Is it right and fair to live aboard a vessel that cannot navigate?

[thinwater]

I wonder how the "rights" people will react when someone steals their boat (law), when the boat burns to the waterline because the wire burned (I just tested some non-UL wire that had flammable insulation), or runs over their kid in a school zone (just saw a cop running radar in a school zone--good for him)?

How silly. Of COURSE we need laws. We need a process because we can never agree on what they should be. It's always the "other guy" that needs regulated.

---

But this is all off the OP's point. Is there something morally wrong with having a boat in the water that you do not move, when someone else would actively navigate from the slip (that is what he asked, just worded differently)?

[Akafred]

Originally Posted by Tellie

The problem with going after the least of us, is that the best of us will then come after the rest of us.

Agreed! i say, live and let live. If someone wants to anchor out it’s their business.

[Reiheld]

Originally Posted by Petaris

Please tell me that it uses a steam engine, that would be so cool.

Would be very cool, but alas, just a pair of 60hp outboards propel us at our stately pace. We stopped for a night at a lovely gated community dock, and as the dockmaster bid us farewell the next day, he said, “you wouldn’t believe how many calls I’ve fielded from the inmates this morning wanting to know, “what th’ hell is that thing?”
They must have feared we were moving in instead of passing through.

[Lihuedooley77]

Here is what we see.....and this is a fact.

And it is NOT good.

In our Dana Point marina.....

Vessels with live aboards , mostly illegal, some are total lubbers and do not have engines that operate, or no engine , period. The boats vary from sail to motor vessels.

The have no way to get to a pump out station or or out to sea, and instead they discharge all waste into the marina waters, and I mean all. From the marine head, and shower and galley sink. Most are heavy drinkers , and just flat do not care.

So , we see a huge problem with vessels that cannot get to a pump out station. or out to sea and instead flood the marina with human waste, and chemicals, etc.

These people range from having some bucks, to near broke warf rats,

They tale advantage of the most reasonable slip fees along our socal coast, and use
their non navigable boats as a beach home. Which is a heck of a lot cheaper than an land based rental or home.

Absolutely no respect by these people who are discharging human waste daily, weekly, yearly, for many years into Dana Point Harbor. Which is really very nice, and very
popular..

Of course they brag at the bar, about having a boat in the marina.

An old sea shanty....changed bit for this subject..

THE SEA WOLF,

HIS MIGHTY ENGINES NEVER ROAR
HE NEVER SAILS AWAY
BUT WHEN HE SHITS, HE SHITS AT NIGHT
AT ANCHOR IN THE BAY.

That disrespect to all boat owners and the marina may be why there soon will be a change.

The illegal liveaboards will be no longer in our marina. The entire marina is going
thru a huge renewal and improvement project. New docks, new hotel, new bars
new shops, large open areas . Nicely done, and still keeping with the surfing,
fishing, charter, and motor and sail boat slip rentals ( new docks and slips and of
course higher rates, and removal of the offending vessels )











.

[Reiheld]

I understand the frustration, Lihuedooley, just as I sympathize with the land- based left-coasters who are disgusted by the appalling conditions of their city sidewalks. No solutions to drug-addled homeless folk, but banning non-moveable and live-aboard watercraft that are otherwise not a nuisance seems to be tossing babies out with bath water. There ARE no-dumping laws and marpol regs. Enforce them.

[carlwk3c]

Originally Posted by Chotu

If they are paying for a dock or a mooring, they are equal to you in every way.

They have the same budget you do. And they like to the same marina you did. The only time this would be looked down upon is if they took up space in an Anchorage for free. This might prevent traveling cruisers from coming by. And also cause anchoring laws to be developed against boaters who are not trying to squat in the Anchorage.

But if they are paying their fair share at the marina for a mooring or Dock, they are just equal to the rest of the boaters.

The idea that someone must pay fir a slip or a mooring for the “privilege “ of existing is offensive and elitist. I see nothing wrong with living at anchor as long as you’re not polluting or presenting a hazard to navigation.

How have people become so brainwashed by the rent seekers that they feel one must pay *someone* for a place to exist or “they’re not paying their fair share”??? Fair share of WHAT? If I choose not to use the services of a marina or mooring operator, I owe them nothing, and there IS NO “fair share” to be paid.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by sailorman14

We seem to forget that the US Code, which is part of our constitution, says that the people of this country own all of the waterways. That person has as much right to have a boat on the water as anyone else. The US Code does not require a vessel to have the ability to move in order to be considered a boat. If it floats it’s a boat. I for one am tired of my constitutional rights being taken away from me by every local city and State in this country. If you read that section of the US Code it also says that we own not only the water but 50 feet of the land on the banks of all navigatable waterways. That means it’s Federal property not State property. You should be able to anchor anywhere in this country without restrictions from any State or local government.

Wow, where to start. How about the U.S. Constitution, you can find a copy here with all amendments:
https://constitutionus.com/
Then there is the far larger and completely different set of documents called the U.S. Code. It can be found here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
Of particular interest may be 43 U.S. Code Chapter 29, SUBCHAPTER II—LANDS BENEATH NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES (§§ 1311 – 1315) which specifically gives states the right to regulate navigable waters out to 3 miles from their shoreline. You can find a copy of that US Code here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t.../subchapter-II

And let's dispense with this nonsense that government owned in any way means anyone can do anything they want there. The Grand Canyon is government owned space, millions of acres of Forest Service and BLM land is government owned space, Andrews Air Force Base is government owned space, Arlington National Cemetery is government owned space...... All of them are owned by "the people of this country"....and that fact alone in no way gives you or I the right to make house there and dump our waste on the ground just cause we're 'muricans.

Kids these days, when did they stop teaching basic civics in school. If one is going to demand their "constitutional rights" one would think they'd want to have a passing familiarity with the document!

[sailorboy1]

I have to admit this has been a thread of some of the most silly crap that tries to sound like reasoning I’ve read in a while. It has reached the car crash level where it’s hard not to look.

[Buzzman]

I think the real issue is the definition of 'liveaboard'.

There is a need to differentiate between "permanently moored houseboat"; a "boat-shaped vessel permantly moored and unable to navigate"; and a "vessel able to navigate, on long-term mooring/marina, aboard which the owner resides".

A "houseboat" ought to be just that - a house that floats - and as such MUST be permanently moored and unable to move under it's own power "except in exceptional circumstances" (such as changing permanent mooring location, or in an emergency to avoid hurricane or fire for example).

Such "houseboats" could then be a category of "domestic residence" and subject to some or all of the requirements of land-based domestic residences. So things like proper insulation, fire-rated construction, double-glazing, water and sewer connections, electric installations to code requirements etc etc.

And they'd need to be able to provide vehicle parking 'off street', same as a normal land-based home is these days required to do.

Which would probably limit their distribution to some sort of canal or marina-type development, and would necessarily make them WAY more expensive than a 'liveaboard boat'.

The real issue issue is NIMBY-ism. Not In My Back Yard.

People who've bought land-based homes with water views tend to have paid a LOT for the privilege of having those views (even though the sacrosanct status of "views" is usually one of the things land-based planning laws specifically rule out), but there is an expectation that the "view" won't be cluttered up with 3-storey "houseboats" and derelict-looking 'liveaboards'.

The other issue to be aware of is that the price differential between mooring out and land-based (with marinas in between) is a function of the 'utility' of the 'ground rent' to the lessee.

Essentially, a swing mooring occupies a tiny portion of land (even though the boat itself 'swings' through a much wider circle) and, as the boat owner is unable to "fully utilise" that 'rented land' (i.e. by living on it or otherwise developing it', the State agrees that it is of less worth than the same amount of land on the nearby shore, and thus values it at a lesser rate, making the "mooring" affordable for people who could otherwise not afford the waterfront real estate and, thereby, making available way more p[laces to moor a boat than if only waterfront land owners had that right due to their owning the land to which a boat could be moored.

If we truly want 'mooring fields" to be made available for "permanent liveaboard" then those moorings will necessarily see their 'rents' increase to something like that of the permantly moored houseboat, or at least, that of the marina slip.

While a "mooring" remains nothing more than a 'parking spot' for a vessel, it will remain cheap, and relatively affordable as somewhere to 'park' your boat. Look what happens to 'parking spots' for land-based vehicles in high-demand areas - they get metered. In other words, the cost of using them increases dramatically based on the 'utility' of utilising that particular space. It's why moorings cost more in high demand areas also.

The "temporary use" or 'temporary liveaboard' status that some jurisdictions allow is in fact a major concession to the isse of rental value for the State.

But, typically for us humans, someone always wants to 'push the envelope' in a way that ends with a back lash.

We are, to some extent, self-destructive. Or, at the very least, blindly self-interested. Well, some of us are.....

YMMV

[Doek]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Wow, where to start. How about the U.S. Constitution, you can find a copy here with all amendments:
https://constitutionus.com/
Then there is the far larger and completely different set of documents called the U.S. Code. It can be found here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
Of particular interest may be 43 U.S. Code Chapter 29, SUBCHAPTER II—LANDS BENEATH NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES (§§ 1311 – 1315) which specifically gives states the right to regulate navigable waters out to 3 miles from their shoreline. You can find a copy of that US Code here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t.../subchapter-II

And let's dispense with this nonsense that government owned in any way means anyone can do anything they want there. The Grand Canyon is government owned space, millions of acres of Forest Service and BLM land is government owned space, Andrews Air Force Base is government owned space, Arlington National Cemetery is government owned space...... All of them are owned by "the people of this country"....and that fact alone in no way gives you or I the right to make house there and dump our waste on the ground just cause we're 'muricans.

Kids these days, when did they stop teaching basic civics in school. If one is going to demand their "constitutional rights" one would think they'd want to have a passing familiarity with the document!

I think you are misreading the statutes your are using here. I have had a lot of experience dealing with state, municipality and federal government agencies as I own a marina for the past 20 years and have all necessary permits in place.


In actuality, the Federal Government has sole authority over all Navigable Waters of The US. There are two categories:
Navigable in fact (Are there boats using it?)
and even stricter
Commercially Navigable (Does the US get money from its use?)


Here is the relevant part of the statutes you used:


(d) Authority and rights of United States respecting navigation, flood control and production of power
Nothing in this subchapter or subchapter I shall affect the use, development, improvement, or control by or under the constitutional authority of the United States of said lands and waters for the purposes of navigation or flood control or the production of power, or be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, or to provide for flood control, or the production of power;
As it was explained to me by the Feds:
“Whenever anyone other than a federal Agent gets to the place where their toes get wet, they are out of their jurisdiction.”
Municipalities and States are allowed to apply to the Fed for only two things in Navigable Waters:
First: Speed Limit Zones. (The federal Agent I was dealing with used this as one of the reasons why they don’t relinquish rights to navigable waters to the other entities as “They don’t know how to write laws for Navigable waters. It has nothing to do with speed. You are responsible for your wake no matter what your speed is. If you cause damage at 4 knots in a 10 mile per hour “Speed Zone”, you are responsible for the damage. Speed zones are silly.”


Second: A mooring field which the Feds will issue a permit for after they specifically delineate all boundaries and types and amounts of Moorings.


That’s it. They are 100% in charge of all Navigable Waterways.


That is how they forced Florida to remove all their Anchoring laws, etc. from the entire state in the recent court case that Florida lost completely.
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by quackedo

I think you are misreading the statutes your are using here. I have had a lot of experience dealing with state, municipality and federal government agencies as I own a marina for the past 20 years and have all necessary permits in place.


In actuality, the Federal Government has sole authority over all Navigable Waters of The US. There are two categories:
Navigable in fact (Are there boats using it?)
and even stricter
Commercially Navigable (Does the US get money from its use?)


Here is the relevant part of the statutes you used:


(d) Authority and rights of United States respecting navigation, flood control and production of power
Nothing in this subchapter or subchapter I shall affect the use, development, improvement, or control by or under the constitutional authority of the United States of said lands and waters for the purposes of navigation or flood control or the production of power, or be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, or to provide for flood control, or the production of power;
As it was explained to me by the Feds:
“Whenever anyone other than a federal Agent gets to the place where their toes get wet, they are out of their jurisdiction.”
Municipalities and States are allowed to apply to the Fed for only two things in Navigable Waters:
First: Speed Limit Zones. (The federal Agent I was dealing with used this as one of the reasons why they don’t relinquish rights to navigable waters to the other entities as “They don’t know how to write laws for Navigable waters. It has nothing to do with speed. You are responsible for your wake no matter what your speed is. If you cause damage at 4 knots in a 10 mile per hour “Speed Zone”, you are responsible for the damage. Speed zones are silly.”


Second: A mooring field which the Feds will issue a permit for after they specifically delineate all boundaries and types and amounts of Moorings.


That’s it. They are 100% in charge of all Navigable Waterways.


That is how they forced Florida to remove all their Anchoring laws, etc. from the entire state in the recent court case that Florida lost completely.
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }

Sorry my friend, you are just dead wrong on that one (I'm a retired Coast Guard officer so I've also got "a lot of experience dealing with state, municipality and federal government agencies" and talked to quite a few "federal agents" including myself about this!).

I think you might have missed the beginning of the statute, the part that said:
"(a)Confirmation and establishment of title and ownership of lands and resources; management, administration, leasing, development, and use
It is determined and declared to be in the public interest that (1) title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural resources within such lands and waters, and (2) the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use the said lands and natural resources all in accordance with applicable State law be, and they are, subject to the provisions hereof, recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to the respective States or the persons who were on June 5, 1950, entitled thereto under the law of the respective States in which the land is located, and the respective grantees, lessees, or successors in interest thereof;"

The actual case law associated with this law has clearly established the rights of states to pass laws covering the waters of their states to regulate their use as well as enforce all laws on those waters, no matter if they're DUI laws or laws regarding where you're allowed to anchor. They're most certainly not "out of their jurisdiction" if their toes are wet, if that was the case there are many thousands of BWI attorneys who should be disbarred for incompetence because they didn't get their clients off a BWI charge brought by a state law enforcement officer! The exception you listed has been interpreted to only apply to conflicts such as hydro projects, dams for flood control, or navigation channels, i.e. CA couldn't put a mooring field across the exit to SF Bay if it impeded navigation.

And none of this is in the constitution, hopefully we all agree on that!

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by carlwk3c

The idea that someone must pay fir a slip or a mooring for the “privilege “ of existing is offensive and elitist. I see nothing wrong with living at anchor as long as you’re not polluting or presenting a hazard to navigation.

How have people become so brainwashed by the rent seekers that they feel one must pay *someone* for a place to exist or “they’re not paying their fair share”??? Fair share of WHAT? If I choose not to use the services of a marina or mooring operator, I owe them nothing, and there IS NO “fair share” to be paid.

Bro... I'm DEFENDING their right to exist.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Tellie

The problem with going after the least of us, is that the best of us will then come after the rest of us.

Bravo.


I get sick and tired of people trying to marginalize and ban from the water, those who do not or cannot move their boats, and especially those who live on their boat because they cannot afford to live ashore. This elitist crap is totally against the unwritten (or I should say unlegislated) law of the sea. Yaching in NONE of its forms should be for only the wealthy. It is a sad excuse of a yachtsman who believes and says that it is.



EXCEPTIONS. In a public anchorage that is often overcrowded, it is reasonable to expect a boat to be movable by some means, periodically. By poling, rowing, sculling, sailing, towing with a dink, whatever. And they should have some way of properly and legally disposing of sewage. Liveaboards in marinas should be able to get to a pumpout station. Otherwise, what are they doing with their sewage? Carrying it ashore? I have known of a couple of people who did that.



And one other thing. The owner should assume responsibility for removal of the boat should it become a wreck or uninhabitable or an abandoned derelict, and if this is by purchasing insurance, well and good. If there are contractual or legal requirements for insurance at the marina or anchorage in question, then it should be up to the harbormaster or agency in charge to ensure that a suitable insurance policy is in effect.



So is a boat an eyesore? Too bad. Get over it. Not every boat is beautiful. Not every owner can keep it so or make it so, or even chooses to do so. Is it an environmental hazard, or a safety hazard to others or their property? That would be different. Not "functional" as a boat? Again, if you don't like it, tough. unless they are (ACTUALLY) polluting or creating a significant hazard.


Cannot navigate? Getting back to the OP's question. Most boat owners cannot navigate, no matter what sort of boat they have. So, moot.

[motion30]

I guess you have never lived in an Anchorage with boats that are unable to propel themselves when it storm blows up, almost without exception they have inferior gear in the water. They either crash into other boats in the Anchorage or depend on the kindness of strangers to keep them out of trouble. It is dangerous and tiring

[Secondshift]

Originally Posted by Secondshift

Couldn't find the old email but did find a copy of the minutes from the July 2019 Commission Meeting.

Draft Rule – Effective Means of Propulsion for Safe Navigation, 68D – 15.002. In accordance with the statutory direction in 327.4107(2)(e), Florida Statutes, the proposed draft rule will establish evaluation methods for determining whether vessels which are greater than 16 feet in length have an effective means of propulsion for safe navigation. This rule provides law enforcement officers with a standardized evaluation utilizing specified time, distance and maneuverability components. The rule provides restrictions on conducting evaluations during adverse weather conditions and when a vessel owner has proof of ordering parts necessary to effect repairs. Staff plan to advertise the proposed rule and a final public hearing is planned for October 2019.

The PDF is available online. https://myfwc.com/about/commission/c...ngs/july-2019/
listed as "rule language " under section 5. B

The rule does allow for a Sailboat to prove by sailing and said something about human power. I twice passed a man sculling over the stern in a 30' J boat.

So in Florida in the near future whether right or fair it may not be legal.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. This rule will be ratified for better or worse. All depends how it's enforced. If I have to meet and run an obstacle course every week maybe I'll get a slip to.