POLL - Anchor-outs vs Cruisers - should permanent anchor-outs be restricted in ICW/AICW anchorages?

State of Florida is considering updating their statutes to discourage longterm/indefinite anchor-outs and liveaboards on state controlled waters while continuing to encourage transient cruisers and snowbirds. Feedback from the Cruiser community is invaluable. They are trying to close loopholes used by permanent anchor-outs to remain indefinitely in anchorages but are very sensitive to assuring Cruisers are welcomed in Florida's waters.

Comments will be compiled and forwarded to state representatives.

Another example of Bureaucracy, the world being changed because someone decided change was needed.

I think it is an interesting topic but much more complicated than a yes/no answer.

In many areas of Florida there are many derelict boats and floating contraptions. They’re eyesores and hazards to navigation, so unfortunately a few (or more) bad apples…

There are a lot of tentacles to the topic - homelessness, affordable housing, etc. But from a cruising perspective, it's frustrating to show-up at an anchorage to find the better spots clogged with permanent anchor-outs. Many communities want to attract cruisers and in the past installed free dinghy docks. They are now removing them because of abuse by permanent anchor-outs. What's interesting is many communities passed ordinances to limit anchor-outs but. Turns out the anchor-outs have enough money to hire lobbyists and lawyers and have challenged the laws by identifying a loophole in the definition of "Liveaboard." So while there are laws intented to reduce anchor-outs, they are unenforceable. The Florida State Legislature is considering closing the loopholes but want to make sure rights of legitimate cruisers are preserved.

It is not a case of some bureaucrat being bored and justifying a job by ginning up some new rules. As the note before mine stated, lots of issues here. The Florida authorities might see what is being done about this in the Bahamas or some of the Caribbean nations. No need to re-invent the wheel if they have found a way to move people on after a reasonable time.

Agree with CharlieO.

I can't answer the poll as it is not addressing the way to solve the problem in my experience. Often my issue with polls in general.

I prefer all waterways to be transient in nature to accommodate all cruisers..... but with the sheer number of cruisers and limited anchorages in some destination areas, that ship sailed long ago. Same problem in the RV world. I know the whys people anchor long term, but for true cruisers, I wonder why 90 days in one location (not necessarily one state) isn't long enough.

If people adhere to all regulations for the locale, I have no problem with long term anchoring. Unfortunately we all know that many don't adhere to the regs, so I have no problem with law enforcement having the tools to rid our waterways of violators and quickly so. I don't care about the problems in society in terms of law violations, but fully support efforts to place people in positions to live freely, but within the reasonable laws.

Blocking waterfront views doesn't even enter the question as far as I am concerned. Agree with the poster that has "want a waterfront view, buy a boat" (or something similar).

psneeld said:

Agree with CharlieO.

I can't answer the poll as it is not addressing the way to solve the problem in my experience. Often my issue with polls in general.

I prefer all waterways to be transient in nature to accommodate all cruisers..... but with the sheer number of cruisers and limited anchorages in some destination areas, that ship sailed long ago. Same problem in the RV world. I know the whys people anchor long term, but for true cruisers, I wonder why 90 days in one location (not necessarily one state) isn't long enough.

If people adhere to all regulations for the locale, I have no problem with long term anchoring. Unfortunately we all know that many don't adhere to the regs, so I have no problem with law enforcement having the tools to rid our waterways of violators and quickly so. I don't care about the problems in society in terms of law violations, but fully support efforts to place people in positions to live freely, but within the reasonable laws.

Blocking waterfront views doesn't even enter the question as far as I am concerned. Agree with the poster that has "want a waterfront view, buy a boat" (or something similar).

Click to expand...

A couple posts have hinted concern that 30-45 days is too short. Is the concern that it might ensnare legitimate cruisers? If longer is the right answer, can certainly recommend that. It's the type of feedback that would be helpful.

Scott, you have a ton of relevant experience and I'm sure you understand the concern. What is your recommendation? I agree that I don't give a rats behind about condo views, but having folks usurp public property for personal gain irks me. It's a fairness thing.

Might be a chance to put forward a solution here ....Thoughts?

Peter

Stuart recently moved most of the permanently anchored, borderline derelict boats out of Manatee Pocket. There were so many of them that it had become nearly impossible to anchor there for transient cruisers. Manatee pocket is a key anchorage for cruising boats heading north or south up the ICW, through the GICW or heading to the Bahamas. It's one of only two or three anchorages in the area that doesn't get wrecked by wakes. There are also a lot of great waterfront businesses that appeal to transient boaters.

The county added moorings and two nice dinghy docks, it was a nice compromise and much needed, in my opinion.

The law just states that the boat has to move every 60 days, any functioning vessel should be able to conform to that law.

Dougcole said:

Stuart recently moved most of the permanently anchored, borderline derelict boats out of Manatee Pocket. There were so many of them that it had become nearly impossible to anchor there for transient cruisers. Manatee pocket is a key anchorage for cruising boats heading north or south up the ICW, through the GICW or heading to the Bahamas. It's one of only two or three anchorages in the area that doesn't get wrecked by wakes. There are also a lot of great waterfront businesses that appeal to transient boaters.

The county added moorings and two nice dinghy docks, it was a nice compromise and much needed, in my opinion.

The law just states that the boat has to move every 60 days, any functioning vessel should be able to conform to that law.

Click to expand...

The marina where we bought our boat at had a rule that your boat must leave its slip and the marina once a year under its own power. Very interesting to see a 40' sundeck trawler with a pair of 9.9 horse outboards bolted to the swimstep.

Have cruised both the eastern Caribbean and the AICW. In the Caribbean people come and run out of money. Boat isn’t maintained and becomes an unsafe eyesore. As frequent people run out of money or become sick. Boat is abandoned and floats in place until weather or ground tackle failing cause it to move or it sinks in place. As the years go by the shoreline becomes littered by these boats. Many of the islands do not have the resources to remove them. The involved people are mostly from Europe and North America. Virtually impossible to track them down and even if found they have no money so a worthless exercise as regards getting rid of these boats.
The situation in the US is slightly different. Majority of the boats are owned or were owned by US residents. Many are still inhabited. A greater percentage are still floating. A high percentage are candidates for public services due to substance abuse and or mental disease. Would suggest local law enforcement visit these boats. If conditions are sufficiently unsanitary for habitation or present a risk of contamination of local water due to fecal dumping boats be removed. Involved people retain the right to improve the vessel to met basic requirements for safe habitation within a fixed time (let’s say 2-4 weeks) if unable to do so vessel is removed from the water and destroyed. Law enforcement would be involved with initial inspection and pictures to document and serve notice. Revisit in 2 weeks. If no action towing done by local company or local authority at tax payer expense. My understanding is these vessels rarely if ever move to a pump out station. May have issues with vermin and/or-infestation. Perhaps existing legal remedies could serve with appropriate enforcement. Issue of search and seizure exists. Reasonable cause may be generated by two visits weeks apart . I’m not a lawyer nor have I had direct contact with this population in this country. Safety first so avoid them. But I believe it’s a population down on their luck economically with a high incidence of other problems as as well. So should be treated humanely but realistically given the issues involved. I think NIMBY has no place here. For many believe if you get rid of the boats you will just create more street people or people living in cars. You have moved the problem but haven’t fixed it.

Hippocampus said:

Have cruised both the eastern Caribbean and the AICW. In the Caribbean people come and run out of money. Boat isn’t maintained and becomes an unsafe eyesore. As frequent people run out of money or become sick. Boat is abandoned and floats in place until weather or ground tackle failing cause it to move or it sinks in place. As the years go by the shoreline becomes littered by these boats. Many of the islands do not have the resources to remove them. The involved people are mostly from Europe and North America. Virtually impossible to track them down and even if found they have no money so a worthless exercise as regards getting rid of these boats.
The situation in the US is slightly different. Majority of the boats are owned or were owned by US residents. Many are still inhabited. A greater percentage are still floating. A high percentage are candidates for public services due to substance abuse and or mental disease. Would suggest local law enforcement visit these boats. If conditions are sufficiently unsanitary for habitation or present a risk of contamination of local water due to fecal dumping boats be removed. Involved people retain the right to improve the vessel to met basic requirements for safe habitation within a fixed time (let’s say 2-4 weeks) if unable to do so vessel is removed from the water and destroyed. Law enforcement would be involved with initial inspection and pictures to document and serve notice. Revisit in 2 weeks. If no action towing done by local company or local authority at tax payer expense. My understanding is these vessels rarely if ever move to a pump out station. May have issues with vermin and/or-infestation. Perhaps existing legal remedies could serve with appropriate enforcement. Issue of search and seizure exists. Reasonable cause may be generated by two visits weeks apart . I’m not a lawyer nor have I had direct contact with this population in this country. Safety first so avoid them. But I believe it’s a population down on their luck economically with a high incidence of other problems as as well. So should be treated humanely but realistically given the issues involved. I think NIMBY has no place here. For many believe if you get rid of the boats you will just create more street people or people living in cars. You have moved the problem but haven’t fixed it.

Click to expand...

I agree with some of what your saying but the sticky area is impounding and destroying someone’s home and there have been court cases where municipalities impounding someone’s vehicle but it was also their home.

I personally think that if you get all the derelicts violating the sanitation laws and unable to be self propelled laws off the water, it might not be so bad.... it's at least a start.

Just all of it from insurance to limited docking to crowded anchorages and few dingy landings.... greatly helped get me out of cruising.

If you think putting a time limit on the anchorage will stop anything you’re kidding yourself. I have personally watched one decrepit sailboat with a barely functioning old outboard tow his buddies decrepit live aboard wreck 2 miles to cross the county line from Charlotte county to Sarasota County because the sheriffs office was trying to clean up the Englewood Beach area. They just move for whatever time is required then move back. Who is going to keep track how long a boat is in the same place?

I’ve seen Miami ruined in parts due to boat squatters. I like the way annapolis has dealt with the issue.

This is for anchoring in the designated anchor zones.

They also have implemented moorings and residents can rent them annually. We mostly anchor while cruising but I have seen so many anchor fiascos recently that I wish the municipalities would make serious efforts to set up mooring fields.

Interesting conversation. Currently from my slip, I can see three sailboats, one power boat, and one mostly sunk power boat that have been mostly in one spot for about a year or more. I can’t believe that harbor patrol, and coast guard have been here to inspect the sinker but have done nothing about removal. It would be easy to remove the sinker now, but when it’s nestled into the bottom it’ll be a lot harder, and more expensive.
I won’t begrudge someone who anchors out as a way of life, but they should be required to move regularly. It would be pretty easy to track that as harbor patrol is out many times a week and these boats are easy to spot.
In our area, as liveaboards, we’re required to have our msd through hull fittings secured, and have a pumpout service ensure upland waste disposal. This should be a requirement for long term anchor outs as well.
Popular cruising anchorages really should be regulated to limit how long a boat can stay, as a full anchorage can put cruisers in danger from having to choose a less protected anchorage due to long term anchor outs hogging them up.

It's a tough call between personal freedom and government encroachment.

Personally, I would be ok with them having to move every 30 days more than a mile, and not anchoring in the same one mile radius for 90 days.

IMO, there's a difference between transient boating (anchoring out) and homesteading. While there's no guarantee that the boat that anchors for the night won't dump their holding tank where they anchor, it's likely that the boat anchored in the same spot for a year, will. It seems to me that Florida needs to differentiate between transient anchoring and extended occupancy.

Ted

O C Diver said:

It's a tough call between personal freedom and government encroachment.

Personally, I would be ok with them having to move every 30 days more than a mile, and not anchoring in the same one mile radius for 90 days.

IMO, there's a difference between transient boating (anchoring out) and homesteading. While there's no guarantee that the boat that anchors for the night won't dump their holding tank where they anchor, it's likely that the boat anchored in the same spot for a year, will. It seems to me that Florida needs to differentiate between transient anchoring and extended occupancy.

Ted

Click to expand...

The main claim of the anchor-outs is there is no affordable housing and they need to live somewhere in order to work a regular job. They've organized and hired attorneys to champion their cause, mostly hinged on the Florida definition of "Liveaboard" whereby a boat must be used solely as a residence, otherwise he various laws against indefinite anchoring do not apply. One word - "Solely" - is what has jammed-up the works and led to many lawsuits. To my mind, it's the loophole that needs to be closed.

I have talked to the folks who are trying to re-work this at the State level. They are very sensitve to cleave the issue carefully and not hinder legitimate cruisers from being ensnared by the law. For example, the question came up "What if a cruiser has no other residence, that their boat is their only home? How would that work?" It's something they are well aware of and to my ears, really want to find the right solution, not just clear anchorages for rich condo owners.

I hope folks will vote on the poll where this began. It's important feedback. I clearly support some sort of time limit - whether it's 30-days or 90-days makes no difference. Just want to have a meter that will enable law enforcement to keep anchorages from becoming transient housing.

Peter

I remember from my first liveaboard in Ft Lauderdale.... just about all my boating friends were self proclaimed "boat bums".

They worked for a year or so and when the kitty was large enough, shoved off for the Bahamas for a year or so. When the kitty got low, they returned and. started again. Some were always nearly broke and others (with really cool stories how they got money and slightly nicer boats)...but they all seemed to follow the to and fro pattern of cruising.

I know the world is different now for many reasons, but many of the down on their luck types I have run across, still seem to have that old dream smoldering in their head. For financial reasons they may never break into the cycle of cruising...but do drift between jobs yet never seem to move their now barely seaworthy floating disaster.

These floating "homes"... at least the majority I have cruised by..... I am quite confident don't meet all sorts of regulations, especially if they had to move most any distance at all....if they even could.

I agree with Ted with his statement "Personally, I would be ok with them having to move every 30 days more than a mile, and not anchoring in the same one mile radius for 90 days." It reminds me of camping in many state and federal lands to keep "recreational" people moving along so many instead of a few can enjoy. Public property, including many of the waterways should be used for "recreational" and related commercial activities. Being able to visit a particular area for a lengthy time under Ted's timeline is still possible, but it reasonably keeps the cruisers in an area that shouldn't really affect the a whole lot and if you are trying to "homestead" there because of a job.... it should help keep the "floating disasters" to a minimum. Municipalities should take an estimate of how many transients use and stay in their waterways and how many current "homesteaders" there and see if there are some designated spots that can be set aside for anchoring accommodating Ted's guidelines

In my neck of the ICW (Madeira Beach, near Clearwater), a public dock near the Publix/McDonalds was recently closed. Why? I don't know for sure but pretty sure it was because it was clogged with dinghys from people commuting to work. Publix even had to contend with cars in their parking lot. So they just closed the dock which sucks as it was a great place for cruisers to re-provision. Now, they can use an open dog-beach across the highway which isn't too far, but the Publix dock was super convenient.

I've tried talk my town into considering a mooring field. There is a municipal marina so there is infrastructure to operate it. But the town is much more interested in cozying-up to developers to build more condos.

The conflicts between indefinite anchor-outs and residents will continue to get worse I suppose. Problem cannot be ignored forever.

Peter

I agree the problem is getting worse all the time. There’s simply a huge amount of almost free sub 30 foot boats available. These seem to be the preferred platform. They get used up and abandoned, or used as a dock for tying up the next boat and used as storage.

This liveaboard thing has me stymied. I hung with a liaveaboard population for >a decade. Many are still friends. We were on a boat costing close to 3/4 m and many were on boats > 2-3m. Not exactly indigent. These boats were principal residences and met all criteria for “live aboard “. Some would move island to island every week or three. Some would hang at one island the whole season. Most would travel 1500-2300nm in a single oceanic shot twice a year but others a short distance to get out of the zone in Grenada or Trinidad.
There’s a huge difference between this crowd of cruisers and the concern here. Liveaboard is now a dirty word so this crowd calls themselves long term cruisers. But reality is they are liveaboards having no other legal residence.
Still
Boats were maintained.
Boats were a safe environment to live presenting less risk of infection, infestation and environmental contamination than the majority of dirt dwelling in this or any other country.
Although there were times the vessels could not move they were brief and actively addressed.
In my life I have lived in AIRs(artist in residence), condos, apartments, and single family homes. I’ve been poor and not so much. In all settings in various states and countries basic requirements had to be met or the government would intervene and I would not be allowed to live there.
They were basic sanitation, stipulated health requirements aimed at insuring public health. Basic integrity ensuring health of occupants.
In various places in the Caribbean you would see people on home made boats of usually steel or wood with small kids. These criteria were not met. It was tragic what these kids were subjected to in the absence of a department of child welfare. But in this country such departments exist. Also for dirt dwellings you can lose the ability to occupy a residence if basic environmental concerns are not met or it presents a health risk.
I continue to believe the same concerns exist for any human residences be it on land or water. Public health and ethics are the appropriate approach. I see little difference between squatters on land and this population. These people don’t need judgment and punishment. They need help. But they have no right to pollute their environs or present a health risk. This is understood on land and should be applied on the water as well.
I realize there’s a segment of these boats where people are gaming the system. They do have some level of resources. They live on a boat because it’s cheaper. In my neighborhood we faced the same issue. I live inside a park in one of 12 houses that were grandfathered in. All of the original 12 were either taken down and replaced (we did) or extensively rehabbed over time. Although originally primarily summer cottages they all now met all criteria for permanent housing.
However it’s a beautiful spot. So people would take travel trailers or beat up RVs or just camping equipment and move into the more remote areas of the park. Bodily fluids and solids did not leave the park. Petty crime and violence between these people ensued. Quality of life for visitors to the park degraded. Due jurisdictional issues both state, county and town law enforcement neede to coordinate. Once done all of these so called residences were removed and impounded. Occupants retained the right to reclaim them if they could show they were habitable but they had no right to return to the park with them. They were offered services and transient housing but retained the right to go wherever they wanted to.(which generally meant living on the street). I live in a town with a fair number of populists and libertarians inside a state dominated by progressives. However although attempts at preventing this action were made before its execution given it was presented as a public health issue they went no where. Believe this is the tack to take.

Our freedoms come with responsibilities. I have to leave my own private slip for named storms as do the rest of the owners in our marina.



This guy was anchored a mile away and clearly was down on his luck. Had we not been responsible and vacated the marina he would have damaged a 100 footer and it’s tender. We all seem to be required to pay for these boater’s freedoms.

Fwiw we did tie him to the dock and aided him to patch the boat up enough to pump the water out. Then we paid to have it towed back to his anchorage. Last time I checked he was still living aboard. This was from a November storm named eta in 2020.

Pragmatically if the vessel can’t move it can’t get to a pump out or outside the 3m limit.
If basic hygiene (filth, infestation etc.) can not be met disease risk will ensue and devolve to health services paid for by governmental entities.
If the basics for quality of life can’t be met no children should occupy that space as it’s abusive.
One of the basic principles of libertarian thought is people have the right to do what they want AS LONG AS THEY DONT INJURE OTHERS or RESTRICT OTHERS FREEDOM. This behavior violates both criteria so I believe personal freedom arguments hold little merit.

Hippocampus said:

Pragmatically if the vessel can’t move it can’t get to a pump out or outside the 3m limit.

Click to expand...

Generally true, although some places (not necessarily the ones with this problem) do have pump-out boats that will come to you and empty your tank.

Plus.... you can overboard discharge if you have a type 1 or 2 MSD (as I did) as long as you are not in a "no discharge zone". Unlikely most of the boats we are discussing do, but it is a possibility.

I don't currently have a dog in the fight, however, IMHO, if they are discharging waste close to the shore, they should be stopped. That's not sanitary nor civilized.

Jklotz said:

I don't currently have a dog in the fight, however, IMHO, if they are discharging waste close to the shore, they should be stopped. That's not sanitary nor civilized.

Click to expand...

I hope you mean untreated waste.

I'm sure most of us are in agreement that even long-term anchor outs should be maintained to a minimum standard, such as proper waste management, whether trash or sewage, bilge pump(s) that work, not being an environmental nuisance such as leaking fuel tanks or oil leaks that can contaminate our waterways. Anchor/mooring gear should be in sufficient shape to prevent the boat from dragging/drifting in moderate weather. The propulsion system should work well enough to move the boat if and when needed whether it's a sail or engine powered. Nothing resembling a garbage barge should be allowed.

It is definitely a problem when all these nice places need service workers but can't or won't pay them enough to be able to afford to live in these areas. Then they complain that they can't find any help.

I'm with Hippocampus. We have a huge problem with abandoned boats, most of which went through the process of being a live aboard, then a run down live aboard, then a derelcit, and finally abandoned. Often the owners are from out of state or cannot be traced, thus the wreck ends up a liability. Even if onwers can be traced, unless they are local a supoena cannot be enforced to make them do anything unless the vessel obstructs navigagtion. Most do not. One township got a $150,000 grant to dispose of abandoned boats. Went as far as removing 10. 10! most were 25-30 foot vessels. $15K a pop to have them hauled onto a barge and taken to a place where they could be chain-sawed, then hauled to the landfill.

When grants don't come to remove abandoned boats, guess where it comes from? Taxes.