The controversy over "Captain Jay" continues

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Yes, there does need to be a standard of some sort, but I'm dealing with excessive regulation right now and it isn't fun. The Federal government says that it wants to do something, the local government is trying it's hardest to prevent it... It is a mess.

Anyways, I think if the boat is clean from the outside and is in or can be brought to a sailable condition within 28 days then it is ok. Otherwise, it gets auctioned or brought onto land.

And the waste issue is the big one. Now, there needs to be some research like the Gates Foundation is doing into making toilets better, but I don't even think the 3 mile limit is far enough out. Let alone dumping in an anchorage.

I agree with you there, and I would have to agree that the critics have been given persuasive evidence. It would help so much if someone were willing to use what laws there are. As for deciding what "derelict" is, Florida anchoring law is pretty clear. Enforce those very liberal standards and Jay couldn't be out there, nor the floating bird sanctuaries.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

The place is "anchoring unfriendly" for the same reason that any major municipality is: deadbeat losers with junker boats skimming off society. The suck resources and contribute nothing but their sewage and trash.

Well said. I agree 100%

[Dsanduril]

I currently live in a house. I am required by law to have garbage service. I am further required by law to use the city contracted monopoly. I do not have the option to take my own garbage to the dump directly, to burn my garbage, or to otherwise dispose of my garbage in any other manner than that mandated by the city. Even if I have zero garbage I am required to maintain the minimum garbage service contract.

If we can do that on land, why can't it be mandated that floating residents must have a contract with the mobile pump-out service in a similar manner? I don't particularly like government mandates, but we all live with lots of them, and it seems to me that there would be reasonable precedent for something like that. Are there enough participants/residents to make a viable business?

And then there's Catalina's approach. When your arrive the harbor patrol boards your vessel, inspects your sanitation system, inserts dye tablets and makes the user go through a flush cycle. Dye in the water around the boat indicates a violation. Emptying your holding tank into the water later results in a dye release. Can you do it at night, possibly, but it's pretty bright, fluorescent stuff. This inspection could be a monthly/quarterly part of your disposal contract.

So, it's all been done before. Sounds like people on both sides would rather complain than come up with viable solutions. Not sure any of these are, I'm not local privy to local conditions, but there are solutions out there.

[rebel heart]

A major difference between a house and a boat is that in a storm your house isn't going to end up on the street and need to be removed at the expense of a tax payer. A boat sinking or getting beached can be a environmental nightmare and costs a ton of money. Homes, no matter how terrible, can always be resold because the property it sits on has some level of value.

I'm not talking about people keeping up on varnish and paintjobs. But yes, if you want to have a boat it should be able to move under its own propulsion and have ground tackle able to handle the area's weather. To allow a vessel to sit at anchor in any other configuration is simply a matter of time until it sinks or ends up on the rocks.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

A major difference between a house and a boat is that in a storm your house isn't going to end up on the street and need to be removed at the expense of a tax payer.

Someone living in the tornado alley their house blowed into blibians around the county might disagree..

[hellosailor]

Raku, there are always ways to motivate bureacrats.

For instance, the USCG asks for a budget around $10B. And roughly half the federal budget comes from individual taxpayers, about 1:3 actually pay taxes, some 100M last year.

Given Tampa's population is nearly 350,000...about 1% of the national population, which is providing some $5B (the civilian tax half) of the USCG budget, your local taxpayers are putting about $5M in the USCG budget. $10M if you count the businesses as well. (I'll welcome corrections from anyone who wants to chase the economics further.)

So, there is federal money funding the USCG from your area. As to the locals, Gulfport or Tampa...Francis Bacon once said that if you hit a mule with a stick, you may not win his love but you will get his attention. That's still true, because if you have a short clear discussion with someone in office about dereliction of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, and other actional consequences for not dealing with an issue they are charged with dealing with, you can often motivate them to get off their ass and do their job.

Of course, if you are really really talented, you find a judge who is about to retire and doesn't give a damn who loves him, and he can issue a writ of mandamus, which compels a public official to either do his duty, or be charged with contempt and thrown in a cell.

Motivation.

Now, OTOH, we have the real issue, which zeehag has confused with the microcosm of boaters. The real issue is how a society treats the elderly, the infants, the ill, all the folks who can't take care of themselves, for whatever reason. One of the nuggets to be mined from Islam is that Allah takes special care of fools and madmen, but then again, that's not unique to Islam either. Many of the AmerIndian tribes also believed the mad were specially protected.

So on the one hand, the larger societal issue, what if anything "should" be done about someone who leaves a mess on the rug. And on the other hand...motivating the local authorities, who seem to prefer ignoring the issue. Or, asking whether perhaps they are right to ignore it.

Flip a coin?

But remember, those who save his life--or have saved his boat--are now forever responsible for it.

[JayCall]

Well-Target stole a bit of my thunder-I would not ddisagree with RH's prescription. the other major difference between a house and a boat is that house sits on land owned bythe homeowner. The boat sits in water owned by the public generally through the state government. From this discussion, it seems clear that there are laes in place that would alleviate the problem, some federal, some state, some local. therien lies much of the problem. Derelict and similar types off boats are not any of those jurisdictions' radar. No legislator at any level is going to gain votes by taking $$ from one project and put into enforcement against derelict boats. Until there is a protocol that can place enforcement in the hands of one agency, whether state, local or federal, and then fund that enforcement, the situation will not change.

To show how important the derelict boat problem is to state goevernment, just look at my home state-Washington. We have a state department to indentify and keep track of derelict vessels. They track more than 500 derelict vessels in Washington. Admittedly, they focus on derelict ommercial vessels, but they also keep track of recreational vessels. For well over a year, we had a 128 ft derelict seiner anchored in a cove of some of the most productive shellfish farms in the world, mussels famous world over-Penn Cove. The ower had purchased the vessel at auction, from a government run marine (Fisherman's Marina) whose lawyer acknoeldged that he did not have the funds to care for the vessel. The Marina did not care, they simply wanted the boat removed from the docks. The guy bought the boat for like $2,500, anchored it in Penn Cove. The Wa Department responsible sent him close to a hundred volation notices, demands to remove it, fines, etc (fining is their only enforcement mechanism). The maximum fine imposed? $83 per day! The owner simply ignored all of it. The boat caught fire, sank, threatening the mussel businesses in the cove, causing them to be closed for several weeks, and ultimately cost the state over $500,000 to raise it and tow it to a yard for scrap- and that does not count the CG cost of environmental cleanup from leaking fuel, etc.

So, what is this agency's total annual budget for removing derelict vessels? $700,000. They got a one time grant this year of $3,000,000.

I have to go with RH, it floats, it moves and no poop comes out of it. If it can't meet those 3 basics, it goes.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by EzzyD

my understanding is that it is illegal to dump sewage from a container overboard. Yet, it is legal to be swimming and take care of business. Also, standing over the side and letting it all out is ok, as long as it is directly into the water, and not into a container, then the water...

Yes, isn't that the dumbest thing? It is perfectly legal for me to pee directly into Tampa Bay, but if I pee into a cup and then empty the cup into the Bay, I am in violation of marine sanitation laws. STUPID!

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Yes, isn't that the dumbest thing? It is perfectly legal for me to pee directly into Tampa Bay, but if I pee into a cup and then empty the cup into the Bay, I am in violation of marine sanitation laws. STUPID!

While we are on this topic, how about the thousands of homeless that live along the river, or in city parks, or freeways, where do you suppose they do their business???

I see fingers pointing to the guy living in an anchored hulk, but what about the guy living on the beach?

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I currently live in a house. I am required by law to have garbage service. I am further required by law to use the city contracted monopoly. I do not have the option to take my own garbage to the dump directly, to burn my garbage, or to otherwise dispose of my garbage in any other manner than that mandated by the city. Even if I have zero garbage I am required to maintain the minimum garbage service contract.

If we can do that on land, why can't it be mandated that floating residents must have a contract with the mobile pump-out service in a similar manner? I don't particularly like government mandates, but we all live with lots of them, and it seems to me that there would be reasonable precedent for something like that. Are there enough participants/residents to make a viable business?

And then there's Catalina's approach. When your arrive the harbor patrol boards your vessel, inspects your sanitation system, inserts dye tablets and makes the user go through a flush cycle. Dye in the water around the boat indicates a violation. Emptying your holding tank into the water later results in a dye release. Can you do it at night, possibly, but it's pretty bright, fluorescent stuff. This inspection could be a monthly/quarterly part of your disposal contract.

So, it's all been done before. Sounds like people on both sides would rather complain than come up with viable solutions. Not sure any of these are, I'm not local privy to local conditions, but there are solutions out there.

I think that's a terrific idea. This is what the CG does if they inspect your sanitary system. I don't think it's fair to say that no one wants to come up with viable solutions. I think it's much more accurate to say that two heads are better than one.

This would also address the issue of immobile boats. Certainly there should be a waiver period for people who have developed engine problems, but in the case of a sailboat, they should still have a mast and sails.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

A major difference between a house and a boat is that in a storm your house isn't going to end up on the street and need to be removed at the expense of a tax payer. A boat sinking or getting beached can be a environmental nightmare and costs a ton of money. Homes, no matter how terrible, can always be resold because the property it sits on has some level of value.

I'm not talking about people keeping up on varnish and paintjobs. But yes, if you want to have a boat it should be able to move under its own propulsion and have ground tackle able to handle the area's weather. To allow a vessel to sit at anchor in any other configuration is simply a matter of time until it sinks or ends up on the rocks.

We're in complete agreement here: adequate ground tackle, sanitation, and being mobile. To me, requiring adequate ground tackle is the same as requiring that a shed you erect in your back yard be adequately anchored so it doesn't fly into your neighbor's car in a hurricane.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Raku, there are always ways to motivate bureacrats.

For instance, the USCG asks for a budget around $10B. And roughly half the federal budget comes from individual taxpayers, about 1:3 actually pay taxes, some 100M last year.

Given Tampa's population is nearly 350,000...about 1% of the national population, which is providing some $5B (the civilian tax half) of the USCG budget, your local taxpayers are putting about $5M in the USCG budget. $10M if you count the businesses as well. (I'll welcome corrections from anyone who wants to chase the economics further.)

So, there is federal money funding the USCG from your area. As to the locals, Gulfport or Tampa...Francis Bacon once said that if you hit a mule with a stick, you may not win his love but you will get his attention. That's still true, because if you have a short clear discussion with someone in office about dereliction of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, and other actional consequences for not dealing with an issue they are charged with dealing with, you can often motivate them to get off their ass and do their job.

Of course, if you are really really talented, you find a judge who is about to retire and doesn't give a damn who loves him, and he can issue a writ of mandamus, which compels a public official to either do his duty, or be charged with contempt and thrown in a cell.

Motivation.

Now, OTOH, we have the real issue, which zeehag has confused with the microcosm of boaters. The real issue is how a society treats the elderly, the infants, the ill, all the folks who can't take care of themselves, for whatever reason. One of the nuggets to be mined from Islam is that Allah takes special care of fools and madmen, but then again, that's not unique to Islam either. Many of the AmerIndian tribes also believed the mad were specially protected.

So on the one hand, the larger societal issue, what if anything "should" be done about someone who leaves a mess on the rug. And on the other hand...motivating the local authorities, who seem to prefer ignoring the issue. Or, asking whether perhaps they are right to ignore it.

Flip a coin?

But remember, those who save his life--or have saved his boat--are now forever responsible for it.

Fortunately for Steve, that last statement isn't legally true. Steve gave him a larger window during Jay might straighten out his life, if he has the inclination and the skills. I'm pretty sure about the first and doubtful about the second.

Of course the CG has a budget, and it seems to me they could make it part of their training. We see them training here all the time, mostly in search and rescue helicopters, but what we're really talking about here is a serious environmental issue. We can't afford to have our beaches fouled, and derelict boats will often contain environmentally unfriendly chemicals that will go into the ocean when that derelict boat sinks, or possibly, is thrown aground.

Then there's the civil issue that if I'm anchored out I don't want someone's neglected floating bird sanctuary to float into my boat.

[hellosailor]

Raku-
"Fortunately for Steve, that last statement isn't legally true" Laws are transient nonsense. Karma's a real long-term bitch though, and the karmic truth counts for more than the legalities, when the subject is what people are doing because of their moral/ethical feelings of obligation, as opposed to their legal ones. Steve, and the other volunteers who helped, have a permanent karmic burden now. Although, if they put all their tainted money in a bag, I know someone who could take it away and burn it to rid them of that sin.<VBG>

d0n-
"Yes, isn't that the dumbest thing? It is perfectly legal for me to pee directly into Tampa Bay, but..." Have you ever heard the phrase "get your head out of the boat!" ? Put the dumb thing in a larger persepective, where do you think it is going? Boats are more easily regulated than, ah, sphincters. And it usually IS also illegal to open a sphincter in public, aside from the ones elected to a political office. So yes, you can pee over the rail, but you can still get a summons for that if you're seen doing it.
Once they figure out how to put the mythological "pool pee dye" pills in the waterways, that loophole will get closed too. Europeans talk about the prudish and repressed Americans (what, no topless beaches?!) and how hard it is to find public restrooms in the US. Yup, that's us. A dozen generations down from the Pilgrims and all the religious nuts who fled Europe, busily repressing each other and laying the groundwork for psychiatrists to get rich.

A good topologist (they're almost as hard to find as good mechanics) could probably explain why using a urinal or toilet "ON" a boat really isn't "ON" the boat, since peeing through a hole in the boat is, topologically speaking, about the same as peeing over the rail. Sort of like peeing over the side of a giant donut, or through the giant donut hole. Either way, the donut really plays no part in the operation. One hole, two holes, still the same I would think.

But laws are all about popularity contests, not logic. And boaters, generally being transients and vagrants and not land-owners and voters, are going to get the short end of the stick every time. Unless you do as many politicians have advised, with a straight face, "Vote early and vote often." Less than six times in any one day, and you're just not trying.

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

How about someone who:

- maintains their vessel to a basic level of seaworthiness. ground tackle capable of supporting the yearly weather patterns and propulsion (of whatever variety) capable of moving the vessel around.

- complies with discharge rules 99% of the time concerning sewage, trash, and oil.

- an additional bonus, and I'm talking a bonus here, would be someone who contributes a net positive in terms of fiscal impact.

Like he said.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

A major difference between a house and a boat is that in a storm your house isn't going to end up on the street and need to be removed at the expense of a tax payer. A boat sinking or getting beached can be a environmental nightmare and costs a ton of money. Homes, no matter how terrible, can always be resold because the property it sits on has some level of value.

You obviously don't live in a hurricane or tornado prone area. Houses end up in the street all the time as a result of storms. Who exactly do you think pays for most of the cleanup after one of these storms? Did you ever hear of FEMA? Who do you think pays for FEMA?

I'm not sure why there's a problem in Gulfport, as the law is perfectly clear. You cannot dump untreated sewage in any Florida waters period. On the Gulf side of Florida this is 9 miles from the nearest land. There are water cops all over Florida. If the city can't enforce it the Pinellas County has water cops. If they won't do anything then the FWC has the marine patrol that can enforce it. Florida law requires that every boat over 26 feet has a working toilet on board. If is permanently installed then they have the right to inspect it to see if it's operating properly, which can include a dye test. Why do well founded cruisers get boarded all the time in Florida for head inspections yet no one can get a cop out to inspect this guy's head? Maybe it's because they know that this guy is totally broke and there's no revenue opportunity here, but that's just the cynic in me talking.