I believe there might be some misinterpretation here of the article
regarding GIS determination of the NY-NJ Ellis Island boundary. The boundary
is not the recent demarcation itself; the boundary is and always has been
the low water mark around the original island before the federal government
began filling to expand the island in the late 19th Century. The GIS
exercise was meant to locate that boundary, not to supplant it. Interesting,
then, that this line is what some folks here have argued cannot be done --
the a drawing of a fractal boundary. But the dots or monuments on the ground
do not replace the low water mark of the original island as the actual
boundary -- they memorialize it.
I don't understand why you would think that the Supreme Court would not have
made a judgment if there weren't a state boundary involved. The Supreme
Court rules on many many interstate issues; water rights come to mind
immediately, in that this subject is near and dear to us in Colorado. So
involvement by the Supreme Court doesn't say anything about settling the
issue.
If the separate terms used to define the larger true NY-NJ boundary and the
outclaves are not of any weight, they would not be separate terms I don't
think you cna be so quick to dismiss this. It is very interesting that there
are two distinct rights in a heirarchy, which mught indicate that this in
fact is a Guantanamo situation (not, as I said earlier, similar in legal
instrument i.e. lease, obviously, but the same in practical effect). There
is the "exclusive right of property" which defines what is the lands of the
respective states themselves, and then there is a separate "exclusive right
of jurisdiction" which applies to the islands and the surface waters to the
NJ shore, which beyond debate is in NJ -- the waters west of the mid-rive
and mid-bay boundary, that is. There would be no need for this distinction
if it had no meaning. But how can the waters west of the middle line be in
NJ but under the exclusive jurisdiction of NY up to the low water mark on
the NJ shore? Surely, this indicates some sort of overlapping governmental
situation.
If the separate mention of "jurisdiction" was used simply because Ellis is
beyond the main boundary, then why is the same language of "jurisdiction"
used to denote NY supremacy over surface waters of the bay up to the NJ
mainland? And indeed, why then even bother to make another boundary line
down the middle of the Hudson and the bay, if there was no difference? If
your reading was accurate, the middle bouyndary would be pointless becasue
NY has "exlusive right of jurisdiction clear up to the riverbank at the
Palisades,and all along the NJ bay front down to Bayonne. Yet no one is
saying that this water area is *not* in NJ even though NY has jurisdiction,
so clearly such a situation does exist.
I remain unconvinced over the actual status of the islands. I don't disagree
that NY has all rights of governance over them -- this is plain. But it
sounds very much like a Guantanamo situation (forget about the lease/compact
difference; I'm talking about practical reality)
> ----------
> From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@...]
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>