For those who are cheering on the City of Miami Beach

[CanuckSailorguy]

Gord, given that living year round on a boat in Port Arthur/Fort William, aka Thunder Bay, is not happening, your usual wisdom here is suspect.
Liveaboards are not homeless. Many have shoreside homes, and have made the choice to liveaboard, as I have.
Yes, there are some who fit your description, but they are typically not boaters but people with mental health issues (hmmm, could be a boater? ), substance abuse issues or simply incredibly poor.
In this case, out of 80 people, over 70 work in the city. A couple are retired, a couple are transients, and one is a full time mother of a disabled young adult daughter whose husband works in town. What few actual homeless types there were have been chased off by active police involvement (at the request of both boaters and shoreside folks), and fit the above profile of substance abusers.
Homelessness represents a social welfare issue. Living aboard is, for the majority, a choice they gladly make. Living aboard this time of year in Thunder Bay - insanity!

Originally Posted by GordMay

I think that the primary concern, with [these] live-aboards, is that they represent a homeless encampment, on public [submerged] lands - analogous to homeless camps ashore, under bridges, and in parks, and other civic spaces.

Different communities utilize different strategies to deal with the competing interests[s] of homelessness, and use of public properties/resources.

Canadian Courts have tried to strike a balance, between the competing interests over the use of public parks, by protecting the right to erect shelters overnight, but in a limited manner.

In striking this balance, Cdn. courts have held that bylaws imposing a blanket prohibition on tents are unconstitutional, in circumstances where the municipality has a lack of adequate, accessible shelter space, to house the number of homeless people in its community.

For example, Abbotsford, British Columbia, allows camping in parks, from 7:00 pm to 9:00 am “where there is no accessible shelter accommodation available in the City”. Sleeping overnight or camping is still banned in certain “community-wide parks” where many functions are held. The bylaw also lists types of places where a temporary shelter is not allowed, such as playgrounds, sports fields, cemeteries, pathways or washroom facilities.

Similarly, Victoria’s [B.C.] bylaws allow a “homeless person” to secure “a tent, lean-to, or other form of overhead shelter constructed from a tarpaulin, plastic, cardboard or other rigid or non-rigid material” within a park boundary between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am, except for certain restricted areas within the park (including a playground, sports field, footpath, a road within a park, environmentally sensitive area, or designated event or activity area).

Halifax, Nova Scotia, first began designating encampment locations, where people could tent, in the summer of 2022, in response to a growing population of unhoused people.
Last month, Halifax decided to de-designate five of its 11 sites, saying “better options now exist.”
The former residents are now living in emergency shelters, the recently opened Pallet shelter community in Lower Sackville, temporary housing, or other designated encampment sites.

[CanuckSailorguy]

The problem, Tom, with time limits is that there are people who work in the city who would be forced to leave their jobs if time limits were invoked.
In this case, as much as I agree with your dislike of mooring fields, given the hostility of the local politicians, it's the only solution here.
There is a field scheduled to be in place in March 2026, but these folks still have to tough out the next two years and the city is making it harder for them.

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I can certainly see both sides of this issue. And I agree the proposal is an over-reaction which sets a dangerous precedent for both groups - cruisers and stationary live-aboards.

This is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, right out of Economics 101.

There is a limited resource, the anchorage. By law, it's owned by the federal government to be managed by the state in the public interest of all citizens. States usually delegate some of this management to the municipalities.

Environmental concerns, aesthetics, vessel condition, crude behavior, they're all red herrings. The real issue is there are more people who want to use that shared resource - the "commons" - than it can support.

Unfortunately for cruisers and live-aboards alike, one solution to the Tragedy of the Commons dilemma is to put a price on it. A mooring field is one way to do that. Personally, I hate the idea. Giving any government body a revenue stream is a one-way street. They'll milk that for every penny they can get, in perpetuity.

To me, the better solution is a simple time limit. If anchoring is inherent in the right of navigation, then simply define the distinction between navigating and squatting. Obviously that's not what some want, either.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by CanuckSailorguy

First of all - there is no place to go. There are more than 500 boats anchored in Biscayne Bay, some up to 100 feet. There are NO slips available for them.

Why is it the obligation of Miami Beach to assure you have a place to anchor your boat? Why is it the obligation of Miami Beach to assure you have a place to live so you can go to work? Does this not sound like an entitlement mentality to you? Nothing could be more offensive to cruiser types which is why you're getting so much blowback here.

Your problem is homelessness, not boating related. When boaters can't find a place to anchor or moor, they move on.

[Kettlewell]

First of all - there is no place to go.

I wouldn't live there with their attitude towards boaters, even if I had to change jobs. (For that matter, I'm not staying in Florida any longer than necessary.) My bottom line is if they don't like me there I don't have to take it. I can move.

[wyb2]

Originally Posted by CanuckSailorguy

The problem, Tom, with time limits is that there are people who work in the city who would be forced to leave their jobs if time limits were invoked.
…

Not Tom here, but I think this is exactly the intended effect of time limits - open up the area to newcomers by discouraging it as a place to live full time.

Logically, people who see themselves as transients will have an opposite opinion on this from people who see themselves as locals who live on the water.

Access vs availability. If access is unrestricted, the available resource will be quickly used up, and availability to newcomers will go to zero. If the resource is to be kept available to everyone to some degree, measures to control/limit access are inevitable.

This issue exists in lots of places over lots of things, and grows with population density. In the US, a lot of laws and cultural expectations were defined when the country held roughly 200 million people, vs the 350 million of today. A classroom built for 20 students will have significant growing pains trying to accommodate 35.

[advgaia]

Originally Posted by CanuckSailorguy

If you think that Miami Beach's attempts to move out the local liveboards won't affect you when you go there - think again. Some of you got really holier than thou on another thread without actually knowing what is going on there.

Here's what will happen the next time you visit Miami Beach and want to go ashore:



Sound like anyplace you want to visit, with those conditions?
And what are the conditions? I'm SO glad you asked that. Keep in mind, several of these "conditions" violate Florida state law.

"13. Main associated vessel with dinghy/tender must remain 1000 ft from shore while anchored at all times."
That means you will need to anchor in Miami, over a mile away, since at 1000 feet, the water is too shallow for cruising boats.
17. Major repairs and refitting of vessels or associated equipment in Biscayne Bay or any waterway is prohibited.
Good luck if you have to stop for a repair issue here. Can't use the dinghy dock. No place else to go ashore either.
19. Fueling of on dinghy/tender and associated larger vessel in Biscayne Bay or on any waterway is prohibited.
Hopefully you have an electric dinghy motor, since you cannot fuel it up in Miami Beach.
27. As part of the Dinghy and Tender Dockage Agreement, signatories must grant consent such that in the event of an emergency, the City has the authority to have necessary repairs made to the dinghy/tender and associated larger vessel. Emergencies include, but are not limited to, tropical storms and hurricanes; breakdown of a bilge, fuel, or sewage pump or any other leak; chafed or broken lines, or any other emergency that may imperil the vessel and possibly lead to sinking, damage to other vessels on the water, or damage to Biscayne Bay. The cost of these repairs, parts, labor or any other appropriate charges, will be billed to the vessel’s owner and must be payable within 24 hours of the owner’s return or as provided by the City.
You good with giving local authorities the right to board your vessel?
11. No dogs shall be left unattended on any vessel.
7. Bottom of dinghy/tender and associated larger vessel must be cleaned of growth once a month.
2. Maximum two (2) adults and unlimited children are permitted on dinghy/tender.
You'll just have to leave your friends on board I guess.

Miami Beach home association presidents have said, in my hearing, that they want ALL the anchored boats gone from Miami Beach. Not some, not the derelicts, ALL of them.
So for those of you who were bitching about liveaboards being the problem, in Miami Beach, BOATS are the problem.
THAT is why you were asked to support the boaters in Miami Beach. To keep Miami Beach from totally shutting down the anchorage that YOU want to use when you come to visit.

This doesn't surprise me in the least, knowing the population of that area. What I'm talking about is the neo-liberal crowd (ie:fascist/progressive) narcissists that parade as liberals (they are far from liberal, they only think they are) by relentless "virtue signaling". This is no different than the same in Cap Cod / Nantucket who signal their virtue on warming/climate change, preach about "alternative" fuels, yet protest and demand that there are no solar/wind farms within sight of their estates.

Hypocrites, they all are!

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by CanuckSailorguy

The problem, Tom, with time limits is that there are people who work in the city who would be forced to leave their jobs if time limits were invoked.
In this case, as much as I agree with your dislike of mooring fields, given the hostility of the local politicians, it's the only solution here.
There is a field scheduled to be in place in March 2026, but these folks still have to tough out the next two years and the city is making it harder for them.

I agree the mooring field will be the chosen compromise. I only hope they'll reserve a sufficient number of moorings for transients.

Of course, they'll price it at what the market will bear. I suspect in that area, it'll be pretty high, pricing out both cruisers and those trying to live cheaply on the water.

I don't agree that anyone has a right to pitch a tent, park a camper or anchor a boat on public lands, if it prevents others from using that patch of land (dry or submerged.) You can't simply demand that the city offer anyone who works there a free place to live (e.g.; at anchor.) What do all the other workers in the city, who don't own boats, do?

On the other hand, the "right of navigation" is a long-held part of our culture and laws. To me, filling an anchorage with moorings, rented to locals, flies in the face of that whole concept. I fully understand the need to control the use of this resource, and (let's be realistic here) the temptation to use it to generate revenue. But it still seems wrong.

Time limits seem like the only "fair" solution, however unprofitable they may be to the city and how unpopular they may be with liveaboards.

[NorthCoastJoe]

If you had seen Richardson's Bay ( Sausalito ) like it was a few years ago you would understand. We did a loop Pre Covid. The volume of floating dumpsters shocked us. I am all for the enforcement that is happening. As said earlier do any of these boats dispose of waste properly, probably not. If we wanted to anchor for the night there was no space due to the people doing the equivalent of camping on Half Dome in Yosemite for years.

I have never been to Florida but if I ever visit I will not be staying in the same place for more than a week or two. I am OK with time limits. The days of free anchor outs for unlimited time was on its way out when Slocumb made his loop of the globe.

There are places where you can still do that. But I am not interested in seeing a bunch of floating dumpsters there. And those that do stay there are not living there forever, they enjoy the local sites and activities and move on.

If you want to live full time and live on your boat get a liveaboard slip or mooring that permits it. I know several people who work in well paying jobs that live on boats in the SF Bay area. They pay rent for where their boat is parked. If you want to live rent free by a house.

I think this boils down to not wanting to pay rent for your living location.

[Mike OReilly]

I've been following this discussion from a far. I don't pretend to understand the specifics of this situation, and I'm sure the local political and social pressures are only appreciated by people who are actually there.

That said (and my interest) is that this issue is less about cruising and boating rights, and more about challenges of affordable housing, and other social conditions. I don't have any easy answers for these issues, except to say it is a damning condemnation of our economic and social systems. If people who are working full-time jobs are struggling to fund decent homes and lifestyles, then there is something deeply broken.

People do have to live somewhere, and I have no problem with folks choosing to call their boat their home. But I don't agree that people have a right to occupy public space permanently. This applies to both land and sea. These are public common goods, and it is not right for someone to set up tent, or drop anchor, in the same place, forever. That permanently deprives others of the use of the common good.

There are many parallels one could point to. In Ontario, citizens have the right to camp on Crown Land for free, but can only remain in one location for a limited time (Gord will probably look up the exact details). I think it's entirely reasonable to apply the same principle to water-based occupation of public spaces.

Yes, absolutely, the right to anchor for free should be allowed and protected. But time limits on this occupation are reasonable, especially in areas of high demand.

BTW, I hate mooring fields. I can see they are a necessary evil in some places, but generally, they suck.

[Kettlewell]

Yes, absolutely, the right to anchor for free should be allowed and protected. But time limits on this occupation are reasonable, especially in areas of high demand.

BTW, I hate mooring fields. I can see they are a necessary evil in some places, but generally, they suck.

One problem is that municipalities in Florida are now paving anchorage areas with rental moorings that rent for quite a bit, eliminating the ability to anchor for those of us who prefer to do that. This happened in New England long ago, resulting in many harbors being off limits for anchoring unless you have shallow draft. Since the price of moorings is high they are mostly occupied by well off locals who use them to store their boats all summer, only going out for the occasional weekend. Some boats never leave the mooring--going from the boatyard to the mooring and then back to the boatyard in the fall. Is this the best use of limited public water space? I also see harbors with vast areas of moorings with nobody on them, blocking possible anchoring spaces. Apparently these moorings are used by locals occasionally. At the same time, there are long waiting lists to obtain a mooring spot since the available spots are already taken by people who don't use them. The bottom line is that locals rule, and often there are many people taking advantage of the rules to block off portions of public waters for their own personal use, preventing those of us who like to cruise from visiting unless we pay for a rental mooring we don't want. Still, despite these problems, I go where there is still room to anchor, and only very rarely have to rent a mooring in places where there is just no room and I have to visit for one reason or another. There are still many pleasant places to anchor as a transient cruiser, even in crowded New England waters, and I believe the same is true for Florida.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

...Is this the best use of limited public water space? I also see harbors with vast areas of moorings with nobody on them, blocking possible anchoring spaces. Apparently these moorings are used by locals occasionally. At the same time, there are long waiting lists to obtain a mooring spot since the available spots are already taken by people who don't use them. The bottom line is that locals rule, and often there are many people taking advantage of the rules to block off portions of public waters for their own personal use, preventing those of us who like to cruise from visiting unless we pay for a rental mooring we don't want. ...

I agree... I view these mooring fields in pretty much the same way as I view members of the public who over-stay their welcome. These fields are essentially privatizing a public resource, and blocking it off to only those who can afford to pay: IOW the rich.

I don't agree that converting anchorages into commercial mooring fields is the right answer. But neither is allowing individuals to permanently occupy public spaces. It's why I admit, "I don't have any easy answers for these issues."

[Montanan]

Florida

327.4108 Anchoring of vessels in anchoring limitation areas.—
(1) The following densely populated urban areas, which have narrow state waterways, residential docking facilities, and significant recreational boating traffic, are designated as and shall be considered to be grandfathered-in anchoring limitation areas, within which a person may not anchor a vessel at any time during the period between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise, except as provided in 1subsections (4) and (5):
(a) The section of Middle River lying between Northeast 21st Court and the Intracoastal Waterway in Broward County.
(b) Sunset Lake in Miami-Dade County.
(c) The sections of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County lying between:
1. Rivo Alto Island and Di Lido Island.
2. San Marino Island and San Marco Island.
3. San Marco Island and Biscayne Island.

(2)(a) Notwithstanding s. 327.60(2)(f), a county, except for Monroe County, may establish, in accordance with this subsection, an anchoring limitation area adjacent to urban areas that have residential docking facilities and significant recreational boating traffic. The aggregate total of anchoring limitation areas in a county may not exceed 10 percent of the county’s delineated navigable-in-fact waterways. As used in this subsection, the term “navigable-in-fact waterways” means waterways that are navigable in their natural or unimproved condition over which useful commerce or public recreation of a substantial and permanent character is or may be conducted in the customary mode of trade and travel on water. The term does not include lakes or streams that are theoretically navigable; have a potential for navigability; or are temporary, precarious, and unprofitable, but the term does include lakes or streams that have practical usefulness to the public as highways for transportation. Each anchoring limitation area must meet all of the following requirements:
1. Be less than 100 acres in size. For purposes of this subsection, the calculated size of the anchoring limitation area does not include any portion of the marked channel of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway contiguous to the anchoring limitation area;
2. Not include any mooring field or marina; and
3. Be clearly marked with all of the following:
a. Signs that provide reasonable notice to boaters identifying the duration of time beyond which anchoring is limited and identifying the county ordinance by which the anchoring limitation area was created.
b. Buoys. The county that has created an anchoring limitation area shall install and maintain buoys marking the boundary of the anchoring limitation area.

[Mike OReilly]

Montana, do the Miami Beach plans meet all the legal criteria you posted?

[Shanachie]

Unfortunately, the ultimate solution to this problem in Florida is tropical storms and hurricanes.


When one hits, anchorages such as this one are swept clean. The boats end up on the bottom or in the yards of nearby homes. Often, the owners disappear and leave others to clean up their mess.


The root cause is old, cheap boats. Sooner or later, the supply from the 1970s and 1980s is going to run low. Every big storm, several wind up wrecked in many anchorages.


Big hurricanes take out thousands at a time. The anchorage at Fort Myers Beach had so many wrecks you couldn't get in there.

[Montanan]

Well let's see 100 acres is 4,356,000 square feet, or 2,087 feet per side of a square. That is a very small harbor.

Montana is 94 million acres in size. Heck, we have individual counties that are larger than Connecticut. 56 counties in all.

Not sure which portion of the bay they are inhibiting anchoring. I thought it was some distance from the shoreline which basically eliminated the channels between the islands where the bay is reasonably deep to set anchor and where most of the boats are located. The much broader northern portion [south of the causeway] has large expanse away from shore but is apparently very shallow and not suitable for anchoring except by a shallow draft vessel.

And the county can only set aside up to 10% of its waterways as restricted anchoring.

It is pretty clear they don't want the boats where they have gathered so they will need to go occupy the 90% of the waterways that can't be restricted as to anchoring.

I suppose one could anchor out in the ocean, lots of room out there, nice beaches.

As to whether it is legal, hey it's Florid'uh; the law says what it says.

Ask me about Montana and I can make a few calls, have the Governor, attorney general, our 2 Senators and 2 Congressmen, etc. on speed dial. Had lunch and beers with one of our Congressmen last week, he called and asked to get together and to see our new R&D facility during his road trip back to his home. He has a huge district, half the State, lot of road miles. Would hate to have his weekly commute from D.C. to Montana and back.
Terrible commercial flight connections. Interesting to hear his stories about the malfunction in D.C. and about his time being a Secretary of one of the Departments of the USA Federal government. We were allowed to pick up the lunch and bar tab, because we had a pre-existing relationship with him before he was elected. Ethics regulations limit when and how much one can expend when dealing with the elected officials. We double checked with his Chief of Staff to be sure we were compliant. All good, no bribes made by him towards us. . My boss competed in high school football and track against him, the Congressman was a stand-out athlete, before his distinguished military career. That is like 40+ years ago.