Death of an Anchorage

[hellosailor]

The North Lake/South Lake situation in Florida has been in the papers today. Apparently several local towns are taking it up right now, because they claim there ARE abandoned and derelict boats, and they're in the process of getting funding for removal of those, and the local landowners [read: tax payers, voters] are tired of seeing "buckets of crap" being dumped overboard from some of the boats on a regular basis. Or so they allege.

Mike makes the logical point. You can camp on BLM land in the US, that's public land. But no, you can't stay in one spot forever, and you can't pitch a tent on every public square in America either. If you monopolize a public resource--you've just taken it away from the rest of the public, and that's not right either.

The affected towns in that part of Florida are looking at putting in a pricey mooring field, because legally, if they set up a mooring field they can pre-empt that area from "anchoring" and if they can charge $40/ball/night, that will do what cover charges everywhere do: Keep out the riff-raff.

No one is happy about the situation but no one has come up with a better solution.

[Mistress Sirena]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A time limitation is one way to share a scarce public resource.

"better solution; create more resource.
Solutions are far better than restrictions "

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mistress Sirena

"better solution; create more resource.
Solutions are far better than restrictions "

Resources by nature are limited. That’s called economics. New resources are created but typically slowly and at cost. There are crystals and unicorns that may change this but thus far they’ve not actually performed.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don’t have an understanding of all the details in this specific Florida situation, but the initial post got me thinking about a comparison to camping on public land.

In Canada it is called Crown Land. In the USA a similar designation is BLM land (Bureau of Land Management), or perhaps National Forests. In these cases, free (or very cheap) camping is allowed, but there are time limits of how long someone can stay in one location — usually in the range of weeks.

Seems to me there is an obvious parallel. In both cases it is a right of citizenship to be able to use these lands. But this right is tempered by the need to share this commons with others, hence the time limit.

Obviously enforcement is a problem in these cases, but setting that aside, why hasn’t the same standards of ‘free’ but time-limited usage, become the norm with anchoring?

Very well said and very rational. You can't just decide to live in the public woods in the US either. Two problems:

1. Jurisdiction. Unlike a park, the rules are not clear. This makes regulating the situation complex.
2. It's not the solution people want. And so the resources to make "1" happen are not logically assigned.

Makes perfect sense. It is public place, which makes it neither private nor free, but somewhere in between. Unfortunately, not everyone is good at sharing.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

The North Lake/South Lake situation in Florida has been in the papers today. Apparently several local towns are taking it up right now, because they claim there ARE abandoned and derelict boats, and they're in the process of getting funding for removal of those, and the local landowners [read: tax payers, voters] are tired of seeing "buckets of crap" being dumped overboard from some of the boats on a regular basis. Or so they allege.

Mike makes the logical point. You can camp on BLM land in the US, that's public land. But no, you can't stay in one spot forever, and you can't pitch a tent on every public square in America either. If you monopolize a public resource--you've just taken it away from the rest of the public, and that's not right either.

The affected towns in that part of Florida are looking at putting in a pricey mooring field, because legally, if they set up a mooring field they can pre-empt that area from "anchoring" and if they can charge $40/ball/night, that will do what cover charges everywhere do: Keep out the riff-raff.

No one is happy about the situation but no one has come up with a better solution.

Actually, unfortunately, you can. There are cardboard "houses" and tarp encampments within a block of the base of the Space Needle tourist zone in Seattle.... and everywhere else. The city's hands are tied. As the Feds have ruled you cant displace someone from their home. "Coming to a city near you".
Same thing with broken down RV's that dont run parked in no parking areas, Now they can't be towed.... I would imagine that's what broken down boat's rules will be soon, if not already in your area.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Very well said and very rational. You can't just decide to live in the public woods in the US either. Two problems:

1. Jurisdiction. Unlike a park, the rules are not clear. This makes regulating the situation complex.
2. It's not the solution people want. And so the resources to make "1" happen are not logically assigned.

Makes perfect sense. It is public place, which makes it neither private nor free, but somewhere in between. Unfortunately, not everyone is good at sharing.

Thanks Thin, it seems like a sensible way to approach this issue. We already enact and enforce various other regulations regarding boaters. Safety requirements, pollution standards, commercial activities … all these and much more are already enforced. So why not apply the same approach to anchoring?

Seems to me this would address the issues of derilect boats clogging up the waterways, and would also be good for boaters who want to use (but not abuse) the public resource.

[hpeer]

Except it’s as Cheechako says. I’ve seen entire tent towns in Oceanside, CA and that was about 15 years ago. We see individuals living in tents in highway margins in downtown Philly. Seattle has a huge homeless problem. Philly subways are an open urinal. There are no public toilet facilities, you must go into an eatery to use facilities, and then you end up with the Starbucks mess if you recall that. I’ve had people poo behind our house more than once.

In Philly they just shut down an entire marina with little notice, several liveaboards in there. It will be interesting to see how that case pans out.

The USA is s hot mess.

[Minggat]

Originally Posted by gmakhs

I am totally against what you say , why limit the stay in anchorage??? Someone should be able to stay as long as he wish because you move doesn't mean other should do.to .

Seamanship is what is missing no restrictions

And I am totally against what YOU say.

My boat is in Hawaii. We have a huge derelict boat problem in the state run MARINAS and anchorages. I grumble at the state a lot, because they can’t get their part right. But their part is created by the “broken dreamers”. Some who have fallen on hard times, and some who have chosen hard time. It doesn’t matter.

Boating attracts the wealthy and the indigent. Living on boats without being responsible is not boating.

[ArmyDaveNY]

As has been pointed out, there are many factors involved. Here in New York City there is an interesting parallel and that is people living in campers and RVs. We have been seeing this more and more over the past decade or two.



Mike O'Reilly and Gord May make a good point about the time limitations. One common problem with most municipalities is that they pass laws as a knee jerk reaction. Too often these laws don't address the fundamental issues and all too often make matters worse. Also, it does no good to pass laws if there is no enforcement. I am not talking about zero tolerance draconian enforcement but there has to be some sort of follow up.

[hellosailor]

""better solution; create more resource."
No, she's right. What they really need is to dig some big-ass canals and artificial lagoons in what used to be the Everglades, so there will be more good free anchorages for pleasure boaters.
Collateral benefits include reducing the alligator, python, and mosquito populations, and draining all that pesky swamp. Works for me.
Now, there's just that pesky matter of who they're gonna get to pay for all this digging...

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I hear you re mooring fields, but it's a solution that would chase off group 2, thereby ensuring that the average cruiser could more easily find transient spots.

I think it could chase off group 1 (cruisers), too.

Once the price gets above some limit ($15, $40, $50, depending on your budget) it becomes absurd to pay that every night, when all you really wanted to do was anchor for a while and be on your way.

Sure, in places where there are shoreside services, it starts to make more sense. It's the remote anchorages taken over by moorings that bother me most.

[mikeod]

You all talk about time limits for anchoring. What about time limits for mooring holders. We have harbors with a 25 year wait to get a mooring location. And those that have them keep then forever and pass them down for generations. Whether I stay 1 day or 30 when I leave someone can use that spot. Once a mooring is placed nobody else can ever use that spot.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Mistress Sirena

"better solution; create more resource.
Solutions are far better than restrictions "

I think you've been listening too much to Alexandra Occasio Cortez, the 29 year old newb congress critter who thinks Unicorn answers are what is needed. "You just pay it", no matter the cost.
In other words, you think the answer to insufficient anchorage spaces due to the detritus clogging our current anchorages is by just simply creating new anchorages? Good luck with that !!

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I think you've been listening too much to Alexandra Occasio Cortez, the 29 year old newb congress critter who thinks Unicorn answers are what is needed. "You just pay it", no matter the cost.
In other words, you think the answer to insufficient anchorage spaces due to the detritus clogging our current anchorages is by just simply creating new anchorages? Good luck with that !!

This, build more anchorages, of folks who are deeply committed to the current economic philosophy. Mega infrastructure projects et al. It is at heart the Consumerist idea; don’t stich it, ditch it. We have been infected by the concept that there is always more, no limits to growth, if I don’t have what I want it’s because you’ve stolen my share.

Perhaps I too suffer from this because I want to get away from the congestion of people, to live where things are not so over pressed. To have freedom to roam. Thus I’m drawn to the aquatic life style.

[SqPeg]

The "Tragedy of the Commons"