Liveaboards at the gate

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Why would a boat in marina have special privileges?

"Special" is a loaded term that somehow implies privilege.

"Different" is a better term.

Occupants of a marine should have different privileges than those anchoring in public anchorages because:

• The marina is privately owned, or operated
• The occupants are paying a fee for services, improvement (slips e.g.) and other things
• In part, those fees are collected in taxes and go to support various local, state, federal programs

NB: this is a different argument than whether or not public anchorages should be converted into for-fee mooring fields, no not conflate the two.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Why would a boat in marina have special privileges?

You provided no logical support for your position that I can parse from your diatribe other than your concept of "fairness" which, as far as I can tell, is wildly different from mine and most other individuals I know.

Your concept of "fairness" seems to be "the same rules must apply everywhere even if the situations are wildly different".

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

The truth is the opposite of what you said. Everyone knows diesel outputs much higher levels of NOx and particulates.

What "everyone knows" often turns out to be incorrect.

In terms of pollutants, climate change etc, its the CO and the HCs that are the problem. Not the particulates.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

You provided no logical support for your position that I can parse from your diatribe other than your concept of "fairness" which, as far as I can tell, is wildly different from mine and most other individuals I know.

Your concept of "fairness" seems to be "the same rules must apply everywhere even if the situations are wildly different".

My interpretation of our friend's perspective is that he believes private ownership of waterways (and maybe everything) is immoral. That's the only way any of it makes sense.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Pelagia, do I understand you correctly in that the BC government applies the 14-day limit to all waters under its jurisdiction? And this is the same limit for Crown Land use? Is it ever enforced? And I wonder how far one has to move.?



Although I'd prefer something a bit longer, it is a model that seems reasonable. The commons is something everyone should be able to enjoy, so it's not fair if someone comes and permanently anchors in one popular spot.





And as an aside, it's a bit of a constitutional quirk that BC owns the seabed between the mainland and Vancouver Island. That's not the norm in the rest of the country, but is a hold over from when BC joined Confederation.

Mike,
It is not clear. Excluding Vancouver's False Creek, I think the 14-day limit is rarely enforced on the water. It IS occasionally enforced on land on Crown land and Provincial Parks (where the limit is overtly stated in Park literature).

I didn't even know about the "quirk" that BC owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland (but NOT on the West Coast of VI or north of Vancouver Island). Indeed, I thought the Feds owned it, after the BC failed to shut down the WG military testing out of Nanoose Bay. But COVID-19 made me learn more, because the BC government closed all its parks in the Spring 2020, including all Provincial Marine Parks. However, provided one doesn't go ashore or stern tie to land, BC Parks would be in arguable legal territory if they want to stop someone from simply anchoring, given the right to anchor a vessel is part of the common law right of navigation (Canada Shipping Act; https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-trans...horages-canada). One is allowed to anchor for a "reasonable" time. This reasonable time varies, but some say 14 days is accepted, such as False Creek in Vancouver; whereas some municipalities, such as Victoria, suggest only 2-3 days are reasonable.

Ontario, however, seems to be disputing this right (and somewhat losing, thus far: https://wildgreatlakes.com/anchoring-rights/). Interestingly, the Ontario 21-day limit you refer to seems to be cumulative; i.e., the Ontarion govt believes it does not reset by moving (https://wildgreatlakes.com/anchoring-rights/)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Mike,
It is not clear. Excluding Vancouver's False Creek, I think the 14-day limit is rarely enforced on the water. It IS occasionally enforced on land on Crown land and Provincial Parks (where the limit is overtly stated in Park literature).

I didn't even know about the "quirk" that BC owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland (but NOT on the West Coast of VI or north of Vancouver Island). Indeed, I thought the Feds owned it, after the BC failed to shut down the WG military testing out of Nanoose Bay. But COVID-19 made me learn more, because the BC government closed all its parks in the Spring 2020, including all Provincial Marine Parks. However, provided one doesn't go ashore or stern tie to land, BC Parks would be in arguable legal territory if they want to stop someone from simply anchoring, given the right to anchor a vessel is part of the common law right of navigation (Canada Shipping Act; https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-trans...horages-canada). One is allowed to anchor for a "reasonable" time. This reasonable time varies, but some say 14 days is accepted, such as False Creek in Vancouver; whereas some municipalities, such as Victoria, suggest only 2-3 days are reasonable.

Ontario, however, seems to be disputing this right (and somewhat losing, thus far: https://wildgreatlakes.com/anchoring-rights/). Interestingly, the Ontario 21-day limit you refer to seems to be cumulative; i.e., the Ontarion govt believes it does not reset by moving (https://wildgreatlakes.com/anchoring-rights/)

Thanks for the links P. Great read. Seems Ontario MNRF is constantly trying to extend its authority. I didn't realize the ability to use Crown Land and Crown Bed was so precarious. It's a long-standing tradition in Northern Ontario to go off camping in the summer. Likewise, I always assumed anchoring was fully federally governed, without any limits. Perhaps not...

I do take heart in this referenced paragraph:

This 21-day limit also applies to campers. The policy in their case says they can continue to occupy Crown land after that period if they relocate their campsite at least 100 meters. While the policy has nothing to say about vessels in this regard, I was able to confirm with MNRF that hauling anchor and moving that minimum distance, even within the same anchoring bay, has the same effect.

This seems a reasonable limit and approach to Crown Land and Crown Bed usage.

[alaskanviking]

This subject is a not a simple black and white easy to see causes and affects issue.

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

The issue is always someone wants to anchor wherever they want, have shore access wherever - including the ability to tie up their dinghy for as long as they want. A place to dispose of their trash, unless live aboards don't generate any? Pump out sewage is generally "free". Oh, and some want to have a place to park their car for free. And all with no time limit imposed.

This is a small part of the issue. Not sure what percentage of live boards are in this category, but I have seen this type. However at the same time this comment drastically overlooks a key element where regular boaters get overpriced out of marinas and services. I have experienced this in San Diego where the market has shifted to primarily service superyachts, million dollar race boats and the commercial fleets. I spend ~$55k at my last hual out there and was treated like that was trump change and my piddly 55k was barely worth the time to deal with. It’s a cultural shift because you see it through out the boat yards and services. Its ~$1000+ to haul out a 42ft boat, $600-$800 for a 30ft. a good chunk of the yards now either don’t let you do your own work while charging $$$, or play shenanigans with layday fees and contractors so they are not liable and can extort as much money as they can squeeze out. I paid as much in lay day fees as it would have cost for a new engine, and that was using the yards contractors. The San Diego yards bought the mexico yards, so you pay san diego prices on all but labor (I have been told the labor rate is climbing there too). There literally are no options but spending excessive amounts. I have seen nice boats slowly degrade over time (5-10 years) from really nice to completely derelict and broken. The bay is so commercialized there isn’t much available. A lot of people don’t haul out even for bottom paint for excessive amounts of time. When I bought my boat out of San Francisco it was actually more reasonable up there for work and supplies then it is in Socal.
When it comes to liveaboards that anchor out the big picture in the room is the cost of housing and the cost of living that has been going continually up, paychecks haven’t changed much or kept up. Housing costs are rather insane. There are several fights in San Fransisco, Seattle, San Diego, Seattle, Florida and others between property owners and boaters in anchorages. But rarely does anyone compare the cost of housing or the cost of living to the population sizes of these communities. Nothing is ever done about it. The public just gets stuck with the bill after the boats and people are to broken, for the benefit of the property owners.

the free parking made me laugh. I am sure that it depends on the location. reality is there should be piers and parking for anchorages if they exist, but that's such a small voice and voter pool, no one cares. down town san diego at the marina or even at the short term transient anchorage, parking is nill, and what's available is expensive. the 2 dinghy docks are overfull and its hard to get in. Uber is expensive if you have to live with it everyday. some parking in San Diego is $20-$50 for a few hours. I'm not for free parking either however its not hard to see this situation as a lack of planning and infrastructure, with some greed sprinkled in. its just stripping the area of resources and then complaining when the lack of options results in crappy boats.

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Hmmm, our property taxes don't support sewage treatment plants or garbage collection. We are billed for those monthly, by those utility entities.
The overwhelming majority of our property taxes goes to schools, which I guess live aboards don't have school age kids? Oh, but wait, neither do we.

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I'm all for user fees instead of general (and less than transparent) taxation. Those with school aged children should be paying for schools. Those with vehicles should be paying for road maintenance. And those with boats should be paying for marine based services. No one should be paying for services or goods they are not using. At least directly.

Many areas do pay property taxes on boats. Thankfully I am military because the San Diego can’t charge me property tax, although they made me jump through hoops to prove my mil status every year. Virginia also does a tax on boats. Florida will get you hard if you transit through to slow and you don’t have a state registration, regardless if you’re documented. You will have to pay for Florida registration, tax and will have to submit for a deduction on your home taxes. I am documented, but I pay to register the boat with my home state purely to protect myself from shady/greedy lower 48 states.

Property taxes don’t pay for sewage or garbage but most places taxes do pay for the infrastructure, facilities, landfills, ect. Property taxes in my home town pay for the landfill and recycling facility (user fees or monthly charges pay for operations). There are many garbage and sewage services that are run similarly. Really depends on your locations, there are enough that contract that stuff out and they pay min wage, excessive executive pay, and overcharge you for sewage/garbage ect.

I wouldn’t say most of taxes go to schools, schools are the first thing cut and they rarely give it back. All but a few places the teachers’ pay for basic school items or beg borrow and plead for basic school items, including text books. Taxes also covers firefighters, police, roads and all the stuff you do use. Taxes for schools is important and why everyone pays regardless if they have children. Education is an investment that pays dividends on the economy. A poor worker with less education doesn’t provide as much to the economy as a better paid employee. If the lower paid worker isn’t propped up the economy will expend more resources on them and the whole society suffers because they have little option but to go to the hospital emergency room after they are so sick or injured that it cost more than regular treatment.

You benefit more from a stronger economy than you do from just getting user fees. User fees rarely are enough to pay for things outright. In the case of the landfill or a new school the initial cost is paid from property taxes or a bond. If it’s a good school or its good roads and services it boosts the property values around it, that attracts more people, which increases that local economy ect. if it’s not good then your property is worth less and less as people and jobs move away, the school has less and less resources and it’s a viscous cycle downward.

I live on my boat at a marina. I live 10-15m from work right now. I don’t really use the roads, definitely don’t use the hi-ways much. BUT my taxes, fuel taxes ect pay partly for roads and such. I don’t really like things going into a general fund because there are too many self-centered greedy politicians that like to dip into it, but on the other side of things more money is available for things like roads and such. Very rarely do I see tax money go into maritime recreation or infrastructure, that costs too much and it’s a small population with little voice. I don’t have much say in it as I’m not a resident. I do blame the people that vote only if there is a “R” or “D” and not based on who gives the politician money. ie takes any money = corrupt. Not sure why there is confusion with that part.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My interpretation of our friend's perspective is that he believes private ownership of waterways (and maybe everything) is immoral. That's the only way any of it makes sense.

The workers must own the means of production!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

What "everyone knows" often turns out to be incorrect.



In terms of pollutants, climate change etc, its the CO and the HCs that are the problem. Not the particulates.

Diesel emits 7-10 times more NOx then petrol engines due to the higher combustion temperature and pressure.

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I'm all for user fees instead of general (and less than transparent) taxation. Those with school aged children should be paying for schools. Those with vehicles should be paying for road maintenance. And those with boats should be paying for marine based services. No one should be paying for services or goods they are not using. At least directly.

This is the same logic being applied by the water front homeowners and is complete BS.

Who’s going to wipe your bum in the old folks home or work on your car if you don’t fund the public good of education? There’s already enough of a problem with educated middle income people not reproducing in adequate numbers without craziness like this!

And back to living aboard!
I currently reside in a small bay near Russell, NZ. We have a boating club with coin showers and dinghy dock, slipway for haulouts and $125/ yr membership and my mooring is $125/ month. Community garden and dinghy storage, free parking for whatever cars you have plated. Nearest homes are over 1 million USD and will all be regularly flooding by mid century.

How long will it last? I intend to find out!

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Diesel emits 7-10 times more NOx then petrol engines due to the higher combustion temperature and pressure.

Yes, but re-read the point you responded to.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by alaskanviking

I wouldn’t say most of taxes go to schools, schools are the first thing cut and they rarely give it back.

Just for reference, our 2020 property taxes were $12,300; the ISD portion was $7,650. I think that qualifies as "most." Furthermore, more than three-quarters of the school amount is funneled away to other lower tax base, school districts (Robin Hood rule). And don't get me wrong, I have no issue with paying for schools, even though my child is long beyond school age.

Texas state boat (26-40 ft) registration costs $110 for two years, and it's independent of value. There are no property taxes due on the boat.

[goboatingnow]

I pay €120 a year property tax and get free water and sewerage ( well paid via general taxation ) and €20 a month for waste disposal.

I suspect a live aboard is paying more then me in my house, certainly he is if staying on any sort of paid mooring. No other boat costs are required as there’s no licence etc.

[Fore and Aft]

My view here in Australia is why do live aboards have to be so feral? Lots of anchorages I visit have a collection of run down boats with people living onboard. Its cheap to live on the water at anchor so why not spend some of that savings on maintenance? I think there would be a lot less hassle if the boats were better maintained. By maintenance I am not talking anything flash. Just some cheap rolled on paint on the topsides and an antifoul. Make the boat look like its loved.
But of course there is the catch 22 where most slipways want insurance before they slip you and its hard to get insurance if you live aboard at anchor.

Cheers

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

What I have seen of it, it's the well-to-do people who think they own the water in front of their expensive waterfront home. Every boater that stays overnight is a homeless person to them and a risk.

The problem isn't typically cruisers. We've never received any such reaction but we keep the boat in good condition and don't overstay our welcome without picking up a slip or mooring.

It is the derelict semi-homeless that draw the ire.

While the rich don't own the water, neither do the homeless who will often anchor for months or years before the boat sinks or washes up onto the shore to be abandoned.