Anchor-out Liveaboards Status - Pinellas County, FL (St Pete)

[mvweebles]

I attended a Mayor/Commissioners meeting last night in Madeira Beach, FL which is located on the ICW in the St Petersburg area south of Clearwater Beach. Pinellas County Sheriff's dept spoke on enforcement efforts to clear long term anchor-outs huddled in several places.

The deputy described that they can only enforce infractions of live-aboard regulations (definition of "Live-aboard" below). Seems the definition of "Live-aboard" is easily obfuscated so 4-years of his time with the department, he and his team have been unable to do much about anchor-outs despite the City having passed a 72-hour restriction in 2019. He further described efforts to assure compiance with various marine laws such as properly installed MSD, but those requirements too are evaded by boat owners. As far as having 'an effective means of navigation' (propulsion), that can be a bit subjective - for centuries, boat used sails and oars. Finally, he distinguished "Live-aboard" from "Derelict" which means a boat that has not been occupied for 21-days or longer (no citation, I just gathered this from his description). Once a boat has been declared Derelict, it can be seized and removed.

In short, if you move a few feet every couple weeks and claim you have a land-based home, the Pinellas County Sheriff's dept will not force you to move. You may have other infractions - dang well better have an anchor light on at night, but you can pretty well hang out indefinitely.

Of course, interpretation may be different for other parts of Florida. But for this very popular 25-mile stretch of the ICW, that's the perspective of LEO right now.

Live-aboard vessel or live-aboard shall be defined by Florida Statutes § 327.02(22), as may be amended from time to time, which currently means: (a) A vessel used solely as a residence and not for navigation; or (b) A vessel for which a declaration of domicile has been filed pursuant to
Florida Statutes § 222.17; or (c) A vessel used as a residence that does not have an effective means of propulsion for safe navigation. A commercial fishing vessel is expressly excluded from the term "live-aboard vessel" pursuant to Florida Statutes § 327.02(22) (2019) as may be
amended from time to time.

[Chotu]

The one thing about this stuff that I find very encouraging is the application of these laws.

Throughout Florida, the water cop enforcement people know exactly what they are doing. They know just when to apply these laws and when not to.

They know who is making trouble and they know who is being good.

From Miami Beach all the way to Tampa Bay, I have seen really outstanding examples of the application of these laws.

[GreenWave]

mvweebles - how many are anchored typically in this area? Are they mostly long term or transient?

[mvweebles]

The main bridge from mainland to Madeira Beach is Welch Causeway (Tom Stuart). I'd guess there are 25-30 vessels anchored long term north of the bridge, aboit half are in madeira beach waters, the other half are in St Pete waters. Sheriff last night said none are derelict.

There are another 3-dozen or so south of the bridge which is St Pete waters. Last year, Pinellas County spent several hundred thousand dollars to sweep derelict vessels and they seem eager to keep them from re-establishing.

During public comments last night, someone said Treasure Island Yacht Club recently eliminated liveaboards which will obviously have the effect of increasing pressure on anchor outs.

[GreenWave]

thanks. The clubs and marinas banning liveaboards is becoming the problem. I don't get it. They could establish rules and enforce them to prevent the derelicts and shabby boats. Not doing that seems like they are taking the lazy easy out here.

[ohdrinkboy]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

thanks. The clubs and marinas banning liveaboards is becoming the problem. I don't get it. They could establish rules and enforce them to prevent the derelicts and shabby boats. Not doing that seems like they are taking the lazy easy out here.

If they can keep the marina full without liveaboards, then why would they want to go through the hassle of potentially evicting a liveaboard?

[sailorboy1]

This is really nothing new and is the way it has been this way a long time.

I don't think the city passing a 72 hour limit is enforceable at all in FL as only the State can do that. I think there is more to the State definition of liveabord than posted in post #1

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

This is really nothing new and is the way it has been this way a long time.

I don't think the city passing a 72 hour limit is enforceable at all in FL as only the State can do that. I think there is more to the State definition of liveabord than posted in post #1

There may be some case law, but verbiage in #1 is the definition in the Florida Statutes. Proving someone doesn't live somewherw else is possible but would take a lot of time and resources. As we all know, you're innocent until proven guilty so onus is on LEO to make the case.

Also, I tried to be careful in my words. This applies to Pinellas County. Sheriff here informs they have taken an aggressive stance on anchor-outs but their only enforcement is via infractions that pivot off definition of live-aboard. In four years, they have exactly zero live-aboard relayed violations. Possible other jurisdictions have a different approach.

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by ohdrinkboy

If they can keep the marina full without liveaboards, then why would they want to go through the hassle of potentially evicting a liveaboard?

Simply stated - good liveaboards always and I mean always take better care of their boats and the infrastructure than any "away" boater.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

In four years, they have exactly zero live-aboard relayed violations. Possible other jurisdictions have a different approach.

In various areas they manage to chase out boaters on anchor because the boaters just don't know the laws. Basically a harassment method that does nothing really to fix the problem of the derelict boats even even the eyesore boats.

[ohdrinkboy]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

Simply stated - good liveaboards always and I mean always take better care of their boats and the infrastructure than any "away" boater.

I disagree....have seen lots of liveaboards in the marina who have boats that are little more than floating shacks, and they are frequently drunk. Have also seen good liveaboards.

Your absolutes are laughable.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by ohdrinkboy

I disagree....have seen lots of liveaboards in the marina who have boats that are little more than floating shacks, and they are frequently drunk. Have also seen good liveaboards.

Your absolutes are laughable.

He specifically mentioned good liveaboards. The ones you're describing are the not-good ones.

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

He specifically mentioned good liveaboards. The ones you're describing are the not-good ones.

Exactly - and with rules enforcement this is a win-win IMO.

[Nicholson58]

Good live aboards. It seems strange to us. Nearly all boats in these places are live aboard.

We only see derelict boats in Le Marin, Martinique and the French lagoon in St Martin.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

thanks. The clubs and marinas banning liveaboards is becoming the problem. I don't get it. They could establish rules and enforce them to prevent the derelicts and shabby boats. Not doing that seems like they are taking the lazy easy out here.

Pray tell, why would a club or marina want to establish liveaboard rules and enforce them?

The rules would be contentious and violators would argue about them or evade them. Enforcement would require staff effort and inevitable hassle. All in all this is a no-win strategy for clubs and marinas.

And for what? Most yacht club members and I'd have to say, most weekend boaters, simply look down their noses at liveaboards and would be happy to see them gone. These groups of people are not going to go to bat to defend liveaboards.

Liveaboards are a minority which can easily be seen as undesirables.