anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Don that is specific to the City of Sausalito waters which had about 75 boats at anchor back in November, along its inner near shore waters, in the coves, somewhat making it challenging to access to the marinas. Most of the City's waters are the deeper, dredged water called the Sausalito Channel navigation waters which generally does not have anchored boats.

Ah, absolutely right, I missed that, and so I presume these boats are not included in the problem specific to eel grass beds then?

[a64pilot]

See I even get nervous when I read about the City of blank’s waters.
I thought those were US waterways?
Yes, I know things are changing. Fl probably leads the way in that.

[Montanan]

Quote:

Nothing to do with the Eighth Amendment, which applies only to post-conviction punishment for those convicted of crimes. Maybe a "taking" under the 5th & 14th Amends if the boat is confiscated, or possibly a due process violation if notice requirements weren't followed, but not sure if an otherwise lawful eviction from public lands gives rise to a federal constitutional violation.

FYI. Specific to the Ninth Circuit region of which California is a part.

9th Circuit holds that the Constitution prohibits punishing homeless people for sleeping outdoors when there is no alternative
May 15, 2019

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from imposing criminal penalties on homeless persons when they have no legal alternative alternative. Martin v. City of Boise, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9453 (9th Cir. 2019). The City of Boise had two municipal ordinances – disorderly conduct and anticamping laws – that prohibited sleeping in parks. After being convicted for violating those laws, homeless persons challenged them because there were not enough shelter beds for everyone and they had no other place to sleep. The city police responded by issue a "Special Order" prohibiting enforcement of either ordinance when none of the three existing shelters had "an available overnight space." However, the court found evidence that the police enforced the ordinances when shelter space was unavailable. Citing Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006), Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. supp. 151 (S.D. Fla 1992), and Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344 (N.D. Tex. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995), the court issued an injunction requiring the city to refrain from enforcing the ordinances when the shelters are full. Quoting Jones, the court stated that "just as the state may not criminalize the state of being 'homeless in public places,' the state may not 'criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless – namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets."



NOT A CRIME TO BE HOMELESS

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the Eighth Amendment argument noting, “even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the ‘crime’ of having a common cold.”

The Courts concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. “Whether sitting, lying and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human … here, the two ordinances criminalize the simple act of sleeping outside on public property, whether bare or in a blanket or other basic bedding … the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless’ in public places … the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless – namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that as long as there are times where there are no beds for the homeless, the homeless cannot be criminally prosecuted for their situation of being homeless.

LIMITS TO THE RULING

The Court made it clear that it was in no way dictating to the City of Boise that it must provide sufficient shelter to the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie or sleep on the streets at any time in any place. But rather as long as the number of available beds and shelters is limited, Boise could not prosecute homeless individuals for the crime of sleeping in public.

In a footnote the Court went out of its way to make clear that jurisdictions can at times criminalize the act of sleeping outside, for example an ordinance could bar the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures (like tent-cities).

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Ah, absolutely right, I missed that, and so I presume these boats are not included in the problem specific to eel grass beds then?

These areas of the City of Sausalito waters tend to be deeper as they have been dredged, especially the Channel, and eelgrass thrives in shallower water where light can penetrate and photosynthesis is derived. So the eelgrass beds are mostly east.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Montanan

... As stated, I got it. Along with the pros & cons of moorings vs. anchorages as also already discussed and as most cruisers have personally experienced. If you can only see upsides to moorings than you're ignoring the downsides of saving some eelgrass.

Originally Posted by GordMay

What are the downsides of saving some eelgrass?

Originally Posted by Exile

Seriously? Not trying to be flip, but have you been following along? Reasonable minds can certainly disagree about priorities, but certainly the downsides to closing the anchorage (or turning it into moorings) for the sake of the adversely affected eelgrass has been adequately explored, no? Or am I missing your question?

I was asking about saving eelgrass, not closing the anchorage, or evicting liveaboards.
I understand that the issues have been linked, but also note that proposals have been put forward to avoid closure and/or eviction.
Notwithstanding, I, like many others, am certainly not in favour of creating more homelessness.
Sorry for the confusion.
I remain confused by Montanan's post.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

See I even get nervous when I read about the City of blank’s waters.
I thought those were US waterways?
Yes, I know things are changing. Fl probably leads the way in that.

Note: The United States are, not the United States is. There being Federal waters and State waters and States provide for the granting of sub-jurisdictions to their defined counties, parishes, and State incorporated cities and towns.

In the 1940s, several states claimed jurisdiction over mineral and other resources off their coasts. This was overturned in 1947, when the Supreme Court determined that states had no title to, or property interest in, these resources. In response, the Submerged Lands Act was enacted in 1953 giving coastal states jurisdiction over a region extending 3 nautical
miles seaward from the baseline, commonly referred to as state waters. For historical reasons, Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida are an exception, with state waters extending to 9 nautical miles offshore. (Note: A nautical mile is approximately 6,076 feet. All references hereafter in this Primer to miles are to nautical miles.) Subsequent legislation granted the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa jurisdiction out to 3 miles, while Puerto Rico has a 9-mile jurisdictional boundary.

The federal government retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation, national defense, and international affairs throughout state waters. However, states are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease resources throughout the water column and on and under the seafloor. (States have similar authorities on the land side of the baseline, usually up to the mean high tide line, an area known as state tidelands.)
In general, states must exercise their authority for the benefit of the public, consistent with the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved from ancient Roman law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the interests of the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of specific users or any particular group) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters.
Public interests have traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In recent times, the public has also looked to the government to protect their interests in recreation, environmental protection, research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage.

Florida is the only state where that boundary shifts depending on which coast you are on. State waters in the Atlantic extend out to 3 nautical miles, while in the Gulf they extend out to 9 nautical miles. But why, as many people ask? How did this come to be?

State boundaries in open waters of the United States first began to be defined in the 1940s, mainly due to concerns about rights for oil beneath submerged lands.

In a 1947 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against California saying the federal government possessed rights in all submerged lands of the Pacific seaward of the low-water mark. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled similarly against Louisiana and Texas.

Congress reacted by creating the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. This act declared that states owned the submerged lands, and the natural resources within, out to three geographic miles. The act included a provision that a state’s boundary could be extended if it was beyond three geographic miles from the coast prior to when statehood was achieved.

Florida immediately asserted their boundary went beyond 3 geographic miles before it achieved statehood in 1845 and that Congress approved its boundary when Florida was readmitted into the Union after the Civil War. The claim did not make it to the Supreme Court until 1960, where it was proven that Article I of Florida’s Constitution (1868), which was approved by Congress, described the boundary off Florida’s Gulf Coast as “three leagues from mainland.”

Florida’s Atlantic coast boundary was settled at 3 geographic miles from shore.

One nautical league is equal to 3 nautical miles, therefore the “three leagues from mainland” is equal to the 9 nautical miles Florida manages in the Gulf today. For fishery management purposes, federal waters extend from where state waters end out to about 200 nautical miles (less so in areas where our waters butt up against other country’s waters such as in the Caribbean). Federal waters are also known as the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ

[a64pilot]

I understand the submerged land act, and understand that until more recent times it wasn’t acted upon.
But now it appears to be, I’m beginning to see more and more private water ways, do not enter signs, and have to wonder who “owns” the ICW?

I’m seeing more and more local cities etc. flex their muscles on “their” waterways, and I don’t like it.
Yes, I realize me liking or not liking something has nothing to do with reality, me not liking it isn’t going to change anything.

I don’t like playing 20 questions with the Sheriff 5 miles off the coast of Ft Pierce about who I am, where have I been, how long did I stay there, where am I headed, how many people on board etc.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

See I even get nervous when I read about the City of blank’s waters.
I thought those were US waterways?
Yes, I know things are changing. Fl probably leads the way in that.

FYI.

There are limitations in Florida, such as proximity to marinas, shipyards and boat ramps, which restrictions would likely similarly preclude many of the boats anchored out in the City of Sausalito waters due to the close proximity to the marinas.

As of late 2017 the Florida Anchoring Laws are as follows:

You may not anchor or moor within 150 feet of any marina, boat ramp, boatyard, or other vessel launching or loading facility
You may not anchor within 300 feet of a facility that services or repairs a yacht with a water line of 120 feet or more in length
You may not anchor within 100 feet from the marked boundary of a public mooring field
** You may only anchor within the above boundaries if:

-Your vessel suffers from mechanical issues that puts the vessel or persons onboard the vessel at risk of unreasonable harm (vessel may anchor or moor for 5 business days or until vessel is repaired, whichever occurs first)

-Imminent or existing weather conditions in the vicinity of the vessel pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the vessel or the persons on board such vessel.The owner or operator of a vessel or floating structure may not anchor or moor within the marked boundary of a public mooring field unless the owner or operator has a lawful right to do so by contractual agreement.

You may not anchor or moor within the marked boundary of a public mooring field unless the owner or operator has a lawful right to do so by contractual agreement or other business arrangement.
You may not anchor, moor, tie, or otherwise affix your vessel to an unpermitted, unauthorized, or otherwise unlawful object that is on or affixed to the bottom of the waters of this state.
You may not anchor or moor a vessel that is at risk of becoming derelict (taking on water with no means to dewater, spaces on vessel that are designed to be enclosed are incapable of being sealed, vessel has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from anchor, left aground, sunk or partially sunk).
These laws are enforced by the Division of Law Enforcement of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and its officers, the sheriffs of the various counties and their deputies, municipal police officers, and any other law enforcement officer.



In 2009, several changes were made to Florida law (Chapter 327) that increased recreational boaters’ ability to anchor within the state. This law also outlined a temporary pilot mooring and anchoring program to allow five localities around
Florida to regulate anchoring within their jurisdictions. This temporary pilot program will expire on July 1, 2017.
This bulletin is intended to help boaters and local law enforcement understand Florida’s anchoring and mooring
laws, and the status of the pilot mooring project.
Can local governments restrict me from anchoring?
Under Florida law, boaters who use their boats for navigation (even if only occasionally) cannot be restricted from anchoring by a local jurisdiction (city or county) outside of permitted mooring fields. Cities and counties are expressly forbidden to “enact, continue in effect, or enforce any
ordinance or local regulation ... regulating the anchoring of vessels other than live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of mooring fields.” (Note definition of live-aboard below.)
Local governments may regulate anchoring within the marked boundaries of properly permitted mooring fields. As of September 2012 these are: Key West Mooring Field, Ft. Myers Beach Mooring Field, Fernandina Beach Municipal Mooring Field, Miami Dinner Key Mooring Field, City of St. Augustine Mooring Field, Titusville City Mooring Field, City of Sarasota Mooring Field, City of St. Petersburg Mooring Field, City of Naples Mooring Field, City of Punta Gorda Mooring Field, and Fort Myers Beach Mooring Field.
(Existing FL law) 327.60 Local regulations; limitations —
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit local governmental authorities from the enactment or enforcement of regulations which prohibit or restrict the mooring or anchoring of floating structures or live-aboard vessels within their jurisdictions or of any vessels within the marked boundaries of mooring fields permitted as provided in s. 327.40. However, local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the anchoring outside of such mooring fields of vessels other than live-aboard vessels as defined in s. 327.02.
The exception to this restriction are the five localities currently participating in the mooring and anchoring pilot program which are permitted to regulate anchoring in their jurisdictions
Anchoring Limitation Areas:
On July 1, 2016, a ban on overnight anchoring went into effect in three specific areas of Broward and Miami-Dade counties.
In Broward County the limitation area includes the section of Middle River between Northeast 21st Court and the Intracoastal Waterway.
The limitation areas in Miami-Dade County include Sunset Lake as well as sections of Biscayne Bay lying between: Rivo Alto Island and Di Lido Island; San Marino Island and San Marco Island; and San Marco Island and
Biscayne Island.
Does it matter if I “live-aboard” my vessel?
Full time, active cruisers who sleep on their boats with no permanent residence on land are no longer considered live-aboards under this law. As a result, their anchoring cannot be regulated by local governments. It is no longer relevant that the vessel is a boater’s “legal residence,” that term has been removed from the statute.

(from Chapter 2009-86, section 6)
327.02 Definitions of terms used in this chapter and in chapter 328.- As used in this chapter and in
chapter 328, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning, the term: (17)
”Live-aboard vessel” means: a) Any vessel used solely as a residence and not for navigation;
b) Any vessel represented as a place of business, or a professional or other commercial enterprise;
or c) Any vessel for which a declaration of domicile has been filed pursuant to s. 222.17.

[Tacmed]

As a live aboard cruiser, with no car and a negative carbon foot print, can i cash in my carbon offset credits to use the anchor?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Ah, found it in third article:

According to a census taken this month, 16 individuals are currently living anchored-out in Sausalito waters.

(April 2019)

A rather small percentage of the anchored out boats are occupied by persons. As of that report, 16 persons out of about 50 or more boats.

Don, as to anchoring within Sausalito waters. Which entails all the orange dotted locations on the picture posted earlier today. The city ordinance provides:

Ten-hour limitation.

Other than those vessels lawfully permitted to be within the harbor and marina facilities, it is unlawful for any person to moor or beach any vessel in City waters in excess of 10 hours without first obtaining the written permission of the Chief of Police. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the waters of Dunphy Park where no vessel may be moored as set forth in SMC 16.04.050.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

The Court of Appeals concluded that as long as there are times where there are no beds for the homeless, the homeless cannot be criminally prosecuted for their situation of being homeless.

Like I said, the 8th Amend. only applies to cruel & unusual punishment as a result of a criminal prosecution. I had no idea that homeless people were criminally prosecuted for merely being in a state of homelessness. But then I'm not sure what the difference is between enforcing vagrancy laws which are probably petty misdemeanors, and criminalizing "homelessness." If the shelters are full, then I agree it can be inhumane to force them to move when they have no alternatives, but the city is not "punishing" them akin to what a criminal might receive following a serious conviction. I haven't read the facts of the case, but as noted in the court's opinion it has obvious limitations, for example it apparently won't hinder enforcement of more typical vagrancy ordinances prohibiting trespass, loitering, obstructing pedestrian traffic, setting up encampments, etc. As a recent opinion we'll see how it plays out, but I don't think it should be read as broadly as you're suggesting.

[a64pilot]

Forcing someone, any one from their home to a “shelter” is cruel.
I’ve never been in prison, but I bet it’s a lot like a shelter.
I don’t care if that home is a box under a bridge, assuming they are an adult and have the mental faculties to understand their choices, they chose to live that way, let them.
Now the mentally ill, should get help. Not sure a shelter is actually helping though, not qualified to say that.
As long as their chosen way of life does not impinge on the freedom of others, or cause others some other form of distress, they ought to be allowed to live in the manner they chose.
I’m not I’m California and never expect to visit.
But my observation is that the “problem” elsewhere is not with people living on junk boats, it’s junk boats that are abandoned or stored, nobody lives on them.
It seems for every boat that is an eyesore and has someone living aboard there are ten boats that are stripped of all canvas or have tattered, destroyed sails and no one has set foot on it in months.

On this thread it was said that there were 50 boats anchored, but 16 people living there.
Getting rid of the abandoned boats would seem to go a long way towards saving the eel grass?

[Baba Buoy]

This is not something to cry about.
1. Eelgrass in California is mostly found in very shallow water. At low tide much of it is exposed. Most of eelgrass environment is not impacted by anchoring, with some very localized mechanical damage at anchoring depth.

2. The health of California eelgrass had not suffering like East Coast eelgrass, which had been systemically wiped out by fresh water pollutants from sewage and animal farms sources.

As to why an environmental organization is trying to make an issue of this, it's likely they are trying to emulate East Coast eelgrass environmental politics.

[philaw]

These are valid concerns, but it seems a bit of a strange focus. What's the impact on the sea bed of people bringing in heavy equipment to put in concrete mooring buoys with concrete bases? Or buildign a marina? Or the running of superyachts? It seems like lesser damage is being targeted because no one powerful is making money off it.

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'm pretty certain you're right about there being an agenda, but it's not exactly hidden.
Audubon's declared mission is to restore and conserve natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. They accomplish this through conservation, advocacy, community involvement, and by tapping into an active network that include more than 50,000 members and 48 affiliated chapters in communities throughout California. Funding this study would be part of those efforts.

This study DID quantify the damage, and I quoted the numbers: 25 - 41% of 80.7 - 82.7 ha

For those who didn't read the study:
“... Our minimum-bounding polygon defined an area of 84.4 ha where anchor-outs were causing damage within the eelgrass bed. This area also comprised the highest concentration of boats within Richardson Bay.
The low damage estimate indicated that the area of eelgrass beds with boats was 80.7 ha. Of this area, 25% of the eelgrass bed was apparently damaged by anchor-outs.
The high damage estimate indicated that the eelgrass bed was 82.7 ha, of which 41% was damaged by anchor-outs ...”

I don't think it likely that scouring the sea-grass would be beneficial (except to those trying to set an anchor).

[pau-hana]

They fail to mention the millions of gallons of raw sewage that is accidentally spilled into Richardson Bay by the municipal Sewage treatment plant. This has happened more than once...

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...ay-3229985.php