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

[motion30]

this is a true story. I was in an Anchorage in South Florida one evening when the 30-foot sailboat came in ,he had no anchor just a length of nylon Rode. He was literally tying rocks to the nylon to try to get the boat to stop .after drifting completely through the Anchorage thankfully not hitting anybody another Cruiser lent him an anchor. He had no dingy and was swimming back and forth to the dock. I heard him say this is nice here I I'm going to bring my other boat here as well. He was soon persuaded to leave the Anchorage and not come back.

[tomfl]

Not the first time I have posted a response to this issue.

Bottom line is that it is a simple question of supply and demand; something taught in Econ 101. In places like most of South Florida and the Keys the demand far out strips the supply. Marinas can impose costs and rules to limit who uses them since the demand is so high.

Since both supply and demand vary as the location changes there is really no "one size fits all" answer. Even with the demand in South Florida and the Keys there are lots of places to anchor. I have extensively cruised that area and never had an issue finding a comfortable safe place to anchor; or even get a slip in a marina. Thing is that the anchorages were away from what I will call civilization. No easy access to a dock for my inflatable, no bars with cheap beer (or even expensive beer), in fact in most cases no other boat or human in sight. As for the marinas they are usually cost prohibitive for a boat with no ability to move on it's own power.

I understand there are a lot of basically homeless folks living on boats and working low end jobs who most likely could not afford a cheap apartment; in fact they are the year round live aboards at BKH many of who I know well. The thing is that there are a lot more homeless people living on dirt in Florida who I suspect have many of the same issues as low income people living on boats. Sad to say I expect to see a couple of deaths every year of a homeless person living on dirt in Marathon who falls in the water and drowns.

I don't really see an easy solution to this problem.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Riff raff or not riff raff how could this matter.

People are people and it is deeply disturbing when some people tell other people how and where they are allowed to LIVE.

It is deeply disturbing to know that some people see riff raff people as NONPERSONS.

There was that nationalist leader not too long ago in central Europe who also considered some people as NONPERSONS.

When we lived in continental Spain, I saw the police evicting Romas from under a bridge. If you are not allowed to live under a bridge, then where are you allowed to live?

Our options are to learn and understand history or repeat the same suffering for ever.

Time is a flat circle. I heard this phrase yesterday.

A bum sailor in their derelict craft are as much human as anybody else. I would go further and propose that due to their disadvantaged position they deserve some leeway.

b.

So if you returned to your boat tomorrow and you found me living there...would you not share your thoughts on where and how I should be living? Or is that somehow different because it's your boat?

No one is saying that anyone is a nonperson. You are using a classic propaganda technique. You phrase the situation in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person so that even if they have a reasonable opinion, they are scared to respond.

I suggest looking into Gypsies a bit more before making statements (and not just the recent liberal re-characterization). There have been many programs throughout the decades to get them into housing but they prefer a nomadic lifestyle, often causing issues. Not that there aren't some truly homeless, through no fault of their own gypsies, but the majority just don't want to live in a fixed house. In the same way a large percentage of the US boat squatters are there by choice. The ones that aren't would more often than not be better off land based.

[Hillard]

My sailboat is next to a run down ancient trawler that hasn’t moved in 5 years. Paint peeling, blue plastic tarps covering portions of the boat, duct tape holding stuff together. Basically a floating derelict. It’s easily the worst boat in the marina.

While I dont condone his lack of maintenance, I wouldn’t evict him from the marina for it.

However, the owner is breaking federal and state laws everyday by dumping his waste into the marina. Since the boat cant move, it doesn’t go to the pump out station. Ive not seen a honey wagon pull up to the boat to pump it out either. The marina says they know he’s dumping illegally, but they havent caught him doing it yet. If they do, they say he’s outta there.

So, my issue with these decrepit boats isn’t so much their boat, but their lack of concern for the health of the marina waters. We have manatee and dolphins swimming thru the marina regularly. I’m sure they dont appreciate his dumping.

[boatman61]

No.. but the fish they come in to feed on likely do and as far as I am concerned as long as he bags and trashes his bog paper thats fine.
Yet to see a dolphin or manatee swim into a marina to Ohhh and Ahhh over the boats.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Hillard

So, my issue with these decrepit boats isn’t so much their boat, but their lack of concern for the health of the marina waters. We have manatee and dolphins swimming thru the marina regularly. I’m sure they dont appreciate his dumping.

Guess you have never seen one of those manatees or dolphins poop?

[waterman46]

Neither right nor fair. You block the view, take up valuable space that operational boats can use, and create situations leading to passage of overly restrictive laws.

It is a problem in many countries. We recently visited Netherlands. Canals there are beautiful except much of the view is blocked by ugly home made house boats. I am not talking about the graceful lines of a classic riverboat. These are old decrepit hulls on which someone has added what looks like the living quarters of a house trailer.

[Smokeys Kitchen]

Originally Posted by StuM

Shirley, you jest?

Ok Stu - I apologize in advance



"I never jest, and don't call me Shirley!"

Paraphrased Leslie Nielsen - Airplane

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Neither right nor fair. You block the view, take up valuable space that operational boats can use, and create situations leading to passage of overly restrictive laws.

It is a problem in many countries. We recently visited Netherlands. Canals there are beautiful except much of the view is blocked by ugly home made house boats. I am not talking about the graceful lines of a classic riverboat. These are old decrepit hulls on which someone has added what looks like the living quarters of a house trailer.

Block the view. How is that any different then when someone puts up an ugly new building between your apartment and "the view?"

Take up valuable space. Who decides what is an acceptable use? Is a home more acceptable than a vehicle, vessel, or other device used for recreation?

Causes the passage of restrictive laws. That certainly is a valid concern, and it is a real issue. Often the laws and regulations passed don't even address the real problem nor solve the issue.

I agree with you that often these decrepit hulls as you describe them are not pleasant to look at. The problem with this, is that this line of thinking is then used to affect others that are not decrepit. In many places the owners of waterfront property don't want their view messed up by boats of any type, even those in great shape.

The real issue is bad behaviour, such as illegal discharges and abandonment. As far as abandonment, how are cars any different? I have seen plenty of abandoned vehicles, yet I have never heard of anyone suggesting that we force ugly and beat up vehicles off of our roads.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

Have any of you ever been to the West 79th Street Boat Basin in the Hudson off of New York City? I was there 20 years ago. Due to rent control, they couldn't raise the slip fees until someone moved out. The "boats" are very interesting as they had been modified for their stay-put role. I particularly liked the tomato plants growing in pots on the upper decks.

I checked out some images on Google to see if it still looked that way. It appears that either they changed the rules or the older crowd has mostly passed on. Only a few of the homes still remain.


Free mooring balls in the river off of this basin. You pay a daily fee for the dingy tie-up though.

They did indeed change the rules. One's vessel must now be able to propel itself. There is still and average wait of some seven or eight years for a slip. This being New York, an occasional "gratuity" can help speed the process although that has been cut down quite a bit the past few years.

Your mention of modification years ago reminded me of something a friend did years ago. One with a slip in the 79th Street Boat basis had a power boat. My friend, a home improvement contractor, took the cockpit on the sport fisher style boat and converted it into an enclosed spacious head with a shower, tub, and all the furnishings an apartment would have!

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

The real issue is bad behaviour, such as illegal discharges and abandonment. As far as abandonment, how are cars any different? I have seen plenty of abandoned vehicles, yet I have never heard of anyone suggesting that we force ugly and beat up vehicles off of our roads.

Um, the thread title is "Is it right and fair to live aboard a vessel that cannot navigate?" A person was living in a car that was inoperable permanently parked on the public street in front of your house, dumping their waste in the gutter for good measure is the apt analogy, not an ugly beat up car driving on the road. There might be a few live and let live folks on this thread who would tolerate that, but they're certainly not the most strident voices on the thread condemning those of us who own waterfront who they've (ironically given their indignation about stereotyping) stereotyped as all being rich a-holes because we want the inoperable boat in front of our house treated the same way as they would want the inoperable car treated in front of theirs. The key word here is inoperable or "cannot navigate". There's no analogy that allows for that, but there sure is a lot of self-righteous indignation at anyone who points that out, isn't there!

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by john61ct

If fairly priced dignified social housing were provided as a right to all citizens

as is the case in nearly every civilized society with anywhere near the wealth of the U.S., and many poorer ones,

then the public resources intended for other uses would not need to be used for the poor to avoid being completely homeless.

Not to mention providing mental health services, and building a society that doesn't inherently cause epidemics of mental illness and substance dependencies.

I find granting the wealthy the ability to segregate themselves from the common people, or even the desire to do so, pretty despicable.

Much of this quote has some validity, however I think the solutions are nowhere as simple as the comment suggests, in particular the first sentence. Again, I agree that much more could be done and I am not talking about more money, but wiser use of it.

While there are many reasons for housing shortages in places, two big ones include the lack of a comprehensive and effective transportation policy and the Federal Reserve. Add to this (in no particular order) government intervention, tax deductions, flawed policies, drug abuse, structural problems in the economy, reduced personal responsibility, heightened senses of entitlement, and many other problems, and we can see the depth of the issue.

The wealthy always have had, and will always have, the ability to segregate themselves. We cannot, nor should we, prevent that. It's called the right of association and is a fundamental right in the U.S. and of humankind. Even the average Joe can avoid the great unwashed using apps. You can order food, groceries, dinner, shoes, and just about anything with an app and avoid lines and people. Even Disney allows you to skip the line for a small fee.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Neither right nor fair. You block the view, take up valuable space that operational boats can use, and create situations leading to passage of overly restrictive laws.

It is a problem in many countries. We recently visited Netherlands. Canals there are beautiful except much of the view is blocked by ugly home made house boats. I am not talking about the graceful lines of a classic riverboat. These are old decrepit hulls on which someone has added what looks like the living quarters of a house trailer.

My experience of Amsterdam and other cities in the Nederlands is the majority of these boats you allege block the view rarely are above street level.. you have to go down steps to board them.
In Europe we call this Picturesque..

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Um, the thread title is "Is it right and fair to live aboard a vessel that cannot navigate?" A person was living in a car that was inoperable permanently parked on the public street in front of your house, dumping their waste in the gutter for good measure is the apt analogy, not an ugly beat up car driving on the road. There might be a few live and let live folks on this thread who would tolerate that, but they're certainly not the most strident voices on the thread condemning those of us who own waterfront who they've (ironically given their indignation about stereotyping) stereotyped as all being rich a-holes because we want the inoperable boat in front of our house treated the same way as they would want the inoperable car treated in front of theirs. The key word here is inoperable or "cannot navigate". There's no analogy that allows for that, but there sure is a lot of self-righteous indignation at anyone who points that out, isn't there!

My comment was in reference to an earlier comment about illegal dumping, thus not actually addressing the OP's question.

I am absolutely not one of those saying the rich are bad, and generally find the opposite to be true (the key word is generally, but that is true of just about any group).

I also agree that when one has a nice piece of property, they don't want it brought down by nastiness in the vicinity, nor do I.

To answer the OP's question, YES, it is right and fair to live aboard a vessel that cannot navigate, WITHIN limits. To me, this is not a strict yes or no answer.

When one is in a government (incorrectly called public) marina or mooring field, or in a private marina, then one is subject to the rules of those who run the place. When one lives in civilization, one must live with some rules, otherwise there is anarchy. The further out from the center of town one is, then they are usually subject to less rules.

I will also say that if the boats are there first, then those who move into waterfront property really shouldn't complain. If the boats move in after the property is developed, then they shouldn't complain when asked to move. I know that it rarely if ever works this way.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Actually the wholesale destruction of cheap and effective urban transportation, and the centering of land use regs and the design of our communities around the private automobile were/are completely intentional, and well supported by the Haves, to the point that fixing those issues now, seems flat out unrealistic.

Your framing obviously supports the "free market" neo-liberal narrative, but to me the fundamental problem was allowing private ownership and the profit motive to have any role at all in providing housing for the non-wealthy classes.


> The wealthy always have had, and will always have, the ability to segregate themselves.

I completely disagree, both in land use and especially education. If every US citizen was required to send their children to the same local schools, with full diversity of races and class, we would be much closer to the free universal high-quality education system a proper democracy so desperately requires.

I had to open my mouth, didn't I?!

Alas, it can be a good discussion but unfortunately is rather more than a bit off topic. I'll just say that I think we would probably agree on a few points, in particular the destruction of most mass transit in the U.S. We could probably even agree on some points regarding the other subjects although I disagree with the later statements as written.

Should you be interested (or anyone else), PM me and I will provide some interesting links regarding the conspiracy by GM, a major petrol company, and a tire (tyre for my overseas friends!) to buy up and close trolley companies. I also have a great article about why US suburbs are so different, less efficient, and pedestrian unfriendly and contrasts them to European suburbs. Great reading and I think you will enjoy them.