MAILBAG:

Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to the Newport Beach City Council.

On behalf of others and myself I am contacting you and the other members of the council to address our concerns regarding your new ordinance regulating the anchorage in the Pacific Ocean off Corona del Mar Beach. Most of us were unable to attend in person the meetings you held on this matter. We are addressing our concerns first to you with the hope that this matter can be resolved quickly.

I, a small group of local cruising sailors, and potentially an innumerable amount of national and international sailors are about to be severely impacted by your new ordinance. This ordinance stipulates, among other things, that no vessel may anchor there for more than 72 hours within a 30-day period and that the vessel must be continuously occupied with the exception of one three-hour shore leave per day.

These limitations place impossible burdens on someone anchored out. Seventy-two hours is clearly not enough time to wait for an engine part to arrive, or for the weather to clear, or for scheduling maintenance specialists, or to just enjoy the locale for an extended time, or even a for a trip to Palm Springs, etc. And what about the three-hour shore leave? It can take over an hour just for transportation from the anchorage to the dock and back. One can do very little in the two remaining hours, especially if you need to use public transportation. Souvenir shopping, lunch with an old friend, doctor’s appointments, etc., would be out of the question.

These are just a few of the many burdens that these arbitrary time limits can impose. But there are also more important issues involved here, issues involving our rights as American citizens. This ordinance would perfectly suit someone with a “yacht” and a high-powered dinghy that can shuttle its three-day weekend visitors back and forth to the dock for beer runs, but it discriminates against those who do not use the anchorage that way. Most of us either paddle, row, or motor ashore in a dingy with minimal power.

The two main publicly stated reasons for this ordinance were based on unsubstantiated and speculative water-quality concerns and of documented shoreline littering of abandoned boats. These two concerns and conditions are already well mitigated by existing laws and the powers of appropriate enforcement agencies. First, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1322) and the California Health and Safety code (Article 4. 117515) regulates marine sanitation. If these laws seem difficult to enforce, how will a small, duplicative, local ordinance be easier? By just removing the boaters? You shouldn’t eliminate the boaters because they “might” violate this law just the same as you wouldn’t prevent mothers with babies from visiting the beach because they “might” (as evidenced by soiled disposable diapers) violate it as well.

Second, California Harbors and Navigation Code (Chapter 3. Article 1. 522 and 523) as well as local statutes provide the guidelines for the removal and/or disposal of boats washed ashore, and to the fees and penalties assessed to the owners of such boats. Chapter 3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code also outlines the duties of the sheriff to help prevent such occurrences. What you were not told during your meetings was the fact that the boat grounding last November could and should have been prevented by the harbor patrol. We notified the patrol from the anchorage numerous times about the havoc that that minimally anchored abandoned boat was causing as it drifted about the anchorage. It took two days for it to wash ashore, two preventable days. Almost all of the Sheriffs’ Department’s harbor patrol deputies have proven to be very alert and skillful and are an invaluable and irreplaceable resource for the harbor and anchorage. Yet, their lack of action in this case remains a mystery to some of us.

Another incident mentioned at your meeting was that of the rescue of a man suffering a heart attack. That rescue was only made possible by one of the other sailors anchored there. Had he not made the 9-1-1 call, the man would have probably died on his boat, unnoticed.

The only thing new that this ordinance attempts to regulate is the lifestyle of cruising sailors like myself. I am not a lawbreaker. I consider myself a responsible operator of my vessel and I anchor it securely and according to well-established prudent practices. I don’t just leave my boat out there on a thread of an anchor line and throw its fate to the wind and waves. I also use the required anchor lights and daytime anchor signal device. I hope not to think that the only piece of equipment missing from my boat is a cloaking device. My boat and its sanitation systems comply with all regulations. I treat the ocean as if it is my living room, which at times it literally is.

An ordinance similar to this was recently challenged in a Florida court (Google “Florida anchorage regulations”) and the litigating sailor was awarded damages, an apology and legal fees, and the ordinance was repealed. The court had found that the ordinance was in conflict with state law. Is it possible that this new Newport Beach ordinance is in conflict with California state law, or federal law, or the traditional laws of the sea? I am not an attorney; however, after just a single reading of the California code regarding coastal regulations I found a conflict in the legal definition of “abandoned” vessel.

Newport Beach says “3 hours”; California code says “30 days.” Imagine what a real attorney could do with this ordinance, especially one well versed in civil rights. There may also be enforcement problems. The ordinance states, “...within 500 yards of a designated swim area...” There are currently marker buoys that define the swim area, will there be additional marker buoys placed 500 yards (over a quarter of a mile) beyond those? And, isn’t 500 yards an excessive distance? Who will monitor the three hours? Will there be a person with a stopwatch out there? Will we have to “clock in” to start our 72 hours?

What if my 72 hours were up for that month and I start to sail away and then suddenly suffer a malfunction on my boat. Suppose I then start drifting dangerously toward shore. If I anchor to save my boat am I now breaking the law? Surely there is some emergency loophole in some other law that would allow me to anchor at that time, but do we now need an exception from one law to protect us from the demands of another?

I am not opposed to regulations that aim to curb irresponsible, dangerous, and derelict vessel owners and operators. However, I vigorously oppose those laws that aim to limit the personal freedom our country has granted us to design our own legal lifestyles. Could Thoreau have written “Walden” in 72 hours if faced with similar ordinances around the pond?

We hope by addressing these concerns to you directly in the form of this letter that you may possibly delay the implementation of this ordinance so that you can review and repeal or modify the ordinance so it can more accurately serve the common good. There must be a way to enforce the existing laws that protect our shorelines and beaches without infringing on the lifestyles of those who choose to live on the Pacific Ocean itself. I love my boat and I love the ocean, and upon both I live and thrive. They are part of the poetry of my life. We all have the right in this country to compose our own poems of life as long as we are respectful to the rights of others and to the laws of the land.

TOM IVICEVICH

Newport Beach

A refreshing change from Orange County

Editor’s note: Jim recently returned from his trip to North Carolina.

Greetings from North Carolina, where spring has arrived! The dogwoods and Bradford pears are in magnificent bloom.

My wife, Hedy, and I own a home in the Tar Heel State, east of Raleigh. Since retiring, we spend five months out of the year here, and the rest of our time in Costa Mesa. We began visiting North Carolina four years ago when our daughter, son-in-law and four grandchildren moved here from California.

Our son-in-law is a firefighter in Wilson, a town of 65,000, 20 minutes from our small, rural community. Though not exactly “Mayberry R.F.D.,” this place enjoys a slower pace than “The OC.”

Carolinians exhibit colorful regional accents. In California, I’m Jim. Here, folks call me “Gee-em.” My grandkids now express their thoughts with gentle Southern intonations.

Our neighborhood sits next to a lake and is surrounded by neatly groomed fields brimming with cotton, corn, tobacco (“backie”), melons and strawberries. Large stands of pines are everywhere, and deer season is big in these parts. The skies are Carolina blue and filled with billowy clouds. It gets inky black at night, with lots of stars. Sunsets over our lake are glorious, and the moon’s silver path on the water at midnight can be breathtaking.

Though we live in the country, people here don’t allow us to live in isolation. Neighbors shout and wave at each other, and knock on doors. In town, people make eye-contact and say, “Mornin’.” The cute girl at Starbucks calls everyone “Shug.” People you’ve never met actually strike up a conversation with you in the checkout line at Harris Teeter.

When I take my morning walks in California, I dodge traffic on a decidedly unfriendly Fairview Road. I’ve learned that when I walk the small country lanes of Carolina I’m obliged to wave to every car that passes. People here are loath to ignore you.

A 70-something greeter at our church — Marsh Swamp Original Freewill Baptist Church, established shortly after the Civil War — has an unruly shock of gray hair, stands 6-foot-7 and played basketball 50 seasons ago at North Carolina State. You can’t escape his enthusiastic smile and viselike grip as he warmly welcomes folks to the sanctuary.

People here dress for church. No Hawaiian shirts, jeans or flip-flops. Ladies have fancy dresses and perfectly quaffed hair. Men don ties and jackets, even in summer heat.

And everyone is a sports fan. Where we live, most folks root for North Carolina State, originally an aggie school. ECU (East Carolina University) garners nearly as much support. Duke? Nah, no one likes Duke. It’s a private school in Durham, snooty and high-falutin. Our family follows the UNC Tar Heels. We live 90 minutes from Chapel Hill and have season football tickets.

I’ve learned never to mix my gear! I once wore a red North Carolina State sweatshirt topped with a baby blue Tar Heel hat. What was I thinkin’? A nice man at Wal-Mart put me straight. “You’re obviously confused,” he observed.

In four years I’ve learned that Carolina ain’t The OC, and that’s OK!

JIM CARNETT

Costa Mesa