Heads Up for Those with Boats in Washington State

[AKBASSKING]

It's funny because this has a lot of boaters from both Oregon and Washington on the Columbia River worried. GW: Your name is NOT Calvin Klein, You are NOT a playgirl model. Have some respect and pull your pants up!!:grin:

 

[Woody]

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 don't think the links I posted to the bill are a contribution? Often it appears you don't bother to read so what does it matter? Who was talking to you before your gem of a first post? Perhaps my contribution won't match up to your well thought out contribution:huh: Only problem is I can't find yours...You've not said even one word about the topic...every single post of yours is about 'feelings'. For such a sensitive fellow you are quick to snipe and insult.

 

[2000SR380]

You want this law to never touch your property? Pay your bills. Problem solved.

Just relax! The Government is here to help:smt100 As long as you never get sick, never get laid off, and never have problems to deal with out of the country, you probably get to keep your stuff. As long as the Government does not need it. The problem of derelict vessels is a big mess. Here we have Richardson's Bay, and the recently cleared out Horseshoe Cove, the boats are basically being used for low cost housing. There is no money to enforce environmental, safety, or registration laws on people who don't have two nickels to rub together, so these flotilla's are allowed to exist outside the law while the rest of us are held to a much higher standard and fined for the smallest infractions. In the case of this new law, you might want to consider who it is really targeting because no money is generated cleaning up derelict boats, and the enforcement AGENCIES are unlikely to suddenly change their stripes over night. I see three courses of action. Ignore it because you can not change it anyway. Rage against the dying of the light. Or try to be an informed voter and share the injustice when you see it. This is not boating this is politics. Politics is a great coffee table sport, but getting all worked up about it just adds stress to your day, and keeps the fish from biting:grin:

 

[src]

Danger! Danger! Panic! OMG, they are coming for ALL YOUR STUFF! The GUBMINT is gonna GIT YOU!

Civil lien law is nothing new. Civil debt collection is nothing new. Civil asset seizure is nothing new. This just explicitly defines the process with relation to marinas/moorings. Period. They didn't suddenly invent the idea of a debtor having their assets seized. That's not an idea that they came up with last Thursday afternoon.

Cleaning up derelict boats costs money. If they can't track the owner, then guess who pays? We all do. So if they can track down the owner because marinas and mooring operators have to collect good info on their customers, that shifts the cost where it belongs - the boat owner, not the public. You want to turn Washington into Florida? Have you read about the derelict problems down there?

If the marina/mooring owner can't track down the owner of a boat at their facility, and that owner isn't paying their bills, how is a defined legal process for handling the situation a problem? Really - I want to know. My guess (yes, a guess) is that before this law, there was a vague legal framework that was backed up by whatever contract/paperwork you sign with the marina. And it varied from facility to facility. Why else would they feel the need to nail down the process, if the existing process was working well?

Oh, wait, scary gubmint. That's why. Or maybe boat owners were getting shafted by bad operators because the law didn't adequately specify how debts and property seizure was handled, or maybe marinas were having trouble collecting on debts due to insufficient legal support. I don't know, and I'm guessing no one else here knows either. If you do know why, exactly, they felt it necessary to define this process in this law, I'd love to hear that too.

Was there a Marina PAC who donated heavily in the last election, so they could form a power bloc to write new laws that let them seize all your boats? Are we seeing a new political force emerging from the shadows with the motto "All your boat r belong to us"?

Not once have I claimed that this law won't hurt anyone. I'm sure someday in the next 10 years "John Boater" will be out of the country, forget to pay, and have had such a lousy relationship with their marina that they feel it's necessary to seize the boat. It could happen. But it's sure not going to be common.

All I've asked for is a reasoned, rational evaluation of both the harm and the good, rather than the usual knee-jerk "OMG GUBMINT IS BAD" crud that keeps popping up. Sometimes laws are written for good reasons. Has anyone even bothered to try to find out why this one was made?

Or is the panic just more fun?

 

[AKBASSKING]

Here is the response I recieved from Recreational Boating Association of Washington:

Hi Thomas:
Thank you for your email. RBAW was quite involved in the 2014 Derelict Vessel bill during this past winter and like most bills, there there were compromises in several areas before the bill became law.

RBAW pushed for and was successful at getting commercial vessels to contribute to the derelict vessel removal fund for the first time ever. Prior to this, the burden for funding derelict vessel removal fund has fallen to the recreational boats only.

On the other hand, we have heard concerns about private rights and the record keeping requirements from many. We are working with the Northwest Marine Trade Association who represents many commercial marinas, and the Department of Revenue to ensure the implementation is reasonable. There also appears to be some direction on the part of commercial marinas to propose changes to the record keeping requirements in the coming session of the Legislature. We will know more about how this all fits together as we get into the fall.

We appreciate your input and please keep RBAW appraised of any and all concerns you may have. Thanks again
- Steve

Steve Greaves
RBAW President
206-371-0486


----- Original Message -----
From: Teseniar,Thomas A
To: sgreaves@portagebaysystems.com ; bob_ranzenbach@yahoo.com ; paul.thorpe@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:44 PM
Subject: Moorage Taxes
Good Afternoon All,
I was able to get this letter from the Longview Yacht Club and this is not settling well with its members. Especially the fact the Commodore must now keep records.
As a member RBAW I find this letter very disturbing and seems like I am taxed enough, let along the State now having all my private information and placing burdens on marinas and yacht clubs.
Please see attached
Thomas Teseniar

A "Veteran" whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to, and including his/her life." That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you did not do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover" - Mark Twain

 

[The Bill Collector]

My annual registration for the Lina Lina is $700 per year for the privilege of boating in the great state of Washington. I see way too many boats on Puget Sound without valid registration stickers displayed, if collecting this data put these scofflaws on notice more power to it !!!

 

[AKBASSKING]

Some More:

Hi Thomas:
Thanks for your reply. Complex legislation is never a simple trade.

There are many differing interests involved, different groups pushing for their interests, and it would be more correct to say that we won on some aspects of the bill and we lost on other aspects.

I tried to make clear that we continue the effort to improve the law. We are all volunteers. We invite you to help. I expect there will be discussions on the topic thru the summer and fall leading up to the next session. I'd be happy to bring you into the discussions.

Working together, we can try to make improvements.

- Steve

Steve Greaves
206-371-0486

---

​

From: Teseniar,Thomas A
Sent: 6/27/2014 8:21 AM
To: Steve Greaves; bob_ranzenbach@yahoo.com; paul.thorpe@comcast.net; Loyd Walker; barbara erickson
Cc: Doug; Charlie; quality.cabinets@outlook.com; Ronald Evans (ronevans61@hotmail.com); ronevans61@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Moorage Taxes
Steve,

Thank you for your response. So am I to understand that RBAW agreed with the State with regards of additional burdens of record keeping by public and private marinas and private docks, in exchange for language regarding commercial vessels?

If this is true, then RBAW has supported a new requirements in the law which place recreational boaters owners, those who own docks and marinas in a very bad position, and the mandate from the state that private information must be gathered and maintained by these individuals. Not a good trade in my book and many who support you from the Columbia River area feel the same way.

Thomas Teseniar

A "Veteran" whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to, and including his/her life." That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you did not do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover" - Mark Twain

 

[AKBASSKING]

My annual registration for the Lina Lina is $700 per year for the privilege of boating in the great state of Washington. I see way too many boats on Puget Sound without valid registration stickers displayed, if collecting this data put these scofflaws on notice more power to it !!!

And I guess that's the point. You should not have to pay $700 a year, plus sales tax, plus excise tax, plus a user fee just to run your boat. Why do these Luxury Yacht taxes not apply to motorhomes, campers and such???

 

[2000SR380]

Geeze SRC, I bet you don't catch many fish either:grin: I do not see anything inherently bad with this set of laws, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I live in Washington State. I am the Staff Commodore of our local Yacht Club and a regular contributor to RBOC (Recreational Boaters of California). This is a very nice organization which employs actual lawyers to sift through legalese and ferret out what items are important to address, or require action on the part of the boating public. You have asked for your compatriots on a "Boating" forum, to sift through a multi-page legal document and provide a "reasoned, rational, evaluation"?? Seems to me that a "heads up" on new government regulations regarding our hobby in your state is reasonable. I did not detect "Panic", it seemed more like concern. Typically more legislation equals more expense. It is a simple and time proven formula. How would these new laws be enforced? What would be the mechanism for un-doing a mistake?? Anyone have a friend with a boat in Mexico? The Mexican government recently enacted a seemingly reasonable set of regulations. Enforced them with armed boarding's, impounded something like 700 US flagged boats. Most of which were in compliance. Many of the owners were not present to show the TIP papers, or point out the HIN numbers to the armed inspectors. Once impounded, most boats were not allowed to leave the Marina's. Even if the proper documentation was produced, it took several months to undo the impounds. Washington State is not Mexico. Yet. No reason to worry. Somebody else is probably watching out for you and your sport. I am sure your politicians are all excellent, upstanding, morally courageous scholars, with nothing but the best interests in mind for the boaters of your state. Wish I could say the same for California :smt009

 

[The Bill Collector]

My 33 foot class A motorhome is $200 per year !!!

And I guess that's the point. You should not have to pay $700 a year, plus sales tax, plus excise tax, plus a user fee just to run your boat. Why do these Luxury Yacht taxes not apply to motorhomes, campers and such???

 

[AKBASSKING]

I did not detect "Panic", it seemed more like concern.

True

I am sure your politicians are all excellent, upstanding, morally courageous scholars, with nothing but the best interests in mind for the boaters of your state. Wish I could say the same for California :smt009

cough cough cough Dang a furball! Yeah right!:smt101

 

[2000SR380]

And I guess that's the point. You should not have to pay $700 a year, plus sales tax, plus excise tax, plus a user fee just to run your boat. Why do these Luxury Yacht taxes not apply to motorhomes, campers and such???

Careful, you are on dangerous ground here. Arguing that fees are unreasonable because other people don't pay them for similar recreational vehicles. The best that will do is get other people saddled with more expenses. We have many unreasonable taxes and fees. How is it that if I make an investment, monitor, upkeep, and maintain, said investment, and pay all required taxes and fee's, if I sell said investment (at a profit) the government feels I owe them 40% "capital gains tax"? They took no risk, and pay nothing if I loose money. Why do I need to pay 25% of what I earn in "income tax"? The government does not employ me, did not find me a job, and taxes the crap out of the company where I am employed. Why is itthat if I own my property, house, or my car, it can still be taken away if I fail to pay the Government the appropriate taxes? This is a slippery slope :grin: It is politics not boating. I did not know there was an RBAW, but given the system we are working within, they are probably the ones to refer to for guidance. If you are not pleased with the job they are doing, I saw a clear invite to join in the game. As for me, I am going fishing.

 

[AKBASSKING]

Good Point I hear a fishing pole calling my name

 

[src]

Geeze SRC, I bet you don't catch many fish either:grin: I do not see anything inherently bad with this set of laws, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I live in Washington State. I am the Staff Commodore of our local Yacht Club and a regular contributor to RBOC (Recreational Boaters of California). This is a very nice organization which employs actual lawyers to sift through legalese and ferret out what items are important to address, or require action on the part of the boating public. You have asked for your compatriots on a "Boating" forum, to sift through a multi-page legal document and provide a "reasoned, rational, evaluation"?? Seems to me that a "heads up" on new government regulations regarding our hobby in your state is reasonable. I did not detect "Panic", it seemed more like concern. Typically more legislation equals more expense. It is a simple and time proven formula. How would these new laws be enforced? What would be the mechanism for un-doing a mistake?? Anyone have a friend with a boat in Mexico? The Mexican government recently enacted a seemingly reasonable set of regulations. Enforced them with armed boarding's, impounded something like 700 US flagged boats. Most of which were in compliance. Many of the owners were not present to show the TIP papers, or point out the HIN numbers to the armed inspectors. Once impounded, most boats were not allowed to leave the Marina's. Even if the proper documentation was produced, it took several months to undo the impounds. Washington State is not Mexico. Yet. No reason to worry. Somebody else is probably watching out for you and your sport. I am sure your politicians are all excellent, upstanding, morally courageous scholars, with nothing but the best interests in mind for the boaters of your state. Wish I could say the same for California :smt009

Let's see. Hmm:

"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..."

"As long as you never get sick, never get laid off, and never have problems to deal with out of the country, you probably get to keep your stuff. As long as the Government does not need it."

Not sure if they quite qualify as panic, but it certainly falls under the "DANGER - GUBMINT IS COMING FOR YOUR STUFF" heading. Except it isn't.

Try it this way. If you owe someone money, they can come after your stuff. That's just fact. Is it better or worse that the process that they have to follow is clearly defined by law?

It's perfectly valid to argue whether or not the process defined by this law is good, bad or neutral to a given party. It's perfectly valid to say that 90 days is too short (from the perspective of the boat owner), or maybe 90 days is too long (from the perspective of the marina owner). It's perfectly valid to say that the process needs to change.

But is it really the argument of the members here that the existence of a defined legal process at all is a bad thing? Is it really better to have all of this covered under a muddled framework of competing laws (is a boat to be treated as a home, or is it just a vehicle?) and possibly poorly written contracts and slip agreements?

If there were a marina that started following the letter of this, and seizing vessels on a regular basis after 91 days, how long would they continue in business? The boating community would take serious issue with someone who behaved like that. On the flip side, we've all see the boats that just sit there, falling apart, slowly sinking, and that's not a good thing either. If we knew who owned those boats, we'd try to get them to do something, wouldn't we?

And remember, this is a process that works between marinas and boat owners, this isn't about jack-booted government thugs (i.e. Mexico) swarming the docks and seizing vessels. Let's not be ridiculous just because it tugs at the emotions.

Yes, this is a law that boaters in WA need to know about. YES, if you don't like the provisions, please work with the boating associations to try to get them changed. But stop with the "GUBMINT COMIN' FOR YA" crud. It's just silly.

 

[islandhopper00]

You don't think the links I posted to the bill are a contribution? Often it appears you don't bother to read so what does it matter? Who was talking to you before your gem of a first post? Perhaps my contribution won't match up to your well thought out contribution:huh: Only problem is I can't find yours...You've not said even one word about the topic...every single post of yours is about 'feelings'. For such a sensitive fellow you are quick to snipe and insult.

I would love to meet you in person Woody..........

 

[2000SR380]

And remember, this is a process that works between marinas and boat owners, this isn't about jack-booted government thugs (i.e. Mexico) swarming the docks and seizing vessels. Let's not be ridiculous just because it tugs at the emotions.

Yes, this is a law that boaters in WA need to know about. YES, if you don't like the provisions, please work with the boating associations to try to get them changed. But stop with the "GUBMINT COMIN' FOR YA" crud. It's just silly.

This is politics. If we learned anything from FOX "News", it is to be sure to label other opinions subversive, ridiculous and silly. As I am a gun owner in the most restrictive State in the Union (regarding what I own and how I shoot it), and a home owner in one of the most expensive States in the Union (Home to no less than SEVEN of the TOP TEN most expensive cities to own a home), and I have been at the boating game for some years now, it has become my opinion that politicians are not our friends. They do not, in general, care much about anything except lining their pockets and getting re-elected. They can chew through staggering amounts of money like locusts, and they are full of a great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing. I do not think the "gubmint" is "coming" for me. But it is clear to me our "representatives" feel laws are just for us Middle Class folks, and I can't think of one I would trust further than I could throw them. Of course that is all my opinion, and you know what opinions are like :grin:

 

[Woody]

I would love to meet you in person Woody..........

What do you mean? You wanna be buds or kick the sh!t out of me?:lol:

 

[islandhopper00]

What do you mean? You wanna be buds or kick the sh!t out of me?:lol:

Im not a violent or physical person....anymore. No, I what I mean is I have to believe your not so out there in person. I want to believe the internet gives you a feeling of power, and you probably communicate things over the net you would never say to someone in person.

 

[FLSunfish]

We have Boat US coverage, and they email us in time to contact our state representatives when questionable state legislation is proposed that would impact FL state recreational boaters.
For instance, recently legislation was proposed that would allow municipalities to restrict mooring. This would not only affect FL recreational boaters, but also affect the many boaters that travel our waters as part of the Great Loop and just general travelers and vacationers.

 

[2000SR380]

We have Boat US coverage, and they email us in time to contact our state representatives when questionable state legislation is proposed that would impact FL state recreational boaters.

we also have Boat US and I agree they are pretty good watch dogs for us recreational boaters.