Ruining it For The Rest of Us?

[ssullivan]

Well, I'm not going to argue with you.

Possibly, things have changed since you were last there. It's downright scary right now. I was there last week. When were you there last? Maybe that is why we are seeing the anchorage differently. Also, I'm talking about the part over by Salty Sam's Marina. Is that the spot you are talking about too? Before disagreeing, maybe it would be good to check to see if we are talking about the same thing.

My observations are not about if you panhandled, were on welfare, or stole anything. It is about the people that are at anchor there right this minute. Sure you could pass through and be quite an honest person, as many are over there, but I'm talking about a certain group of boats in the harbor... way over in the back.

I most definitely am taking issue with the abandoned boats in the mangroves, washed up deep into them, spilling fuel and such all over the place, sinking and causing a burden on the town. These boats are not eyesores, but environmental and regulatory disasters!

For every boat the town has to haul out of there and scrap, the town will get more and more upset. This will lead to more restrictions. Is that what you want? I'd like to find a way to avoid these restrictions. It seems that the "boat bums" are your heroes in some way... ?? I can't see why... they have been stealing in that anchorage lately, they have abandonded boats sinking and up in the mangroves, etc... How can you look up to them when they threaten your very right to anchor in your "little boat?"

I didn't want to get into it, but if you must know... my ex-Navy personnel carrier boat was not the same thing as the abandoned boats we are talking about. It was to be painted, kept ship shape and was fully operational. If you recall, I bid on two of them so I could get the DD 6-71 diesel engine out of the 2nd boat. It would look like any other commercial vessel in the area. I would never let my boat fall apart and become un-seaworthy. I just wanted a stable platform to suite working ashore.

Hardly the same thing as purposefully being a criminal or bum in a harbor begging for your beer money.

You're really missing the facts here, allowing your passion for these people to overcome your sense of what is actually happening. I mean you have to look at it from the point of view not of a sailor, but of a land person. They don't want those people around. They'll pass laws to restrict them. If we could somehow fix the problem before the govt has to, we'll all still be able to anchor. Yet... you attack me about this. I'm just pointing out reality.

Originally Posted by little boat

well, i am a fairly 'enlightened' woman, if that's the word you were shooting for.
not that i need to defend my post or my past; i have never received so much as a parking ticket and i am now 50 years of age. nor have i ever panhandled, received any gov't assistance nor ever been in debt.
as i say, i lived in that anchorage and made many friends and i never had an item stolen. i never even locked my (new at the time) avon inflatable and (also brand new at the time) new 6 hp ob. i worked quite late at night as a bartender and waitress at a fantastic restaurant, the fishmonger if anyone in the area would like a fantastic meal and walked alone to the dinghy dock and never had a problem. i do think its ironic and quite amusing that you proposed inflicting an enormous eyesore of a huge, rusty, engineless barge? upon the lovely shoreline of maine; yet denigrate the small and shabby boats back in the mangroves; slandering their owner's with a wide and quite pompous brush.

[stevelxls]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

In any case, I would think that discussions of the relative merits of these systems is largely irrelevant to the immediate problem, and completely outside of the scope of this forum.

Brad

Brad

I totally agree that climate is a key. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of liveaboards in the UK are canal based with solid fuel stoves.

I'm definitely not wanting to get into the pros/cons of the welfare state, it's just that as SS asked for a european view I gave one and was just illustrating how (IMHO) if you can get all this and more shoreside in the UK without working, how many would want to live waterborne and receive less?

[jzk]

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.

The Police can search your vessel any time they want for any or no reason. Not true for your home or car.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by stevelxls

Brad

I totally agree that climate is a key. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of liveaboards in the UK are canal based with solid fuel stoves.

I'm definitely not wanting to get into the pros/cons of the welfare state, it's just that as SS asked for a european view I gave one and was just illustrating how (IMHO) if you can get all this and more shoreside in the UK without working, how many would want to live waterborne and receive less?

And thank you for it, Steve.

Cheers.

[Divecoz]

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.

I searched and searched for proof of any of above and I . . .I at least found NONE. May you can link. . us. . . up as Arnold would say.

[Boracay]

It looks like the worry is that if the situation continues then draconian laws will be introduced that will stop all of us from anchoring.

I do not think that we, as cruisers, can accept permanent live aboards in all anchorages. There are too few good places to anchor to allow boats to occupy all of them permanently.

On Sydney Harbour the limit is 3 days (72 hours) in one spot. The law is not strictly enforced and visitors look to be given a very fair go. Houseboats were outlawed with a grandfather clause long ago (At last count there were three). If there were any question of safety I am sure that there would be some kind of compliance inspection.
Some do seem to live aboard but they do it very discreetly.

The problem on Sydney Harbour is that licensed moorings in a good spot are almost impossible to get yet the vast majority of boats never seem to move. I would like to see a fee charged that reflected the desirability of each place. That is, if there is a waiting list that hasn't changed in 10 years put up the price until some boat owners give up their moorings.

So to me the questions are how long do we need and can anchoring be zoned so that the desirable spots are not hogged unfairly?

Possibly some sort of sliding scale might apply. Say 3 days free, an extension available on request then extensions given for a valid reason (weather, repairs, waiting on facilities etc.). After that charge an anchoring fee that increases with time.

Apparently frogs do not stay in boiling water.

[little boat]

sean, i apologise for my testy manner in posting to your thread earlier. the subject you raise is important to me; as it is to all sailors who search for clean and attractive anchorages to liveaboard our boats.
what upset me, was that after only a few days of visiting; you seemed to believe that you had so sussed the place out, that you would suggest clearing the harbour of other people's boats while at the same time making room for your own. you suggested 'self policing', implying some boat owners should determine the merit of other boat owner's crafts and whether or not they should be allowed to remain at anchor in a harbour that you have yet to even anchor in yourself.
one poster suggested that every boat should have an operating engine. what then, with my many friends who sail their beloved yachts engineless and are as we speak scattered across the globe, some having already circled it more than once; a skill that the poster would never contemplate and probably could not even execute himself.
as electronics and gear have become more and more available, many sailors now feel they should be obligatory; in spite of the fact that boats have sailed for centuries successfully voyaging before this gear was even invented.
there is a thread in this forum titled, 'sailing without ssb'. ten years ago the title would have been 'sailing with ssb'.
who shall decide what gear is obligatory and what boats seaworthy? that is what angers me; the idea that it should be anyone other than the captain of the vessel in question.
i lived aboard there for three years or so, and i can tell you there is abit more going on than first meets the eye.
many of the 'bums', panhandlers and 'criminals' you encountered on shore, may not live on boats at all. you are probably not aware that florida prisons send newly released offenders off with $25 or somesuch and a get lost card and many go there seeking day work at the processing place or on shrimp boats or as busboys or whatever else they can find.
there are also many bikers who frequent the town, some of whom appear and are in fact rough. i more than once encountered people who sleep in dumpsters by the dinghy docks. i have also seen authorities in hvac suits, masked and gloved, take away people near death from staph infections and other infectious diseases from drug and alchohol abuse and mosquito bites from sleeping in the mangroves.
some of these people were criminals, some were addicts, alchoholics; some were vietnam vets gone mad; perhaps because of the complications that these abuses and neglect bring. some were homeless, some mentally disturbed, some disabled.
yes, i have seen some terrible things in that harbour and i wonder how a country as wealthy as ours can not rehabilitate, help or shelter these people.
there are also people who are in the process of repairing or refitting boats that were purchased in less than ship shape. you may soon be someone who purchases a yacht that may not be as perfect yet as you wish it; that is why i found it so disturbing that you seem to have no empathy for others doing the same thing. how long can the process from unseaworthy to seaworthy take to complete? who decides that too much time has elapsed and disposes of someone's boat, maybe even sending them to sleep on the street.
i bought my present boat in tampa in a neglected state and refit it from masthead to keel all alone on a shoestring in stuart at anchor over a hurricane season 10 years ago.
i set sail as soon as the hurricanes had passed for the caribbean and would never return to liveaboard in the U.S. for just the many rules and regs that you seem to wish to add upon.
there are still anchorages where one is free to anchor without being shunned or judged by other sailors as to the 'seaworthyness' of one's vessel. in fact, i have noticed that the people who do the most judging have never sailed to these exotic ports; they are tied to their home dock still.
but these anchorages are fast disappearing as with the accessability of electronic navigation and communications which almost ensure a rescue in the event of a crisis at sea; a new type of sailor has evolved. one who no longer relies on himself to cope with the sea and its many tribulations; but hires proffessionals to fix broken items on their more and more complicated yachts and one who expects someone to come get him when he can not cope. one who is older and not as fit or knowledgeable as to how to handle a boat when this complicated gagetry breaks.
i'm sorry i lost my temper sean, it embarrases me as i am a solid peacenik. i hope you accept my apology. i hope you find the vessel you are searching for and that you can anchor it in a harbour to your liking.

[Viking Sailor]

It is not about "these people"! Humanity is a continuum. We are them! We are all fallible. We can at times behave in ways that confound the rest of us.

Sometimes we are able to pull ourselves up by our "bootstraps". Sometimes we need a little help from others. But sometimes there is nothing that can save us. We are unable to deal with the fear and pain that turned us into "these people".

Some of us try to find solace in a bottle. While others of us go to the extreme and find it in death. Still others of us try living in alleys, under freeway, or on derelict boats hoping to find our solace in the basics of day to day survival.

I would like to suggest, as a first step in solving this problem, that we show "these people" the same compassion, tolerance, and understanding that we might wish for were we them and they us.

[anglooff]

The problem with finding a solution to this type of situation, is that always, there are unintended consequences. Assuming that a group of well meaning sailors are selected within an area to either persuade or pressure the people to move on or to assist them to raise their standards to a point whereby no eyesore etc… problem exists. Then assuming the former then somewhere else now has the problem and they will look to legislation to move them on....the latter encourages more to come.

There is always an inevitable built-in dichotomy in such problems, however IMHO the latter is the only area where a possible solution could be found and applied. As I read the thread, it was to find an acceptable working solution, which would negate the necessity of local or national legislation regarding time limits, which c/would seriously impact on local, regional or visiting cruisers.

History shows us that it is a rather slippery slope…easy to fall into… the very human trait of believing, that what we believe, by way of standards, benefits the majority of us with a common interest. Rarely is it found to be true.

It would seem that the only logical, but extremely difficult possibility would be to persuade to the shanty-boat community the benefits to be derived of cleaning up their act, IE they won’t be moved on… and where necessary assisting them to do it.

It won’t be easy or quick. But if a genuine effort is made and continued, then an inevitable benefit will ensue. After all…like it or not…they are part of or considered to be part of our sailing/boating world by local people....even if only considered the “haemorrhoid on the bottom” part.

Alan

[Tropic Cat]

From what I've seen, these people being characterized as social outcasts are living on old cheap boats for economic reasons. I'm not sure it's fair to refer to them as bums, in fact some are very intelligent and nice people. Rather they are under employed or unemployed. Our new economy has taken a social toll which I believe may be more evident in warmer climates.

This post is not advocating handouts. I think our economy has been reegineered without regard of our entire working population or the associated social consequences. I just don't see how it's going to get any better real soon and so I have to ask if running these people out of anchorages is the socially responsible thing to do?

Don't treat the symptoms, fix the problem.

[encore]

Divecor,
You could just drive a few blocks north of the bridge in Winona and see for yourself, if you are really interested and while at it there is an absolutely excellent marine museum in the same area. Tpt has done several features on the boat community.

[Troutbridge]

From Little Boat's post it would seem that the situation is not quite what it would appear to the casual observer. As with most things in life the situation is not black and white but rather shades of grey. I suppose the first question to ask is ARE there any proposals to stop transient voyagers anchoring? Are we perhaps being a bit 'sniffy' about liveaboards who anchor in one spot and go to work rather than go voyaging (oh dear, I am one, at least for the next couple of months). People do see living on boats as a 'cheap' way of life and it can be true. Some people live on ratty boats, but then again some people live in ratty houses..... Somebody said 'fix the problem'. A laudable sentiment and I'm sure that we would all agree with it, but how? Some form of social security as found in the UK can lead to generations who live off state houndouts, but then who's to say what society would be like if there were no state safety net. In Scandinavia, the traditional home of high taxes and generous state benefits they seemed to manage for many years to promote a work ethic whilst providing health and old age benefits. In recent years however, it's been difficult to fund these social benefits because they cost more to provide and more benefits (medical procedures, for example) have become available. As these things become available, people demand them but where does the state money come from? The taxpayer (who in turn would benefit from them). Today, a lot of Scandinavians question the tax rate when they see their retirement benefits being eroded. Not an easy balance for any government to strike, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
I think this has strayed off the original post and got onto questions of wider society. Always beware the law of unintended consequences. It seems to me reading some of these posts that adequate laws already exist to 'clean up' various areas, what needs to happen is that they need to be enforced BUT, what do you do with a family living on a ratty boat because that's all they can afford? If they can't afford to make sure it isn't polluting the area, isn't securely moored, do you destroy their home and move them on....where to? Difficult questions, if I had any answers I'd go into politics but I don't. All I can do is caution against introducing more and more regulations. I think we've seen how a desire to protect one person's right to anchor (however well intentioned) has opened a complete can of worms. Beware of calling for solutions to problems that have not been fully considered. Most solutions cost money, full stop. Best to make sure the money is well spent.

[ssullivan]

Well put, Little Boat.

I only wish I had the answers to your questions and the points you make. I'm not advocating placing limits on restoration projects. I just know that once a boat is abandoned and is sinking or sunk, towns have to foot the bill. This can only lead to more laws restricting anchoring, which I am (like you) quite against.

I don't think we disagree as much as it would seem on the surface.

You are obviously much more familiar with the particular harbor than I am. I only visited for a day and went on what I saw and heard from some cruisers.

Yet... the point remains, if we are talking at about Ft Myers or any other anchorage with the problems I was describing.

It would be nice if we, as boaters, could clean up our acts in such a way as to not have abandoned and sinking vessels (or trigger happy rich guys with EPIRBS). Both situations elevate our position on the government radar and would seem to lead to more regulation - which I'm quite against.

Originally Posted by little boat

sean, i apologise for my testy manner in posting to your thread earlier. the subject you raise is important to me; as it is to all sailors who search for clean and attractive anchorages to liveaboard our boats.
what upset me, was that after only a few days of visiting; you seemed to believe that you had so sussed the place out, that you would suggest clearing the harbour of other people's boats while at the same time making room for your own. you suggested 'self policing', implying some boat owners should determine the merit of other boat owner's crafts and whether or not they should be allowed to remain at anchor in a harbour that you have yet to even anchor in yourself.
one poster suggested that every boat should have an operating engine. what then, with my many friends who sail their beloved yachts engineless and are as we speak scattered across the globe, some having already circled it more than once; a skill that the poster would never contemplate and probably could not even execute himself.
as electronics and gear have become more and more available, many sailors now feel they should be obligatory; in spite of the fact that boats have sailed for centuries successfully voyaging before this gear was even invented.
there is a thread in this forum titled, 'sailing without ssb'. ten years ago the title would have been 'sailing with ssb'.
who shall decide what gear is obligatory and what boats seaworthy? that is what angers me; the idea that it should be anyone other than the captain of the vessel in question.
i lived aboard there for three years or so, and i can tell you there is abit more going on than first meets the eye.
many of the 'bums', panhandlers and 'criminals' you encountered on shore, may not live on boats at all. you are probably not aware that florida prisons send newly released offenders off with $25 or somesuch and a get lost card and many go there seeking day work at the processing place or on shrimp boats or as busboys or whatever else they can find.
there are also many bikers who frequent the town, some of whom appear and are in fact rough. i more than once encountered people who sleep in dumpsters by the dinghy docks. i have also seen authorities in hvac suits, masked and gloved, take away people near death from staph infections and other infectious diseases from drug and alchohol abuse and mosquito bites from sleeping in the mangroves.
some of these people were criminals, some were addicts, alchoholics; some were vietnam vets gone mad; perhaps because of the complications that these abuses and neglect bring. some were homeless, some mentally disturbed, some disabled.
yes, i have seen some terrible things in that harbour and i wonder how a country as wealthy as ours can not rehabilitate, help or shelter these people.
there are also people who are in the process of repairing or refitting boats that were purchased in less than ship shape. you may soon be someone who purchases a yacht that may not be as perfect yet as you wish it; that is why i found it so disturbing that you seem to have no empathy for others doing the same thing. how long can the process from unseaworthy to seaworthy take to complete? who decides that too much time has elapsed and disposes of someone's boat, maybe even sending them to sleep on the street.
i bought my present boat in tampa in a neglected state and refit it from masthead to keel all alone on a shoestring in stuart at anchor over a hurricane season 10 years ago.
i set sail as soon as the hurricanes had passed for the caribbean and would never return to liveaboard in the U.S. for just the many rules and regs that you seem to wish to add upon.
there are still anchorages where one is free to anchor without being shunned or judged by other sailors as to the 'seaworthyness' of one's vessel. in fact, i have noticed that the people who do the most judging have never sailed to these exotic ports; they are tied to their home dock still.
but these anchorages are fast disappearing as with the accessability of electronic navigation and communications which almost ensure a rescue in the event of a crisis at sea; a new type of sailor has evolved. one who no longer relies on himself to cope with the sea and its many tribulations; but hires proffessionals to fix broken items on their more and more complicated yachts and one who expects someone to come get him when he can not cope. one who is older and not as fit or knowledgeable as to how to handle a boat when this complicated gagetry breaks.
i'm sorry i lost my temper sean, it embarrases me as i am a solid peacenik. i hope you accept my apology. i hope you find the vessel you are searching for and that you can anchor it in a harbour to your liking.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by little boat

i set sail as soon as the hurricanes had passed for the caribbean and would never return to liveaboard in the U.S. for just the many rules and regs that you seem to wish to add upon.

I need to drive this point home again (did so maybe half a dozen times on this thread already):

I am *against* new laws that restrict anchoring and *against* regulations. However, when there is a problem or a drain on a city's finances from a population that has little or no power in that city, there WILL be new laws and regulations passed to make the problem go away. The reason for this thread is to explore if there is any way we (as boaters) can save ourselves from these regulations before the whole world ends up like FL and NZ (with its offshore regulations).

This thread seems to have turned in some ways into a rich vs. poor mentality. The problem couldn't be farther from the truth. The rich EPIRB happy captain is just as at fault and could get those NZ style laws and regs put into place for going offshore.

I would like both situation to be worked out before the govt works them out for us.

[sluissa]

It's discussions like this that make me wish for global warming. Flood the coastal towns. Make all the land dwellers either go away or move to boats and learn what it's like. (Note, I do not wish for global warming. I like to think I like land and sea equally and hate to lose either.)

As for the panhandlers. They aren't just on boats.(I've never seen a boat panhandler though.) Nearly every street corner in Pensacola has someone asking for money. This is just recent, since Katrina. Before that there was maybe one guy who had made a pretty good career out of it. He'd sit out there with his dog. I'd heard from someone he was making 40,000 a year that way.