Illegal Charters Marina Del Rey

[Lollygag1]

I think there are also higher insurance requirements for charter. So someone taking an unlicensed cruise could find they have no recourse should something bad occur.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Someone please explain to me what is meant as a "Charter?"

Is this a fishing trip, a trip around the bay stopping by a bar and/or restaurant on the waterfront? Taking your buddies out on a fishing trip outside the bay and your friends pinch in for gas?

Quite honestly I see this as a money grab from the State, county and city.

 

[rslifkin]

Someone please explain to me what is meant as a "Charter?"

Is this a fishing trip, a trip around the bay stopping by a bar and/or restaurant on the waterfront? Taking your buddies out on a fishing trip outside the bay and your friends pinch in for gas?

Quite honestly I see this as a money grab from the State, county and city.

I think the friends pitching in for gas (voluntarily) thing has been clarified over time as not a charter. So going fishing with your buddies and splitting gas cost is fine. But if someone is paying you to take them out (regardless of what you're going out for), it's a charter.

 

[jungpeter]

Hi Alaskan Sea-Duction,

So MDR has authority over a federal water way?

Not only are federal waterways impacted by the reality of MDR (aptly described by mvweebles), but those same waterways are impacted by California State tidelands access laws, and real estate laws that govern private property in California.

Private property owners that surround the federal waterway in MDR do have authority over use of their property, both shoreside and in the waterway itself. As Mvweebles pointed out, "illegal charterers" in MDR are both a USCG licensing issue, AND an illegal use of private property issue (only tangential to the federal waterway issue).

The private property issue is analogous to someone blocking your access to your driveway at home in order to visit a local restaurant. If the charter company can't provide its own parking, restrooms, waiting areas, dockage, etc. for their charterers, why should the private property owner (the marinas), and by extension, the lessors of dock space at those marinas) be obliged to do so?

And MDR is certainly not out of the ordinary. Here in the Port of Everett, for instance, it is equally against recreational moorage contracts to allow commercial access to those docks. USCG Deck Officer's licensure of the slip holders be damned.

Regards,

Pete

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Thanks Pete.

My dock for example. I lease a 100ft X 84.5ft area. This area even though under water is considered State Property. The water flowing over my leased area is considered a federal waterway in which the State has little control.

So when looking at MDR, do the different municipalities claim they have control of the water within the bay?

Just an interesting subject matter for me.

 

[Seevee]

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

A search shows that the land in Marina Del Ray is owned by the county of LA and leased to others, marinas, restaurants, etc.



So, its a government entity and all citizens should have equal rights to use the property with any monopolies. Of course, there could be reasonable fees and restrictions but should apply to all. I could argue strongly that they cannot discriminate against a charter operator for the same land and access that they are leasing to a recreational boater. (either direct of thru a sublease from a marina).



We have a similar situation in aviation, where an operator wants a monopoly on the field charging exorbitant fees or trying to restrict others. Totally illegal and our pilots group has been fighting this, often successfully.


Now, a county CAN require a business license, and the state can control licensing for certain activities, but the Feds control water charter regulations.

 

[mvweebles]

This is not a waterways issue. This is managing the community. There aew over 5000 boats in MDR in what must be 20 marinas. I had a slip neighbor who ran a sail charter business. Marina was about 100 slips, not a big deal. But folks would show up, no idea where to go, who to ask for, etc.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to bury a business in the middle of MDR that will receive customers - almost all of whom are from outside the area - with no signage has not though this through. There is no chance this goes well for anyone except the person collecting the fees.

Im not a big govt person. But they do have a role. Setting boundaries in high density areas is one of them.

Peter

 

[bayview]

It is not unusual for operating any business out of rented or leased property to be prohibited. Read the dock lease agreement.

 

[STB]

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

So MDR has authority over a federal water way?

They have authority over their docks. If the passengers embarked and disembarked elsewhere, I'm not sure transiting through is in scope.

 

[jungpeter]

Hi Seevee

So, its a government entity and all citizens should have equal rights to use the property with any monopolies. Of course, there could be reasonable fees and restrictions but should apply to all.

Agreed. I doubt there's any argument that a charter operator should have equal access to public property. In fact, that's guaranteed by California land use regulations and federal law. And yes, those same regulations provide for reasonable fees and restrictions, including zoning. Thus, I don't believe Joe Charter Boat owner is restricted from acquiring moorage for his boat at these private marinas, within limits of course. But here's the rub:

Those selfsame "fees and restrictions" at MDR marinas (and at ALL marinas I am familiar with) typically allow the slip lessor access and use of ONE slip, and the associated landside property and associated waterways as a consequence. And typically ONE parking place. So how does this privilege extend to his customers, with potentially multiple parking space requirements, which then must be "borrowed" from said charterer's slip neighbors in a VERY restrictive geography? Surely you're not saying "what is yours, is mine", are you?

To my knowledge, there are no inherent restrictions in MDR that preclude a charter operator from acquiring marina property (parking, fencing, slippage, office space, signage, waiting rooms, restrooms, etc.). There may well be zoning issues in play here, but that's kinda beside the point. There is very definitely financial issues at play. Said charter operator could then hypothetically run multiple charter boats out of his facility, for multiple customers.

But the valid objection by current charter operators in MDR (and San Diego, and I expect elsewhere as well) that DO expend the princely sums of money required to acquire this privilege, is their commitment is being ignored and abrogated by gypsy operators. Gypsy operators abuse private moorage with impunity.

And as mvweebles points out, this is NOT a waterways issue. It's exactly analogous of somebody running a major manufacturing enterprise from his garage in a zoned residential neighborhood. Not well thought of by the neighbors.

Regards,

Pete

 

[AlaskaProf]

We have a similar situation in aviation, where an operator wants a monopoly on the field charging exorbitant fees or trying to restrict others. Totally illegal and our pilots group has been fighting this, often successfully.

The aviation example is not as above, but actually quite similar to the Marina situation If an airport is certified under Part 139, the "sponsor" may charge reasonable rents and fees, but he must allow any proper applicant to rent space and to use the airdrome, and is actually required to create space if none exists.


Of course, if the "monopolist" in your example, owns the airport, doesn't accept Federal monies nor offer "scheduled air carrier" service, he can do whatever the he** he wants, with minimal regard for safety and airspace issues.

 

[FF]

Someday there will be a slip and fall incident, so the question is, who will the liar for hire attack?

Answer,,, almost everyone, including the dock management.

It is reasonable to have an extra charge for this risk.

 

[tiltrider1]

Someday there will be a slip and fall incident, so the question is, who will the liar for hire attack?

Answer,,, almost everyone, including the dock management.

It is reasonable to have an extra charge for this risk.

I’m not taking a side here. Just trying to explain the true issue. What is mostly going on. You have licensed, inspected and properly insured vessels operating out of the recreational marina and advertising via the internet. Many of these operations are weekend only. The Harbor is upset because they are not getting the head tax. The competition is upset because they have higher costs. The CG does not see it as their problem.

Mixed in with this are a few truly illegal charters, no 6 pax, no CG inspection and no insurance, Craig’s list operations. These the CG recognize as falling under their jurisdiction but they don’t have a real game plan to police this. So all is fine until there is an issue and then it’s criminal prosecution.

Some say the port is to greedy, others use this to attack the competition, what is the right solution for the consumer?

 

[psneeld]

Which customers?

The ones of the charters in question? Or the customers of the marina?

In many marinas, quite a few slip holders don't like anyone except other slip holders/ guests on the docks. And even some guests are not welcome like some slip holders.

 

[sunchaser]

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

Our college break granddaughter drove for Uber last night, New Years Eve for about 10 hours. She got paid $35 per hour plus very generous tips. She was quite happy. Her parents have her covered with health benefits. Every Uber driver we've talked with is quite happy. One was bitching about Yellow Cab union stewards harassing them around the airport.

 

[Woodland Hills]

How does she do on non-holiday nights? The same?

 

[Stu-L]

Charters

I hold a 50 Ton Master This enables me to operate an inspected vessel with as many passengers as the inspection allows. I can also operate an uninspected vessel, but with only six passengers. Weather the vessel is inspected or not the skipper is responsible for safety. Bottom line you need a Captains license to operate a charter. If you operate a charter you also need a business license in the city of operation.

 

[Duvie]

There was a small 6 pack operation operating out of one of very small local harbors.

It seemed as though he had the permissions to pick up his customers at the harbor town dock which is fine. The problem was he did not have dockage or moorage in the harbor. He made a nuisance of himself tying up to other town transient or private dockage while he waited for his customers to arrive.

One day I arranged a transient mooring through the harbormaster and was given mooring "X". When I arrived the harbormaster swung over to my boat and said I was all set to pick up the mooring. You could see the displeasure in the harbormasters face when I pointed to the mooring and this guy was on it. The harbormaster promptly kicked him off it. After that the guy bounced around the harbor and then finally found a nice spot on a private dock.

This is the type of thing that is bothersome. A guy trying to run a business in a harbor when he does not have the proper resources to do so causing inconvenience to everyone else.

There were other small operations doing a similar business picking up passengers at the town dock but they did not cause disruption to the harbor like this guy did.

 

[Packer fan]

"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.

???

 

[Takoradi]

Uber & Lyft do not pay their drivers enough to cover standard IRS car maintenance mileage allowances and a fair rate for their labor. Their entire business model is built upon the willingness of desperate people to exchange cash today for maintenance debt tomorrow. Their drivers are literally funding the company with the maintenance they aren't being reimbursed for and will eventually have to fund. Absent that and Uber/Lyft would be nothing more than an app with fares equal to traditional cabs. There are no viable economic models that justify such a practice.

 

[cabinetman1955]

Liability!

[The major issue everyone should consider the is insurance liability ! If you take an unlicensed charter or you uber and get injured whose going to pay? Read your policy if you are not properly licensed your insurance will drop you like a hot rock! If uber drivers don't have a commercial policy and you get hurt in an accident good luck with you bills !
QUOTE=MYTraveler;959250]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.[/QUOTE]

 

[sockeye]

MT Traavelor

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?

MT Traveler
Don't want to steal this thread but just wondering ,what kind of boat is that you have ? perhaps a Mickleson ? I am in Vancouver BC
Never seen a boat with those lines .Very nice

 

[tiltrider1]

There is a difference between facts and perception regarding Uber. First, Uber provides commercial insurance for your ride when you use the Uber app. Second, vehicles must be inspected before Uber will approve them for use. Third, we can not say that Uber does not provide an adequate wage. Since the driver gets to make all his own decisions it’s not fair to blame Uber if he makes poor decisions, plus who are we to say what is adequate. Fourth, taxi drivers were required to have chauffeur licenses and Uber drivers are not but a chauffeur endorsement is pretty much meaningless.

Don’t get me wrong , I am not in favor of Uber. I also believe the taxi business was over regulated to the detriment of the consumer. I also believe that any good business man can quickly see that being an Uber driver lacks any real profitability. Don’t forget. Uber claims to be a ride sharing App. This means if you are going to the airport anyway why not take a passenger and defer some travel cost. It’s the drivers that turned it into a full time business.

I really have no idea who the winners and losers will be. I can tell you I have no interest in investing in Uber and I would never advise some one to be an Uber driver.

 

[Derik]

Odd that so many people want to control what others do, and if they don't like a business they want the government to implement regulations to make it so the business is more palatable for their ideological controlling minds.

UBER and Lyft survive because they provide a service consumers like. People work there because they choose to. Who are you to judge where someone works or what they do? Very insulting to hard working people everywhere.

The California Government (the guys who kill 10 of thousands of jobs a year) already tried to kill UBER and Lyft and guess what ? The Employees liked working as "private contractors" rather than employees.

Bill Clinton said "we need to give the people the feeling that the government can't or wont screw up a two car parade"

Hasn't happened yet everything they touch turns to pooh.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

"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.

How does the free market work when commercial operations are in “competition” with non commercial operators I.e. you and me?

 

[SoWhat]

The gypsy fishing charters leave early and come back in afternoon. Other than taking up parking spaces I don't notice them. The airbnb boat rentals drive everyone nuts. They arrive late, carrying cases of corona, and can't wait to get the speakers warmed up for some serious rap music.

 

[FF]

"How does the free market work when commercial operations are in “competition” with non commercial operators I.e. you and me?"

The free market fills in to provide supply to match unmet demand.

An example in NYC a taxi license was required to put a cab on the road, cost $5.00.

The taxi industry pressured the city to stop issuing new licenses , so over the years the price of the license could be sold for as much as $250,000.

This pressured the cab operators to operate the licensed cab 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
The banksters that created the credit to obtain the license pressured the city to keep not issuing new licenses.
The daily interest on $250.000 divided by 365 is paid by the customers thru the cab company.
About $75 a day , for nothing.


The cabs had to work for as much income , so a cab would refuse to go to an area where there would be no return fare.
Many cabs refused to operate in poor areas , so the "Black Car" used a loophole for limos to service a needy customer base.

Uber and the rest are simply a rational response to serving a market that Gov. (force and fraud) placed out of the free market.

 

[Portage_Bay]

"How does the free market work when commercial operations are in “competition” with non commercial operators I.e. you and me?"

The free market fills in to provide supply to match unmet demand.

An example in NYC a taxi license was required to put a cab on the road, cost $5.00.

The taxi industry pressured the city to stop issuing new licenses , so over the years the price of the license could be sold for as much as $250,000.

This pressured the cab operators to operate the licensed cab 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
The banksters that created the credit to obtain the license pressured the city to keep not issuing new licenses.
The daily interest on $250.000 divided by 365 is paid by the customers thru the cab company.
About $75 a day , for nothing.


The cabs had to work for as much income , so a cab would refuse to go to an area where there would be no return fare.
Many cabs refused to operate in poor areas , so the "Black Car" used a loophole for limos to service a needy customer base.

Uber and the rest are simply a rational response to serving a market that Gov. (force and fraud) placed out of the free market.

This in my opinion is the strongest argument against taxis and pro Uber / Lyft. Before the medallion value crashed due to Uber / Lyft the govt / loan shark racket was worse than you state.

• Boston 2104 $700,000, 2018 $40,000
• Chicago 2012 $385,000, 2018 $30,000 to $100,000
• NYC 2013 over $1,000,000, On July 11, 2019 sixteen medallions were offered at auction, three of which sold for $137,000, $136,000 and $138,000, while another thirteen medallions had no bidders. Since many cab drivers took out loans in order to afford medallions when values were high, many have subsequently been forced to declare bankruptcy. In September 2020, Marblegate Management LLC, the largest holder of NYC medallion loans, decided to write off $70 million in debt indigent cab drivers still owed

It's easy to see why taxi operators caught up in the racket screamed so loudly against Uber / Lyft.

Uber / Lyft are not perfect by any means. But they have improved car hire greatly from the customer's point of view. Generally I promptly get a driver, when and where I need a car. Taxi companies having to compete are getting better at that. I have been turned down by Uber / Lyft because there was not enough $$$ in the ride. I have had Uber / Lyft drivers get lost and fail to find me nearly causing me to miss a flight. I have never had such problems with taxis.

 

[Seevee]

This in my opinion is the strongest argument against taxis and pro Uber / Lyft. Before the medallion value crashed due to Uber / Lyft the govt / loan shark racket was worse than you state.

• Boston 2104 $700,000, 2018 $40,000
• Chicago 2012 $385,000, 2018 $30,000 to $100,000
• NYC 2013 over $1,000,000, On July 11, 2019 sixteen medallions were offered at auction, three of which sold for $137,000, $136,000 and $138,000, while another thirteen medallions had no bidders. Since many cab drivers took out loans in order to afford medallions when values were high, many have subsequently been forced to declare bankruptcy. In September 2020, Marblegate Management LLC, the largest holder of NYC medallion loans, decided to write off $70 million in debt indigent cab drivers still owed

It's easy to see why taxi operators caught up in the racket screamed so loudly against Uber / Lyft.

Uber / Lyft are not perfect by any means. But they have improved car hire greatly from the customer's point of view. Generally I promptly get a driver, when and where I need a car. Taxi companies having to compete are getting better at that. I have been turned down by Uber / Lyft because there was not enough $$$ in the ride. I have had Uber / Lyft drivers get lost and fail to find me nearly causing me to miss a flight. I have never had such problems with taxis.

Portage,


Good info, and Uber/Lyft does serve a good value where we were being ripped off with the cabs (often not their fault).


I use to take a cab 6 or 8 time a month in Chicago's OHare to LaGrange. It was a HORRIBLE experience and with that Uber had existed then. I often came close to missing my flights, got smelly cabs, un-airconditioned in the summer, and just dirty cars. I finally settled into using one company so they got to know me and it was better, but still an ugly experience. My Uber experience is MUCH better today, which, before the Covid, used a lot. One thing I learned fast is to always to hire a cab in advance to pick up up from the airport as the cost was 1/2 because the cabs waiting at the airport had to pay exorbitant fees which were passed to the customer.



I did keep a car at OHare for a long time and that actually worked out pretty well, and much more reliable than the cabs.

 

[Seevee]

Uber & Lyft do not pay their drivers enough to cover standard IRS car maintenance mileage allowances and a fair rate for their labor. Their entire business model is built upon the willingness of desperate people to exchange cash today for maintenance debt tomorrow. Their drivers are literally funding the company with the maintenance they aren't being reimbursed for and will eventually have to fund. Absent that and Uber/Lyft would be nothing more than an app with fares equal to traditional cabs. There are no viable economic models that justify such a practice.

As has already been pointed out, this is not really correct. Costs of running a car can vary a LOT, and if one is savvy on getting the right can and controlling the maintenance, they can do just fine as a Uber driver. BUT, that's THEIR choice, and yes, it's not a high paying job. But the drivers are generally very happy, and have a great schedule to operate as they please without the government over controlling them. GREAT model!