Heads Up for Those with Boats in Washington State

AKBASSKING

AKBASSKING

Active Member
Apr 13, 2008
4,649
SE Alaska Summer/Columbia River winter
Boat Info
1988 Yacht Fisher
Engines
Twin 375hp Cat 3208 T/A
Heads up Washington State boaters! They are looking for tax money!

2014 Legislation-Derelict Vessels was implemented on June 12, 2014.

On June 6, 2014 every private and public moorage which includes Marinas, boat houses, yacht clubs, harbors, docks, landings, resorts and ports in the State of Washington received a letter from the Department of Revenue. Effective July 1, 2014 each marina and yacht club which has long term moorage (defined as 30 days or more) is to gather and report the following to the department:

  1. The name and legal owner of the vessel
  2. Local Contact person for the vessel to include phone and physical address
  3. Owners phone number and address
  4. Vessel’s HIN
  5. Vessel USCG numbers if applicable
  6. Vessel’s home port
  7. The date on which the moorage began
  8. Vessels country or state registration and registration numbers
  9. Proof of vessel registration, a written statement of the moorage lessee’s intent to register the vessel, or exemption affidavit certifying that the vessel is except from state registration requirements.

A moorage provider is required to maintain these records for two years and upon request from Department of Revenue or the Department of Natural Resources or their agents the moorage provider must surrender such documents and if requested be provided access to the moorage for verification and inspection of said vessels

I am currently trying to get the letter scanned in a PDF document. If you want a copy PM me with your email address and I will send it to you.
 
This sounds like another attempt at making us all suffer for the actions of a few jacka$$es. I guess if it helps rid us of the problem of derelict vessels then it may be worth it eh?
 
If it was REALLY about derelict vessels they would not have exempted commercial vessels.

IMO they exempted commercial vessels because they know they would run into a firestorm of resistance. Commercial companies are more organized than recreational boaters to oppose something like this.

Call or write your legislators or this will be jammed down our throats. You all should read the bill. It gives the state the right to seize vessels and sell them without any court orders involved, which, the last I checked, was a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution....

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
GFC, the problem with your reading is that you forget that the government defines what "unreasonable" is, with the guidance of the courts. If Washington defines a derelict vessel as one that has been left unattended for X number of years, then having the marina/mooring owner document what vessel is where when provides probable cause, and the courts can decide if X number of years is unreasonable. If the courts say "OK", then that's a reasonable seizure as defined by the constitution.

It also can help track down the party responsible for a boat if it sinks, causes damage or otherwise presents a hazard, since the full ownership details are being collected, rather than just allowing the mooring owner handle things with a handshake, or whatever standard they choose.

This isn't a direct infringement upon your rights. It's indirect at best - an infringement upon your right to abandon property and not have anyone do something about it. No worse than abandoned vehicle laws that state an unregistered car (no current plates) left on a public street for X days is considered abandoned.

There is lots of stuff happening in the world worth getting twisted up about. It's very hard to see this as one of them.
 
src said:
GFC, the problem with your reading is that you forget that the government defines what "unreasonable" is, with the guidance of the courts. If Washington defines a derelict vessel as one that has been left unattended for X number of years, then having the marina/mooring owner document what vessel is where when provides probable cause, and the courts can decide if X number of years is unreasonable. If the courts say "OK", then that's a reasonable seizure as defined by the constitution.

It also can help track down the party responsible for a boat if it sinks, causes damage or otherwise presents a hazard, since the full ownership details are being collected, rather than just allowing the mooring owner handle things with a handshake, or whatever standard they choose.

This isn't a direct infringement upon your rights. It's indirect at best - an infringement upon your right to abandon property and not have anyone do something about it. No worse than abandoned vehicle laws that state an unregistered car (no current plates) left on a public street for X days is considered abandoned.

There is lots of stuff happening in the world worth getting twisted up about. It's very hard to see this as one of them.
Click to expand...


Easy for you to say....you live in Va!!!!! Why would you tell someone else what to be stressed about, dang.
 
islandhopper00 said:
Easy for you to say....you live in Va!!!!! Why would you tell someone else what to be stressed about, dang.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every jurisdiction has abandoned property laws. Just because this specific regulation doesn't affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

Also, do you own a derelict boat? Do you run a marina or mooring field? Then how does it really affect you?

It's easy to throw out dis-qualifiers to negate an opinion you don't agree with, but really, this is a pissant regulation in the grand scheme of things, and I'd love to see a reasoned explanation of how it does more harm than good.
 
src said:
GFC, the problem with your reading is that you forget that the government defines what "unreasonable" is, with the guidance of the courts. If Washington defines a derelict vessel as one that has been left unattended for X number of years, then having the marina/mooring owner document what vessel is where when provides probable cause, and the courts can decide if X number of years is unreasonable. If the courts say "OK", then that's a reasonable seizure as defined by the constitution.

It also can help track down the party responsible for a boat if it sinks, causes damage or otherwise presents a hazard, since the full ownership details are being collected, rather than just allowing the mooring owner handle things with a handshake, or whatever standard they choose.

This isn't a direct infringement upon your rights. It's indirect at best - an infringement upon your right to abandon property and not have anyone do something about it. No worse than abandoned vehicle laws that state an unregistered car (no current plates) left on a public street for X days is considered abandoned.

There is lots of stuff happening in the world worth getting twisted up about. It's very hard to see this as one of them.
Click to expand...
I agree. Maybe this will help unwind some panties:smt043
Here’s a 6 page abstract of House Bill 2457
http://www.alaskatenders.org/images/stories/docs/WA-HouseBill2457_01-28-14.pdf

Here’s the final of House Bill 2457 http://www.alaskatenders.org/images/stories/docs/Washington State HB 2457-Law.pdf
 
GFC,

Try the "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment which is imputed to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Bryan


Gofirstclass said:
If it was REALLY about derelict vessels they would not have exempted commercial vessels.

IMO they exempted commercial vessels because they know they would run into a firestorm of resistance. Commercial companies are more organized than recreational boaters to oppose something like this.

Call or write your legislators or this will be jammed down our throats. You all should read the bill. It gives the state the right to seize vessels and sell them without any court orders involved, which, the last I checked, was a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution....

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Click to expand...
 
src said:
Pretty much every jurisdiction has abandoned property laws. Just because this specific regulation doesn't affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

Also, do you own a derelict boat? Do you run a marina or mooring field? Then how does it really affect you?

It's easy to throw out dis-qualifiers to negate an opinion you don't agree with, but really, this is a pissant regulation in the grand scheme of things, and I'd love to see a reasoned explanation of how it does more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem as I see it. I didn't tell you you couldn't have an opinion, your opinion if fine. But you did tell someone how he should feel. That's where I have an issue.

No derelict boat here.

Not throwing out your opinion, just trying to make a person like you realize you have no business telling someone else how to feel.
 
src said:
Pretty much every jurisdiction has abandoned property laws. Just because this specific regulation doesn't affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

Also, do you own a derelict boat? Do you run a marina or mooring field? Then how does it really affect you?

It's easy to throw out dis-qualifiers to negate an opinion you don't agree with, but really, this is a pissant regulation in the grand scheme of things, and I'd love to see a reasoned explanation of how it does more harm than good.
Click to expand...
src, you should take an hour or two and read through the proposed law. If I'm reading it correctly, a marina/port/etc. can seize a boat if there are moorage charges unpaid for 90 days. ANY BOAT. So let's say that Joe Boater goes on a trip around the world and forgets to send in his checks. The marina seizes his boat but must send him a registered letter, which will get to his house OK but he's not there to receive and read it. The marina can then sell the boat to collect what is due to them and must send any extra to the state, which has to hold onto the money for a period of time and then it becomes the state's money.

Now how fair is it that someone can seize your property without any judicial review, then sell it and give the money over to the state?

Before you embarrass yourself by making any further assumptions like the ones you posted I'd suggest you read through the proposed law.
 
Gofirstclass said:
src, you should take an hour or two and read through the proposed law. If I'm reading it correctly, a marina/port/etc. can seize a boat if there are moorage charges unpaid for 90 days. ANY BOAT. So let's say that Joe Boater goes on a trip around the world and forgets to send in his checks. The marina seizes his boat but must send him a registered letter, which will get to his house OK but he's not there to receive and read it. The marina can then sell the boat to collect what is due to them and must send any extra to the state, which has to hold onto the money for a period of time and then it becomes the state's money.

Now how fair is it that someone can seize your property without any judicial review, then sell it and give the money over to the state?

Before you embarrass yourself by making any further assumptions like the ones you posted I'd suggest you read through the proposed law.
Click to expand...

Geezus. Your contractor can put a lien on your house for unpaid work. Your boat mechanic can put a lien on your boat if you don't pay. This is all settled law. If you owe money, they can come after you and your property, and that's usually defined in the paperwork you sign. If you leave your car at the shop for a couple of days after they are done, they usually begin charging storage fees, and they keep your car until you pay. Leave it long enough, and they CAN sell it to collect.

How is it that people either don't already know this, or always seem to forget it during these arguments?

My reading of the law (I didn't read every word, granted) makes me believe that they are explicitly defining the conditions under which such a process can begin. This is NOTHING NEW in the world. It's just clearly laying out "this is how it works in this state".

People can get twisted about the hypothetical taking of their property, but if they take your property it's because you are in default, are not paying, and they want THEIR money. The money that you agreed to pay, and haven't. This isn't a one-sided property rights argument. There are two sides the this equation, and their rights are just as valid as yours. All this law does is lay out how the process will be handled in the state.

You want this law to never touch your property? Pay your bills. Problem solved.
 
islandhopper00 said:
Here is the problem as I see it. I didn't tell you you couldn't have an opinion, your opinion if fine. But you did tell someone how he should feel. That's where I have an issue.

No derelict boat here.

Not throwing out your opinion, just trying to make a person like you realize you have no business telling someone else how to feel.
Click to expand...

God I love this type of response. I never "told you how to feel". I told you how I felt, and asked for a reasoned argument about how this does more harm than good.
 
src said:
There is lots of stuff happening in the world worth getting twisted up about. It's very hard to see this as one of them.
Click to expand...

Sure reads to me like your telling him how to feel.

I wonder when something bothers you, that doesn't seem to bother anyone else, would you like it if someone told you not to get all twisted over nothing? I bet you get all mad.

Your opinion obviously is upsetting Gofirstclass, and you don't have the decency to give him his moment. That in my world makes you a jerk! I bet your a fella that's always right....huh?
 
islandhopper00 said:
Sure reads to me like your telling him how to feel.

I wonder when something bothers you, that doesn't seem to bother anyone else, would you like it if someone told you not to get all twisted over nothing? I bet you get all mad.

Your opinion obviously is upsetting Gofirstclass, and you don't have the decency to give him his moment. That in my world makes you a jerk! I bet your a fella that's always right....huh?
Click to expand...
Hopper... it's a discussion, no ones been hurt, no one is crying, GFC is splashing around naked in the new pool with Galley Wench as we speak...he'll be OK.
 
Someone,,,,, quick:wow:,,,,, put the top back on the can of worms !!!!! :grin:
 
Woody said:
Hopper... it's a discussion, no ones been hurt, no one is crying, GFC is splashing around naked in the new pool with Galley Wench as we speak...he'll be OK.
Click to expand...

Here comes the mind reader....nobody was talking to you anyways. Did you have anything to contribute to the thread or you just come over to bust my balls.

My feelings have been hurt, so YOUR WRONG! haha How's that feell?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,357
Messages
1,431,077
Members
61,210
Latest member
xImpacto
Back
Top