--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> 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.
yes here apparently is one misinterpretation already
because the article says the 1998 supreme court ruling changed
the size of the clave from less than 3 acres to more than 4 acres
http://www.govtech.net/publications/gt/2000/jan/geoinfofldr/geoinf
o.phtml
so if true then the boundary also must have changed then first
by the judicial decree
& will change again when congress ratifies the additional
negotiated changes in the 2000 njny compact that the court also
ordered in that decision
> The GIS
> exercise was meant to locate that boundary, not to supplant it.
if the above insertion is factually correct
then evidently the gis exercise was meant to locate that boundary
as well as to support these 2 successively supplanting
delineations
> Interesting,
> then, that this line is what some folks here have argued cannot
be done --
> the a drawing of a fractal boundary.
hahahahahaha
what folks
i never heard of this new redistricting of that question til now
hahaha
you do love to gerrymeander tho
> 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 believe the points of these dots will replace it
but we still dont know what is on the ground yet
& i have a call into the njdep this morning that may settle this
& i realize the rest of what you are saying is directed to arif
tho i will indulge in another insertion here below
> 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)
the above are some very nice subtleties of practical reality
our only practical purpose here at bp tho
if any
is the practice & reality of try pointing
& of course we relate everything to this as much as possible
in fact just trying to answer any question raised here in this
pointing paradise of ours as faithfully as possible both to the
question & to our punctilious orientation is already an extreme
act of try pointing
even without ever having to leave ones easy chair
& as superfine as our pointing may seem to us
i realize it may sometimes seem a little coarse to others not
similarly attuned
that we are willing to settle on the most discernibly real even if
really rather coarsely defined state lines & multipoints
you are welcome to keep pleading for practical reality here at bp
because this is everyones land too
but you should realize that practical reality has never been a focal
or principal concern of our society as constituted or in practice
> > ----------
> > 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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >