A solution for derelict boats!

[wholybee]

I have no idea about Florida, but my boat is moored in a slip in Sausalito. Where attempts to deal with derelict boats have caused threats against the harbormaster, and subsequently their resignation. Anchor outs have set their own boat on fire in protest. One guy while being arrested set his boat on fire and watched his dog die in the flames. In storms they drag into marinas and cause damage. In one case a boat dragged into our marina and sank. In the shallow water the lady was sitting inside the boat, up to her waist in water, refusing to leave her home.
What I say might be unpopular, but if the situation in Florida is similar to here, (and similar to homeless drug addicts elsewhere in California) it isn't about clearing out derelict boats, it is about making mentally ill people wards of the state and forcibly putting them in the programs they need. I know that runs afoul of people's rights, but I would argue that allowing a mentally ill person to live in waste, drugs, and ultimately die runs afoul of rights too.

[mochifanta]

These seems to be an issue that is somewhat divorced of economics. Why should anyone be able to drop an anchor and camp out for months or years on end and leave a derelict boat any where.

For better or worse it’s not 1860 or 1960, anchorage space is a commodity that should be managed.

There shouldn’t be a time limit, but there should be a price, which if not paid results in your boat being towed and/or impounded or seized.

Mooring fields make the most sense for high trafficked areas to better manage to limited resource.

Yearn for the pioneering days of sailing into the unknown? Book a ride on Starship to Mars in 2030. [emoji57]

Otherwise deal with the reality of limited resources managed through basic economic principles.

Like a bond, to anchor or more that creates an economic incentive to clean up the mess left behind beyond who unfortunately couldn’t manage their boat or affairs.

Why does everyone else have to suffer?

[mochifanta]

One other somewhat related issue that I have observed recently in USVI and Bahamas is storm damaged vessels abandoned whether sunk or a right off.

Again, where is the bond or insurance claim to clean up these vessels?

Interesting to see to the NOAA grant to clean up these types of situations.

Weird to see the number of masts sticking up in a Harbor or anchorage year after year.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

The police cannot ID someone without reasonable articulate suspicion that the person has committed is committing or is about to commit a crime.

You must hate the constitution and want to deny people rights. I hope you are not a US citizen because this is the wrong type of way of thinking and not the type of person I want to share the country with.

I was recently arrested in florida for refusing to identify to the police. They had no right to ID me. The judge said I am innocent. Now I can sue the police. I will end up costing the city of key west thousands of dollars because the police didnt respect my rights.

If a cop asks me for ID I refuse: MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS I will NEVER SHUT UP about MY RIGHTS.

FYI.

VESSEL BOARDINGS AND COAST GUARD AUTHORITY
Written by CDR Mark Hammond

https://www.uscg.mil/LinkClick.aspx?...is%20occurring.

We’ve all watched enough episodes of “COPS” or “Law and Order” to
be familiar with the concept that an agent of law enforcement needs
“probable cause” to arrest a person for the commission of a crime.
Agents of law enforcement need a “reasonable suspicion” that a
crime has been or will be committed to stop/detain a person for
questioning. So, does the Coast Guard need either a reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to believe that a law or regulation has
been violated to stop your boat and board your vessel? The answer is,
“No.”

The Hearing Office often receives responses from charged parties
demanding that their cases be dismissed because the Coast Guard
“lacked probable cause” to stop and board their vessel. Moreover,
they argue that any violation discovered during the boarding cannot
be processed because the boarding was improper and in violation of
their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which
prohibits unlawful searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guards
against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants
to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The
courts have long held however, that it is not unreasonable for the
Coast Guard to exercise plenary authority under Title 14 United
States Code (USC) section 89 to stop and board vessels on the
navigable waters of the United States to conduct safety and
documentation inspections, even in the absence of a reasonable
suspicion that some criminal activity is occurring.

The Coast Guard exercises its broad authority to conduct vessel
boarding's for the purpose of enforcing U.S. laws and regulations to
promote marine safety, security and environmental protection. This
authority extends to any vessel over which the United States has
jurisdiction. This essentially means U.S. vessels anywhere outside
the territorial waters of another country, and foreign vessels in U.S.
waters.

Title 14 USC § 89 states in part:
“(a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations,
inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and
waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the
prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the
United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the
jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States,
address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents
and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all
necessary force to compel compliance…”

For civil penalty cases forwarded to the Hearing Office, the Hearing
Officer reviews each case to determine if there is sufficient evidence
in the case file to make a preliminary determination that a violation
has occurred and proceed with adjudication. This includes ensuring
the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the matter and the elements of
the alleged violation are met based on the evidence. There may be
cases where a party could reasonably argue that a denial of
fundamental fairness, or actions that shock the conscience,
undermine the credibility of the officials involved in a case and the
reliability of the evidence those officials have offered. Arguments
that the Coast Guard “did not have probable cause to conduct the
boarding,” however, most often just show an unfamiliarity with the
relevant law, as discussed above, and have no bearing on the
determination of whether a violation of law or regulation was
committed.

[Sailor Sailor]

Originally Posted by wholybee

I have no idea about Florida, but my boat is moored in a slip in Sausalito...

No, San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S. Florida is slightly above average, but nowhere near that high. There are some places in Central Florida that are decidedly low rent.

Originally Posted by wholybee

What I say might be unpopular, but if the situation in Florida is similar to here...

it is about making mentally ill people wards of the state and forcibly putting them in the programs they need. I know that runs afoul of people's rights, but I would argue that allowing a mentally ill person to live in waste, drugs, and ultimately die runs afoul of rights too.

In Virginia one can be involuntarily committed if he or she is so seriously mentally ill as to be unable to take care of himself or herself, or is a danger to self or others as a result of mental illness. Most of the folks in that situation cannot afford private hospital care and end up in state mental hospitals, which are reputed to be terrible.

I suspect a lot of the boat bums are mentally ill, probably most with personality disorders which make them unemployable, or serious alcoholics - excessive daily drinking, or drug addicts - probably synthetic opioids, which is consistent with living on disability income, either SSD or VA.

Living on a boat gives them freedom to be unemployed, party all the time, and avoid responsibility, without being too obvious.

[ibsurfun]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

Funny.....try talking about your rights as you are about to be boarded by the Coast Guard, or the go-fast DEA boat with armed agents aboard, let me know how that works out for you.

A co-operative attitude will prove to be the far better game plan than a blank refusal.

Maritime law is different due to piracy, privateers and international laws.

[ibsurfun]

I'm all for insurance requirements My boat was knocked up onto the dock by a trawler that was uninsured The boat that hit mine had no insurance and the owner could not pay.
The worst part Is Geico only paid 20%.
If I ever see that lizard I'll step on it!

[ibsurfun]

I bought my boat in Sausalito it's almost cheaper to buy a house than rent a slip but it sure is nice there.
and the local store in the marina has the best deli inside.

[hpaabor]

I think its just an extension of the homeless problem. If a person is living on a boat with zero market value I'm guessing you would not have much luck getting any money from them. If they have assets and behave that way - by all means help them to join the proper homeless.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I have an idea. I always have an idea. Lol

there have been a lot of hours at the helm lately. Much of them spent looking at derelict boats.

Each town seems to set its own anchoring rules and ordinances right? We see that. The rules differ from town to town in the United States on the East Coast.

some places have mandatory mooring fields. Some places allow anchoring for a certain amount of time. Some places allow indefinite anchoring.

just depends where you are and the local water cops are the ones that enforce these things right?

now, as I made my way up Florida’s East Coast, it was strewn with more sunken and destroyed boats than I have seen in all of my years traveling these waters. It’s worse than ever.

here’s my idea on how to eliminate the situation and stop the people of the local towns from having to pay to remove these things.

since the water cops are patrolling anyway, they should go around to each boat in their Anchorage and get the ID of the person that’s anchored there. Forget about limits on anchoring. Forget about all of that. Get the ID. make a note of the ID and registration. No ID or no registration? No anchoring. Get lost.

From there, if a boat sinks or if a boat creates an environmental hazard or whatever, they can track down the person and hold them financially responsible for the boat. As they should be. They can enforce judgements against them.

this probably would help persuade people to get liability insurance as well. Because you are financially responsible for your boat if you create an environmental disaster in any given town.

we are unable to police this ourselves because we have a lot of bad actors out here. I wish we, as a community, could do something. But it doesn’t seem like we have been able to.

I think it would be great if the cops came to you every time you anchored and got your ID and registration so that just in case something went wrong you were responsible.

The upside to that is you wouldn’t have to deal with them later. They wouldn’t come around and tell you to move on. They wouldn’t come around and bother you about anchoring restrictions. We could let the anchoring restrictions go. But the personal responsibility would increase.


We'd have more freedom and more personal responsibility.

Logical idea however…. When my town was hit by a hurricane they tracked down owners. One owner said that it use to be his boat but I gave it to my brother. They called the brother and he said yeah he gave me the boat but I never got the title so I never did anything with the boat. It makes it very expensive to get “the owner” to be responsible.

The only way I see to stop this is to have a yearly inspection. After a few people are turned away word gets out and those with derelict boats will stop coming. Marinas have rules. Cities can also.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by hpaabor

I think its just an extension of the homeless problem. If a person is living on a boat with zero market value I'm guessing you would not have much luck getting any money from them. If they have assets and behave that way - by all means help them to join the proper homeless.

That’s not what’s down in Florida anymore. Those people are mostly gone.

it’s absentee owners now. Too cheap to get a marina.

The boats are all empty. Locked up. Not in that bad of condition. that’s what is choking up the anchorages now and dragging.

you can stay in Anchorage for a week and not a person comes and goes from the majority of boats.

[skipgundlach]

Just a short quickie on the subject of moorings and dock slips:

I'm an outlier at nearly anything (else) I'm involved with, but I don't believe I am in the cruiser world.

Even the cheap marinas (pre-buyout and resort-ification) and mooring fields cost more than most dinghy access points.

The cruisers with whom I voyaged very rarely had connections to anything other than the sea floor, let alone parting with dollars which had no bearing on their safety (yes, in some conditions, it might be better to be tethered to something stouter than your anchor and rode).

It was annoying to me to find my favorite anchorages disappearing into mooring fields. But I did cough up the entrance fee during hurricanes - but only because they were there, and new. Otherwise I'd have used some of all those anchors and lines I carried for the events.

And I contributed to the local economy wherever I was, consuming goods, services and food at the going local rate. I just (nearly always) wasn't on a mooring or a dock.

And I wasn't homeless, derelict or any of the other slurs aimed at full-time cruisers.

[captjohn7]

I disagree. I travel down every year and your suggestion to be stopped and identified at every anchorage ( every night in transit ) is soooo unacceptable.

[windyone]

Why not require insurance on the boats, at least enough to cover any disposal fees. I don’t know if mandatory insurance is required for automobiles on the highways of FL. However the waterways should require it.

[OS2Dude]

Looking up the owners via registration number and HINs sounds good, but it assumes the data is available and current. I can see someone contacted because of a registration saying they sold the boat 'years ago' and did not keep up with the bill of sale. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe the owner died, left the country or just can't be found. Then there is an investigation trying to track down any relevant data and possibly a court battle with someone in another state. It seems hard enough to get a boat declared a derelict so it can be removed to spend the time and money on a chance they might be able to get an irresponsible owner to pay for it.

I liked an idea I saw once that all boats must be kept sea-worthy in order to stay in a particular area.