Subject: Re: NYNJ - My take
Date: May 12, 2003 @ 17:33
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> I believe there might be some misinterpretation here of thearticle
> regarding GIS determination of the NY-NJ Ellis Islandboundary. The boundary
> is not the recent demarcation itself; the boundary is and alwayshas been
> the low water mark around the original island before thefederal government
> began filling to expand the island in the late 19th Century.yes here apparently is one misinterpretation already
> The GISif the above insertion is factually correct
> exercise was meant to locate that boundary, not to supplant it.
> Interesting,be done --
> then, that this line is what some folks here have argued cannot
> the a drawing of a fractal boundary.hahahahahaha
> But the dots or monuments on the groundactual
> do not replace the low water mark of the original island as the
> boundary -- they memorialize it.i believe the points of these dots will replace it
> I don't understand why you would think that the Supreme Courtwould not have
> made a judgment if there weren't a state boundary involved.The Supreme
> Court rules on many many interstate issues; water rights cometo mind
> immediately, in that this subject is near and dear to us inColorado. So
> involvement by the Supreme Court doesn't say anything aboutsettling the
> issue.boundary and the
>
> If the separate terms used to define the larger true NY-NJ
> outclaves are not of any weight, they would not be separateterms I don't
> think you cna be so quick to dismiss this. It is very interestingthat there
> are two distinct rights in a heirarchy, which mught indicate thatthis in
> fact is a Guantanamo situation (not, as I said earlier, similar inlegal
> instrument i.e. lease, obviously, but the same in practicaleffect). There
> is the "exclusive right of property" which defines what is thelands of the
> respective states themselves, and then there is a separate"exclusive right
> of jurisdiction" which applies to the islands and the surfacewaters to the
> NJ shore, which beyond debate is in NJ -- the waters west ofthe mid-rive
> and mid-bay boundary, that is. There would be no need for thisdistinction
> if it had no meaning. But how can the waters west of themiddle line be in
> NJ but under the exclusive jurisdiction of NY up to the low watermark on
> the NJ shore? Surely, this indicates some sort of overlappinggovernmental
> situation.because Ellis is
>
> If the separate mention of "jurisdiction" was used simply
> beyond the main boundary, then why is the same language of"jurisdiction"
> used to denote NY supremacy over surface waters of the bayup to the NJ
> mainland? And indeed, why then even bother to make anotherboundary line
> down the middle of the Hudson and the bay, if there was nodifference? If
> your reading was accurate, the middle bouyndary would bepointless becasue
> NY has "exlusive right of jurisdiction clear up to the riverbank atthe
> Palisades,and all along the NJ bay front down to Bayonne. Yetno one is
> saying that this water area is *not* in NJ even though NY hasjurisdiction,
> so clearly such a situation does exist.don't disagree
>
> I remain unconvinced over the actual status of the islands. I
> that NY has all rights of governance over them -- this is plain.But it
> sounds very much like a Guantanamo situation (forget aboutthe lease/compact
> difference; I'm talking about practical reality)the above are some very nice subtleties of practical reality
> > ----------http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@y...]
> > Reply To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:48 PM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] NYNJ - My take
> >
> > You know what a polygon with infinite side is? It's a
> > circle. And circles have a measurable perimeter, the
> > circumference. My point? Don't automatically assume
> > that fractal geometry produces an infinite length. I
> > am not committing to either an infinite or finite
> > length as both could be easily argued, though I tend
> > to support the finite length side more. I don't think
> > it could be argued that Ellis Island is a fractal
> > boundary, however.
> > I tend to take the Ellis Island boundary as a true
> > state boundary. First of all, even if a previous
> > treaty existed, I feel the current situation does not
> > show anything other than a true state boundary. The
> > supreme court would not make a judgement on the
> > subject if it was only a jurisdictional boundary and
> > not a true boundary. Besides, there are quite a few
> > official maps, though not the USGS topographical maps,
> > that identifies the boundaries as state, so why
> > shouldn't we? Secondly, we should not automatically
> > assume that a separate mention of Ellis Island
> > jurisdiction in an old treaty means a non-state
> > boundary. A separate mention was needed because Ellis
> > Island was beyond the original main boundary. We
> > don't know the motivation of the original writers, but
> > the separate mention can easily be an indication that
> > Ellis Island is a true enclave, though the wording is
> > different from the rest of the boundary. Thirdly, we
> > have tended to take for a fact what is the easiest
> > practical solution to a somewhat convoluted idea of
> > law. Andorra is assumed to be a separate country,
> > though one of its leaders is the French President.
> > All dominions in british commonwealth are thought to
> > be countries and not protectorates though their leader
> > is the Queen. We have assumed boundaries between the
> > Germanys though they were only a zone divider. Do you
> > ever hear anybody saying that the MANY border is not a
> > state border as Massachusetts is actually a
> > commonwealth? No. So, instead of hiding behind
> > obscure terms, let's just deal with the fact that for
> > all intents and purposes especially taxes, Ellis
> > Island and Liberty Island is in New York and a border
> > exists. To not think of the two Islands as part of
> > New York is about as much splitting hairs as arguing
> > for infinite length of boundaries. It is completely
> > different from Guantanamo Bay as a lease exists there.
> > Even Honk Kong was generally assumed to have a
> > boundary with China even though much of it was leases
> > and I have heard of no leases in Ellis Island.
> > Arif
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >
> >