Homeless Anchor out

[sailorboy1]

If you are a paranoid "they are out to get us" type, no reasonable anchor type laws are going to be acceptable to you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

That type of law is ripe for abuse

They should leave seaworthy to the USCG and worry about all their real problems in their states.


believe me derelict vessels were a real safety issue in my state when they enacted the laws . come have a real look around we have over 3,000 miles of coastline




Now that’s very interesting, so you have your doc number as your address, I could see some benifits and draw backs to that, never thought of that before, interesting.

Per rights, I think that ship sailed around the “patriot act”, at least with the boat you’re a little less of a blip on the radar, using work addresses and private mailboxes helps too


Now I thought anything with a bed, bath and kitchen, or birth head and galley, was considered a house, wasn’t that how folks were getting the tax credits for solar?

bed bath head and galley do meet the requirements for the solar tax credit . Boats are looked at as a second summer cottage/ vacation off grid place to relax. It doesn't require an address just a tax number.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

If you are a paranoid "they are out to get us" type, no reasonable anchor type laws are going to be acceptable to you.

just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Get to know the local harbor master once they see you as a good influence on the local economy they tend to relax on enforcing the rules a bit.
However if they ask you to do something don't hesitate it will gather you credit with them.

[a64pilot]

No, I’m afraid legislation will be passed to deal with the Homeless “problem” that will bypass civil rights, but seeing as how it’s for their own good, it’s OK.
Now there is sarcasm in that post, and problem is in parenthesis as once you identify something as a problem then you can do things you wouldn’t normally do to solve the problem.

For instance I was speaking with an FAA Admin type once and she brought up the aging aircraft problem, I asked what’s the problem, they don’t have a higher accident rate and she changed the subject.

[Poche]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

First, the Submerged Land Act of 1953 which is codified in US Code 43 gave all US states jurisdiction of navigable waters and the submerged land from the mean high tide line up to 3 miles out of the coastline.

Secondly. this has already been adjudicated multiple times. The right to anchor anywhere you want within a 3 mile boundary is not a "fundamental right," so restrictions will be upheld in court if there is a rational basis.

Thank you, just what I wanted to know.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in Washington you would be considered homeless.

This statement is incorrect!

Washington state RCW 43.185C.010 para. 12 states ""Homeless person" means an individual living outside or in a building not meant for human habitation or which they have no legal right to occupy, in an emergency shelter, or in a temporary housing program which may include a transitional and supportive housing program if habitation time limits exist."

Washington State and others recognize specific vessels primary or secondary homes and the IRS allows for tax deductions if the vessel is declared as a secondary home, and as you stated...the tax deduction for solar applies as long as there is head, galley, and bedroom.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

No, I’m afraid legislation will be passed to deal with the Homeless “problem” that will bypass civil rights, but seeing as how it’s for their own good, it’s OK.
Now there is sarcasm in that post, and problem is in parenthesis as once you identify something as a problem then you can do things you wouldn’t normally do to solve the problem.

For instance I was speaking with an FAA Admin type once and she brought up the aging aircraft problem, I asked what’s the problem, they don’t have a higher accident rate and she changed the subject.

The FAA is a great example of why you don’t want to ask gov to “fix” things.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

This statement is incorrect!

Washington state RCW 43.185C.010 para. 12 states ""Homeless person" means an individual living outside or in a building not meant for human habitation or which they have no legal right to occupy, in an emergency shelter, or in a temporary housing program which may include a transitional and supportive housing program if habitation time limits exist."

Washington State and others recognize specific vessels primary or secondary homes and the IRS allows for tax deductions if the vessel is declared as a secondary home, and as you stated...the tax deduction for solar applies as long as there is head, galley, and bedroom.

while that may be technically correct in all reality they still count all of us living on our boats in the marina or on the hook as homeless.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Would it be insensitive to note, that if 79% of accidents happen in the home, we’d finally have some good news for the homeless?

Good point.

[Poche]

That statistic is probably for the usual sane, mostly sober, non-meth addict or heroin user. Not really applicable.

[Seymore]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

First, the Submerged Land Act of 1953 which is codified in US Code 43 gave all US states jurisdiction of navigable waters and the submerged land from the mean high tide line up to 3 miles out of the coastline.

Secondly. this has already been adjudicated multiple times. The right to anchor anywhere you want within a 3 mile boundary is not a "fundamental right," so restrictions will be upheld in court if there is a rational basis. In order to fight the laws you must prove the regulations lack any possible reasonable basis. States will easily argue 1) danger to navigation, 2) environmental hazards, 3) safety. (Murphy v. Department of Natural Resources, Barber v. State of Hawaii, Hawaiian Navigable Waters Preservation Soc. v. State of Hawaii)

So...to answer the question of whether or not a state or municipality has authority or the legal standing to control anchorages within their jurisdiction the answer is clearly YES.

WRT to taxation and "rich countries" experiencing homelessness...the "homeless" issue in the US is largely a myth. Yes, I do recognize that are a number of people in the US who are indeed homeless due to unforeseen circumstances. This is true in virtually every country in the world. But, in places like San Francisco and Seattle and a growing number of other cities the problem is more related to mental illness, drugs, alcohol, and perhaps a sprinkling of others who simply do what they want and "society be damned." But, the media and others prey on people's emotions and present this "homeless crisis" in order to allow these vagrants to flaunt the law in the guise of "good intentions." (See video Seattle is Dying). Also, there is a generous payout to cities from government to address "homelessness" so there is financial incentive to play it up.

IMHO, no reasonable person should condone non-navigable boats littering the waterways. These vessels create a poor image/reputation for all boaters, and especially live-a-boards, and cruisers.

I understand that Admiralty Law, being senior to Civil Law, takes precedence in case of conflict. What does US Admiralty Law, embodied in the US Codes and UN dictums, say on this subject?

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by newhaul

while that may be technically correct in all reality they still count all of us living on our boats in the marina or on the hook as homeless.

That's interesting...I lived aboard for 2 decades in Seattle and was never once told I was "homeless" by any locale, state, or federal government agency.

So...please define who "they" are that you think are "counting" you as homeless. I'm curious.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by Seymore

I understand that Admiralty Law, being senior to Civil Law, takes precedence in case of conflict. What does US Admiralty Law, embodied in the US Codes and UN dictums, say on this subject?

You are correct...In the US admiralty laws embodied in 28 USC would take precedence over state or locale laws.

UN dictums/conventions offer guidance. They do not carry the weight of law unless they are embodied into law by the applicable nation state (esp. true for pleasure craft).

Admiralty law does not regulate anchorage areas, but does govern rules around anchoring (Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903).

Can you articulate a specific conflict between admiralty law and a local, or state regulation regarding anchoring restrictions?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

That's interesting...I lived aboard for 2 decades in Seattle and was never once told I was "homeless" by any locale, state, or federal government agency.

So...please define who "they" are that you think are "counting" you as homeless. I'm curious.

The harbor masters in the various locations that i lived on the hook in their jurisdiction.
Its all about the money now days. In a marina is a bit different you are still without a physical mailing address but they dont look at you in the same way unless that is you are in winter moorage in one of the various city marinas .
Welcome to the modern left state of washington.
And its not me just thinking it they actually asked me to answer the questions.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Shocking that a nation as rich as the US or Britain have homeless issues. Should a nation not have a duty of care for its unfortunates? Of course, taxes would skyrocket, and no one wants that, either, so it is a problem without a politically correct solution, imho.

Just saw a documentary on the prior solution...the vast majority of current homeless have mental issues.

Go back 75-100yrs ago and they were largely kept in institutions. Many were really horrible places (partly thru abuse but largely thru lack of understanding of how to treat mental illness). When the abuse became public, the solution was to close the institutions...result homeless populations that were largely non-existent (or at least drastically smaller) beforehand.

Not suggesting we reopen the institutions but it's not a simple issue of throwing money at the problem.

My experience in Florida suggests many of the long term liveaboards on non-functional boats are part of this population. Unfortunately, politics today is about sound bites and it's hard to clarify long term cruiser from crazy on a derelict boat...in a sound bite.

For cruisers, it's really a losing battle. We might be able to slow it down at the local level but without self policing and distinguishing cruiser from liveaboard, expect it to gradually work it's way up the political ladder. The best solution would be to push for "reasonable" limits. If you had to move at least 10 miles every week or two if anchored in federal waters, for the average cruiser, that would be no big deal and they do it already. For those on a derelict boat, it would be a major issue.