Beware Government Misinformation

[Yojimbo]

Re: Beware Govt. Bureaucracy: As other posters have mentioned, reliance on a bureaucrat's expressed verbal opinion is never a strategic move. The only legitimate reliability will be a written decision and those come from higher pay grades than the ones answering the phones. The legal reason for this is simple but not readily apparent. Only the legislature can right the laws and approve regulations. If a govt. employee passes faulty information- and when does THAT ever happen- and you rely on it, you and they would by inference be writing or re-writing the law. Which citizens are not allowed to do. If you have it in writing, and rely on it, most courts- at least in the USA- would view that as having a reasonable argument. A hard, expensive but valuable lesson learned that never the less does little to mitigate my disdain for their ilk.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

And a pic:

December 1998: The Montana Supreme Court, in 4-3 ruling, struck down Montana’s unique “reasonable and prudent,” calling it unconstitutionally vague.

May 1999: A law passed earlier that year by the Montana Legislature took effect to set a 75 mph speed limit on interstate highways in Montana. It was the state’s first posted daytime speed limit since December 1995.

Montana has two types of speeding laws: “absolute limits” and a “basic speeding law.”

Absolute Speed Limits
There is no trick to how Montana’s absolute speed limits work: If the absolute speed limit is 50 miles per hour and you drive faster than that, you’ve violated the law. Unless otherwise posted, the absolute speed limits for most vehicles are:

25 miles per hour in urban districts
80 miles per hour on interstate highways outside of urbanized areas of at least 50,000 people
65 miles per hour on interstate highways within urbanized areas of at least 50,000 people
70 miles per hour on other roadways during the daytime, and
65 miles per hour on other roadways during the nighttime.
For purposes of the absolute speed limits, daytime means half an hour before sunrise until half an hour after sunset.

Basic Speeding Law
Notwithstanding the absolute limits, Montana’s basic speeding law requires motorists to drive in a “careful and prudent manner” and at a speed no greater than is “reasonable and prudent” under the existing weather, visibility, and other road conditions. In other words, motorists must always drive at a safe speed. What a safe speed is will depend on the circumstances. For instance, 55 miles per hour might be safe on a clear, sunny day. But during a winter storm, 55 miles per hour could be dangerous and a violation of the basic speeding law. I recall a Sheriff being asked during a snowy day, How fast can one drive safely on the highway? His response: "How fast do you want to go into the ditch?" Reasonable and prudent could be ZERO speed depending on the circumstances.

Penalties for a Speeding Ticket
The cost of a speeding ticket in Montana depends on where the violation occurred and by how much the driver exceeded the speed limit. But generally, a speeding violation will run the driver anywhere from $20 to $200 in fines.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Almost as big (and as silly) as "the private sector is always more efficient" or "markets can solve all problems."

Straw men and stereotypes are never a good way to discuss an issue.

In the private sector instance one just seeks a more acceptable provider, try that with a government and see where ot gets you.

Markets exist because they provide a means of bringing buyers and sellers together. They have nothing to do with government and often manage to exist where governments attempt to suppress them. They encourage beneficial economic activity far more than any government has managed to do.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

In the private sector instance one just seeks a more acceptable provider, try that with a government and see where ot gets you.

Markets exist because they provide a means of bringing buyers and sellers together. They have nothing to do with government and often manage to exist where governments attempt to suppress them. They encourage beneficial economic activity far more than any government has managed to do.

This is pure fiction. Effective markets NEVER exist outside of government structure. Without laws to enforce property rights and contract law, without police and justice systems to identify crime and punish the crooks, without the massive basic public infrastructure that most market services rely on, none of your "free markets" would operate.

Market economics are a wonderful thing, but they are not the answer for everything. And no country -- not even the USA -- operates a truly free market, as in markets free of government order.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is pure fiction. Effective markets NEVER exist outside of government structure. Without laws to enforce property rights and contract law, without police and justice systems to identify crime and punish the crooks, without the massive basic public infrastructure that most market services rely on, none of your "free markets" would operate.

Market economics are a wonderful thing, but they are not the answer for everything. And no country -- not even the USA -- operates a truly free market, as in markets free of government order.

Almost anywhere there are human groups markets exist and often appear to work best where government interference is minimal or non existent.

Property rights are inherent in the human psyche, take candy off a baby and they will spit the dummy.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Almost anywhere there are human groups markets exist and often appear to work best where government interference is minimal or non existent.

Property rights are inherent in the human psyche, take candy off a baby and they will spit the dummy.

Again, this is pure fiction not supported by any actual research, data or human experience. It is, however, consistent with the current view held by a few that markets are almost god-like. Here's a good book you might want to read by Harvey Cox, Professor of Divinity at Harvard University.


The Market as God

The Market as God captures how our world has fallen in thrall to the business theology of supply and demand. According to its acolytes, the Market is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It knows the value of everything, and determines the outcome of every transaction; it can raise nations and ruin households, and nothing escapes its reductionist commodification. The Market comes complete with its own doctrines, prophets, and evangelical zeal to convert the world to its way of life. Cox brings that theology out of the shadows, demonstrating that the way the world economy operates is neither natural nor inevitable but shaped by a global system of values and symbols that can be best understood as a religion.

[geoleo]

[QUOTE=Nomad57;3378762]This has been talked about on the forums before, but I will reiterate it here, because of what misinformation has cost me. Whenever you contact a government office of any sort, the person you are speaking with may not know what they are talking about, even if they do speak in an authoritative manner. You call one office, you get one story. You call another office somewhere else, or on another day, and you get a different story. It is always best to somehow verify what you are told. If you get the wrong info, it can cause you some inconvenience, or maybe even a fine. For me, it cost the entire "dream".

When I had the dream, (which has now died, due to health considerations) I called my provincial health insurance plan (OHIP) to find out about being absent from Ontario. I called them directly, because I wanted the info from "the horse's mouth", so to speak. What I did not know, was that what I got on the phone was the other end of the horse.

I was told that the maximum time an Ontario resident could be outside of Ontario was 212 days in any twelve month period, (about seven months). The general consensus is that it takes nine months to do the loop. It is not possible to get back sooner, because the locks aren't open yet for the season.

Of course, there were other obstacles to realizing "the dream", but this conundrum was the one intractable, unsolvable problem most responsible for "the dream" not coming to fruition.

I recently contacted the Ontario ministry of health in writing, and was informed that extended absences are indeed allowed, on an every other year basis. The information I was given in 2011 was not correct.

The realization that "the dream" had been within reach all along, and that it was basically held out of reach by misinformation, has been devastating.

80% of Government breau-crats are lazy -20% are just dumbells.

[geoleo]

Thomas Jefferson always contended that the least possible government is the best government.

[Nomad57]

Boy, did I open up a can of worms, here. Just to clarify, on page one of this thread, Lake-Effect asked: "Is it possible that requirements have actually changed from 2011 to now?".

Yes, that is indeed the case. The most recent information, which I got in writing direct from the ministry, was misleading. The correct information is as follows:

1999 A one-time extension was introduced.
2012 Multiple extensions, with five-year intervals in between each absence.
2017 Multiple extensions, on an every other year basis.

The fact remains, that I thought I had this all figured out back in 2011. There have been many posts in these forums about "selling everything, buying a boat, and sailing away". I suspect some of these posters are in for an awakening, when they return, broke, and find that house prices have doubled, or worse. Others opt for "security", and never live "the dream".

Silly me, I opted for a compromise. Yes, if I had been single, (or selfish), I could have sailed away in 1993. But I had once encountered an elderly woman who had become destitute, and I could not envision that fate for my wife. She had stood by me, when things went sideways for me, despite encouragement from others to do otherwise.

So I waited, until I could arrange things accordingly. A paid-for house, maxed out RRSPs, a "boat fund" sufficient for the purchase of a new boat, (or several used ones), and an income. Then, I hit this impenetrable wall. After forty years of paying taxes, we were basically held hostage by the restrictions in effect at that time. I have no recollection of even being told about the one-time extension available in 2011. Even if I had, I don't know if we would have made the investment for a one-time trip. I can envision my ad in GAM: "For sale, Nauticat 33, only used once".

Now that it's too late for me, they've loosened things up. They must have gotten letters similar to mine from others, caught in the same trap.

Nomad

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Thomas Jefferson always contended that the least possible government is the best government.

I sometimes get the sense that they over-regulate in some areas, and under-regulate in others. Their "protections" of the individual often seem to be ineffectual.

Nomad

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

Silly me, I opted for a compromise. Yes, if I had been single, (or selfish), I could have sailed away in 1993. But I had once encountered an elderly woman who had become destitute, and I could not envision that fate for my wife. She had stood by me, when things went sideways for me, despite encouragement from others to do otherwise.

So I waited, until I could arrange things accordingly. A paid-for house, maxed out RRSPs, a "boat fund" sufficient for the purchase of a new boat, (or several used ones), and an income. Then, I hit this impenetrable wall. After forty years of paying taxes, we were basically held hostage by the restrictions in effect at that time. I have no recollection of even being told about the one-time extension available in 2011. Even if I had, I don't know if we would have made the investment for a one-time trip. I can envision my ad in GAM: "For sale, Nauticat 33, only used once".

Life is compromise. We could easily have sold-up, afforded a decent boat and be out there now, and money to rent or buy a small condo or apartment, when/if we have to move ashore again. Why haven't we? Because my partner isn't as taken by the landless lifestyle as I am. I've decided that I'd rather stay married than be single or have an unhappy wife. So I content myself with all the day-sailing I can fit in, occasional guy cruises with some buddies, and the very occasional (ok... one) Caribbean charter. I also work occasionally at a boating trade. And I'm pretty happy about it all.

Anyway, celebrate the sailing and cruising you have done, and stop beating yourself up over what might have been. Your loop could have been horrible- bad weather, breakdowns .... And try to fit in what boating you still can.

[Emoyeni]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

This has been talked about on the forums before, but I will reiterate it here, because of what misinformation has cost me. .....


The realization that "the dream" had been within reach all along, and that it was basically held out of reach by misinformation, has been devastating.

Nomad

I wouldn’t let a little thing like health insurance stand in the way of sailing. You can always buy private health insurance for the portion of the trip that will be an “extended absence”.

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Life is compromise. We could easily have sold-up, afforded a decent boat and be out there now, and money to rent or buy a small condo or apartment, when/if we have to move ashore again. Why haven't we? Because my partner isn't as taken by the landless lifestyle as I am. I've decided that I'd rather stay married than be single or have an unhappy wife. So I content myself with all the day-sailing I can fit in, occasional guy cruises with some buddies, and the very occasional (ok... one) Caribbean charter. I also work occasionally at a boating trade. And I'm pretty happy about it all.

Quite so. When we had our Trojan F26, we used to hang around at Awenda Provincial Park. We met an old duffer there with a Nonsuch 26. He motored with us, and we sailed with him. He kept his boat at a marina across Penetang Bay from us, where there were a lot of single sailors. He said few of them were happy. This left an indelible impression on me.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway, celebrate the sailing and cruising you have done, and stop beating yourself up over what might have been. Your loop could have been horrible- bad weather, breakdowns .... And try to fit in what boating you still can.

Correct again. As a "test case", I crewed on a couple of trips, one was down the east coast on a bendy 40 from NYC to Thunderbolt, Ga. The other, down the rivers as far as Panama City, Florida, aboard a trawler. Both were with ill-tempered Blighs who exhibited dubious seamanship, and hadn't the smarts to realize that when you're down to your last galley slave, (the others had jumped ship) you oughtn't make life aboard so untenable that he leaves the boat. (In both cases, the trip got more hazardous than I was willing to accept. At age 52, an attitude of, "If it sinks, it sinks", was unacceptable to me. That was OK, going down the river, but not on the big bend of Florida, with alligators on one side, and sharks on the other, on a very poorly found boat).

They call the ICW "the ditch", but I ascribe that accolade to the Mississippi/Tenn-Tom. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but going down the river, the banks were so high that I don't recollect seeing much of anything, except on the Kentucky lakes. I didn't see much on the east-coast trip either, which was mostly offshore. I never did get to where it was "better, in the Bahamas" (although I flew there once, in '79, in a Cessna Cardinal RG).

There will be no more boating for me. I can't in good conscience offer myself as crew. Note that my intention with this thread was to warn others, but the thread seems to have gone off on a tangent. But I'm glad I posted. Had I not done so, I would not have found the correct information, (that I had been misinformed about being misinformed) thanks to Mike O'Reilly, to whom I owe a debt I can never repay. When I was led to believe that a trip had been possible, my world went dark.

As always, your kind thoughts are appreciated.

Terry

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

There will be no more boating for me. I can't in good conscience offer myself as crew.

Never say never, Terry. Many skippers don't mind passengers if they're friends. Try an easy overnighter with a friend, like the Toronto Islands. Heck, sharing drinks or a meal aboard, at the slip... that counts too. Cheers.

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by Emoyeni

I wouldn’t let a little thing like health insurance stand in the way of sailing. You can always buy private health insurance for the portion of the trip that will be an “extended absence”.

My understanding, based on what I've read on the forums, is that private insurance becomes null and void, when provincial coverage lapses.

Of course, there were other reasons why this never got done, but this was at the top of the list. The regulation that a foreign flagged vessel has to call someone every time the boat moves, didn't help. Don't get me started, on that one.

Nomad