For those who are cheering on the City of Miami Beach

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... 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.

The term ‘Crown Land’ is used to identify land owned, and managed, by the federal, or provincial governments. Here in Ontario, this land is governed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and it accounts for 87% of the province.
Unlike camping in Provincial/National Parks, Crown land locations have no facilities, staff, or infrastructure.

Camping is allowed for free on most Crown lands in Ontario, including Crown lands covered by water.
Anyone camping for private, non-commercial purposes can stay in a camping unit for up to 21 days on any one site in a calendar year. After 21 days, campers are required to move at least 100 metres from their previous location.

On the Crown Land Atlas, on the Ontario government website, you can identify designated Crown land, and search detailed policy use reports, outlining whether you are permitted to camp in the area.

Campers who are not Canadian residents need to buy a camping permit. This is regulated provincially, and so costs and rules do vary. Ontario, for example, charges $9.35 + tax, per person, per night.

There are some areas of Crown land, where signage is posted, restricting camping, or restricting the number of days permitted.

Camping on Crown land ➥ https://www.ontario.ca/page/recreati...-on-crown-land

Crown Land Atlas ➥ https://www.ontario.ca/page/crown-land-use-policy-atlas

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

...We didn't move there and expect someone to build us affordable housing. We didn't park an RV on a side street in front of someone's house. We just accept reality and live where we can afford to.

And we have a winner! Well said.

Originally Posted by GordMay

...Camping is allowed for free on most Crown lands in Ontario, including Crown lands covered by water...

I'd love to live somewhere this was possible. For land-based camping it's not really an option for most of the US East Coast. But I like the idea of equating anchoring to "camping."

Originally Posted by GordMay

...Anyone camping for private, non-commercial purposes can stay in a camping unit for up to 21 days on any one site in a calendar year. After 21 days, campers are required to move at least 100 metres from their previous location.

IMHO, this sort of solution is the best way to make shared resources - camping areas or anchorages - accessible to all. Obviously details like the distance one has to move, for how long, and how soon one can return need to be tweaked based on the location.

[Montanan]

The US National Forest Service has tremendous land holdings and allows camping in much of the property, albeit with explicit regulations; it is not an unreasonable extension to have similar regulations on property covered by water.

By way of example:

The Secretary of Agriculture’s regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulation 261) provide in part for regulating the occupancy and use of developed recreation sites. A violation of these regulations is subject to a penalty of not more than $500 or 6 months imprisonment, or both.

Prohibitions:

Occupying any portion of the site for other than recreation purposes. (261.14a)

Recreation purposes does not mean residing purposes.


Camping means the temporary use of National Forest System lands for the purpose of overnight occupancy without a permanently fixed structure.

Occupying between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. a place designated for day use only. (261.16e)
Failing to remove all camping equipment or personal property when vacating the area or site. (261.16f)
Placing, maintaining, or using camping equipment except in a place specifically designated or provided for such equipment (261.16g)
Without permission, failing to have at least one person occupy a camping area during the first night after camping equipment has been set up. (261.16h)
Leaving camping equipment unattended for more than 24 hours without permission. The federal government is not responsible for any loss or damage to personal property.(261.16i)


Camping stay is limited to 21 consecutive days in FS operated campgrounds and 28 consecutive days at concessionaire operated campgrounds. One has to leave the campground.

Fee Areas It is not always free to use.
• You must pay a fee to use certain developed
sites and facilities. Such areas are clearly
signed or posted as requiring a fee.
• Where fees are required, you must pay before
using the site, facility, equipment, or service
furnished.

[Montanan]

https://www.waterwayguide.com/knowledge-center/news-post/12292/florida-anchoring-restrictions


This is NOT a new issue, it has been in the works for a longtime.

Snipet: Florida Anchoring Restrictions.


"For over a decade, Florida legislators have grappled with the rules of anchoring. Following the completion of an 8-year pilot program conducted by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that provided insight into the multitude of issues associated with vessels anchoring in the state's waterways, the Florida legislature approved House Bill 7043 that codified anchoring regulations in the state. The regulations, which offer clear guidance and specific requirements for boaters, localities, public safety agencies and law enforcement, went into effect July 1, 2017."

. . .

"As of July 2021, the State of Florida enacted a law that allows municipal governments and counties to manage anchorages. These new measures also provide guidance on the definitions of derelict vessels, use of unpermitted moorings and proof of pump-out when anchored for 10 days or longer in permitted mooring fields or No-Discharge Zones.

Be advised that regulations and laws will change for many designated and favorite anchorages in the state. Boaters should be aware of local ordinances before choosing an anchorage. Law enforcement will most likely be polite and understanding if you don't know the rules, but pulling up anchor and moving is not an activity you want to engage in after settling in following a day underway.

Dinghy Restriction in Miami Beach

It is also important to note that in the City of Miami Beach it is unlawful to tie a dinghy to a canal wall to visit the city. The city is also strictly enforcing the 20-minute limit for the dinghy dock at the end of 17th St. These restrictions carry stiff civil fines."

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by wholybee

The anchorage is a "special anchorage" which is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. One argument of the anchor outs was that because the anchorage was designated in the CFR only the federal authorities had judication over it, and that the local jurisdiction could not pass laws to regulate it.
. . .

FYI:

FEDERAL ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
33 CFR 110.72d
and
33 CFR 110.173
LT John Downing
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston

https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/docs/HomeAndEnvironment/Docs/ADV_WorkGroup/USCG_Fed_Anchorages.pdf

Anchorage Management

• Federal and state governments have concurrent
jurisdiction over navigable waters and the lands
beneath. Federal law also recognizes state and
local authority to regulate anchorages. The
regulatory power of the state is subject to the
paramount authority of the Federal government
for the regulation of interstate and foreign
commerce. States exercise control if it is
consistent with Federal actions or functions, and
does not interrupt commerce.


Key attribute is maintaining interstate travel and navigation is a Federal jurisdiction.



Types of Anchorages
• There are four types of anchorages common
throughout ports of the U.S.; each serves a
specific purpose for specific types of vessels:
– Special anchorage areas.
– Anchorage grounds.
– Barge fleeting facilities/areas.
– Managed anchorage mooring fields.

Special Anchorage Areas
• Special anchorage areas are defined in 33 CFR §
109.10, Special anchorage areas.
Special anchorage areas allow vessels of less than 65 feet
in length (20 meters) to anchor without anchor
lights. They also allow vessels of less than 65 feet
in length, and barges, canal boats, scows, or
other nondescript craft to anchor without
required sound signals.

This "special anchorage" designation only changes the display and sound regulations for short LOA vessels. Otherwise there is nothing Special about them.


. . .

Federal Authority [Navigable waterways of the U.S.]

The USCG also has authority to establish, amend,
or remove anchorages within navigable
waterways of the U.S. via the rulemaking process.
The governing law for Federal rulemaking is
Administrative Procedure, 5 U.S.C., Part 1,
Chapter 5 (APA).

State Authority
• When a state establishes an anchorage area, it is
often termed a managed anchorage mooring
field (MAMF). Authority to establish MAMFs
comes from each state’s Public Trust Doctrine,
which preserves these areas for public use.
• Before a state establishes or regulates a MAMF, it
first must follow the USACE permitting process,
which includes a USCG review, to verify that the
anchorage is not an obstruction or hazard to
navigation.

Snipets of exemplary and typical Federal Regulations regarding anchorage management:

Charleston Anchorage Regulations

33 CFR 110.173
• (3) No vessel may anchor within the
designated anchorages for more than 72
hours without the prior approval of the
Captain of the Port.
• (4) No vessel may anchor unless it
maintains a bridge watch, guards and answers
Channel 16 FM, and maintains an accurate
position plot.


• (6) No vessel may anchor unless it maintains
the capability to get underway within 4 hours.


I suspect not many [read none] of "anchor outs" obtain prior approval of the COTP or maintain a bridge watch 24/7. Also, pretty sure no one reading this thread maintains an anchor watch 24/7.

[Montanan]

By way of example:

Montana's State Campgrounds:

In most cases, tent and RV camping is limited to 14 consecutive days over a 30 day period.

All camping requires a “General Recreation License.”

They are designated for "recreational use only", residing even if moving from one State campground to another is not deemed to be recreational use.

Recreational: relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment.

An M.C.A. Snipet:

A recreationist's overnight use of state lands must not exceed the following time limits:

(i) for any site on leased or licensed land outside a designated campground - 2 consecutive days;

(ii) for a designated campground - 14 consecutive days;

(iii) for unleased, unlicensed lands outside a campground 14 days per calendar year, unless permission for a longer period is obtained from the department.

(f) A recreationist may not keep horses on state land overnight.

(g) A recreationist shall keep pets on a leash or otherwise in control. A recreationist may not allow the pet to harass livestock.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Mike - I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. ...But I do respect your opinion and did not mean to imply anything other than what you wrote so eloquantly.

Thanks Weebles, and I didn't mean my response as a rebuke to your thoughtful perspective -- something I always appreciate from you! I just wanted other readers to be clear about where I stand.

I think we both agree, this issue is not really a boating one. It is about housing, and other associated economic/social issues. The real solution cannot be to simply allow people without a home to occupy public spaces. But in the absence of other, better options, I'm not sure what these people are expected to do. Besides, pushing them out of this location just moves the problem somewhere else.

I don't think it's right, or fair, to convert public spaces to private ownership. That is essentially what is happening when someone permanently anchors in one spot. But it's the same thing when an open anchorage gets converted to a fee-based mooring field. Both offend the same principle.

And while I don't think it's unreasonable to put time limits on an anchored boat, especially in high-traffic areas, the fact is, everyone has to live somewhere. If this is the best option these folks can find, then it is equally unreasonable to sweep them away.

As you can see, I operate in full cognitive-dissonance mode on this issue .

[mvweebles]

This is actually pretty simple. The anchor outs want all the benefits of a boat/cruiser but they don't want any of the obligations. Heck, they object to moving their boat a mile every 1-1/2 months. They are an eyesore and a menace but because they use boating loopholes to further their cause, authorities have little choice but to be ham-fisted in their rules that invariably sweep true boaters into onerous restrictions.

Each individual needs to figure out their living situation within the confines of the municipality in which they reside - and live within their financial means. Exploiting anchoring loopholes doesn't work for me which is why I happily support the Miami Beach efforts. Wish it could be moderated, but that ship has sailed long ago. The anchor outs are organized and want full permission to stay where they are. They don't want to move.

[Island Time O25]

100-120 years ago in response to the slums with its epidemics, crime, etc the society started overregulating its housing stock (zoning, more stringent building and fire codes, etc). With the result that tens of millions of families were priced out not only from the ownership market but recently even from the rental market. Thus proliferation of trailer parks, tent cities and anchorouts.

The most reasonable solution, both financially and practically, IMO is to find a space not in the public way where these modes of housing alternatives can continue without greatly impinging on public spaces. As far as anchorouts are concerned a non profit mooring field may make perfect sense. It does not cost $300 or more a month to maintain a mooring. Most likely 1/10 of that if done by a non profit. Mooring blocks can be purshased and installed in bulk and maintained for $100/mo or less if initial install costs are amortized over say 10-15 years or longer.

Even the poorest bums can get that amount a month to pay for the morring. Even if from a housing nonprofit as that would be 1000s times cheaper than to build another homeless shelter or a section 8 housing complex. And, as with airports, I find it both ironic and despicable, that the land based complainants first save a ton of $$ by buying near a nuisance (airport, pig farm, trailer park, anchorout field, etc) than spend $, time and effort to get rid of them claiming them to be a nuisance.

Once such subsidized/non profit mooring field is established in sparsley populated area, subsequent developers and their buyers are put on notice that the mooring field was there first and has priority over new home buyers complaints about the view or the smell of the liveaboards when ashore.

As long as we as society are unwilling or unable to deal with the underlying issues which create homelessness problem (mainly mental health) we have an obligation (just like defense and public safety) to at least pursue some sensible and affordable solution. IMO, and correct me if I'm wrong, building and maintaining a mooring field for low income liveaboards is probably 100s if not 1000s times, cheaper per capita than building and maintaining land based housing for them.

And don't start me about "free market". When zoning, building and fire codes are abolished then come back and we will talk about the real free market. Until then it's just a battle of who will benefit from and prevail under gazillions of rules and regulations which choke the construction of new, real free market housing.

[Shanachie]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

x. And, as with airports, I find it both ironic and despicable, that the land based complainants first save a ton of $$ by buying near a nuisance (airport, pig farm, trailer park, anchorout field, etc) than spend $, time and effort to get rid of them claiming them to be a nuisance.

This is wrong.



These anchorages filled with junk boats are a relatively new happening. Ten years ago, this was not a major problem in Florida.



The houses came first. Miami Beach has been settled since the 1920s. Most waterfront communities have been around since the 1950-80s.



Squatting on junk boats became popular when the 1970s-era vessels started reaching the point of no return, say at 40 years of age. Until, boats cost too much to be a cheap form of housing.

[sailorboy1]

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.

Not going to read all the thread as I am sure it has drifted by now. But I greatly doubt the State will allow all your worries and that it will follow the same rules in place for the other permitted mooring fields.

Nice rant though

[5BTM]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The most reasonable solution, both financially and practically, IMO is to find a space not in the public way where these modes of housing alternatives can continue without greatly impinging on public spaces. As far as anchorouts are concerned a non profit mooring field may make perfect sense. It does not cost $300 or more a month to maintain a mooring. Most likely 1/10 of that if done by a non profit. Mooring blocks can be purshased and installed in bulk and maintained for $100/mo or less if initial install costs are amortized over say 10-15 years or longer.

Even the poorest bums can get that amount a month to pay for the morring. Even if from a housing nonprofit as that would be 1000s times cheaper than to build another homeless shelter or a section 8 housing complex. And, as with airports, I find it both ironic and despicable, that the land based complainants first save a ton of $$ by buying near a nuisance (airport, pig farm, trailer park, anchorout field, etc) than spend $, time and effort to get rid of them claiming them to be a nuisance.

Once such subsidized/non profit mooring field is established in sparsley populated area, subsequent developers and their buyers are put on notice that the mooring field was there first and has priority over new home buyers complaints about the view or the smell of the liveaboards when ashore.


And don't start me about "free market". When zoning, building and fire codes are abolished then come back and we will talk about the real free market. Until then it's just a battle of who will benefit from and prevail under gazillions of rules and regulations which choke the construction of new, real free market housing.

Sarcasm font on.

Why not establish a sailboat donation anchorage similar to the clothing donation bins ?

You would anchor your seventies vintage yacht, leave the dinghy on shore so
the homeless, the addicted and the mentally ill could row it to the yacht of their choice and live happily ever after

Sarcasm font off.


I like building codes, they are the reason I take elevators to 14th floors of buildings without worry.

Two hundred years ago you could decide you liked a place, kill off the locals and build whatever you wanted.

It is a good thing that the local governments have a say in what happens locally.

[ekelly36]

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 - I've done that research. Three weeks ago, there were fewer than ten transient slips in the entire area, and no long term slips. Wait lists at mooring fields were three years.
As for anchoring being a cheap way to store your boat, mind explaining how people stored their boats before the marine industry got going? Yes, that's right, they stored their boats at anchor. The history of being at anchor far predates glitzy marinas.

I get it... honestly.... but in reality, if you have thousands of people who have a boat just to have it in a certain area and they rarely or never use it then it ruins the area for everyone else.... And how many of them just abandon the boat if something goes wrong, how many of them don't have insurance? Sure, it's fine if you are doing what you are supposed to do and being responsible, but just from reading comments here on the whole situation, I would guess that a lot are not taking care of business and are ruining the area for everyone.... History of anchoring before marinas is a poor example.... in the 1800's if your boat damaged my boat and you didn't pay for repairs, I could blast you with my muzzle loader, then take your boat..... pretty sure things don't work like that now..... not in Florida hopefully lol....

[pbmaise]

Okay just thinking creatively how to get around the dinghy issue.
#1 Solving the dinghy and docking fee is easy.
It is called a dry bag. Swim to shore when the weather is calm. Stock up on foods and swim back. Alternately, a dinghy taxi service and shared dinghy among several vessels would mean only one monthly fee shared among many vessels.

#2 Would international registration help?
Delist the vessel and register in somewhere like Langkawi. Then get a US cruising permit for $12? This would force you to leave US waters once a year go to the Bahamas and come back again. Found that in thread... https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...-253402-2.html

#3 Toilet issue
Solving that issue is stinky. If there was no toilet at all, could you get away with saying you go to shore when the need arises? I bet the law hasn't considered that and only addresses things like a toilet must have a holding tank. I think I found part of the answer.....The boat must be under 26 feet long...

Which crafts are required by Florida Statute 327.53 to have a working toilet on board when in state waters?
Any vessel 26 feet or longer with an enclosed cabin and berthing facilities.
Any houseboat, defined as a vessel used primarily as a residence and not moved for 21 out of 30 days in a county of this state.


Here is quite a pretty 22 ft sailboat
https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/2003-etap-21i-8969304/

[Iron E]

The answer to this issue is well above my pay grade, but I do understand we're talking about people's lives here.
The whole "I don't give a sh*t about what you're going through" is the worst trait of CF.

It's one thing to tell someone they're idiotic about their rigging idea. Disregard for a person having a place to live is a pretty high level of apathy.