What a dump marina

[stillbuilding]

As a kid I lived in a small rural town on the beach. Some old shacks, dumped cars, liveaboards, few yacht use and fishing stuff on the beach - bit unsightly or "colourful" depending on your viewpoint. Years later is a suburban crap heap. Now that IS ugly. It takes real money to bugger a whole area! Unsightly boats are simple to clean up and very minimal in their impact really.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[zboss]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The rules are the same as when they moved in, so no difference on the sale value of the property, unless the value is increased with the passing of laws that give them more rights.

Generally speaking, Florida doesn't owe them more rights.

No, if you show the house and there are boats out back, thats a big turn off to come folks. You have to think like a rich suburbanite.

A point of note... if you pay careful attention to the areas that will be made off limits to cruisers under the new plan, there are very few (if any) derelict boats in most those areas. Its mostly safe little zones near inlet entrances that are used most often as staging points for coastal and offshore trips.

Obamaboat:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ving-benefits/

[Island Time O25]

I don't understand how disposing of derelict boats left in the middle of the public anchorage is any different from disposing derelict cars left in the middle of the public road? Each and every boat supposedly has a last known registered legal owner. So the bills for the disposals go to them. It becomes up to them to prove that they sold it and properly de-registered it, etc. and to show a subsequent owner who should be billed. Otherwise they're on the hook for removal costs. And just like unpaid auto tickets, unpaid alimony or some such unliquidated debt to the gov't they shouldn't be able to renew a driver's license or receive a tax refund or any other gov't benefit etc. until they take care of this debt. Actually quite simple and very efficient way to get rid of the derelicts. But I don't think that this is the FL waterfront owners' real goal.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by zboss

Obamaboat:

Census: 49% of US Lives in Households Receiving Gov't Benefits - Breitbart

Does your 49% statistic include the military, LE, local, state and Fed gov't bureaucrats, employees of local, state and Fed gov'ts' subcontractors and vendors? Because with all of the above included it's most likely 90% these days, making your picking and choosing which recipients of gov't largess to criticize quite amusing.

[markpierce]

Other than unused and ignored boats in my marina, the closest permanent anchor-outs with poorly maintained boats are a score or more miles away in Sausalito Bay. I prefer to think of them as blobs on a radar screen.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Derelicts issue aside is it a cultural divide working here? I just can't imagine a New England waterfront home owner complaining too much about a few sailboats in front of his house. That's what sells these houses to begin with. In SE MA in the Elizabeth Islands, still privately owned by the Forbes family, anchoring in front of their mansions is actually encouraged to keep the owners' water views authentically New England-like.

In the north, there is a natural process to eliminate the vast majority of floating wrecks (and thus we never get to the half submerged wrecks)

Come winter, the homeless can't stay warm, so they either try to get the boat south (and never return) or they get it hauled and then disappear leaving it a problem for the marina owner.

Over time very few people try this method of living, so 99% of the problem goes away.

In Florida and other southern locations, you can make it work year round, so buying a floating wreck from someone for $10 works until it sinks and then they go find another one perpetuating the problem.

The end result is the boat floating off your New England harbor is likely in decent condition (at least visually), so it is less of a negative to home owners.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I don't understand how disposing of derelict boats left in the middle of the public anchorage is any different from disposing derelict cars left in the middle of the public road? Each and every boat supposedly has a last known registered legal owner. So the bills for the disposals go to them. It becomes up to them to prove that they sold it and properly de-registered it, etc. and to show a subsequent owner who should be billed. Otherwise they're on the hook for removal costs. And just like unpaid auto tickets, unpaid alimony or some such unliquidated debt to the gov't they shouldn't be able to renew a driver's license or receive a tax refund or any other gov't benefit etc. until they take care of this debt. Actually quite simple and very efficient way to get rid of the derelicts. But I don't think that this is the FL waterfront owners' real goal.

It is far easier and cheaper to tow a car left on the side of the road. If it is deemed a hazard, it can be removed immediately. If not a hazard, it's usually can be removed in 3 days. The cost of a tow is on the order of $100. There are little or no environmental issues to deal with. It's state law and that allows for a relatively simple process for the tow company to lay claim to ownership after a short period of time. At that point, even a non-working car will bring enough at the scrap yard to cover the cost of towing. The system is largely self supporting.

With a boat, they usually drift into the shallows before sinking, so they don't generally qualify as a hazard (at least in the legal perspective). To remove an old boat from the mangroves may take a day or more with multiple staff and specialized equipment. Also, environmental precautions and sometimes permits are required, so the cost can vary wildly but I would figure $1000 minimum if it's easy to get to and you can quickly get it afloat. Once the boat is clear, you need to pay a marina to haul the boat and then pay for storage on prime waterfront realestate. Getting ownership is much more complicated as you have a mix of state, fed and admiralty laws. Once you get ownership, you have disposal cost as most of the boat has no value, is labor intensive and the bottom paint is considered toxic waste, so rather than breaking even or making a small profit, it's costing at least a few thousand before the boat is completely disposed.

The system is not self supporting, so that means someone has to come up with the cash. The hobos are typically judgment proof. These are the same folks who will buy a $200 beater not bother to register, insure or have a license. You can enter all the judgments you want against them but there is no money to be gained and short of locking them up, they will just go out and repeat the process.

This is where mooring fields and limitations on anchoring times come into play. If they have to move every week or two, that forces them to maintain some level of seaworthiness but mostly makes it a hassle that a lot of these folks don't want to deal with. At the community level, there is a certain amount of hope that they will just leave and become someone else's problem. Even if they stay, if you can take ownership while the boat is still afloat, it drastically reduces the cost of removal and disposal.

Funky boats don't bother me if they are maintained but there is a very strong correlation between funky and sunk in the mangroves rotting away.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In the north, there is a natural process to eliminate the vast majority of floating wrecks (and thus we never get to the half submerged wrecks)

Come winter, the homeless can't stay warm, so they either try to get the boat south (and never return) or they get it hauled and then disappear leaving it a problem for the marina owner.

Over time very few people try this method of living, so 99% of the problem goes away.

In Florida and other southern locations, you can make it work year round, so buying a floating wreck from someone for $10 works until it sinks and then they go find another one perpetuating the problem.

The end result is the boat floating off your New England harbor is likely in decent condition (at least visually), so it is less of a negative to home owners.

If the boat has a liveaboard by definition it is not abandoned and therefore should not be of concern to a waterfront proeprty owner other than situations where such a liveaboard breaks existing laws. But what do you know? If that's the case then it is an issue of enforcing existing laws, be they polution related or whatever. Why the knee jerk attempt to pile up more laws if the exisiting ones are not enforced?

The proposed laws seemed designed not only to throw the proverbial baby with the bathwater but to throw out the tub as well. Somebody else's tub mind you. I just find it unconscionable than in supposedly capitalist free market society we allow for this to happen or even be contemplated. If the waterfront owners hate the boats in front of their houses they're free to sell and move somewhere else. And no, the liveaboads or anchoring cruisers should not be subsidizing with their livelyhoods and freedoms the whims and wants of people totally unrelated to them or their lives. This is just another twist in the saga of 1% showing the finger to the rest of 99%. And at some tipping point it will backfire and will be ugly.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

If the boat has a liveaboard by definition it is not abandoned and therefore should not be of concern to a waterfront proeprty owner other than situations where such a liveaboard breaks existing laws. But what do you know? If that's the case then it is an issue of enforcing existing laws, be they polution related or whatever. Why the knee jerk attempt to pile up more laws if the exisiting ones are not enforced?

The proposed laws seemed designed not only to throw the proverbial baby with the bathwater but to throw out the tub as well. Somebody else's tub mind you. I just find it unconscionable than in supposedly capitalist free market society we allow for this to happen or even be contemplated. If the waterfront owners hate the boats in front of their houses they're free to sell and move somewhere else. And no, the liveaboads or anchoring cruisers should not be subsidizing with their livelyhoods and freedoms the whims and wants of people totally unrelated to them or their lives. This is just another twist on the saga of 1% showing the finger to the rest of 99%. And at some tipping point it will backfire and will be ugly.

You miss-read my intent. More laws in and of themselves will do nothing.

In the north, it's not a problem because nature takes care of it without legal enforcement.

In the south, nature doesn't take care of the problem. So any law that is enacted must account for the judgment proof nature of these people. Any law should be focused on:
- Removing as soon as possible. Costs go up dramatically the worse condition the boat is in.
- Also as much as I hate intrusive govt, requiring a level of seaworthiness is another good approach. An easy way to do this is anchoring limits and mooring fields. It takes time/money/effort to move a boat once a week. While not a 100 solution, many will give up.

Just saying it's illegal to dump an old boat will solve nothing.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The system is not self supporting, so that means someone has to come up with the cash. The hobos are typically judgment proof. These are the same folks who will buy a $200 beater not bother to register, insure or have a license. You can enter all the judgments you want against them but there is no money to be gained and short of locking them up, they will just go out and repeat the process.

All valid points. But again there is an easy solution. Say instead of pushing the problem down the road (where next?) FL enacts a boat disposal fee of $5 (or whatever needed to cover the estimated annual costs) paid by any boat initial registration and annual renewal. Not gonna break anyone's budget but may be enough to cover a permanent state staffed team of boat removal specialists roving around the state after such derelicts and enforcing existing laws upon derelict looking liveaboards. And some of that fee could cover legal costs associated with chasing derelicts' owners. That way no rights of regular cruisers/liveaboards are infringed upon.

And btw I'm not so sure that most of them are judgment free. I'd bet that most now feel protected by the economics of chasing them. If the economics change many would pay up. And these recouped costs could go back into the fund for chasing more derelict boats. A win-win loop. And at some point two things will happen - 1. the costs of disposal will come down as it will be done by salaried state empolyees and not by private contractors bent on milking whoever is on the hook to pay them and 2) most derelicts' owners will realize that the disposal costs they now dread so much are affordable enough to deal with them appropriately. Just as car disposal rates are manageable and don't force car owners to abandon junk cars left and right.

And btw most junked boats still have tremendous value in parts. A typical 30footer can probably fetch between $3,000 and $5,000 in parts over time. Surely enough to cover a typical tow and haul situation. Except that under the current system the cost of tow and haul is born by the state and/or local LE but the profit of parting the derelict out is made by the private junkyard. Of course under such system the state/LE have little incentive to be very agressive with the derelicts. And the private junkyard has no incentive to tow and haul relying only on the parting out income as they will at best only break even in that situation.

[weavis]

On the West Coast of Florida, I proposed a plan to have a boat breakers yard where a vessel could be be motored/sailed/towed to, the documents given to the yard and for no charge. The boat could be then refurbished, stripped or dismantled depending on the condition.

No one was interested.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You miss-read my intent. More laws in and of themselves will do nothing.

In the north, it's not a problem because nature takes care of it without legal enforcement.

In the south, nature doesn't take care of the problem. So any law that is enacted must account for the judgment proof nature of these people. Any law should be focused on:
- Removing as soon as possible. Costs go up dramatically the worse condition the boat is in.
- Also as much as I hate intrusive govt, requiring a level of seaworthiness is another good approach. An easy way to do this is anchoring limits and mooring fields. It takes time/money/effort to move a boat once a week. While not a 100 solution, many will give up.

Just saying it's illegal to dump an old boat will solve nothing.

Limiting anchoring is just another NIMBY short sighted solution. After each community experiences some level of extensive anchoring in it waters what's next - outlawing all anchoring and forcing liveaboards/crusiers to pay for mooring/dock rentals? The anchoring was going on in those areas long before those houses were built. Therefore the tail should not be allowed to wag the dog. And clearing away derelicts and abandoned boats will go a long way toward making both sides at least respect each other from a distance.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by weavis

On the West Coast of Florida, I proposed a plan to have a boat breakers yard where a vessel could be be motored/sailed/towed to, the documents given to the yard and for no charge. The boat could be then refurbished, stripped or dismantled depending on the condition.

No one was interested.

Great idea!

BTW there are some yards here in Northeast which will do something similar if you bring the boat to them. Or they will take the boat for free if it's on the hard. I was told by my hauler that they will haul it for free if at least 2 out of 3 criteria are met - boat has 1) clear title, 2) road worthy trailer, 3) engine that starts. If it's a sailboat w/o a trailer they will take her if the owner pays their hauling fees, which are quite reasonable compared to the industry average. They then either part them out or in some cases sell them whole and still make a decent profit (that's how I know of $3-5K gross parting out a 30footer over time).

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

what's next - outlawing all anchoring and forcing liveaboards/crusiers to pay for mooring/dock rentals?

My opinion is yes, that is where we are heading if we are not very careful, very similar thing was experienced by the RV community years ago when it was in it's infancy. Used to be most towns had "car parks" at the edges of the city limits where people "auto camped", they became run down areas where criminal activity was rampant and not places where people stayed for a short time before moving on, shanty towns if you will.
Those who don't cruise want us hemmed up in boat RV parks, and for the exact same reasons.

In my opinion the spirit of allowing anchoring in Federal waters back in the day was to assist in navigation, it's intent was not to allow a free place for people to permanently anchor a place to live.

I believe there is precedence for this, with the car parks.

All this is just my opinion of course, don't take it as any kind of fact.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Does your 49% statistic include the military, LE, local, state and Fed gov't bureaucrats, employees of local, state and Fed gov'ts' subcontractors and vendors? Because with all of the above included it's most likely 90% these days, making your picking and choosing which recipients of gov't largess to criticize quite amusing.

There's a big difference between working for the government and sitting on your ass and receiving welfare and food stamps.