Is it right and fair to live aboard a vessel that cannot navigate?

[sailhand]

Interesting comments. Good to see such compassion for the less fortunate amongst us. Maybe we should forget the greed and offer to help them repair their vessel. I would have thought that in the land of the FREE you would be able to live on whatever you want. The world economy is not doing so well for the average guy with greedy people shipping industry to china to exploit cheap labour so hard times abound. A helping hand is my solution, been doing it for 15 years. Right now I have three old outboards that I am repairing for other people and I am building a dinghy for an 83 year old who is still cruising. Community and people are more important than money. In some groups money is seen as status, amongst my friends the guy who circumnavigates in a self built 20ft klunker with three cans of beans and a hand held compass is a legend. The guy with triple overhead dishwashers in his million dollar swisho gin palace is nearly always a tosser. Greed doesnt cut it where I come from and wanting more regulation is insane. Offer a helping hand and get to know your fellow man forget the greed for once!!!!!!

[Secondshift]

Sailhand, souds line we share many same opinions.

I am first for freedom and liberty.

Respect all and fear none.

BUT....

WE HAVE THE BEST GOVERNMENT THAT MONEY CAN BUY.

There will always be preferential treatment in our system for constituents with more money. I have tried to be active in these changes and make my opinion known those considering the rule making.
When I sound the alarm though it's usually met with the sound of crickets.

My boats are had with much sweat equity and i would like to keep them where I please regardless of what point their apearance is at. Somebody will make and enforce rules.
My civic duty is to be involved.
Or i suppose i could just sit around b😃tching about it and do nothing like most.
And did I mention the whole "respect all, fear none " thing?

Best Regards

[S/V Adeline]

Secondshift,
FEMA isn't the savior our govt portrays it to be.

Sure, they provide trailers for those who end up homeless (what they don't advertise is they require those people to sign contracts promising to pay them back in full)
So your tax dollars got you a sure 'loan' without dealing with primary lenders...woohoo

Florida condemned your home ?
FEMA offers 'reduced' flat rate to demolish without having to wait on insurance, $20,000

Private contractor flat rate $20,000 (still trying to figure out which is the better deal)

Learned a good deal about FEMA after Ike visited the Gulf Coast.

Family business in Pensacola supported FEMA for 35+ years. Business and personal donations. Encouraged employees to donate, etc.

After all those years, when Ike destroyed everything, found out FEMA requires all aid be reimbursed!!

My grandfather is over 80 now. He was retired, living on his SS and had to sign those papers.
Said his biggest regret in life was supporting FEMA all the years he did. He honestly thought it was a govt agency that actually helped those in need. Turns out basically just a govt loan agency.

His question and mine is simple. With all they receive from govt (our tax dollars) and all the donations, why do they charge victims full price?

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by quackedo

I am not basing anything I've said on heresay. I have been cruising for over 40 years and I own a marina wholly within a municipality that did not want a marina at my location. They fought it very fiercely.
We ended up in the local Supreme Court a few times and several times in the local court. The municipality lost every time within just a few minutes of the case starting.
The Federal Government felt that my very low impact Marina was the "Highest and Best Use" of my property and issued the permits which the Municipality fought and lost. I spent years of my life with these statutes and working hand in hand with the Feds (first name basis) until the Municipality finally conceded.
Bottom line, when it comes to Navigable waters, the Feds rule Period.


One more note. I have often seen instances where the Coast Guard personnel isn't familiar with the statutes and isn't aware of who is in charge in certain situations. I've even had to remind them of this a time of two. I work for three different TowboatUS companies and I work with Coast Guard personnel all the time. Many are unaware of the heirarchy on Navigable waterways.
I have also seen a fellow cruiser on a documented vessel call the Coast Guard on a threatening Sheriff and the Coast Guard official sent the Sheriff away and told him to leave. He left.
I could go on and on, but my experience with exactly this matter over 40 years has given me a fairly good insight as to who has jurisdiction in Navigable Waters.


If your argument has any credence, how was it that the Feds caused the removal of every Anchoring law in the entire state of Florida with one fell swoop a few years ago? What happened to the States power in that scenario? Non-existant.



No doubt, the Federal Government trumps all other authorities in Navigable waters.


I'm done with this topic. I've already dealt with it for 20 years. Enough is enough.

Well I'm just confused, first you're quoting you're knowledge based on what you learned from "a federal agent" and now you're claiming that federal agents who've attended the Boarding Officer course aren't "familiar with the statutes and isn't aware of who is in charge in certain situations." I'm happy to set up a visit to the course instructors in Yorktown if you'd like to "educate" them since you clearly know better than they do.
I have no doubt you "reminded" Coast Guard personnel a time or two or that you felt, with your incorrect understanding of the law, that they were " unaware of the heirarchy on Navigable waterways." If I had a dollar for everyone who wanted to tell me what was wrong with our understanding of the law and the constitution in my short time as a boarding officer I'd have been rich. Doesn't mean a one of them was correct, nor are you. It's kind of incredible that you'd claim that those with specific training in maritime law, who cite the actual law, who cite examples of things like BWIs that local law enforcement successfully prosecute despite your assertion that they have no jurisdiction when they have a toe in the water (fun fact, even the Coast Guard is enforcing state BWI law, there isn't a federal BWI statute).....because you ran a marina and talked to some feds and were involved in a basically impossible lawsuit where supposedly the local or state supreme court intervened in an allegedly federal matter? Seriously, that doesn't even make an ounce of legal sense! Would love to see that supreme court citation so we can all look it up in lexisnexis though, that's some ground breaking stuff!
And I have absolutely no idea what this supposedly "Feds caused the removal of every Anchoring law in the entire state of Florida with one fell swoop a few years ago?" thing you're yammering on about is, can you provide a citation on that? A quick google shows that there exists as of 2019 at least one FL state anchoring law (Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine) and I'm sure a more in-depth search could turn up dozens more local ordinances.

You appear to have incorrectly extrapolated a completely incorrect view of these laws from some limited experience with local zoning as well as some hazily remembered news from "a few years ago" and now believe you know better than both those specifically trained in maritime law and the plain language law itself. You are absolutely and completely incorrect, I'm sorry there's really no more charitable way to put it.

[Secondshift]

I believe Quakedo is referring to lawsuits in Florida that involved local governments enacting anchoring bans and restrictions. These lawsuits found that the local bodies had no jurisdiction. Under the Sovereignty Submerged Lands premise the land beneath the water belongs to the state.

In 2009 the State of Fl in conjunction with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation (FWC) began a test program in five Florida locations with anchoring issues. Public input meetings were held.
Under the watchful eye of the US Coast Guard many test rules have formed over the last ten years. Most recently is proposed rule 68D-15.002. of which I mentioned earlier.

I believed from the beginning that Florida would be the proving ground for nationwide policies. I still feel it's very important stuff.

Best Regards
And Thank You Redneckrob for your valued service.

[sailhand]

Good to hear secondshift, now im not a religous guy whatsoever, but i seem to remember some guy somewhere talking about ten things your supposed to do or not as the case may be. There was things like murder, adultery and sloth and somewhere in there im sure I remember "greed". At what point was this one overlooked, discarded or ignored. Sorry I didnt see that memo come across my desk. Dont god fearin folk like that one or what. Its ok to have billions but some poor bugger with nothing is a problem. Sorry I dont get where people with money feel more entitled than the rest of us, maybe they should consider that we might consider them a blight on society to be gotten rid of . That would definitely improve society and the environment and the waterways. Imagine no moron in a 60 foot power boat burning 500 litres of diesel a side throwing up 6 foot wakes everywhere, now that would be bliss why dont we ban those people. Now that I would vote for in a heartbeat

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Secondshift

I believe Quakedo is referring to lawsuits in Florida that involved local governments enacting anchoring bans and restrictions. These lawsuits found that the local bodies had no jurisdiction. Under the Sovereignty Submerged Lands premise the land beneath the water belongs to the state.

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense! Actually after seeing that and going back and reading Quakedo's posts it's much clearer now that he's just confusing state versus local jurisdiction issues as state versus federal. To be fair that was probably helped along a little bit by the fact that most states with significant navigable waters have a combined state and federal permitting process with the state DNR and the Army Corps for things like piers and marinas, which although a triumph in bureaucracy reduction could lead to confusion about who exactly one is dealing with in that process.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

Your analogy doesn't apply to real life. Your wrecked truck (or decrepit clunker if you abandoned it) would be towed and you would receive a bill for it. Happened to me while I was being ambulanced to the hospital.
After losing 2.5 months income, not counting hospital bills, food and household comes first.

Being forced to wait for an insurance company to settle is not milking any system.

Many fine hardworking people have lost everything waiting on insurance to settle.

So you would agree that if the local municipality decides your boat is wrecked, they should have the right to tow it away or force you to do so.

Again, your issue with the insurance company is totally unrelated to if you should be allowed to leave your wrecked boat indefinitely.

[S/V Adeline]

No, I would not support such a broad statement.

This thread should have been titled

'Should people with less than me be allowed to pursue the dream and snub my superiority complex?'

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

No, I would not support such a broad statement.

This thread should have been titled

'Should people with less than me be allowed to pursue the dream and snub my superiority complex?'

I didn't ask if you supported it. I used rational thought to put together your statements into a more concise statement. If you disagree, you are inconsistent and only expect reasonable responses by society when it doesn't impact you.

To answer your NEW question: No, you are welcome to pursue your dream but that doesn't mean you can claim that because you are poor, you get special treatment and don't have to share the public resources.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So you would agree that if the local municipality decides your boat is wrecked, they should have the right to tow it away or force you to do so.

Again, your issue with the insurance company is totally unrelated to if you should be allowed to leave your wrecked boat indefinitely.

I would submit that if the local municipality had to 'decide' if it were a wreck (sounds like in their eyes) then it most likely is just an eyesore.

As I can't afford paint right now, Adeline might fall under that category.

Installed a new engine and a new transmission. All new running rigging. Fully insured. But not sparkling new paint.

I would suggest people choose one of the other 359° points on the compass to view and mind their own business. (Yeah, I dont make close friends well)

Derelict, abandoned, sunk, haul em off if the owner doesn't accept responsibility.

Telling someone who lives aboard they can't because engine or sails is beyond their financial means is crap.

Is it fair or right to live on a boat or floating home if you are not a cruiser?

When the feds required longer rest breaks for commercial drivers they worked with states and businesses to provide more parking (for said safety breaks)

Perhaps such an approach should be looked at here.

[CatNewBee]

I would change the title to

"Is it right and fair to live aboard on a vessel as someone that cannot navigate? "


... May give the discussion a new twist...

[jhulmer]

Originally Posted by sailhand

Interesting comments. Good to see such compassion for the less fortunate amongst us. Maybe we should forget the greed and offer to help them repair their vessel. I would have thought that in the land of the FREE you would be able to live on whatever you want. The world economy is not doing so well for the average guy with greedy people shipping industry to china to exploit cheap labour so hard times abound. A helping hand is my solution, been doing it for 15 years. Right now I have three old outboards that I am repairing for other people and I am building a dinghy for an 83 year old who is still cruising. Community and people are more important than money. In some groups money is seen as status, amongst my friends the guy who circumnavigates in a self built 20ft klunker with three cans of beans and a hand held compass is a legend. The guy with triple overhead dishwashers in his million dollar swisho gin palace is nearly always a tosser. Greed doesnt cut it where I come from and wanting more regulation is insane. Offer a helping hand and get to know your fellow man forget the greed for once!!!!!!

Sailhand,
Good on ya! or as we say in the south Now Den!

[motion30]

for me this has nothing to do with people less fortunate. I have been living aboard on the hook for the last 5 years or so. No matter where you anchor there is always several boats that have no power, no sails or any means of self rescue. They always, always have junk gear in the water and no chain. As soon as the wind starts to blow above 20 miles an hour these are the boats that Break Free, threatening every other boat in the Anchorage. It is always Incumbent upon the people who have good gear and a powered dingy to rescue these boats so they won't not damaged everybody else. I'm not against someone less fortunate with a beat up old boat to anchor out and live aboard. But these guys always can afford booze drugs and cigarettes but can never spend any money on a chain or a decent anchor .. we would all be better as a community if these boats were gone. I fully support Florida's effort to remove the at risk and derelict boats

[motion30]

And as a side note often these boats are completely unattended, where you don't see the owners for months at a time. And everyone else in the Anchorage needs to attend to the piece of junk that was dumped