and Lake Ontario or within three hundred feet of the shore, the channel, a dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel in a manner
or at a speed that causes a wake that unreasonably interferes with or endangers such dock, pier, raft or float or an anchored or moored vessel but in no event at a speed exceeding five miles per hour, unless for the purpose of enabling a person engaged in water skiing to take off or
land.
3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any vessel competing in or practicing for a regatta or boat race over a specified course held by a bona fide club or racing association, provided that due written notice of the date of the race has been given to the appropriate law enforcement agency at least fifteen days prior to such race,
pursuant to the provisions of section thirty-four of this chapter, and all provisions of this section have been complied with.
4. Any person who operates a vessel in violation of any of the
provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation punishable as set forth in section seventy-three-c of this article.
5. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any town or county from continuing, adopting or enacting any other local laws, resolutions or ordinances related to persons operating a vessel within its limits, but no such municipality shall have the power to make less
restrictive any of such provisions.
would seem as though the foil nanny has a bit of biased here.
if there are code violations at the lake i think they should be enforced like every other property or resident in the town who gets the shitty notice(s) from the town
Then do something about it.
Marge's has been there before some of the codes were created - that business probably is "grandfathered" in.
If you think they're violating codes....then do something about it.
Once again (I can't believe I have to repeat this AGAIN)
I have NEVER claimed that I was unbiased or fair on this blog.
Deal.
Focusing on code violations (if there are any) of Marge's is not what the proposed resolution is about.
The resolution regulates tethering and anchoring on the water 450 ft. out.
Fishing for red herrings by bringing up supposed code violations.
Distracting from the real issue.
Doing everything in their power to continue to be a part of the problem instead of the solution.
Doing everything in their power to get the focus off of them onto someone else.
I remember doing that myself....when I was 5.....
Unreal.
Foils, as a long time lurker at your blog I think that this is some of your best work. Any way you could post some of the photos the homeowners had at the town board meeting? I admit I was doubtful when I first read about the problem but those pictures of the massive flotilla of partying idiots really were persuasive. I'm a boater. That ain't boating. That is just moving your loutish behavior to the waterways. Hiding behind the skirts of respectable boaters by trying to claim that the town wants to unfairly restrict legitimate boating is just plain BS. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of gathering near their home.
I don't know anyone who is involved personally - so I don't really know who I could contact for them to e-mail me pictures...I have met one person who works at Marge's sometimes and know them through another person....I'll see what I can do.
In the meantime, you could watch the meeting again and see the pictures. The link to the video is here or you can go to www.irondequoit.org, click on "Open Government Resources" from the list on the left, click on "Town Board Channel", then the date of the meeting video for April 17, 2012.
To be fair (because I'm not) - you can also go to Marge's website and see pictures on their site. Boats were SUPPOSED to anchor only in front of Marge's. It's a popular spot, it got out of hand and boats were starting to block in residents or create safety issues. Marge took responsibility and got the word out about it through updates on her website, by going to public input at town meetings, and telling her patrons to spread the word about the boundaries. Nobody listened or the problems are from peopple besides Marge's patrons. Things got so bad that she decided to stop boats from patronizing the bar.
The pictures some of the residents have shown could have been from one big day in the past or on a busy holiday like Memorial Day or Labor Day. (I don't know, I just know they're pictures of a lot of boats.) I've been on the pier on non-holiday weekends and seen too many boats and jet skis in that small area. People just acting rude on the beach, and throwing garbage everywhere. I believe the MC Sheriff when they say they are down there constantly - believe them when they say they have made arrests for trespassing. Some of the other pictures the homeowners showed were of beached jet skis or a boat ashore or dogs not on leashes. One resident spoke of people being injured - a young girl cut her leg on an anchor or something - someone else was paralyzed. I forget the other one.
I don't know if it happens every day or every weekend or only on holidays, or maybe only on days after a full moon, or when venus is visible....if it happens, I think it's a safety issue for the general public - not only the residents. Boaters, swimmers, residents, patrons of Marge's - safety issue for all of them in my opinion.
I don't think this is about the residents and only their rights, Marge's and only their rights, or boaters and only their rights. I don't even think it's about the residents having to put up with a bunch of boats tethering together in front of their homes.....
I think it's a safety issue. For everyone.
You have the right to navigate the waters of Lake Ontario in a free and safe manner. That's the beginning of the navigation law....not "you have the right to tether anywhere you please, and anchor anywhere you please."
You have the right to navigate. That's it. The town isn't denying that right. The town has the right to regulate the waters 1,500 ft. from shore.
I agree with you completely when you say "That ain't boating. That is just moving your loutish behavior to the waterways."
Absolutely.
You have the right to navigate the lake in a free and safe manner - not tether or anchor anywhere you please....which is why NYS Law allows for municipalities to regulate the waters specifically for mooring or anchoring or tethering together 1,500 ft. from shore.
I just found out what the pro boaters are using as their proof for why the Town Board can't make the law they are proposing to make.
It's not a NYS law - it's not even a law. It's not even about tethering or mooring of vessels.
It's a ruling. From Michigan. About a case of a 70 year old lady who wanted to walk on the beach. The Michigan Supreme ruled she could walk on the beach.
You can google "Glass vs. Goeckel"
Find your own article, or go to This link.
"Michigan's Supreme Court ruling that the public has the right to walk Michigan's 3,288 miles of shoreline."
Um - ok....lol...I don't know why I have to explain this, but:
*The resolution is about regulating the mooring, anchoring, or tethering of vessels. Not the regulating of people walking along the shoreline. Nobody cares if you walk along the shoreline. Nothing in the resolution states that they are regulating the shoreline or your right to walk along (not loiter or hang out on) the shoreline.
*The Michigan Supreme Court has no bearing on NY. At all.
*NYS allows municipalities the right to regulate water 1,500 ft. from shore for mooring, anchoring, or rafting. No federal regulations that I have read prohibit the town from doing this.
A ruling in the state of NY relating to tethering or mooring would be helpful...and relevant.
A federal law that prohibits the town from regulating the waters 1,500 ft. from shore would be helpful...and relevant.
A "you have the right to walk along the shoreline" ruling from Michigan isn't.
The DEC OGC 9: Enforcement Guidance: Public Rights of Navigation and Fishing
thing you're floating around isn't relevant either.
The proposed resolution isn't stopping you from fishing. Or Navigating.
This doesn't prove anything either:
NYS Office Of Parks & Recreation
They are the lead agency and the "commissioners" who help create the Navigation Laws for NYS - they train law enforcement - they oversee distribution of registration funds.
They link to the Navigation Laws - which are the laws of NYS - which plainly and clearly state that the Town is well within their rights to regulate the waters 1,500 ft. from shore.
FYI:
It is not a Federally Protected Wetland on the beach there. The bulldozer can be there.
I just put up a map from the NYS DEC website that shows the protected wetlands. It's on the main page of the blog towards the bottom.
You guys have fished for red herrings for a week now. Haven't you caught enough?
I want to apologize for not offering a straw man argument in a while.
It seems the pro boaters have grasped every last straw, and I have nothing left to build one with.
:(
"I don't expect my government to educate me. I like to think for myself"
I think most people like to THINK for themselves but that isnt what is at issue here. There is an expectation that when the TOWN wants to change the rules ie laws then it is up to the town and the town atty to explain them. They didnt. Several people have asked for clarification during the meeting. As you point out, MANY things being printed is wrong. So what is the town doing about it? Nothing.
"If you think they're violating codes....then do something about it."
What?!! Are you feeling ok this week? WHY should it be up to any resident to "do something about it" like what, fire off a warning shot? It is up to the police, the sheriffs and the coast guard to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
The town lost me when they say that tethering causes "dangerous conditions" but then in the resolution allows the "residents and their guests" to tether. Be consistent.
I agree that the Town should have explained the resolution in more detail. I said that many comments ago.
It's not up to the Town to educate people on the rules of boating. You should know that before you pilot a boat.
In the resolution, it references the State Law that enables them to create the tethering/rafting, anchoring, mooring law. They cited the law. YOU can go and look at the law to see if they have the authority. YOU can find the Federal Law that prohibits the Town from making this law. It's not up to the Town to find some non-existent law that stops them from proposing this resolution.
If I start a petition, I would make sure I had correct information in it.
I didn't have the Town explain the resolution to me - I read the resolution, read the NYS Navigation Law, and read the Federal Regulations. Anybody could have done that - but noooooo.
Code violations - Don't residents have to "see" a code violation and report it?
Do something about it if you feel there are code violations.
Already commented on residents being able to tether...a few times.
Finally, let's make this about everything BUT what the resolution is about. Really. Subterfuge is fun!
"Several people have asked for clarification during the meeting."
Yes, on the speed limit on the Bay.
The resolution states the Bay is 25 MPH....nothing about lowering the speed on the Bay.
MJD corrected a pro boater, I believe it was a gentleman with the last name of Wolf - that the speed limit is not changing on the Bay. Explained it. This was at the beginning of the Public Hearing.
How many more people got up and said they disagree with the lowering of the speed limit from 25 to 20 MPH? There were a few because I remember her repeating the same thing OVER and OVER. Speed limit is not changing on the Bay.
WHERE in the resolution does it say they were lowering the speed limit from 25 to 20 MPH?
It doesn't.
If ya can't read, or can't listen, or can't comprehend....that's not the Town's fault.
Mr. T says:
"Has anyone looked at the tax maps of the beach front houses on culver road? Does the property line end at the water? What does their abstracts say is their property line? Does their deads really say to the low water line and what does that really mean? I think you would be surprised at what you find out?"
I looked at some deeds! I wasn't surprised one bit! Their property line for the beach ends at the water. The Deed describes the property lines. I don't know what their deads say, but the deed doesn't say anything about low water line. Just to the water line, or to the shore of Lake Ontario on some other deeds I looked at.
A page of the deed is at the bottom of the blog, with a link to where I found it at.
Anon posted: "Marge's is the only owner down there who makes the lake that belongs to everybody accessible to everybody, right?"
No homeowners allow access to the water from the road. There is a public launch just down the road. It must be a problem because every house has many 'no parking/no trespassing' signs in their yards.
From what I've heard, people would try to walk through Marge's from Culver Rd. with cases of beer, and packed coolers. I can't blame Marge's for not allowing this. Name another bar where you can walk into it with your own booze?
Note to this blogs author: You totally amazed me with your ability to see the big picture. You have done your homework and then some. One of the only straight forward, no bull shit, intelligent people that I've seen in all of this.
Kudos to you!
Thank you foiling for posting this blog and doing your homework. You speak of logic, reason and the rights to SAFETY for all. Just wish you had a bigger blog hammer to drive your message home to all the boaters who feel their "rights" to the lake are supreme. Since when is boating a right? Just like driving a car, I believe it is a privilege. Perhaps if boaters had to pass a test, maintain a license and learn the NYS boating & navigation laws, this would be a non-issue. Oh, forget about all that! How about learning the meaning of the word RESPECT...for people, places and the beauty of nature?
As to not post under a fake name or to hide behind some odd screen name, I will let everyone know, my name is Todd Fuller, I am an avid boater and a long time resident of the Rochester area. I feel the boaters and the redents need to compromise. We did try that in a meeting called by the town of Irondequoit, however the residents were not at all willing to compromise. I only have a few comments about this, which is you were at BOTH hearings you have already heard. First, the residents state safety as a major issue with the boaters. Well I agree, there is safety issue with everything you do in life. Do you still drive on the express way even though there have been accidents and even casualties? Of course you do, because it is your right to drive on road as much as it is a boater to be on the water.
Second thing resdients bring up, tresspassing. There are current trespassing laws in place. It's a pretty simple concept, if you see someone on your property, call the police. Oh and as a FYI NY State has a "feet wet" law, as long as your feet are wet (standing in water for those who are slow)you are not tresspassing.
3rd thing that has been mentioned. Woman with their tops off. Well pardon me for coming across mean with this but, a bunch of you women got together in the 80's wanting equal rights and wanting to go topless in NY and now it is perfectly legal for ANY woman to go topless in the state of NY. You may not ,like it, and if I looked like you, I wouldn't like to see it. But it is indeed LEGAL.
Fourth thing that was brought up....underage drinking. So moving the boats to 450 feet is REALLY going to stop this how?? If people underage are going to drink, they are going to drink! I am pretty certain that local establishment on the shore has served minors, unknowingly of course (wink, wink).
Noise is another thing that keeps being brought up....there's too much noise of the people having fun. Again there are current noise ordinances ni plpace to control this type of behavior. Moving boats out another 300 feet, you can bet your still going to hear the noise, I promise you will be able to. Similiar to driving by that establishment at 1am and hearing the live band on the back porch playing, except our noise wont be at 1am.
The proposal states that the vessel restricted area will not effect homeowners. Homeowners will be able to have upto 3 boats tied, moored, anchored. Ok so are you going to be paying taxes on this nely aquired 450 feet of private water? Oh and by the way I have looked at the tax maps....you don't own what you think you own, funny how you did not include THAT map in your numerous maps that you popsted in this article.
The bottom line is MOVING THE PROBLEM WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
"Do you still drive on the express way even though there have been accidents and even casualties? Of course you do, because it is your right to drive on road as much as it is a boater to be on the water."
It is my right to drive on the expressway. I have to follow laws - no u-turns, no speeding, and I certainly can't stop in the middle of the expressway with a bunch of other cars to party and play my music loud.
NYS Navigation Laws - it is your right to navigate the water in a free and safe manner. It is not your right to tether or anchor anywhere you want...which is why NYS Navigation Law gives municipalities the authority to regulate the waters for specific things 1,500 ft. from shore.
"Oh and as a FYI NY State has a "feet wet" law, as long as your feet are wet (standing in water for those who are slow)you are not tresspassing."
Nobody is saying anything about people swimming or keeping their feet wet. Think they're complaining about the people who use their front yards or sit on their furniture or set up tables and grills and whatever and use their private property as if it were their own.
"it is perfectly legal for ANY woman to go topless in the state of NY."
As long as they aren't creating a disturbance, yes, it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I wish there were laws for guys to HAVE to wear a shirt because some of you....ugh.
"Fourth thing that was brought up....underage drinking. So moving the boats to 450 feet is REALLY going to stop this how??"
Oh, those laws that are already on the books should take care of it...right? Riiiiiiiight.
"Again there are current noise ordinances ni plpace to control this type of behavior."
For the Lake? Where? Quote the navigation law that regulates noise of music or partying on the Lake or Bay.
"Oh and by the way I have looked at the tax maps....you don't own what you think you own, funny how you did not include THAT map in your numerous maps that you popsted in this article."
A tax map from where? When? Since when does a tax map override a deed to show property ownership?
Sorry I haven't been on all day....been busy contacting the local authorities to get the Murder, Rape, and Child molestation laws off the books. Since the current laws haven't stopped murder, rape, and child molestation from happening....I figured we don't need no stinkin' laws on that. Right?
"§ 31. Excavation, fill or other modification of water course.
No person or local public corporation shall excavate or place fill in the navigable waters of the state without first obtaining a permit therefor in conformity with the provisions of section 15-0505 of the environmental conservation law."
Were they placing or excavating fill in the Lake? Do you know for sure that they did not have a permit if they were?
Or, were they just grooming the beach like they do every year?
Chamber of Commerce awards:
Urbanski Insurance in April 2012.
R.W.Lindsay, Inc in March 2012.
Nu-Look Collision Center in January, 2012.
Or, you could just go here.
Here's a good one:
"Before the pier was built, there wasn't even a beach there. So, who really owns that beach, hmmmm?"
lol
A little over 10,000 years ago, there wasn't even a Lake there. So, who really has the rights to the water, hmmmmm?
Damn glaciers.
Well the fact is the public have rights on a private shoreline. link;
http://www.titlesofnewyork.com/articles/land-is.pdf
Finally someone with some brains writing about this! Thank you!
The fact is that the resolution is not regulating the shoreline as far as walking along it.
The homeowners and TB are not stopping anyone from walking along the shoreline.
The article (not law) you linked to says that people have the right to walk along the shoreline.
Nobody is denying the right to walk along the shoreline.
The article also speaks of high tides and low tides - so I'm pretty sure that deals with the bodies of water that actually have a high and low tide....which isn't Lake Ontario in the area they are proposing the resolution for.
Again, the Deeds show they own (so many feet from a stake, then north + or - (plus or minus so many feet) to the waterline).
Nobody is denying your right to WALK ALONG the shoreline.
Bring your article and hang out on the dry sand of the beach, and when the police tell you that you're trespassing, you can show them the article.
If you end up getting a ticket anyways, you can go to court and show the article as proof and try to fight it. Of course, if the homeowner shows up with their Deeds - you're going to be out of luck.
Todd Fuller said..."Similar to driving by that establishment at 1am and hearing the live band on the back porch playing, except our noise wont be at 1am."
The music is permitted (as in they have a permit) and they don't play until 1AM outside on the deck. Ever.
The homeowners/tavern owners have been called exaggerators...but what you wrote is an exaggeration. Let's be fair and accurate. It makes things easier- and you won't sound dumb. win-win.
This is not about Marge's.
The residents and tavern owners are not against boaters.
Period.
Looking forward to your next sidewalk party... I look great with my shirt off.
FYI:
Nobody is talking about survey maps because:
*A survey map from before the pier was built, or from the original survey done back in the early 1900's means nothing in 2012 as far as how much beach they own.
*It has nothing to do with the resolution. At all.
If you think they don't own the beach to the water line, you will have to challenge it in court, and hire a surveyor to determine whether the deed accurately describes the property.
Survey maps from decades ago, or from before the pier was built really don't prove anything as far as property ownership or if the Deed is valid or not.
Most of the houses there have filed Deeds recently, so they could have updated survey maps. Some properties have easement agreements with RG&E - some people have a survey done when they buy a property so their Deeds are up to date and reflect the property boundaries currently - that could be the case with some of the homes too.
Only licensed land surveyors may make boundary determinations in the state of NY - so make sure you hire a licensed surveyor.
FYI:
The 2009 Comprehensive Master Plan that you linked to is a draft, part D of community input.
The 2009 MP is not in effect yet. Hasn't been approved yet. Currently, the 1985 Master Plan is in effect until they amend this 2009 one and approve it.
I don't even think SEQR has been fully paid for or completed for the 2009 Master Plan Draft yet.
But if you really want to use the 2009 Draft - I suppose you can.
Here's a link to the 2009 Draft - Section 6: Waterfront Development Plan.
Page 35 describes the Sea Breeze area. In the first paragraph under "Existing Characteristics" it states:
"Sea Breeze is one of Irondequoit’s oldest neighborhoods and is the largest of the eight
waterfront opportunity areas....blah blah blah Northeast of the Seabreeze park,
on the small section of land separating Irondequoit Bay from Lake Ontario are a row of
PRIVATE HOMES facing the Lake with a PRIVATE BEACH. Across from this area are three
restaurants (“Hot Dog Row”), the State Marine Park public boat launch."
Page 38: "Improve the public’s access to existing open space and expand recreational
opportunities." (Existing open space - not private property.)
Last paragraph on page 38: "blah blah blah On the north side of the road is an elevated berm on which sits a row of 35 small
homes facing a broad PRIVATE SANDY beach. One of the homes is operated as a popular
beachfront tavern (Marge’s). The eastern boundary of the area is the bay outlet. Next to
the outlet is a pier, the seasonal swing bridge, and public restrooms."
Page 42: "This area
can be utilized more with proper signage and markings to separate the public and private
beaches, as well as the clearing of brush and the beach and the addition of picnic tables
for small gatherings."
After that they talk about purchasing (from the State) some land along the Bay for recreational purposes, additional parking, and docking for visitors.
Based on the photos I've seen and comments I've read, the Sea Breeze shoreline during the summer months turns into an Unofficial Marina. That is very DANGEROUS for swimmers!!!
BEACHES AND MARINAS DON'T MIX!!!
BEACHES AND MARINAS DON'T MIX!!!
BEACHES AND MARINAS DON'T MIX!!!
Yay! You popped the 100 comment cherry for this blog!
Congratulations!
:)
Post a Comment