Visit our Popular Forums

oksana · 04-09-2019, 01:03

ugh, yet another 'i don't want no ugly liveaboard boats in my sight line' rant....

Sojourner · 04-09-2019, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by oksana

ugh, yet another 'i don't want no ugly liveaboard boats in my sight line' rant....

I don't think it is. There's a legit question here. My thoughts are:

1) If anyone is able to pay the marina fee, they should stay fair and square. They got there first. If there's no space, tough. There are plenty of marinas here in the med that fill up and no one should be able to kick someone out because they come late to the party.

2) Anchorages are harder. There do seem to be an increasing number of laws in the US at least (I live onboard in the med so I dont know exactly) regarding anchoring restrictions. I don't think anyone minds a well-found yacht anchoring off their property for a day or two in transit, but some of the pics you see (or in real life in the US), well, that's a different story. Of course I have sympathy for people who are low-budget or the homeless but not boatless folks, if I lost my income I would certainly join their ranks before living in a crap apartment somewhere.

But if you make an analogy, it makes sense too.... Anchorages can be considered public/shared resources, just like streets. They are there to provide a safe shelter or a way for businesses to get revenue from traveling boats. Cluttering them up with non-functioning boats is not good for most people who need them. Think of anchorages like parking lots. Very few parking lots take kindly to people camping out in them long term, especially in run-down vehicles. Better still, if someone parked a broken down station wagon on the public street by your house on land, and lived out of it, I bet no one on here would put up with it for long, no matter how awful the person's circumstances were. Homeless or not, you'd probably move them along, or call someone who would. So I think it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter if it's on the water, because the rich folks on shore don't own the rights, or because anchorages are free for all users. So are streets, but they are still a shared resource with accepted uses and unacceptable ones.

**Jammer** · 04-09-2019, 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Jammer, You like to start these morality threads but then you don't weigh in. Do you think that it is right? If you fell on hard times would you like to have the option?

Usually when I ask questions, it's because I don't know the answer.

There are some people who purchase a boat with the intention of turning it into a liveaboard that will never leave the dock. There are some people who build a "boathouse" with the intention of using it for living quarters rather than using it in support of any sort of boating activity.

I believe that navigable waters are a public resource. In many jurisdictions the public nature of navigable waters is codified in statute or supported by common law. Both of these examples are, in my opinion, appropriations of public waters for private use.

In contrast, slips and gas docks and launching ramps, even if private, are there to support navigation over a larger area. Those are fine as long as they are designed to have minimal impact on the shared water resource -- meaning, they don't interfere with navigation, aren't unnecessarily large, don't have an undue ecological impact, etc.

Quote:

where would you draw the line?

One of the reasons this is hard is that many of the tough cases involve people who are either poor or who are quirky artists. I tend to sympathize with poor people and I like quirky artists.

Philosophically, I think the line is drawn based on intent. Someone who has a vessel and genuinely intends to use it for navigation is in the clear. Someone who has a vessel and intends to use it as a cheap alternative to getting an apartment with no intention of navigating anywhere is misusing public waters.

Quote:

I am not sure if you are complaining about these people or slowly becoming one. Interesting topic for sure though. I guess we'll see how some of you all stand on this issue.

I'm just trying to think critically and don't have any particular agenda. I have no intention of becoming a liveaboard myself.

The regulatory trend is towards restricting all overnight recreational uses of shared public facilities other than fee-based, closely managed facilities (campgrounds etc). This is true on the water and on land. I believe that this is one root cause of the anchoring restrictions in the state of Georgia. Locally, the Minnesota DNR has a general philosophy that the waters of the state are day use, and though they are politically unable to prohibit overnight use, they achieve the same result in other ways by restricting overnight parking and limiting the hours of public accesses and so on, and encouraging local governments to do the same as best practices.

I don't support that line of reasoning. It interferes with legitimate uses, and I think the underlying motive is to keep poor people from using these facilities.

Quote:

I am all for keeping the riff raff to a minimum but the problem is that some people see me as the riff raff...

I see the rich mans's anchoring restrictions and the poor man's "liveaboard" as different facets of the same problem; they both take away mooring opportunities for boats that are navigating. I like riff raff. I just expect the riff raff to be responsible and respect limits.

**Tellie** · 04-09-2019, 07:08

Riff Raff is a relative term. In my neck of the woods, many in local government and the marine industry consider most sailors as riff raff no matter how well founded the boat. Some deserved most not. But it is the reality.

sdowney717 · 04-09-2019, 07:26

Ugly boats with missing parts, worn dock lines, barnacle- algae covered hulls, peeling paint, not ship shape in appearance, absentee owners you never see, I have seen many such boats in slips. If they dont pay, then the marina will take possession and then they have to deal with those boats. This is all between management and the slip renter. If other people dont like them, tough, you can move your boat to some other place. If the city gets involved maybe they could force a codes compliance that boat owners must meet or big fines or worse could happen. I would really hate to see codes compliance officials walking around examining boats on docks.

DefinitelyMe · 04-09-2019, 07:30

I have a boat that is navigable. Provided it's being towed. :-)

**a64pilot** · 04-09-2019, 07:39

However any neighborhood usually will have certain standards that have to be maintained, that’s often done with housing areas with associations.
It’s very common for an RV park to only allow RV’s less than 10 yrs old, but show up in an antique polished Airstream and your welcome of course.
Marina I’m in requires a recent survey if your boat is over a certain age, mine is, and I’ve never been asked, I’m certain it gives them a way to discourage broken down looking boats, but it seems my antique is welcome.

Fl has a severe problem with old broken down boats permanently inhabiting anchorages so much so that they are overfilled with derelicts.

However with few exceptions I maintain that most are uninhabited, just “stored” there. People lose interest, get old or can’t keep the boat up anymore so it just sits until it either finally sinks, or breaks lose and ends up on someone’s yard.

There does need to be a law that is upheld that rids the anchorages of those junk boats.
I do not believe that the law that enacted anchorages meant for them to used to store junk boats until they finally sink.

Calif.Ted · 04-09-2019, 07:39

If they are trying to live for free in a public anchorage isn't it like taking up residence in a park, picnic area or campground preventing others from the intended and legitimate uses ? As a boat slip the market value of my dock is $675/month, as a housing unit it would be $1600. It wouldn't be a small boat harbor it would be a floating slum if boats didn't have to meet a minimum standard.

john61ct · 04-09-2019, 07:55

If fairly priced dignified social housing were provided as a right to all citizens

as is the case in nearly every civilized society with anywhere near the wealth of the U.S., and many poorer ones,

then the public resources intended for other uses would not need to be used for the poor to avoid being completely homeless.

Not to mention providing mental health services, and building a society that doesn't inherently cause epidemics of mental illness and substance dependencies.

I find granting the wealthy the ability to segregate themselves from the common people, or even the desire to do so, pretty despicable.

barnakiel · 04-09-2019, 07:57

Riff raff or not riff raff how could this matter.

People are people and it is deeply disturbing when some people tell other people how and where they are allowed to LIVE.

It is deeply disturbing to know that some people see riff raff people as NONPERSONS.

There was that nationalist leader not too long ago in central Europe who also considered some people as NONPERSONS.

When we lived in continental Spain, I saw the police evicting Romas from under a bridge. If you are not allowed to live under a bridge, then where are you allowed to live?

Our options are to learn and understand history or repeat the same suffering for ever.

Time is a flat circle. I heard this phrase yesterday.

A bum sailor in their derelict craft are as much human as anybody else. I would go further and propose that due to their disadvantaged position they deserve some leeway.

b.

sailorboy1 · 04-09-2019, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calif.Ted

If they are trying to live for free in a public anchorage isn't it like taking up residence in a park, picnic area or campground preventing others from the intended and legitimate uses ?

It isn't really. It's just that since we are boaters we like to believe when we anchor out that we are more righteous than a bum living under a bridge.

Some bums living under a bridge do a real good job of keeping their tent and area in nice picked up condition and some don't, just like anchored out boaters.

sdowney717 · 04-09-2019, 08:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Riff raff or not riff raff how could this matter.

People are people and it is deeply disturbing when some people tell other people how and where they are allowed to LIVE.

It is deeply disturbing to know that some people see riff raff people as NONPERSONS.

There was that nationalist leader not too long ago in central Europe who also considered some people as NONPERSONS.

When we lived in continental Spain, I saw the police evicting Romas from under a bridge. If you are not allowed to live under a bridge, then where are you allowed to live?

Our options are to learn and understand history or repeat the same suffering for ever.

Time is a flat circle. I heard this phrase yesterday.

A bum sailor in their derelict craft are as much human as anybody else. I would go further and propose that due to their disadvantaged position they deserve some leeway.

b.

In living memory of some people, such persons would have been placed in concentration camps and killed at the pleasure of the government rulers or just lined up and shot in Spain.