Ruining it For The Rest of Us?

[Southern Star]

Sean, I hear you and am sure that many share the frustration of incredibly short anchoring limits that restrict the use/enjoyment of areas by legitimate cruisers, rather than (barely) floating derelicts. Still, the municipalites have the right to place restrictions and I am glad to at least hear from Vasco that they appear to be using some common sense in terms of enforcement.

Of course, if someone really wants to enjoy some incredible anchorages without draconian time limits, the Bahamas are not very far from south Fla.


Brad

[Troutbridge]

Yes, sorry I did miss your point a bit. The answer to 'bum boats' I'm afraid is very little you can do, unless you're thinking of some sort of vigilante force? IF (big if) a group of 'respectable' yotties approach the local harbour authority and ask them to move the undesirables on then maybe something would happen, but then this presupposes that there is a local static liveaboard community to get together. Otherwise, as I said look respectable and act responsibly yourself.
As far as the other is concerned, by and large the real clowns will kill themselves. there is a train of thought that says varies agencies worldwide spend millions of dollars a year in training to rescue people, so the odd rescue actual justifies their existence as well as being a valuable training exercise in itself. Various countries have in the past introduced safety checks on their national boats, mainly in terms of required equipment. Most of the requirements have been sensible (not all). In the UK we have an organisation called the RYA. This fights (well, sometimes) overly onerous legislation and promotes safety through training. They have maintained over the years (successfully) that voluntary training is more effective than legislated training. Do you have anything similar in N America? Over here, every summer we have idiots who put to see on lilos (inflatable beach toys, basically) and the fools who put to sea without any idea what they're doing. The lifeboat service retrieves all of them and periodically calls for more regulation, but basically not much happens in that line, the more stupid ideas are howled down by the yachting press. I see your concerns, but I feel what the authorities would do is call for more equipment on boats rather than actually try and prevent people voyaging off. Regulations probably will come in in some shape or form, the trick is to 'passively resist' them and make sure that they are sensible regulations, maybe by being proactive....which brings me back to do you have an umbrella organisation that lobbies on behalf of 'boaters'.

[pjbsailing]

If the "Hoboats" are not a threat to navigation, or safety, then there is nothing you can do, or should do. They have every right to be there. Time limits? Geez, is this the land of the free? "You don't fit in, so move on." The boats can be inspected for safety and meeting enviro reg's and such, and if you anchor for more than say, 90 days, then you have to pay a tax. Simple. Most would move on. Leave the "bad apples" alone. Hell, if I hang my thong out to dry on the lifelines, does that make me a bad apple too? :0 There will always be bad apples in one form or another, and who decides who's good, and who's bad?

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by markpj23

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Can you cite a specific example? We give up NO rights that I know of when in US Territorial Waters. More restrictions perhaps (don't pollute) but that circles back around to City Ordinances which restrict the same things ashore (must connect to sewer systems, etc).

And consider the myriad of City Ordinances that restrict what can / cannot be done with land-based property. Plus the authorities can seize shore-based property if you are in possession of contraband just as easily as they can seize a boat.

Not sure what the big difference is between the two. I see them as roughly equivalent except for which Court has jurisdiction should an offense be committed.

Good points Mark, regarding some of the rights being the same as city rights. Ordinances are similar in a lot of ways and so are pollution.

However, what about this right?:

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.On boats, you are subject to search and seizure at will and at random by the Dept of Homeland Security. (USCG) They can search without cause, require no warrants, etc...

Natually, I'm not trying to argue... I'm just killing time while I wait for my survey and stuff! ha ha

[imagine2frolic]

Another problem with these dilapidated boats I saw in South Beach is this. Their 2 anchor rodes are so twisted that soon they will be dragging. That is how most of them broke loose, and even stuck under the causeway.

I use to anchor for weeks at a time in South Beach between Palm, Hibiscus, and Star Island. People like Jennifer Lopez, and Julio Inglesis live there. Homes worth tens of millions of dollars.

I would replenish stores, work on small projects, daysail on the bay, visit friends ashore, spend money locally, and then sail off for a new location. These bum boats were not only an eyesore, but a hazard to the waterway. They weren't going anywhere.

I am sorry for the poor, and I am glad it is not my job to decide who is, and is not riff-raff. As ssulli said we who are helping the economy, and paying taxes are the ones who suffer. What's the fix? If I had the answer I would be in office....NOW THAT'S A SCARY THOUGHT...

I am also aware of the problem on S.F.Bay. I am from the area, and it has been an on going problem, and I understand now it is in Clipper Cove now. I am really tired of the part of society that does not contribute, or are criminals getting all of the protection. I once lived in my car, because it was all I could afford. I took control of my life, and changed all of that. It's about pulling up your boots, and putting your nose to the grindstone.

[Sandero]

Obviously people without money see living on a boat as "rent" free.

The problem is that this society has people who have to live that that. You won't see this in Europe I suspect. They have a social net.

The desire to rid the water of these undesirables is fine, but you need to address the underlying cause. The reaction has been to hurt well behaved sailors.

It's like outlawing people from squatting. Where do they go? Cities put them in shelters that the tax payers foot the bill for.

The type of problem that Sully describes is the failure of society, and parents and capitalism.

This is not a boating problem by any means. It is a symptom of a failed society.

[Sandero]

The basic answer to the problems of poverty, is a wealth distribution, a safety net, a living wage, a good education for all, a health system for all.

Wanna see what that looks like go to Europe. That have almost achieved it.. or are further along than the USA.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by defjef

Obviously people without money see living on a boat as "rent" free.

The problem is that this society has people who have to live that that. You won't see this in Europe I suspect. They have a social net.

The desire to rid the water of these undesirables is fine, but you need to address the underlying cause. The reaction has been to hurt well behaved sailors.

It's like outlawing people from squatting. Where do they go? Cities put them in shelters that the tax payers foot the bill for.

The type of problem that Sully describes is the failure of society, and parents and capitalism.

This is not a boating problem by any means. It is a symptom of a failed society.

This is one intelligent guy....

You're right. These problems are the same on land as water. They are water "squatters" (excluding the ill-prepared that use EPIRBS like a cell phone with a monthly plan... ha ha).

I would be curious to see what our European members have to say about any of this happening in their own back yard. Does it? (not the EPIRB stuff, but the guys out living on the 8 meter "HoboCat" panhandling for dinner and drinks?)

Honestly, this doesn't even really hapen in New England or NY. I got my first taste of it looking around Ft Myers.

[encore]

Sullivan,
Maybe you should worry more about yourself and less about others. An interesting thing happened at Winona (MN) a number of years ago. There was a group of house boats, rafts with cabins or whatever you might call them anchored as year around live aboards in the Mississippi, within the city limits. Legality was argued for years and finally the issue was brought to court by one of your type, who labeled them as boat bums. As it turned out, one of the "bums" was a judge, who didn't really care for the label and a legal decision was reached which allowed them to permanently reside there, judge included. I've driven by there many times and the "floating city" adds flavor and diversity to the area, which includes many mansion-type home.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by encore

Sullivan,
Maybe you should worry more about yourself and less about others. An interesting thing happened at Winona (MN) a number of years ago. There was a group of house boats, rafts with cabins or whatever you might call them anchored as year around live aboards in the Mississippi, within the city limits. Legality was argued for years and finally the issue was brought to court by one of your type, who labeled them as boat bums. As it turned out, one of the "bums" was a judge, who didn't really care for the label and a legal decision was reached which allowed them to permanently reside there, judge included. I've driven by there many times and the "floating city" adds flavor and diversity to the area, which includes many mansion-type home.

Another guy who completely misses the point of the post and the 5 clarifications to the point I posted later.... [sigh]

Please re-read the thread.

This post is about *preserving* our rights to live at anchor.

[Fishspearit]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Honestly, this doesn't even really hapen in New England or NY. I got my first taste of it looking around Ft Myers.

That's because all of New England's bums come down here to be boat bums. It's too fricken cold up there to be poor and homeless in the winter.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by Fishspearit

That's because all of New England's bums come down here to be boat bums. It's too fricken cold up there to be poor and homeless in the winter.

Yeah, when I was talking to my wife about this, we thought the same thing.

Struggling through the winter on boats up there is harder than heading in to work, no question about it. Been there.

[Southern Star]

Defjef, there can be little doubt that some of these derelict boats are the product of unavoidable poverty and the lack of a 'safety' net. Nevertheless, I am also confident that there are some derelict boatowners who refused to complete educational programs that have made available for them at no cost, and who refuse to work even when jobs have been available. Similarly, there are also some people who become criminals despite good parents and despite being provided adequate financial/educational resources.

There is an issue here that needs to be dealt with because it impacts upon more than merely the waterfront 'vista' for the wealthy. As has been pointed out:
1. A number of these derelicts sink and become hazards to navigation and then ultimately, a removal expense for the rest of us.
2. They almost assuredly do not have even the most basic holding tanks (or if they do, can't be bothered/afford pumpouts). As the fecal count in water goes up, so too do dangers for those exposed to the water. The potential ailments on exposure range from conjunctivitis to cholera! And this is to say nothing of the damage to the marine habitat and the increase in algae.
3. I suspect that theft from legitimate cruisers/homeowners in the area also increases.
4. If they do take to sea, the cost of resuce (including the risk to the lives of the rescuers) again must be borne by society.

I think what many here have been attempting to get at is the need for a 'balanced' response that may be lacking in 72 hour anchoring limits. By the same token, I also suspect that even if the United States spent trillions on universal health-care and free post-secondary education, they would still see many of the same people on many of the same boats.

Brad

[ssullivan]

Wow... Brad, I have no idea how you go from in depth technical info on cats right into great societal commentary, but bravo!

Very good points as well. I think you get the idea of what I was trying to ask about, and that is what can we as boaters do...? maybe it's nothing. However, the problem re: anchoring rights is very clear to me now, having visited Ft Myers.

The restrictions are in place because of these types of vessels, which are often abandoned and end up sinking. If we could do anything about these types of vessels, we'd probably have a warmer welcome at the city cousels and such re: the anchoring restrictions.

It's clear the restictions in FL are due to this type of community on the water.

Now only if we had some more even-handed approach, as you say...

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Defjef, there can be little doubt that some of these derelict boats are the product of unavoidable poverty and the lack of a 'safety' net. Nevertheless, I am also confident that there are some derelict boatowners who refused to complete educational programs that have made available for them at no cost, and who refuse to work even when jobs have been available. Similarly, there are also some people who become criminals despite good parents and despite being provided adequate financial/educational resources.

There is an issue here that needs to be dealt with because it impacts upon more than merely the waterfront 'vista' for the wealthy. As has been pointed out:
1. A number of these derelicts sink and become hazards to navigation and then ultimately, a removal expense for the rest of us.
2. They almost assuredly do not have even the most basic holding tanks (or if they do, can't be bothered/afford pumpouts). As the fecal count in water goes up, so too do dangers for those exposed to the water. The potential ailments on exposure range from conjunctivitis to cholera! And this is to say nothing of the damage to the marine habitat and the increase in algae.
3. I suspect that theft from legitimate cruisers/homeowners in the area also increases.
4. If they do take to sea, the cost of resuce (including the risk to the lives of the rescuers) again must be borne by society.

I think what many here have been attempting to get at is the need for a 'balanced' response that may be lacking in 72 hour anchoring limits. By the same token, I also suspect that even if the United States spent trillions on universal health-care and free post-secondary education, they would still see many of the same people on many of the same boats.

Brad

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

4. If they do take to sea, the cost of resuce (including the risk to the lives of the rescuers) again must be borne by society.

Just wanted to point out that my EPIRB-happy character is often actually a comparatively "rich" guy, not a "poor" guy, who simply wasn't prepared to be at sea and called for help, when a little self-help might have been better.

You know... like those from CA that sink in South America, those that have a rough day at sea, activate the EPIRB, get rescued and the boat's fine... these types. They are usually actually wealthy, so in that respect, I want to point out that both types of reliance on the government are bad and could lead to imposed restrictions (such as those in NZ) where there are new sets of regulations. (I don't like regulation! ha ha)

And to restate again for those who missed it: The point of this thread has nothing to do with rich/poor. It's more about reliance on the govt, and what the govt will do in response to us causing problems for it. (ie: put in more restrictions)