Liveaboards at the gate

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

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!

Why does a 2nd grader need a teacher with a PhD to teach them how to wipe an old person's bum? Probably 75% of jobs could be handled with an 8th grade education (and at lower grade levels an associates degree is plenty for teachers) and some on the job training but it's now becoming common to expect advance degrees that have nothing to do with the ability to do the job well...but they come with huge expenses.

Also, why is the education system a monopoly? If we are going to have public financing for education, why not provide a voucher that can be used at any school that meets certain minimum standards.

It doesn't have to be govt....yes or no. There are some functions that can't be privatized but a great many that can be.

Yes, if you have kids, you should be paying more towards their education. Maybe not 100% but certainly more than people helping the environment by not having kids.

But back to the issue of long term mooring. The right to anchor in public waters is premised around the ability to safely navigate and at times it may be unsafe due to weather or the need to affect repairs. Liveaboards who never move for months are simply abusing the intent.

[malbert73]

No one owns waterways but a little attention to boat maintenance and cosmetics goes a long way. All of us who want to anchor as part of cruising wouldn’t be hassled if not for derelict boats with trash and blue tarps on deck etc, obviously pumping raw sewage (due to lack of movement this is assumed)- both an eyesore and a danger to other boats. But yes FL seems to pick on both at same time unfortunately

[Caleb_Grey]

New old take on the house boat idea brings new meaning to debate.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...ter/ar-AANWULT

https://arkup.com/arkup-40-livable-yacht/

Their claims are pretty ludicrous, 8.5 knots 2500nm range, also say main goal is to avoid property tax like boats.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Fore and Aft

My view here in Australia is why do SO MANY 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

while i agree with the sentiment, i take some umbrage at the wording. we live aboard, as do many of our friends, and i can assure you we are definitely NOT feral !

i've added a couple of words to your post above which hope you can accept

cheers,

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...Also, why is the education system a monopoly? If we are going to have public financing for education, why not provide a voucher that can be used at any school that meets certain minimum standards.

The problem with that is that wealthy people simply use the vouchers to reduce the cost of their kid's tuition at the private school. The private schools require more money than the voucher provides.

And without the rich kids the public schools don't have enough vouchers or money to educate the normal kids who bring their vouchers to them.

The normal kids might love to take their vouchers to the private school and get in, but they need to pay the difference.

So If the private schools are willing (or forced) to accept any kid with a voucher, no additional cash required, like the public school does, then fine, let's go to a voucher system and the best school will get the most kids.


It doesn't have to be govt....yes or no. There are some functions that can't be privatized but a great many that can be.

Yes, if you have kids, you should be paying more towards their education. Maybe not 100% but certainly more than people helping the environment by not having kids.

That is a slippery slope which winds up with no community services, like schools.

But back to the issue of long term mooring. The right to anchor in public waters is premised around the ability to safely navigate and at times it may be unsafe due to weather or the need to affect repairs. Liveaboards who never move for months are simply abusing the intent.

Yes, exactly, and also the need to stop and do business, provisioning, etc

There is along debate about the need to tax the whole community to provide a multitude of services that not all members need for themselves.

I think we elect people to decide what we need to do as a community and we acceot what they decide or we vote for others.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by 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

Fore and Aft, you are focusing on the appearance of the boats in the anchorages you see.

I think what a boat looks like, what is OK and what is not, is sort of subjective.

I'd rather see that some basic regulations (such as, here in the USA. Coast Guard regulations) and added on them local regulations about ability to navigate under one's own power, and time restrictions which would eliminate almost all the boats you object to without any subjectivity.

If they want to drive around in a junk heap, and can, then fine. But to just sit there and be a derelict, huh, no.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Caleb_Grey

New old take on the house boat idea brings new meaning to debate.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...ter/ar-AANWULT

https://arkup.com/arkup-40-livable-yacht/

Their claims are pretty ludicrous, 8.5 knots 2500nm range, also say main goal is to avoid property tax like boats.

What's even more ridiculous is the pricing on those boxes.
Fools and their money are soon parted, but I always wonder.......how do fools get their money in the first place?

Oh, and property on tax on boats - must be a US thing eh?

[Caleb_Grey]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

What's even more ridiculous is the pricing on those boxes.
Fools and their money are soon parted, but I always wonder.......how do fools get their money in the first place?

Oh, and property on tax on boats - must be a US thing eh?

Boomers from northern states who bought houses for $30,000 40 years ago and sell them for $500,000 and move to florida, living off pensions and social security.
Imagine in 5 years every mooring in Florida filled with these things.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Oh, and property on tax on boats - must be a US thing eh?

Not all States in US. Texas doesn't have property tax on boats. And I am not aware of any mooring fields, nor dinghy docks. I think that - and a lot of water that is generally exposed to weather- is why we have so few living on anchor.

Have marinas scattered about.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Fore and Aft, you are focusing on the appearance of the boats in the anchorages you see.

I think what a boat looks like, what is OK and what is not, is sort of subjective.

I'd rather see that some basic regulations (such as, here in the USA. Coast Guard regulations) and added on them local regulations about ability to navigate under one's own power, and time restrictions which would eliminate almost all the boats you object to without any subjectivity.

If they want to drive around in a junk heap, and can, then fine. But to just sit there and be a derelict, huh, no.

actually there are extensive rules concerning boats on moorings, although these vary from state to state.

NSW regulations include ;

"The Vessel
• Must be at least 5.2m in length unless otherwise
approved by Transport for NSW and comply with the Marine
Safety Regulation 2016 or the Marine Safety (Domestic
Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012. Any pontoon,
air dock, floating dock or similar is NOT a vessel.
• Must be registered in NSW or hold a Certificate of
Operation or Unique Identifier issued under the Marine
Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act
2012 at all times in the name of the Mooring Licensee. No
other vessel is to occupy the mooring without approval from
Transport for NSW.
• Must be properly displaying appropriately sized registration
numbers in accordance with the Marine Safety Regulation
2016 as outlined in the NSW Boating handbook or a vessel
Unique Identifier in accordance with the Marine Safety
(Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012.
• Must not be absent from its mooring for more than
28 consecutive days unless Transport for NSW has been
notified in writing and written approval given.
• Must not be the subject of any construction, alteration,
repair work or use at the mooring that causes, or is likely
to cause, annoyance or pollution or contravention of any
Regional or Local Environment Plan implemented under
the Local Government Act.
• Must be visually suitable for the mooring area allocated
and be maintained in a seaworthy condition (ie, capable
of undertaking a voyage under its own power/sail)."

i've highlighted the regs concerning 'appearance'. note this is concerning boats on moorings, not at anchor. although boats at anchor must still be registered, there is very little other control

cheers,

[NorthCoastJoe]

Where is this person from? We anchored a few months ago in Richardsons Bay, the amount of floating garbage vessels was a shock to me. It looked like a collection of floating dumpsters. If I anchor in front of one of the billion-dollar houses I don't expect problems, but my boats don't look like floating dumpsters. And if someone does have a problem ....I agree .... fire up the woodstove ( if I had one ) and go below to a good book.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wingssail

The problem with that is that wealthy people simply use the vouchers to reduce the cost of their kid's tuition at the private school. The private schools require more money than the voucher provides.

Red herring argument. Simply include a requirement that a school that accepts vouchers must accept the voucher as the full cost of tuition.

While there are the "rich" schools. Most local private schools run on budgets a fraction of what the public schools have.

[JBP]

Yes, if you have kids, you should be paying more towards their education. Maybe not 100% but certainly more than people helping the environment by not having kids.

Hmm, I think a better educated next generation is a benefit to everyone, not just parents. Just look at some of the things happening today which could not happen if our generation had a better education in science, immunology, and economics.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by JBP

Hmm, I think a better educated next generation is a benefit to everyone, not just parents. Just look at some of the things happening today which could not happen if our generation had a better education in science, immunology, and economics.

Oddly, by objective measurements we are spending far more while getting worse performance...and a lot of it is related to families having no skin in the game. There is no indication monopolizing education in the public sphere has improved science, immunology and economics...economics in particular is a complete mess (to put it politely).

And really at grade school level, there is a ton of room to cut costs while not sacrificing education. We don't need a PhD to teach 2nd Grade...that isn't making education better, it's milking the public for more money.

I don't object to a base level of education guaranteed but yes, if you choose to have kids, you should participate in funding that education.

Then there is the whole issue of routing every kid towards the college path...a lot of kids are better suited to a skilled trades route. Often things get dumbed down so those advances you wish to see are short circuited because it would be "unfair" to fund the advance programs for kids more likely to make those advances.

Requiring parents to participate at a higher level makes sense.

[Leighpilot]

Now that’s truly freeloading. You might not have kids but you’re benefiting from having an educated population. You might not have a car but all you own was delivered by road. Every food item you have arrived by road. You might not be hooked up to the grid but you depend on lighthouses , swing bridges , fuel pumps etc that are hooked to the grid. If you’re benefiting from tax payer funded infrastructure, you need to pay taxes.