Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post - Cabin Cruiser Operators

jeffk · 06-04-2007, 11:05 AM

Any local government has the responsibility to accept the reality of the conditions that exist in the locale that services must be provided for. For example, in a city with multistory buildings it would be negligent for the fire department not to have extensible ladder trucks. Fire services are provided to all residents. The tall buildings must be "accommodated".

However, where is the line drawn? If children live on an island must a town provide "school bus boats" or should it be the responsibility of the parents to bring the child to a shore location where the bus could pick them up?

Everyone has a some choice of where they live. Property is easily transferred. You make a choice every day to either live where you are now or move. Just because you don't want to move doesn't mean you can't. An ancestor may have made the original choice but you own it now. You also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice.

If I decide to live a remote rural area and the nearest grocery store is 20 miles away and the nearest doctor is 100 miles away am I entitled to to free transportation or a subsidized car? If I can't manage the transportation to needed facilities maybe I need to move closer to them or within an area that at least has public transportation. I probably don't want to move but I might have to.

I, for example, don't look at towns providing reserved dock space for island residents as an "accommodation" but instead as a unique perk. This is not a service provided to any other resident. If a shore resident of the same community threw his boat in the water for the day, could he use "island docking" for a while if he needed to run to the store for more soda? The town doesn't even provide me with garbage pickup. Why should they be "accommodating " anyone with free reserved docking? Why can't the island residents band together and buy a docking area for their use?

The statement " a higher need requires higher accommodation" is illuminating. My answer is, "No, it doesn't". It may require more work by the person with the needs to get what they need. They might even have to make some trade offs. If you have a serious medical condition, you might have a very high need for prompt medical service. However, by placing yourself on an island you create a barrier to that need. Is it up to the town or anyone else to meet the unique need you have created or is it up to you to move to a more accessible, although less desirable, place?

Finally, in a silly attempt to remain true to the original topic of this thread, large displacement boats can be a hazard not only to the shoreline but to other boats as well. Perhaps there should be some training and usage guidelines for these boats but I could say the same for many types of boats. I think it is unfortunate that some people can't seem to accept the responsibility for the reasonable use of the vehicles they own but we have plenty of "boneheads" out there. I just don't think it's right to punish the majority of responsible boaters for the stupidity of the few.

06-04-2007, 11:05 AM	#96
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,162 Thanks: 205 Thanked 431 Times in 248 Posts	Accommodation vs Entitlement Any local government has the responsibility to accept the reality of the conditions that exist in the locale that services must be provided for. For example, in a city with multistory buildings it would be negligent for the fire department not to have extensible ladder trucks. Fire services are provided to all residents. The tall buildings must be "accommodated". However, where is the line drawn? If children live on an island must a town provide "school bus boats" or should it be the responsibility of the parents to bring the child to a shore location where the bus could pick them up? Everyone has a some choice of where they live. Property is easily transferred. You make a choice every day to either live where you are now or move. Just because you don't want to move doesn't mean you can't. An ancestor may have made the original choice but you own it now. You also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice. If I decide to live a remote rural area and the nearest grocery store is 20 miles away and the nearest doctor is 100 miles away am I entitled to to free transportation or a subsidized car? If I can't manage the transportation to needed facilities maybe I need to move closer to them or within an area that at least has public transportation. I probably don't want to move but I might have to. I, for example, don't look at towns providing reserved dock space for island residents as an "accommodation" but instead as a unique perk. This is not a service provided to any other resident. If a shore resident of the same community threw his boat in the water for the day, could he use "island docking" for a while if he needed to run to the store for more soda? The town doesn't even provide me with garbage pickup. Why should they be "accommodating " anyone with free reserved docking? Why can't the island residents band together and buy a docking area for their use? The statement " a higher need requires higher accommodation" is illuminating. My answer is, "No, it doesn't". It may require more work by the person with the needs to get what they need. They might even have to make some trade offs. If you have a serious medical condition, you might have a very high need for prompt medical service. However, by placing yourself on an island you create a barrier to that need. Is it up to the town or anyone else to meet the unique need you have created or is it up to you to move to a more accessible, although less desirable, place? Finally, in a silly attempt to remain true to the original topic of this thread, large displacement boats can be a hazard not only to the shoreline but to other boats as well. Perhaps there should be some training and usage guidelines for these boats but I could say the same for many types of boats. I think it is unfortunate that some people can't seem to accept the responsibility for the reasonable use of the vehicles they own but we have plenty of "boneheads" out there. I just don't think it's right to punish the majority of responsible boaters for the stupidity of the few.