Are Liveaboards Unwanted? Disliked? All over Everywhere?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

1 Hmm, I wonder where that lack of funding came from. Tax breaks for the 1% and corporations?

2 Good one. (I did "get" the emoticon! ) That'd sure solve the problem quickly, although maybe not so painlessly. Judge jury and executioner all rolled up into one.

For those knocking welfare and why some choose to use it, have you ever considered the same politicians who have given us #1 above haven't raised the minimum wage in like forever? Ya think folks who figure out that working at MacDonalds is worse than getting a welfare check can't do math?

Stu,

Funding for RBRA must be approved by the four or five municipalities on the board. I don't know how many of the city councils must vote yes in order to approve funding, but when it comes to each of the municipalities budgets, Richardson Bay is not a huge priority. Most would like to see the anchorage closed. Fact is though most have given up on that option, and realize enforcement is a central requirement if sanity is going to prevail.

Odds are pretty good the funds will be approved.

They have no role in setting minimum state or national wages...

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Most would like to see the anchorage closed.

Ah that would be trick as Richardson bay is a federal special anchorage governed by 33cfr110 and any infractions would be addressed by the coast guard.. The towns surrounding it don't really have jurisdiction. Even though they think they do.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Odds are pretty good the funds will be approved.

They have no role in setting minimum state or national wages...

Two separate issues.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Two separate issues.

Well, yeah. There are lots of 'issues' addressed in this thread, some of which have only a remote relationship with the primary subject matter asking whether or not liveaboards are disliked everywhere.

Some blame rich folks and others like to blame the government for the evolution of controls and restrictions on living aboard and or anchoring. Some say problems related to boats and their owners are exaggerated. Others complain the problems are serious and the government isn't doing enough.

Some justify, indeed advocate for the use of boats as 'low income' and indigent shelter as a response to unemployment and low pay. Others argue most are unemployed and or indigent because they're just not trying hard enough to find a job. Then there are people with criminal records or who have physical or mental disabilities that create an additional bar to getting a job or finding somewhere to live other than on a boat.

The list is endless. The solutions due to social, political, cultural and economic disparaties are not easy to find, let alone implement.

So, what does your comment about minimum wages have to do with the matter of whether or not liveaboards are disliked everywhere?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah that would be trick as Richardson bay is a federal special anchorage governed by 33cfr110 and any infractions would be addressed by the coast guard.. The towns surrounding it don't really have jurisdiction. Even though they think they do.

It is naive to believe the RBRA has not been in communication with the coast guard and consequently there will be coordination and cooperation between the two.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Wrong

It is naive to believe the RBRA has not been in communication with the coast guard and consequently there will be coordination and cooperation between the two.

Only the coast guard can set rules for a special anchorage. It's in the code of federal regulations. So anything that the RBRA needs to issue, needs to come on coast guard letterhead. RBRA does NOT have jurisdiction over a federal anchorage.

I suspect the fine folks at the RBRA have never heard of a federal special anchorage or what it implies.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Only the coast guard can set rules for a special anchorage. It's in the code of federal regulations. So anything that the RBRA needs to issue, needs to come on coast guard letterhead. RBRA does NOT have jurisdiction over a federal anchorage.

I suspect the fine folks at the RBRA have never heard of a federal special anchorage or what it implies.

It's not just local governments. The state I live in got slapped down by the Coast Guard, just before starting construction on a bridge they had not bothered to get cleared, height wise, with the Coast Guard. Boats were literally being built, upstream of it, that would not have cleared the new bridge (the old one having been a drawbridge).

[a64pilot]

SC a lot of us would like to argue that the State of Fl and or it's municipalities don't have jurisdiction over navigable waters, only the Federal Government does but apparently that argument has been lost long ago.

I would be surprised if the municipalities in California aren't granted "ownership" or at least control Federal waters too, if they ask.

All the Florida anchoring issues of a couple of months ago represent to me a danger in the precedent they may well set. All it takes is a fell swoop of the pen for us to lose a lot of rights and privileges we now have.
I learned in the military that nothing is guaranteed, Stop Loss, Reduction in Force, etc. "Acts of Congress" really aren't that hard to have happen.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

SC a lot of us would like to argue that the State of Fl and or it's municipalities don't have jurisdiction over navigable waters, only the Federal Government does but apparently that argument has been lost long ago.

I would be surprised if the municipalities in California aren't granted "ownership" or at least control Federal waters too, if they ask.

All the Florida anchoring issues of a couple of months ago represent to me a danger in the precedent they may well set. All it takes is a fell swoop of the pen for us to lose a lot of rights and privileges we now have.
I learned in the military that nothing is guaranteed, Stop Loss, Reduction in Force, etc. "Acts of Congress" really aren't that hard to have happen.

Often, it's not that they have the right to do something, but rather,
1. the federal government just doesn't care enough to oppose it,
2. it is too expensive for private citizens to oppose it.

Getting into a legal battle with someone who can just raise taxes when they run out of money, is not a fun place to be.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

All the Florida anchoring issues of a couple of months ago represent to me a danger in the precedent they may well set. .

But the only precedent possibly set, if you believe any was set, is that the extremists are not going to get their way. Yes, there was talk, there were views from all sides, there were bills proposed, but ultimately cooler heads prevailed.

None of us in FL can say that we know how things will end up with certainty. However, what we've seen is slow movement and careful consideration given to the topic. We see the state reaffirming their control so municipalities can't go crazy setting their own rules. We see pilot programs. And what we see is still a landscape that is unrivaled in boater accommodation with anchorages readily available throughout the state. We also see some marinas that won't allow liveaboards but many others that do.

Florida is a very large state and so many different areas and people with different views. Central Florida and South Florida are two different worlds. We have legislators who take a vacation from New Port Richey to Fort Lauderdale and want to change state laws. The funniest to me was years ago when one such lawmaker wanted to outlaw thongs. He wanted to specify a minimum width of the strip of fabric. Boy that brought up all sorts of questions such as "was he going to hire thong police" (Bet there would be a lot of volunteers) and just how you do the inspection. Is it the strip of fabric width in original state or after being worn and ....you know... All this because he was upset with the thongs he saw worn in Fort Lauderdale. Guess it's good he didn't go to South Beach or even Haulover. Suggestion was maybe he should stay on the west coast.

Just because a law is proposed, doesn't mean it's happening or that the view of the one proposing it has any influence.

An interesting side note regarding the more extreme anchoring rules some were proposing. The real fear wasn't those representatives who represent coastal districts. The majority of them aren't going to go too far. Instead it was a fear of those who don't live on coasts and might just jump on a bandwagon on something they have no knowledge of.

So the only precedent to this point is that reason and moderation prevails once again over extremism.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by BandB

But the only precedent possibly set, if you believe any was set, is that the extremists are not going to get their way.

I don't think it's over, we will see it again, probably not too long from now, they just simply ran out of time if I remember correctly?
I don't think any precedent was set, not yet.

Real point is anchoring / live aboard issues etc are not a State or even regional issue, what happens in other places may well set a precedent.

I will state that "those boats" as people that don't like them are all thought of as one, they don't differentiate, except as someone pointed out the big crewed Motor yachts maybe, but they rest of us whether our boats are well kept or not and we only stay a few days or not, we are part of the problem in their mind.

[sailorchic34]

I should note that the coast guard only regulates special anchorages. Town water ways on and off the ICW can install mooring fields, etc. There are few Special anchorages and Richardson bay, just happens to be one. It's on all charts of the area.

But as discussed above the coast guard does have final say on all bridges over the ICW.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't think it's over, we will see it again, probably not too long from now, they just simply ran out of time if I remember correctly?
I don't think any precedent was set, not yet.

Real point is anchoring / live aboard issues etc are not a State or even regional issue, what happens in other places may well set a precedent.

I will state that "those boats" as people that don't like them are all thought of as one, they don't differentiate, except as someone pointed out the big crewed Motor yachts maybe, but they rest of us whether our boats are well kept or not and we only stay a few days or not, we are part of the problem in their mind.

We'll see it over again in many places, but so far level heads have prevailed in Florida.

It's not limited to the water. What about zoning laws on land and then the constant condo or homeowners' association battles? I've seen long fights over whether a McDonald's can be built or whether a Wal-mart can be.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Well, yeah. There are lots of 'issues' addressed in this thread, some of which have only a remote relationship with the primary subject matter asking whether or not liveaboards are disliked everywhere.

Some blame rich folks and others like to blame the government for the evolution of controls and restrictions on living aboard and or anchoring. Some say problems related to boats and their owners are exaggerated. Others complain the problems are serious and the government isn't doing enough.

Some justify, indeed advocate for the use of boats as 'low income' and indigent shelter as a response to unemployment and low pay. Others argue most are unemployed and or indigent because they're just not trying hard enough to find a job. Then there are people with criminal records or who have physical or mental disabilities that create an additional bar to getting a job or finding somewhere to live other than on a boat.

The list is endless. The solutions due to social, political, cultural and economic disparaties are not easy to find, let alone implement.

So, what does your comment about minimum wages have to do with the matter of whether or not liveaboards are disliked everywhere?

Good summary.

So, what does your comment about minimum wages have to do with the matter of whether or not liveaboards are disliked everywhere?

Only to the extent that some have demonized folks for choosing to use govt financial support in lieu of working for wages that insufficient for supporting human life. IIRC, the minimum wage in terms of adequacy hasn't been adjusted in so long it's a joke. Or a crime against society as whole.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't think it's over, we will see it again, probably not too long from now, they just simply ran out of time if I remember correctly?
I don't think any precedent was set, not yet.

Real point is anchoring / live aboard issues etc are not a State or even regional issue, what happens in other places may well set a precedent.

I will state that "those boats" as people that don't like them are all thought of as one, they don't differentiate, except as someone pointed out the big crewed Motor yachts maybe, but they rest of us whether our boats are well kept or not and we only stay a few days or not, we are part of the problem in their mind.

I agree. They have now tried to get anchoring restrictions, two years in a row. Anybody want to bet that they aren't going to go for three in a row?