Anchoring and Cruisers' Responsibilities

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Dkdoyle

Sorry our posts passed each other. I was not trying to offend you.

It would help if you could be more specific. Are you suggesting mandatory boat insurance?

No offense taken....

In a way, yes... But only to the extent necessary for pollution and salvage liability. No doubt, just as in automobiles, there would be those who beat the system and go uninsured. But I would think enforcement of insurance requirements would be way cheaper than gov't picking up the tab for cleaning up derelict vessels.

Believe it or not, in Key West, I personally know of a dozen boats that ARE resting on the bottom, yet are still inhabited. Unfortunately for us all, the land dwelling law makers see no difference between those "squatter" boats and the cruising working-class boater passing through on holiday. I'll bet a weeks pay that the boats mentioned above could care less what goes in the water from their boat, and if taken to task for their pollution, will just abandon ship in search of another place to flop. Most of these vessels are occupied by other than the (last) registered owner, and have nothing to lose.

[canucksailor]

Limiting the length of stay in high demand, urban areas also makes sense to me.

Greg, unfortunately, that leads to the problems we've experienced in FL and no one wants to go back to that.

[canucksailor]

A lot of what we are discussing here is tending in the direction of more regulation, and that's usually where the problems start, as cruisers tend as a group to not be enamoured of regulations to control them.
The majority of the problems seem to be with derelict boats, and people on board them who are not boaters, as I've noted before, but more a social problem by virtue of poverty, mental illness or substance abuse.
Jay Bliss, of St. Augustine, is promoting some interesting ideas - his remarks are that, since the city is now making money from what was once free anchorage, a certain number of moorings should be either low cost or no cost to accommodate these people - his actual thoughts were that anyone receiving food stamps should get a free mooring. This brings them under certain controls vis a vis dumping of sewage, and could also lead to resolving issues with appearance, if well handled.
The problem in St. A is that, since the establishment of the mooring fields, these marginal boats (and boaters) have moved outside of the jurisdiction and are now a county problem.
The city is happy, but the problem is not solved.
Here's a thought - in any city where there is an anchorage of a reasonable size, or a certain number of boats anchored out, the city must, by law, have a pumpout boat. This could be contracted out and all boats must be pumped on a regular schedule.
For those who cannot afford the service (the food stamp people for example), the service is free.
Also, the condition of the boat (clutter free deck, etc.) could be dealt with as well, again, given that the boatowner is handled properly.
Boats in long term water storage could be checked, at a very low rate, by the pumpout boat, on a regular basis for the security of anchor and rode, bilge pump operation, etc.
Thoughts?

[canucksailor]

Also....another post has made me think of this - any vessel found to be taking on water, or in danger of going adrift because of the rode deteriorating, that sort of thing, must be dealt with within (one week, two weeks?) or be taken in tow at the owner's expense to a dock, or if sinking, hauled and blocked.
Owners must of course be given reasonable time to deal with these situations, and in the case of an emergency (things go wrong!) where the owner cannot respond in a timely manner (perhaps away?), the local authority handles it but at a cost basis, so as not to overly inconvenience the boater.
There are lots of holes in this scenario, what are your thoughts?

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

Greg, unfortunately, that leads to the problems we've experienced in FL and no one wants to go back to that.

I disagree. I've anchored places that without limits on stay you'll never be able to anchor in them. Large urban centres anchorages are often extremely limited and if limits aren't placed on them they become the sole use of those who never move.

[canucksailor]

if limits aren't placed on them they become the sole use of those who never move.

I've seen that in smaller anchorages, but not in larger ones actually. Perhaps the west coast situation is different.
Charleston, Beaufort SC and NC, Hampton, Norfolk, Annapolis, etc., none of these have issues with space being unavailable for transients, other than during the fall and spring migrations and not really all that bad even then. In fact, until you get south to FL - more accurately, to the south OF FL, there really isn't a problem.

[capngeo]

Canuck.....
If the pump out boat is the (subjective) inspector of seaworthiness or rode condition, then they just assumed liability should something go wrong on a vessel they "approved"

Owners must of course be given reasonable time to deal with these situations, and in the case of an emergency (things go wrong!) where the owner cannot respond in a timely manner (perhaps away?), the local authority handles it but at a cost basis, so as not to overly inconvenience the boater.

Again, someone without an investment to protect will just abandon the boat... Can't get $$ they don't have!

since the city is now making money from what was once free anchorage, a certain number of moorings should be either low cost or no cost to accommodate these people - his actual thoughts were that anyone receiving food stamps should get a free mooring.

Seriously? See my 128' boat thoughts a few posts up. There is no "right" to own something you cannot afford. If you cannot afford to live on a boat, why on Earth should I be forced to subsidize someone's desire to do so? Who is going to compensate MY loss when the un(der) maintained, un(der) insured boat catches fire, and drifts onto my boat, causing it's loss?

If someone on public assistance needs housing, there are facilities already in place for them. I fail to see the logic in rewarding irresponsibility!

[canucksailor]

If someone on public assistance needs housing, there are facilities already in place for them. I fail to see the logic in rewarding irresponsibility!

I see your point, but we aren't going to change what's happening that way. And there don't seem to be enough public facilities to deal with all of these people. Plus, as noted, some are mentally ill, others have serious substance abuse problems - it's not a boating problem, it's a social services problem. And hardly rewarding them by the way.
The problem still needs to be addressed and, like everything else in boating (and life?), compromise is going to be required.

Again, someone without an investment to protect will just abandon the boat... Can't get $$ they don't have!

I think that my idea may help some marginal boaters, i.e. low income boaters who I think it is right to support, while eliminating those who are not 'boaters' but have/live aboard a boat with no income whatsoever.

why on Earth should I be forced to subsidize someone's desire to do so? Who is going to compensate MY loss when the un(der) maintained, un(der) insured boat catches fire, and drifts onto my boat, causing it's loss?

As a society, we do have some obligations to those less well off, that's (in part) what taxes are for. I'm not trying to discredit your point, but since this situation isn't going to disappear, I'm looking for viable ways to deal with it that will work for all parties.
If these boats, currently at anchor and at risk because the owners can't or won't pay for a mooring, are safely on a mooring for free or low cost, you don't have to worry about it drifting into your boat.
It's a compromise, but I think Jay has got some ideas we can all live with. Keep in mind, I'm looking for solutions for property owners, cruisers, transients and liveaboards, that work for all.
I must be crazy

[canucksailor]

If the pump out boat is the (subjective) inspector of seaworthiness or rode condition, then they just assumed liability should something go wrong on a vessel they "approved"

Missed commenting on that point - rather than 'approve' a boat, their responsibility is to identify marginal or problem boats. In other words, just because they don't identify a boat as a problem does NOT mean it's acceptable - just not seen (rightly or wrongly) as a problem. In other words, keep the responsibility on the owner where it belongs, but backstop the situation in the public interest. A recognition that this approach may go astray as not all problems are evident, and that an extreme situation, such as weather, may create a situation where none was apparent, would be inherent in such a situation.
It would be interesting to get a lawyer's take on this - any of you guys about?

[capngeo]

As a society, we do have some obligations to those less well off, that's (in part) what taxes are for.

I do not disagree, but I ask to what level does said obligation extend? For example, I have no problem being taxed to provide housing, food, medical care, etc for those people incapable of caring for themselves. BUT the notion of being taxed to provide low cost or free service to someone who CHOOSES to cruise on a boat INSTEAD of working to support themselves, just rubs me wrong. Similarly, the non-cruising indigent live-aboard, whose actions (inactions?) tarnish all cruisers in the eyes of the land dwellers, rub me wrong too.

If they have mental or psych issues, help them.... ON LAND WHERE THE FACILITIES ARE! If they are incapable of being financially responsible by their own choice (laziness?), don't look to my wallet to reward their irresponsible ways.

[sailorboy1]

While we are talking boating here, at the root of the issue isn't this just the same social-economic issues that result in poor rundown neighborhoods, slums, rundown apartment buildings, etc. etc.

What solution has been developed to solve this and how can it be applied to boats? The only one I know of is that the neighborhood gets knocked down and rebuilt (because regulations stepped in). It looks nice but doesn't change the basic cause.

[canucksailor]

The only one I know of is that the neighborhood gets knocked down and rebuilt (because regulations stepped in).

That's essentially mooring fields on the water, not the best solution and not one at all, cf St. Augustine, for the people we're discussing here, i.e. the mentally ill and substance abusers. And, again as seen in SA, the indigent simply move outside of the regulated area, creating problems there.
So mooring fields don't solve the larger problem, just push it out to where the taxpayer doesn't see it.
That is no solution I want to be a part of.

[sailorboy1]

That's right there it isn't a solution. So what parallel shore type program can be applied since I'm sure a lot more thinking has been applied to those than on can to protect boater's "rights".

Or is the answer to the boaters part of the question to work harder at chasing those lowlife poor type boat dwellers back onto the land?

[canucksailor]

BUT the notion of being taxed to provide low cost or free service to someone who CHOOSES to cruise on a boat INSTEAD of working to support themselves, just rubs me wrong. Similarly, the non-cruising indigent live-aboard, whose actions (inactions?) tarnish all cruisers in the eyes of the land dwellers, rub me wrong too.

There's always going to be a few of these - so I think we have to look to the greater good. Sure, we don't want to encourage people to be bums, but some will be, and their leavings are what we are faced with. So, let's deal with the leavings and, holding our noses, let them live their lives as they wish - and have a right to, as was pointed out some while back. Doesn't mean we have to approve, but it's a larger problem than the one we're trying to solve.

If they have mental or psych issues, help them.... ON LAND WHERE THE FACILITIES ARE!

No disagreement here, and that's why I've said all along that this is a social work issue, not a boating issue. But the question always seems to boil down to - at what point does their illness/problems overrule their rights?

[canucksailor]

So what parallel shore type program can be applied

My thinking has been, for a long time, to use a rule that works well on land. If your neighbour's house is a dump, you complain, the city looks it over and, if justified, issues an order to clean it up. Failing that, the city sends workers in to do the job, adding the bill to the property's tax bill.
Something like that could work for boats. Question of course is, what standards apply, who develops them, and so forth.
And, if someone has to go aboard the boat and set it in order, where does the bill go?
I suppose it could be a lien against title, but that presumes the boat will someday be sold in that jurisdiction. And that the bill won't be in excess of the vessel's value, which in some cases could easily occur.
Still, it presents a solution that with some adaptation I've always thought could work. Another option is to correct the problems with the boat, then chain it to a dock until the bill is paid. If not paid in a reasonable amount of time, the boat is auctioned off.