Illegal Charters Marina Del Rey

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Can someone explain to me what is an illegal charter in Southern California is? Also these Commisions have Authority to dictate to recreational boaters?

https://www.thelog.com/local/illegal-charters-discussed-in-marina-del-rey/

 

[STB]

It seems like there are two issues. The first is the usual USCG licensing and, if needed, inspections. The second is one of property rights, using docks without permission of the owner, e.g., using docks you don't own or lease and for which you have only been given recreational privileges for commercial use. It sounds like, unsurprisingly, committing what might otherwise be a tort becomes a civil or criminal violation when the government is the ultimate controller of the property involved and 3nacta civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms.

The article doesn't mention anything about properly USCG licensed operators taking on passengers elsewhere and just passing through. So it sounds like the issue is one of embarking and disembarking passengers without permission in restricted places one doean't own or control.

 

[Comodave]

It seems like there are two issues. The first is the usual USCG licensing and, if needed, inspections. The second is one of property rights, using docks without permission of the owner, e.g., using docks you don't own or lease and for which you have only been given recreational privileges for commercial use. It sounds like, unsurprisingly, committing what might otherwise be a tort becomes a civil or criminal violation when the government is the ultimate controller of the property involved and 3nacta civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms.

The article doesn't mention anything about properly USCG licensed operators taking on passengers elsewhere and just passing through. So it sounds like the issue is one of embarking and disembarking passengers without permission in restricted places one doean't own or control.

+1. I believe you need a permit/permission to operate a charter out of MDR. In addition to the CG license.

 

[journey on]

Doesn't taking on paying passengers remove one from the recreational category?


As mentioned above, if you do take payment for a boat ride, you are using the facilities in MdR to make money. Most forms of government are interested in some form of reimbursement: taxes, fees, licenses.


Boris.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr., jo. Welcome aboard. Yep. Them pesky $$ again...

 

[Comodave]

The CG is dealing with this issue across the whole country. It is sometimes difficult to prove as to whether or not a charter is illegal. They have done some undercover charters in order to prove it.

 

[Comodave]

Greetings,
Mr., jo. Welcome aboard. Yep. Them pesky $$ again...

Not just an issue of money. A lot of them are not licensed captains and there have been injuries. The boats may not be properly equipped. So it is also a safety issue.

 

[MYTraveler]

Interesting, but not surprising, that the legal charter operators were among the most vocal critics of the illegal operators. They may profess safety concerns, but the reality is they don't want the competition. From my perspective, particularly for harbor cruises, as opposed to offshore fish/dive trips for example, the illegal operators are providing a service at a great price, much as uber and lyft drivers do, at the expense of taxi cabs but to the benefit of the consumer.

In any event, an MdR Sheriff pointed out that the huge spike in recent illegal charter activity correlated strongly with the timing of the covid stimulus payments and he predicted that would die down when the money went away. With another round coming, we will have a chance to test his theory. It is quite a site to see a bunch of scantily clad but overweight fat women twerking to the sound of rap music.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Interesting, but not surprising, that the legal charter operators were among the most vocal critics of the illegal operators. They may profess safety concerns, but the reality is they don't want the competition.

If we, through our government, require that a commercial enterprise comply with expensive and time-consuming requirements, they have every right to expect us to protect them from those who refuse to comply.

Goes for Uber as well.

 

[MYTraveler]

If we, through our government, require that a commercial enterprise comply with expensive and time-consuming requirements, they have every right to expect us to protect them from those who refuse to comply.

Goes for Uber as well.

I don't disagree, but that begs the question -- how much do we want to add to the cost ultimately borne by the consumer with "expensive and time-consuming requirements". Taxi cab drivers must be licensed. Uber drivers need nothing more than a basic drivers license. That saves the consumer money and creates job opportunities for lots of drivers -- its a win-win for the consumer and worker, but a lose for the cab driver. Consumers know (and if they don't, taxi cab drivers should educate consumers through advertisement) that they get a "better" driver when they ride a cab. But most consumers engage in a cost-benefit analysis and opt for the uber driver. I don't think any of us should have a problem with that -- who are we to insist that the consumer pay extra for whatever marginal benefit there may be to having a licensed cab driver behind the wheel. Similarly with harbor cruise operators -- to my mind it makes no sense to impose the same "expensive and time consuming requirements" applicable to offshore operators for harbor cruises. Let the consumer pay extra if he wants to, but give him the choice. Capitalism works best (for consumers especially) when there is competition. Our governmental regulations should encourage that competition.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Similarly with harbor cruise operators -- to my mind it makes no sense to impose the same "expensive and time consuming requirements" applicable to offshore operators for harbor cruises.

How do the "Ducks" fit your regulatory matrix?

 

[23435ps]

To compare a charter boat to an Uber is simply a false comparison. Even the Uber and Lyft drivers require a driver's license- perhaps minimal, but a measurement of some competence with the driving laws. The boater has no similar licensing. The CG license (6 pack or more) provides at least some measure of education and competence. Rideshares (in most locations anyway) also need a business license to operate. It isn't unreasonable for localities to expect the same out of a charter vessel operation.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Doesn't change my response. If we require a citizen to hold a license to offer common carriage, we owe it to him to make that a standard requirement.

 

[tiltrider1]

Most of the illegal charters in MDR have 6 pac CG licenses. What they don’t have is a commercial berth. They run their charters out of a recreational boat slip. This has been a long running issue in San Diego.

The problem with commercial berths is that there is a lack of them and they cost a lot more than a recreational slip. Then the port wants a head tax for each passenger.

I think the above taxi vs Uber example is a good example. Taxi’s needed to be inspected and drivers need a chauffeur license, Uber provides none of this.

How Uber got away with providing taxi service while not complying to the rules is an interesting discussion. Something similar is now happening to the fish chartering business.

 

[BruceK]

In Australia, the Captain has to be qualified, the boat has to be licensed and surveyed compliant to special survey requirements applying to charter vessels. They can load and unload pax at public wharves, no requirement to use only commercial wharves. Though there are commercial wharves in Darling Harbour,Sydney, where boats can book (and pay for) a timed slot to load/unload pax, plus resupply, and "unsupply" the black water tanks.

 

[FF]

"Capitalism works best (for consumers especially) when there is competition.
Our governmental regulations should encourage that competition."

Yes, but, without the ability to pile regulation on regulation , how would gov grow?

Free markets , Free minds need very little government to create progress, and wealth.

 

[Woodland Hills]

I don't disagree, but that begs the question -- how much do we want to add to the cost ultimately borne by the consumer with "expensive and time-consuming requirements". Taxi cab drivers must be licensed. Uber drivers need nothing more than a basic drivers license. That saves the consumer money and creates job opportunities for lots of drivers -- its a win-win for the consumer and worker, but a lose for the cab driver. Consumers know (and if they don't, taxi cab drivers should educate consumers through advertisement) that they get a "better" driver when they ride a cab. But most consumers engage in a cost-benefit analysis and opt for the uber driver. I don't think any of us should have a problem with that -- who are we to insist that the consumer pay extra for whatever marginal benefit there may be to having a licensed cab driver behind the wheel. Similarly with harbor cruise operators -- to my mind it makes no sense to impose the same "expensive and time consuming requirements" applicable to offshore operators for harbor cruises. Let the consumer pay extra if he wants to, but give him the choice. Capitalism works best (for consumers especially) when there is competition. Our governmental regulations should encourage that competition.

You must not have read much about driving for Uber if you think it’s a win for drivers! Two or more years ago, one could make a living driving for Lyft or Uber, not a good living if you factored in wear and tear on your vehicle. But a living nonetheless.

No longer, the pay structure has changed to the point that drivers are earning less money for more miles every month. Do the research: gig economy drivers and shoppers are among the lowest paid and most exploited workers in the country. You don’t start driving for Uber because it’s such a great deal, you do it because you are desperate.

 

[Woodland Hills]

"Capitalism works best (for consumers especially) when there is competition.
Our governmental regulations should encourage that competition."

Yes, but, without the ability to pile regulation on regulation , how would gov grow?

Free markets , Free minds need very little government to create progress, and wealth.

Without regulations capitalism is a race to the bottom for workers wages, on the job safety, consumer safety, etc. Maximizing shareholder value means selling the cheapest quality product, made at the very lowest price for the most that the market will bear while paying your workers the least amount possible and ignoring any environmental damage you create in the process.

This is great if you own the company, but is it compatible with the American Dream of a comfortable middle class life for as many of our citizens as possible? Completely free markets do indeed create wealth: for the few! They also create misery for the many. Is the goal to make the whole country into West Virginia or Mississippi?

 

[sunchaser]

The USCG may be tightening the screws on the safety aspects following the dive boat fire tragedy. Then the Branson duck boat sinking, even though a state issue, is another concern. Topped off by flaunting the CA lock down edicts and CV concerns. There are lots of issues at play it would seem.

 

[MYTraveler]

You must not have read much about driving for Uber if you think it’s a win for drivers! Two or more years ago, one could make a living driving for Lyft or Uber, not a good living if you factored in wear and tear on your vehicle. But a living nonetheless.

No longer, the pay structure has changed to the point that drivers are earning less money for more miles every month. Do the research: gig economy drivers and shoppers are among the lowest paid and most exploited workers in the country. You don’t start driving for Uber because it’s such a great deal, you do it because you are desperate.

Uber drivers may bitch and moan about what a crappy job they have, and do gooders may look on in disgust, but the reality is if the Uber drivers had a better opportunity they wouldn't still be driving for Uber. They may do it because they are desperate, but wouldn't government be doing them a disservice to regulate Uber into the taxi mold?

 

[mvweebles]

Like many boaters, I have a strong libertarian streak in me. But i gotta say driving this thread into govt regulation and free market is drivel.

First, for those who have never been, Marina del Rey is not really a marina per se, it's about a dozen marinas clustered with apartment buildings, shops and businesses all around. It's a high density location that struggles with parking and such. The marinas have a right, and frankly an obligation, to regulate charter businesses. To make sure the operators have adequate insurance for the business they operate, there is parking and restrooms for their customers, and the business does not create an unexpected nuisance for boat owners on an otherwise private use dock.

Im sorry, this is not a USCG item except for OUPV licensure. And it's not a David and Goliath issue of squashing the small guy. This is an issue of whether a certain type of business is operating in accordance with local laws and regulations. The example is not Uber vs Taxi, but "Gypsy Cabs" vs Taxi (for those unfamiliar, gypsy cabs are 100% unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured drivers who roamed the streets of NYC picking up passengers for cut rates).

Peter

 

[Woodland Hills]

Uber drivers may bitch and moan about what a crappy job they have, and do gooders may look on in disgust, but the reality is if the Uber drivers had a better opportunity they wouldn't still be driving for Uber. They may do it because they are desperate, but wouldn't government be doing them a disservice to regulate Uber into the taxi mold?

You mean harming them with minimum wage and some health benefits? Those evil bastards!!!!

 

[ancora]

What no one has mentioned regarding illegal charters: in the event of an accident, you can bet the marina/yacht club will become the "deep pockets" for the ambulance chasers.

 

[Seevee]

You must not have read much about driving for Uber if you think it’s a win for drivers! Two or more years ago, one could make a living driving for Lyft or Uber, not a good living if you factored in wear and tear on your vehicle. But a living nonetheless.

No longer, the pay structure has changed to the point that drivers are earning less money for more miles every month. Do the research: gig economy drivers and shoppers are among the lowest paid and most exploited workers in the country. You don’t start driving for Uber because it’s such a great deal, you do it because you are desperate.

I could argue that most Uber drivers are not desperate. Lots of them do it as a part time job for extra cash. I use them a lot and most are much cleaner than the cabs, both themselves and the cars.... and don't smell like smoke.


Sure, it's a low income job... there's tons of them and the market drives it.

 

[Seevee]

Without regulations capitalism is a race to the bottom for workers wages, on the job safety, consumer safety, etc. Maximizing shareholder value means selling the cheapest quality product, made at the very lowest price for the most that the market will bear while paying your workers the least amount possible and ignoring any environmental damage you create in the process.

This is great if you own the company, but is it compatible with the American Dream of a comfortable middle class life for as many of our citizens as possible? Completely free markets do indeed create wealth: for the few! They also create misery for the many. Is the goal to make the whole country into West Virginia or Mississippi?

Woodland,


I'll sure argue against your first paragraph. There are plenty of good companies out there that produce great products and take care of their employees without being "over regulated" by government. And, yes, there's bad ones, irregardless of the government.



We have WAY too much government and for the most part doesn't do much good for the company OR the consumer.

 

[Seevee]

Overall, I just see this as a money grab from local government. (another reason not to live in California). Certainly NOT the jurisdiction of the USCG (if the guy has his CG licensing).

 

[rslifkin]

Overall, I just see this as a money grab from local government. (another reason not to live in California). Certainly NOT the jurisdiction of the USCG (if the guy has his CG licensing).

Potentially, yes. Unless the rule was created to solve a problem they were having before it existed.

 

[23435ps]

Im sorry, this is not a USCG item except for OUPV licensure. And it's not a David and Goliath issue of squashing the small guy. This is an issue of whether a certain type of business is operating in accordance with local laws and regulations. The example is not Uber vs Taxi, but "Gypsy Cabs" vs Taxi (for those unfamiliar, gypsy cabs are 100% unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured drivers who roamed the streets of NYC picking up passengers for cut rates)

Well said and the correct analogy. The CG licensing issue has everything to do with trying to establish some minimum level of competency (and the accompanying accountability) for charter operators regardless of vessel size and operation. The rest is all regulation of business by local authorities and private entities. It is simply a fact of life if you run a business (which all charter operations are). Whether it is financially driven, accountability driven etc. is really irrelevant. It is the law, if one doesn't like the law they can lobby to change it or ignore it at their peril- but don't complain when caught. As to a private marina regulating for-profit businesses operating on their premises, seems that is their right!

 

[jungpeter]

Hi Mvweebles,

Like many boaters, I have a strong libertarian streak in me. But i gotta say driving this thread into govt regulation and free market is drivel.

First, for those who have never been, Marina del Rey is not really a marina per se, it's about a dozen marinas clustered with apartment buildings, shops and businesses all around. It's a high density location that struggles with parking and such. The marinas have a right, and frankly an obligation, to regulate charter businesses. To make sure the operators have adequate insurance for the business they operate, there is parking and restrooms for their customers, and the business does not create an unexpected nuisance for boat owners on an otherwise private use dock.

Im sorry, this is not a USCG item except for OUPV licensure. And it's not a David and Goliath issue of squashing the small guy. This is an issue of whether a certain type of business is operating in accordance with local laws and regulations. The example is not Uber vs Taxi, but "Gypsy Cabs" vs Taxi (for those unfamiliar, gypsy cabs are 100% unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured drivers who roamed the streets of NYC picking up passengers for cut rates).

Yup, 100% right on the money. And kudos for cutting through the drivel.

Regards,

Pete

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Getting back to the original subject instead of a debate on Uber.

So MDR has authority over a federal water way?