Are Liveaboards Unwanted? Disliked? All over Everywhere?

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Hudson Force

No, I'm not sure at all and my speculation is only from my experiences limited to the southeast USA.

For years I've heard of people complaining of difficulties with local authorities and their anchoring opportuities in specific places in Florida such as, Gulfport, Sarasota, Marco Island, The Keys, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Stuart, St. Augustine, etc. For over forty years I've continued to cruise through these areas and anchor. To date, I've never been approached or questioned by any authority regarding anchoring.

Is this due to my timing, specific location, registration or home port, appearance or vessel condition, coincidental luck? .... I can only guess. I don't know the answer!

My experiences are different than Hudson Force's. Decades on a lake. Less than 3 years but over 50,000 miles coastal. Plus life experience but less time there than him as well.

What I've observed, found, believe is that several things we do contribute to the extent of the problems we have or don't have. It starts with knowing and following the rules and laws. It then includes appearance, demeanor (in this case the demeanor our boat presents as well). Courtesy and clear showing of respect for authority. Exhibition of skill and knowledge in how we go about things. Appearance.

But it's not just luck. Luck might be the difference between being approached once or not at all. However, for those who feel they are continuously harassed vs. those who have no issues this far exceeds the odds of simply luck. It is something the two are doing differently.

I saw this with jet skiers on the lake. One would be complaining that the wardens were harassing them and always stopping them. Well, as they buzzed by a dock or small fishing boat, carried three people on a two person ski, went out after dark with no lights, you get the picture.

If a boat looks unkempt and in disarray then one is going to be more wary they might be dumping their sewage. One that insists on anchoring too close to the channel is going to be harassed as is one who anchors blocking entry and exit to marinas. One who is loud and obnoxious and shows clear signs of over indulgence of alcohol on their anchored boat is going to be approached more.

And when approached, how that ends up going is in our hands. We control ourselves which in turn influences the authority approaching. It's no different than police on the roads. "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" get you a lot better results than belligerence and being obstinate. Now even the most polite can occasionally find someone in authority in a bad mood, handling things inappropriately, but that will be rare. When any of us continue to find ourselves in unpleasant situations that others don't, then we need to examine ourselves and what we're doing differently. As long as we place the blame for it on others, we'll never make it better.

Profiling is a part of all law enforcement, most of it legal and appropriate, some over the line. If you get harassed at a very high rate, there is something about your profile that is contributing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Hudson Force

Moving back out to the "big picture" as one without any knowledge of Richardson's Bay, I would wish to emphasize tha living aboard is not necessarily accompanied with living with less comfort, security, resources or more dependance on social services.

We are living aboard in the same manner as most of the live-aboards that we know,- fully employed or retired, moderate incomes, often underway or cruising and benefitted by some of the freedoms that come without ownership of a large amount of "stuff".

It's a mistake to associate living aboard only with an atempt to secure low income housing.

The problem is those using it as an atempt to secure low income housing are spoiling it for the rest of us. When they openly and wilfully violate the minimal rules, the expected result happens...more stringent rules. It's the old "one bad apple" rule in effect.

We also have never seen any of this hatred of liveaboards. It's derelicks looking for low income housing are the ones not wanted.

That may be right or it may be wrong but it is drastically different from a hatred of cruisers. Everywhere we've been cruisers are welcomed.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The problem is those using it as an atempt to secure low income housing are spoiling it for the rest of us. When they openly and wilfully violate the minimal rules, the expected result happens...more stringent rules. It's the old "one bad apple" rule in effect.

We also have never seen any of this hatred of liveaboards. It's derelicks looking for low income housing are the ones not wanted.

That may be right or it may be wrong but it is drastically different from a hatred of cruisers. Everywhere we've been cruisers are welcomed.

Neither those who oppose all rules nor those who oppose all anchoring and mooring are contributing anything toward a solution. Hard lines at the extreme only go to strengthen the argument against you.

Once one can agree that the ultimate solution is somewhere between the extremes and allows anchoring and mooring but imposes certain rules, then it's just a matter of ongoing talk and negotiations to reach a solution. The solution will not be one either side considers perfect but one both sides can live with.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The problem is those using it as an atempt to secure low income housing are spoiling it for the rest of us. When they openly and wilfully violate the minimal rules, the expected result happens...more stringent rules. It's the old "one bad apple" rule in effect.

We also have never seen any of this hatred of liveaboards. It's derelicks looking for low income housing are the ones not wanted.

That may be right or it may be wrong but it is drastically different from a hatred of cruisers. Everywhere we've been cruisers are welcomed.

When I first considered selling my mortgage free home 25 years ago, my motivation was primarily to eliminate as much stress from my life as possible. When you own stuff there are consequences you must bear, like paying real estate taxes, auto and home insurance, auto licensing and registration... The list goes on. In order to pay for the consequences of ownership, you may have to work at a job you hate with people you don't like or respect. For me at least the obvious path was toward owning less and finding a means of obtaining lower cost shelter. So, while I never expected at the time I'd complete the better part of two global circumnavigations, I have. Am I to be faulted for initially wanting low cost 'housing' and fulfilling the goal by buying a boat?

I don't think derelicts look for low cost housing, although at my age some may consider my body to closely resemble a derelict.

There are two critical distinctions to be made here. First is my belief one's state of mind is relevant to identifying people on boats as 'anchor outs' or live aboard cruisers. The former will view their relationships with others in terms of 'us & them', exhibit a seige mentality leading to activities they feel are necessary to 'defend their rights' and maintain an 'in your face' way of interacting with others. They may or may not have a derelict boat and few to no skills or experience aquired over time having to do with the operation and use of their boat.

Live aboard cruisers have a state of mind totally opposite to the typical anchor out. They view others as hosts and potential friends, make an effort to learn and adhere to local rules and restrictions, and have considerable knowledge of and experience in managing their boats.

Another poster joked in response to my claim I am a cruiser because as far as she could tell my boat had not moved from its mooring for some time. What she fails to recognize is my state of mind, experience and knowledge that will for as long as I live identify me as a cruiser. Even if my initial motivation for buying and moving aboard my boat was to obtain low cost shelter.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by BandB

Neither those who oppose all rules nor those who oppose all anchoring and mooring are contributing anything toward a solution. Hard lines at the extreme only go to strengthen the argument against you.

Once one can agree that the ultimate solution is somewhere between the extremes and allows anchoring and mooring but imposes certain rules, then it's just a matter of ongoing talk and negotiations to reach a solution. The solution will not be one either side considers perfect but one both sides can live with.

The point is I don't see anyone opposing all anchoring and mooring...until it gets abused by a small number...yes, then some over react and crusiers get pulled into the debate.

The solution we have found is to differentiate ourselves from those that abuse the situation. Keeping a tidy, seaworthy boat and not anchoring in someones backyard for weeks on end, goes a long way.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wrong

When I first considered selling my mortgage free home 25 years ago, my motivation was primarily to eliminate as much stress from my life as possible. When you own stuff there are consequences you must bear, like paying real estate taxes, auto and home insurance, auto licensing and registration... The list goes on. In order to pay for the consequences of ownership, you may have to work at a job you hate with people you don't like or respect. For me at least the obvious path was toward owning less and finding a means of obtaining lower cost shelter. So, while I never expected at the time I'd complete the better part of two global circumnavigations, I have. Am I to be faulted for initially wanting low cost 'housing' and fulfilling the goal by buying a boat?

I don't think derelicts look for low cost housing, although at my age some may consider my body to closely resemble a derelict.

There are two critical distinctions to be made here. First is my belief one's state of mind is relevant to identifying people on boats as 'anchor outs' or live aboard cruisers. The former will view their relationships with others in terms of 'us & them', exhibit a seige mentality leading to activities they feel are necessary to 'defend their rights' and maintain an 'in your face' way of interacting with others. They may or may not have a derelict boat and few to no skills or experience aquired over time having to do with the operation and use of their boat.

Live aboard cruisers have a state of mind totally opposite to the typical anchor out. They view others as hosts and potential friends, make an effort to learn and adhere to local rules and restrictions, and have considerable knowledge of and experience in managing their boats.

Another poster joked in response to my claim I am a cruiser because as far as she could tell my boat had not moved from its mooring for some time. What she fails to recognize is my state of mind, experience and knowledge that will for as long as I live identify me as a cruiser. Even if my initial motivation for buying and moving aboard my boat was to obtain low cost shelter.

I agree with much of what you say but at some point to live in society, you must do some things you don't want to. No problem with minimizing those but taking it to an extreme tends to result in problems.

I suppose it's the old argument between being frugle and being cheap.

Living a simpler less expensive lifestyle is fine and most will find no fault (frugle). Doing it at other expense is not (cheap).

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I agree with much of what you say but at some point to live in society, you must do some things you don't want to.

Not sure how this relates to my post because I never suggested living in a society doesn't require compromise. The 'anchor out' mentality is not conducive to compromise while clearly, the live aboard cruiser accepts compromise is necessary to sustain the lifestyle.

No problem with minimizing those but taking it to an extreme tends to result in problems.

What do you consider to be "taking it to an extreme"

I suppose it's the old argument between being frugle and being cheap.

Living a simpler less expensive lifestyle is fine and most will find no fault (frugle). Doing it at other expense is not (cheap).

Please expound.

[Hudson Force]

Originally Posted by Wrong

..................
.................. Am I to be faulted for initially wanting low cost 'housing' and fulfilling the goal by buying a boat? ......................

I have been among those who find fault with using floating "vessels" for low income housing, but this is different from reaping the benefit of low cost housing while in pursuit of fulfilling a goal. I, too, have gained financial benefits by owning less, but like you, I've also been a cruiser and sought adventurous goals.

I'm probably guilty of some elitism by not accepting the choice of a destitute person to live on a derelict vessel instead of a cardboard box under a bridge. Are there public spaces that are excluded from use by those without resources? These are the problems we deal with. Not seeking adventure with less cost and stress for those that pursue goals.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Not sure how this relates to my post because I never suggested living in a society doesn't require compromise. The 'anchor out' mentality is not conducive to compromise while clearly, the live aboard cruiser accepts compromise is necessary to sustain the lifestyle.
It was in regards to your comment about having to work a job you hate. To a degree, you can minimize the stuff you don't like about life but there will always be some undesireable things you have to do if you want to be part of society.


What do you consider to be "taking it to an extreme"

Of course it's shades of gray but for example, there was a thead a year or so ago where gentleman was vehemently defending his right to occupy a very small anchorage in tourist town on pretty much a permanent basis. He could care less the impact on other cruisers or the shore side buisness that catered to cruisers. As far as he was concerned it was his God given right to permanently take over that prime location. Then he gets upset that they are looking at putting in anchoring restirctions.


Please expound.
A frugle cruiser will anchor out more than use marinas and use the occasional free dock for a day here and there. If another cruser comes in they will make space or if they've been thier for a couple days move out and anchor to make room.

The cheap boater will find a free dock and sit there until someone forces them off. Another cheap boater trick I've seen is they pull into the fuel dock after it closes and head out in the morning before they open and never pay the slip fee.

I could come up with lots of examples but I think you get the point.

......

[Stu Jackson]

The cheap boater will find a free dock and sit there until someone forces them off. Another cheap boater trick I've seen is they pull into the fuel dock after it closes and head out in the morning before they open and never pay the slip fee.

Nope, those are usually the rich ******** who do that. Dontcha know that's how they got rich?

I think the real distinction that you all have been waltzing around is this:

"How do you tell the difference between a bum and a cruiser?"

And this is not a lead-in to the Joke Thread. It's a serious question that society has been attempting to deal with for ages.

I'd guess all of us could identify, within seconds, the bums: they sleep under freeways, they live on derelict boats that can't move, etc.

Easy-peasy to differentiate between a boat that can navigate vs. a wreck that still floats.

Then, what do you do with them once they're identified?

Someone earlier alluded to the mental illness problem in our society. It's real and it's true.

But since back when that moron Regan threw all the mentally ill folks out of hospitals, it's only gotten worse.

If the idiots in Washington would stop lowering taxes on the 1% and their corporate cronies, and would start helping the rest of society instead of demonizing everyone who didn't drive a Mercedes, and start funding health, education and infrastructure, perhaps we could start helping instead of continually criticizing those who are less fortunate than we may be.

[a64pilot]

Lets not let this go down a political road please, that will only lead to closing the thread.
Seemed to be a pretty good discussion so far

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Wrong

The 'anchor out' mentality is not conducive to compromise while clearly, the live aboard cruiser accepts compromise is necessary to sustain the lifestyle.

I should note that most anchorouts have no room to compromise and no money or very little money. Some have a $600 a month SSD that they live on. As a liveaboard slip in the central bay is around $600 a month, there is a really no real option for those on the bay. If they had money, I'm pretty sure many would pick a marina to live in. Of course for the Richardson bay crowd, there really isn't any liveaboard slips available.

If I was on the east coast I would be traveling up and down the ICW. On the west coast with socal being a wee bit pricey, I have few options at the moment. In two years I'll be 62. Then I'll have three times the income I have now. If Mexico had reliable fast and cheap cell internet, I could work down there. But for now, I cruise between the SF bay and delta.

Mind you I think I can live just fine in California on $600 a month. Actually I make $800 ish a month, sometimes more, some times less. But after taxes (yes I pay taxes), fee's, I have around $600 a month to get by on.

I do get priceless sunsets.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

The cheap boater will find a free dock and sit there until someone forces them off. Another cheap boater trick I've seen is they pull into the fuel dock after it closes and head out in the morning before they open and never pay the slip fee.

Nope, those are usually the rich ******** who do that. Dontcha know that's how they got rich?

I think the real distinction that you all have been waltzing around is this:

"How do you tell the difference between a bum and a cruiser?"

And this is not a lead-in to the Joke Thread. It's a serious question that society has been attempting to deal with for ages.

I'd guess all of us could identify, within seconds, the bums: they sleep under freeways, they live on derelict boats that can't move, etc.

Easy-peasy to differentiate between a boat that can navigate vs. a wreck that still floats.

Then, what do you do with them once they're identified?

Someone earlier alluded to the mental illness problem in our society. It's real and it's true.

But since back when that moron Regan threw all the mentally ill folks out of hospitals, it's only gotten worse.

If the idiots in Washington would stop lowering taxes on the 1% and their corporate cronies, and would start helping the rest of society instead of demonizing everyone who didn't drive a Mercedes, and start funding health, education and infrastructure, perhaps we could start helping instead of continually criticizing those who are less fortunate than we may be.

Stu. Well observed.

Rather than offer a political solution, which is really just an opinion. Id like to offer 2 of my own observations without comment.

First, politicians are not stupid people. Not the ones who are the top. What appears to be stupid decisions are based on our acceptance of their reasons for doing something. We get hung up on the stupidity of their actions without being aware of the REAL reason for it happening.

Secondly, I have observed a slight rising in poor peoples finances so that they are not absolutely on the deck, (Mentally ill and incompetents aside)-and coincidentally, a lowering of the middle earners to just above subsistence level.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

The cheap boater will find a free dock and sit there until someone forces them off. Another cheap boater trick I've seen is they pull into the fuel dock after it closes and head out in the morning before they open and never pay the slip fee.

Nope, those are usually the rich ******** who do that. Dontcha know that's how they got rich?

I think the real distinction that you all have been waltzing around is this:

"How do you tell the difference between a bum and a cruiser?"

And this is not a lead-in to the Joke Thread. It's a serious question that society has been attempting to deal with for ages.

I'd guess all of us could identify, within seconds, the bums: they sleep under freeways, they live on derelict boats that can't move, etc.

Easy-peasy to differentiate between a boat that can navigate vs. a wreck that still floats.

Then, what do you do with them once they're identified?

Someone earlier alluded to the mental illness problem in our society. It's real and it's true.

But since back when that moron Regan threw all the mentally ill folks out of hospitals, it's only gotten worse.

If the idiots in Washington would stop lowering taxes on the 1% and their corporate cronies, and would start helping the rest of society instead of demonizing everyone who didn't drive a Mercedes, and start funding health, education and infrastructure, perhaps we could start helping instead of continually criticizing those who are less fortunate than we may be.

I'll agree that a lot of them are mentally ill (or at least boarderline) but that doesn't mean they should just be given a free pass to do as they please.

Demonizing isn't a solution (against the rich or the poor, and there has been plenty on this thread...some subtle and some not so subtle).

So other than throwing other peoples money at it, what is the underlying solution you propose? The biggest problem with helping the mentally ill is it's really hard to help someone who doesn't want to be helped. If we build a big mental ward, do you expect they will suddenly all voluntarily move off the derelick boats?

I ask this as a serious question. The status quo will just result in more rules being applied to cruisers and more complaints about rules being applied. There needs to be a viable solution.

[Hudson Force]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Lets not let this go down a political road please, that will only lead to closing the thread.
Seemed to be a pretty good discussion so far

Let me add emphasis to this request. Obvioulsy, the topic of the thread is "political" in nature, but it will be the downfall of the discussion if we fall into the trap of bashing the govenment, political parties, taxes or those that stand to the "left" or "right"!