Liveaboards at the gate

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Gerrit Coetzee

What is it with people and the revolt against head discharge? All of sealife excrement in the very same water, and the same people have no problem with that.

It is primarily human fecal microbial pathogens that make humans sick. Human sewage with pathogenic bacteria colonize, for example, estuary shellfish. I don't think it much hurts the shellfish, but when humans consume it, we get sick. I do not think we get seriously ill from, for example, turtle gut bacteria. That is why the head discharge issue is valid.

As has been debated ad nauseam (pun intended), there is not much of any concern about discharge outside of the 3 nm limit or outside of an NDA. It is heavily debated regarding discharge inside those boundaries, which was the genesis of Mike's survey.

[Nord Sal]

I moved my boat down to Washington last fall from Alaska where I lived aboard for several years. I'm now residing on terra firma and the boat is moored in small marina (50 slips) on the Olympic Peninsula. There are four livaboards in the marina. The marina is managed by a larger port authority which also has two larger marinas, boat yard, small airport, etc.

The demographics of the four liveaboards imclude three single young guys on smaller (low thirty-something foot) sailboats and one older retired man (70s) on a mid-thirties sailboat. All but the retired guy work at either low-paying jobs (2) or are working to make it with their fledgling small business (1). All are also working at sailing and maintaining their boats.

One afternoon a few days ago I arrived in the parking lot and I saw a well-dressed man on the dock attaching a piece of paper to one of the liveaboard's boat. I watched him from my vehicle as he then took a photo of it and walked over to another liveaboard boat and did the same. He then walked up the gangway and got into an expensive sportscar and left the marina.

I went down to my boat which is directly across from one of the liveaboards. The letter was in a plastic bag and taped to the liveaboard for all to see. It was from the port director and was terminating the liveaboard status for the owner. I then looked at the others and they all had recieved identical letters.

The port is kicking them all out in 90 days. They have to find a new home on December 1.

The letter stated the reason for terminating the liveaboards in the marina was that the port "couldn't provide security" without staff on site 24/7.

None of these guys saw anything coming at all. There were no troubles in the harbor.

Liveaboard slips are few and far between in this region. The guys will now have to find somewhere 40+ miles away if they want to keep living on their boats.

I've been a liveaboard and know first hand the security a liveaboard brings to an otherwise empty harbor just through their mere presence. As a liveabaoard myself I have been first to provide aid to a boat on fire, secured boats that had come free from their slips, contacted the harbormaster to get a pump to a boat that was sinking in its slip and asked people getting aboard other's boats what they were doing. Few would argue that these deeds are not all valuable and help make the harbor more secure. All liveaboards I know report similar experiences to one degree or another.

The action of the port pisses me off. The marina is ungated, and anyone is free to walk down to the docks anytime. The marina cites their inability to provide security as their reason for terminating liveaboards in the marina but this very action reduces the security of the marina!

I also believe the timing is very poor by forcing these people to move in the winter season with the dark and stormy weather. If this had to happen, why couldn't it wait until this spring instead of December?

And lastly the whole ordeal just stinks with respect to the housing market, economy and prospects for low-income working people. There is a crisis in the region with affordable housing. Here we had a few people, working away at the grindstone, paying their way and living in their own home, however modest. What now? Their incomes won't allow them to live alone and keep their boats. I don't doubt the county has some "homelessness task force" or uses staff time for homelessness issues. Well, here's one example of how homeless people are made.

The whole thing sucks in my mind. I am still seeing that well-dressed man getting into his shiny white sportscar and driving off on sunny afternoon after kicking several low-income people from their homes and justifying it with the vague, bureaucratic rationale of "security." I strongly suspect his income exceeds that of all the liveaboards in the marine combined. I know there's more to it than that, but in that light, it's hard not to see it as class warfare.

[SV__Grace]

Wow, this thread has traveled farther than most cruisers! My understanding is that the OP shared an experience with entitled jerks on shore and asked for feedback. I'm unclear if the OP is an anchor out or cruiser. My definitions:

- Anchor out liveaboard: lives on their boat in one spot for months and years.

- Liveaboard cruiser: lives on their boat, travels and explores the world, lives on the hook in various locations for a few days or weeks at a time.

I'd like to share my perspective as a liveaboard cruiser. As cruisers we WILL encounter jerks, both on shore and on other boats. Being cruisers we have freedom of movement and don't have to put up with jerks nearby, so rather than stay and fume or stay and argue or stay and risk retaliation, isn't it better to find a more peaceful spot?

I have my own judgments about "anchor outs" living on derelict boats piled high with crap that don't move, some of which seem very sketchy, but I don't have to anchor around them if I don't want to and it does me no good to resent them for their existence. I don't blame locals for resenting anchor outs, not because they are "freeloaders" but because of fear the unknown- they could be polluters, drug users, thieves, etc., but also they can be eyesores and unsafe in storms.

"Adapt and stay in motion" should be the cruiser's creed IMHO. We all have choices in how we react to events and situations and those who live on the water must adapt, that's part of the adventure and why we like our lifestyle. Even the guvmint can't touch us if we exercise our freedom and stay in motion.

("adapt and stay in motion" doesn't mean moving every day, it means if you find a nice spot and want to stay for awhile, you do so, and if the weather or locals present a problem, then move. If you're a cruiser you don't want to be in one spot for too long anyway)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by lestersails

It is primarily human fecal microbial pathogens that make humans sick. Human sewage with pathogenic bacteria colonize, for example, estuary shellfish. I don't think it much hurts the shellfish, but when humans consume it, we get sick. I do not think we get seriously ill from, for example, turtle gut bacteria. That is why the head discharge issue is valid.

As has been debated ad nauseam (pun intended), there is not much of any concern about discharge outside of the 3 nm limit or outside of an NDA. It is heavily debated regarding discharge inside those boundaries, which was the genesis of Mike's survey.

Exactly right. The issue is not that sea life also poops. It's that human feces contains pathogens which affect humans. Whale poop, not so much.

This is why most countries have some sort minimum dumping limit, in most cases it is 3nm. Personally, I think this is overkill in most cases, but it certainly sets a limit that should avoid most problems.

With regards to the survey (which has now become yet another fight club over composting heads), I set it up to try and answer the question: How many people follow the law, and how many do whatever they think is right. It came about because a few folks were claiming most people ignore the law. The survey indicates this is not true, although it is certainly not statistically sound, so one has to be careful about drawing any conclusions.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

...The letter stated the reason for terminating the liveaboards in the marina was that the port "couldn't provide security" without staff on site 24/7...

A general rule is that if someone gives a reason for doing something which is obviously not the real reason, then the real reason is "political".

There are some politics at play within the Port Authority which they are not willing to admit, so they come up with a phony excuse.

Obviously if there is no physical security at this marina, ejecting tenants who provide an ongoing presence, people with an interest in watching out for the security and safety of the marina where they live, is counter productive. Security is not the real reason.

I've been through this. The port authority is probably under pressure by lobbying from someone with an opinion about liveaboards, maybe even the port director himself, or someone who wants a slip. It is also clear that the person or people who are responsible for this decision will never admit their real reasons. They don't have the honesty, ethics, or courage to do so. They will simply stonewall, obfuscate, and lie about it. It's who they are.

Whatever the real reason is will be difficult for a small group with little resources to reverse this. But it can be done. I wish them luck.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by wingssail

A general rule is that if someone gives a reason for doing something which is obviously not the real reason, then the real reason is "political".

There are some politics at play within the Port Authority which they are not willing to admit, so they come up with a phony excuse.

Obviously if there is no physical security at this marina, ejecting tenants who provide an ongoing presence, people with an interest in watching out for the security and safety of the marina where they live, is counter productive. Security is not the real reason.

I've been through this. The port authority is probably under pressure by lobbying from someone with an opinion about liveaboards, maybe even the port director himself, or someone who wants a slip. It is also clear that the person or people who are responsible for this decision will never admit their real reasons. They don't have the honesty, ethics, or courage to do so. They will simply stonewall, obfuscate, and lie about it. It's who they are.

Whatever the real reason is will be difficult for a small group with little resources to reverse this. But it can be done. I wish them luck.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote.

There's more to the story of course, and I left things out I could've added. I'll add a little more context below.

The marina is sort of the 'red-headed stepchild' of the port authority's three marina facilities. It's comparatively out of the way, at the end of a road from a small unincorporated community that is located about 40 miles by road from the two other (large) marinas and boat yard, port office, etc., all of which are located in the port town, the county seat.

The marina only is staffed about 8 hours a week, by a person who doesn't know boats or docks. The port authority has tried to sell the marina in the past but public uproar at the idea from the local community made them back off. Judging from the maintenance performed on the docks and shoreside facilities, it appears they'd rather not have it.

Recently, the port authority ran a 'community outreach' project to elicit public input on the marina facilities, their management and the longer term vision for the marina. The authority stopped taking comments on the marina three weeks ago. Some at the dock seemed pleased that they were being asked to comment. I was cynical and suspected the all the attention would bring consequences, even if unintended ones. The liveaboards got notice on the 1st of Sept.

I suspect the liveaboards will just roll over. I've offered to help with a letter of support and provided encouragement to fight if they truly believed in the fight but, right or wrong, win or lose, the only thing that is clear is that it is a steep uphill battle for them. They have a tough enough time as it is without trying to take on the port.

It's clear the port has motives other than "security", whatever it is that that means. I'm not privy to the business of the executives at the port authority, so I don't know the real reason(s) for banning liveaboards. I do suspect that a marina property is easier to sell without liveaboards and think this could be influencing, perhaps driving, the decision.

[dwedeking2]

Key west provides free pump outs to the anchor outs that is paid via a federal grant.

Most anchor outs (200 people a month) pay to use the city dinghy dock giving them access to the dumpsters. I've only seen a few dinghy access land via unauthorized landings.

There are two submerged boats in the area. One has been that way for the 3 years I've been here the other for 10 months. Neither are in front of a hotel so no one cares.

A local hotel owner recently had a bill passed to limit anchor outs to a 3 month period and had FWC go around and put notices on boats. You don't have to own the land under the water in South Florida, just some politicians and LEO.

Its not about cleanliness or safety.

[Boatguy30]

You have to leave Monroe County after 3 months or??? Go past stock island for how long? More details would be appreciated. Doubt I’ll be back in the keys real soon, but do plan to be there some in next probably 4-5 years. Have lived aboard in keys a few months at a time many different years and boats.

[jahnje]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Yep, we own it. Our subdivision of canals and marina/boat basin was dredged out of privately-owned land. If you look on the County records, we own the submerged land that extends 30 ft from our bulkhead. Some own 25 ft, some development units own 60 ft. And we pay taxes on our lot, including what is submerged. For that, we also get to build docks, slip boats, etc. in our owned space.

Beyond the 30 ft behind our house, is another 100 ft or so that is owned by the Homeowners association. For that privilege of egress, the property owners all get assessed for dredging. (Which is about to happen at the tune of $1.4 MM to be split among 300 lot owners.) Beyond the 100 ft is several hundred feet width of boat basin, occupied by a private-owned (albeit available to the public) marina. So it's all private-owned, submerged land from bulkhead to bulkhead.

It is obviously free to be navigated by anyone, but the submerged land is private. So as I understand it, once you drop the anchor, you are trespassing. And every boat that I have seen anchored in the basin, is asked to leave by either the Coast Guard or Fish and Wildlife within a matter of hours.

In Illinois once your water way (lake/pond) touches someone else's property line that person is allowed full access to it. If it touches public land, then the public is allowed full access. Can't really speak to anchoring though, only fishing in the neighbor's fully stocked pond.

[sailjumanji]

Just as an aside, the marina near us used to have a wonderful group of liveboards. We had our previous cat there for several years before renovating our dock. Got to know quite a few of them. Their boats were generally in tip top shape. There were also 2-3 that boats were a mess, buckets of transmission fluid or oil stored on the finger pier, junk everywhere ... The marina had rules against this, but either didn't enforce or it became too much of a hassle. So they eventually gave notice that liveaboard only allowed thru their current contract. No more liveaboards.

[wingssail]

I've long held the view that long term living aboard a boat is not something my grandchildren will be able to do.

• Marinas will not permit it. (liveaboards represent 90%of the hassle)
• Even if permitted, marinas will cater to larger boats and wealthy clients, liveaboards, unless rich, will be priced out.
• Anchoring out will be subject to sufficient restriction and regulation that it will not be an option for many, more shorelines will be dominated by wealthy homeowners who will pressure authorities
• Environmental regulations pertaining to waste and engine/fuel emissions will further raise the bar on boats, especially with lower income owners.
• Public sentiment against "alternate life styles" will also increase pressure, we all must conform to the "normal" (house, car, dog, job, vacation in Cancun)
• Increasing cost of boats and boating will also price out many "middle class" or lower income folks

This saddens me but we've had 35 years, the best 35 years we could imagine, and maybe it's not done yet. My kids don't have the inclination. My grandkids will read about our lifestyle and be amazed.

Of course, it may be permitted in some third world countries longer than in USA, Europe, Austr/NZ, etc but to me the trend is obvious and I just have to read this thread or look down the dock at the encroaching sport fishermen/day launches with 3-4 350HP Mercury Verados and two full time boat workers which every year take more of the berths in our marina to know it is coming.

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Just as an aside, the marina near us used to have a wonderful group of liveboards. We had our previous cat there for several years before renovating our dock. Got to know quite a few of them. Their boats were generally in tip top shape. There were also 2-3 that boats were a mess, buckets of transmission fluid or oil stored on the finger pier, junk everywhere ... The marina had rules against this, but either didn't enforce or it became too much of a hassle. So they eventually gave notice that liveaboard only allowed thru their current contract. No more liveaboards.

And so to all you liveaboards who think that since the water is free, the wind is free, your living habits are free. .
If liveaboards policed their neighbors this discussion would not be relevant. But unfortunately as often is eventually discovered, the idea of freedom and choice still requires a social order.
The marinas choose to enforce the rules that should be community social standards and so all lose from one, the insurance company actuaries discover that liveaboards are a higher liability, the county regulators discover they are getting the bill for the derelict abandon liveaboard vessel, the waterfront owners dislike the intrusion of liveaboards on their riparian rights- is there a conclusive pattern? Liveaboards- be a part of the community fabric and the label liveaboard derelict is not applied.
You may even be invited to tie up to a waterfront dock with power and water even when it is prohibited by county regulations.

B

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Once the canal you dredged is connected to navigable waterways it becomes a navigable waterway, and anyone can now anchor there. You cannot "tresspass" by anchoring in navigable waterways. Unless your title is written before the constitution was written, no one owns "submerged land" below the high water mark.

Wrong. Case in point, many rail trestles were built during the heyday of coaling freighters, and the rail companies were deeded the sea bottom under and around the trestle. Whoever owns that property now also owns the seabed. In some cases the property even appears on charts. It remains private property.

[Dsanduril]

In the US, at least, if the water is "navigable" (there is a very broad legal definition) then the private ownership of submerged land is very limited. The opinion in the key case, Scranton v. Wheeler said:

The primary use of the waters and the lands under them is for purposes of navigation, and the erection of piers in them to improve navigation for the public is entirely consistent with such use, and infringes no right of the riparian owner. Whatever the nature of the interest of a riparian owner in the submerged lands in front of his upland bordering on a public navigable water, his title is not as full and complete as his title to fast land which has no direct connection with the navigation of such water. It is a qualified title, a bare technical title, not at his absolute disposal, as is his upland, but to be held at all times subordinate to such use of the submerged lands and of the waters flowing over them as may be consistent with or demanded by the public right of navigation.

Specifically with regard to railroads, in West Chicago St. R. Co. v. People of State of Illinois Ex Rel City:

Great stress is placed by the railroad company on the fact that it is the owner in fee of the bed of the river at the point where the tunnel was constructed. But that fact is not vital in the present discussion; for it was adjudged by the state court-in harmony with settled doctrines, as will presently appear-that 'the title to land under a navigable river is not the same as the title to the shore land:' that 'in a navigable stream the public right is paramount, and the owner of the soil under the bed of such a stream can only use and enjoy it in so far as is consistent with the public right, which must be free and unobstructed;' that 'the title to the upland is absolute and paramount, while the title to the lands over which the navigable water flows is subordinate to the public right of navigation;' and that 'the city could not, if it would, grant the right to obstruct the navigation of the river, or bind itself to permit anything which has become an obstruction to be continued61).'…

…The principle is thus declared by a leading text writer: 'The privilege of navigation upon all waters which are capable of such use in their natural condition, and are accessible without trespassing upon private lands, is a common and paramount right. . . . At common law the right of navigating a public stream is paramount to the right of passage across the stream by means of a bridge.' Gould, Waters, 86, 88.

…The state court has well said that to maintain the navigable character of the stream in a lawful way is not, within the meaning of the law, the taking of private property or any property right of the owner of the soil under the river, such ownership being subject to the right of free and unobstructed navigation.62) What the city asks, and all that it asks, is that the railroad company be required, in the exercise of its rights and in the use of its property, to respect the public needs as declared by competent authority, upon reasonable grounds, to exist. This is not an arbitrary or unreasonable demand. It does not, in any legal sense, take or appropriate the company's property for the public benefit, but only insists that the company shall not use its property so as to interrupt navigation.

And even Texas (they were brought up here) says:

Q: Some landowners in my county have deeds to the riverbed. Can they exclude the public from their part of the river?
A: Not if the river is navigable. The policy of the government of Texas, expressed in statute since the days of the Republic, has been to retain the beds of navigable streams as public property. However, the state surveyors did not always adhere to this law, and some land grants purported to include the beds of navigable streams. To remedy this situation, in a 1929 law known as the Small Bill, the state relinquished to the adjoining landowners certain property rights in the beds of some navigable streams. However, this statute declared that it did not impair the rights of the general public and the state in the waters of the streams. So even if a landowner's deed includes the bed of a navigable stream, and taxes are being paid on the bed, the public retains its right to use it as a navigable stream.

It is a fairly common myth that a person boating along a "Small Bill" stream may not set foot on the streambed if the landowner forbids it. This is based on the notion that a person who steps into the streambed has entered onto private property within the meaning of the criminal trespass law. This may have some applicability when the waters of a stream leave its banks and a boater navigates out of the streambed and steps onto the adjacent private lands, or on coastal land when tide waters cover private property. But the general public has the right to walk within the boundaries of any navigable streambed, even if there are private ownership rights under the Small Bill.

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

In the US, at least, if the water is "navigable" (there is a very broad legal definition) then the private ownership of submerged land is very limited. The opinion in the key case, Scranton v. Wheeler said:



Specifically with regard to railroads, in West Chicago St. R. Co. v. People of State of Illinois Ex Rel City:


And even Texas (they were brought up here) says:

ya all really getting to complicated.
logical expectation- If the ground is natural riverbed , it is public. Manmade, it is from the owner of the surface land.
example- land dug from swamp and eventually flooded- belongs to swamp owner. If the natural river is dredged, it still belongs to the public.
but riparian rights are a state issued right that supersedes the federals.
So within the US waters, the arguments above can realistically be printed 51 times with no consensus. The stringing theme collected in this thread is pretty straight forward. Those who conform to social responsibility and customs tend to have little problems with anchored vessels and respecting room for all. Those with substandard vessels who fail to conform with society are suggesting a conspiracy against them.
Guess it will never be solved as long as capitalism exists.