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

[mvweebles]

I think this is key element. It’s not OK to take over public space and occupy it as those it’s now your private space. That means an inherent time limit on use by any individual.

Why not have an even shorter time limit like 7 days, after which a permit is required allowing up to 30 days. To get a permit you would have to provide registration and ownership info, plus proof of liability and wreck removal insurance.

I cannot explain why, but every Florida ICW/AICW town seems to believe their problem is unique thus must have an unprecedented solution. In my observations and conversations with town councils, they have desire to clear out anchor-outs but flummoxed in how to do it. They do not ask other towns what they have done, they do not seek out well-known examples of where it has been managed (San Diego Bay is a great example). They don't ask cruisers. Heck, they don't even ask their local Sheriff's what they need to enforce.

My takeaway? In Florida at least, the town councils are dominated by real estate and development interests. These are people who don't have a transient past and while many have a nice house with ubiquitous 21-foot center console, they have no idea about the cruiser underbelly of Florida. As the saying goes, you cannot tell a tadpole what it's like to be a frog.

In my opinion, Madeira Beach, dead center of the 25-mile stretch of ICW between Clearwater Beach and Pass-a-Grille, could be developed into a cruiser mecca. They have very large anchorages that could be developed into moorings, they have City-owned waterfront land where a large dinghy dock could make the redveloped downtown easily accessible, and they have an existing marina that could manage the infrastructure. Not just snowbird cruisers, but Tampa Bay has thousands of cruiser-style boats, many of whom would enjoy a weekend destination as I just described. You'd think it's a good enough idea that it would at least get a wink instead of a blank stare. Only interest of these towns seems to be increasing tax base via condos and, as a sidebar, businesses to attract them. Not a lot of vision.

Poll closes later this morning. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't already registered their opinion (for or against) to do so ASAP.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

All true very rare to see abandoned boats in New England. Do see liveaboards under shrink wrap in slips. Particularly in cities like Boston. Still you’re right weather means a way to heat the boat. That usually means electricity or constant access to a heat source and unfrozen water. So economics and weather gets rid of the low lying fruit.
But it’s unwise to discount the economics. Much of Florida, and places like Savannah, the Beauforts, HH have money but much of the area along the ICW not so much. I’ve visited these places by land and water. I know I dropped a lot more money on the local economies coming by land. That includes the tourist hot spots. Just compare your expenditures staying at city dock v hotels and a car.

 

[hmason]

I think monitoring anchored boats could be a one person job with the use of a drone.

 

[Hippocampus]

Even part time. Done dawn or dusk.

 

[mvweebles]

---

Poll is now closed. Same poll was posted on TrawlerForum. Interesting, although CF is 4x the size of TF, number of respondants on TF was 3x greater than CF. The percentage of TF respondants supporting a time limit was significantly higher (84% TF answered "Yes" compared to 63% CF). I can only speculate based on the reason for this. Could be CF'ers are just more anti-regulation; could be TF'ers are older and more conservative; could be CF has a lot of people living on stationary boats and flooded the survey responses; could be CF is more global and TF has more snowbird/Florida-aware boaters who are familiar with the anchor-out concerns.

Makes no difference - the attached will be forwarded to BoatUS and Florida State Legislation. Thanks to all who responded.

 

[rnanaples]

Make the rule must have.
Insurance
Registration that is active.
Proof of ownership.

 

[thataway]

This is nothing new. I have been a waterfront home owner in Florida for over 30 years. This issue was being discussed in the boating, legal and legislative arenas--but not solved when I was on BOD of Seven Seas Cruising Association back in the late 90s as well on Escambia County's Marine resource committee in the early 2000 period. I fear it may not be solved in today's world where it has become far more prevalent.

The problem in Pensacola has gradually become worse during the years. It is not as simple to just impound the vessels and maybe eventually a City or County may pay thousands of dollars to acquire the vessels, haul them off, and dispose of them. The place these boats are anchored is rarely used by cruising boats, even though we are a frequent stop on the "Great Loop". Owners of these boats know all of the tricks, such as leaving a young child alone on the boat--so law enforcement cannot seize the vessel.

Pumpout is available within a mile of this anchorage, yet zero of the boats anchored there pump out. I doubt that they have a type I or II MSD. Many have had sinking boats and several dinghies attached to make a floating raft. 100% of the weekly water sampling in this bayou in 2024 resulted in "Closed and contaminated waters". There are two public parks with beaches on the bayou.

Below is an example of a boat which was finally removed at a cost in excess of $10,000. Someone had been living on that boat until it swamped in a storm. It cost over $30,000 to remove 3 boats which were partially sunk, There are at least 6 more partially sunk vessels, plus a number which are derelict, but with people living aboard.

Despite potential further changes---there were a number of changes made through out the years--I fear there will be even more derelict and boats which abuse our waters by illegally anchoring.

 

[Captain DJ]

Many good ideas on this forum and we thank Peter for surveying this issue and taking the results to some pertinent organizations. I have read every response and waited to comment.

My best recommendation is to be careful of creating yet more laws which are seldom enforced. We just spent the last three + months cruising the PNW, Gulf Islands, Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast of BC and Desolation Sound. It reminds me of what we experienced in many places on our journey, specifically Ganges on Salt Spring Island, Gorge Harbour on Cortes Island and False Creek anchorages at Vancouver, BC.

Governments have a long history of making "problem causing solutions" and even more often making legislation that sounds good, yet is either never or seldom enforced. Both approaches are a waste of resources.

Rule #1 - make laws/regulations enforceable
Rule #2 - use technology to keep it simple
Rule # 3 - make it cheap & easy to use
Rule # 4 - keep it affordable with humane penalties and solutions
Rule # 5 - try to be fair to all parties

In False Creek they offer free anchoring permits up to 30 days with decal/tab info, proof of ownership, and contact information.
They only asked boaters not to anchor in traffic zones (clearly marked). Not to abandon vessels. And to post permit data where it could be viewed and monitored by public employee.

We saw over half the anchored boats ignore these simple common sense rules. Articles have been written about boats ignoring these rules year after year and never paying fines, yet remaining there year after year. So, obviously, this is not working.

I have thought of ideas to simplify adoption of easily monitored usage and humane, enforceable responses to those who choose not to obey. But I don't want to rant and this is long already.

Let me know by PM if you want more detail and thanks again Peter and all who have replied. Great subject that will continue to become more vital to cruisers as we go forward in today's reality.

God Bless

 

[Don L]

I'm sure a free public pump out dock would be a boon to low income folks.

But not if their boat don't run and can't make it to the dock.

there are places in Florida that have a free pump out boat that goes around and pumps out anchored boats

 

[Delta Riverat]

Hopefully they can go service the 6 other boats like the one above with people still living on them.

 

[alvasurg]

I am one of those Florida residents affected by these squatters. I have a condo which looks out on a part of Biscayne Bay that is littered with these boats. In fact, when tooling around on my small boat,I almost hit the mast of one these sunken horrors. Not to cast aspersions, but the majority of these boats are sailboats with no access to pumpouts. These folks are not cruisers staying for a week, month or season. These are permanent environmental and visual dumps!
I guess you can guess where I stand on this.

 

[Hippocampus]

Posts #67 and #68 are reality based. End of day it costs money to address this problem. The thread repeatedly points out there are existing laws that would adequately address this problem. These boats are in violation of EPA rules and regulations at a federal level and in violation of law and regulation at a state and local level.

On land if your septic system fails you must fix it or the residence is declared uninhabitable and you must move out. This is actively enforced by local law enforcement. In my town and state you cannot reside on public land. I live inside a park where 12 houses were grandfathered in. Unannounced periodic sweeps were done and RVs, old SUVs, tents and travel trailers are impounded and removed. This went on for a year. Now it is very,very rare this problem occurs.

So addressing the same problem on the water will initially be quite expensive. It was in my park. Not only in the removal but also in providing housing and services for this population. They were offered services if they meet income requirements for housing and additional services in accordance to their other needs(medical,psychiatric, substance abuse etc.). They retained the freedom to accept or not those services. Their rights were not violated. Department of human services was involved as well in that many of the children were truant or living in circumstances in violation of child abuse laws. Extensive litigation occurred but mostly concerning the children involved from what local social media and the local paper said.

The laws on land are clear. You cannot live in a residence that places the environment at significant risk. You cannot live in a residence that places children at risk.

On land recognition of the problem to authorities usually comes from abutters but along with them in the case of my park local police as there was an increase in crime. These illegal residents would get into altercations with visitors to the park or pray on them. This motivated the use of funds to solve the problem. Money came primarily from the state and town coffers. Both local and state police were involved initially but rapidly only town. Park rangers identified subsequent violators immediately once the park was cleared. It now is no longer a problem. Potential offenders know violation will result in immediate removal so violation doesn’t occur.

As regards Florida a similar intervention could occur within existing law. It would require significant initial cost. Again EPA, state and local law would probably be sufficient. Defer to the legal eagles as regards if this is true. But the high costs aren't continuous. Believe tax payers would accept those costs if presented as an environmental issue and violation of existing law. Believe in court the violators would repeatedly lose as this behavior is obviously violating multiple laws. In my professional life have cared for multiple individuals who were evicted and multiple people who were unhoused. They retain the right to refuse housing and services. They do not have a right to violate the law.

 

[mvweebles]

Maybe the best path here is for private property owners and concerned boaters to sue towns for their lack of enforcement. Governments seem to respond to threat of lawsuit. The lame lawsuits homeless advocates have mounted have certainly frozen local governments.

I can't explain why this is so hard. Seems obvious to me , and the solutions fairly simple.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

This statement " The place these boats are anchored is rarely used by cruising boats" might suggest that they are not the problem I think mist of us cruisers are worried about. Yet I know In souther Florida and points north...that is not the case in some areas.

I totally disagree that some posts are "reality based" in entirety. Many /most posts all bring up good points but resolving the problem isn't a scatter-gun approach.

Being at the forefront of different legislative action though the years concerning the maritime community...it is WAY more complicated than a few simple guidelines to straighten existing/future laws out. While I agree that's how it should happen...all too often lawsuits are brought and laws altered by the justice system that drive the poor agencies tasked with enforcing maritime laws into stalemates that dishearten those agencies and they tend to respond to the "crisis" of the moment driven by political/local frenzies/alliances/ follow the money paths.

Suing governments is why we are in stalemate now.... there ARE laws on the books that allow the removal of derelicts and probably limiting time to anchor without some pressure...but they are often not enforced because of all the different factions fighting instead of problem solving. One has to go all the way to root causes like "any accident" to find the beginning of the societal unraveling. Then you have to have a moratorium on factions suing/taking legal action to stymie the efforts of others trying to get something constructive done.

Bottom line is it's ISN'T a simple problem as some would make it out to be...neither is about a gazillion other societal problems that have increased exponentially through the years yet we are still stuck with only 365 days in a year...even less with the days people are willing to work.

This may sound a contradiction to some things I have posted but that is my point. There are simple solutions, but somewhere you have to break the chain of ways that simple solution to enforcement of existing laws is constantly undermined.

 

[CaptTom]

I am one of those Florida residents affected by these squatters.... These folks are not cruisers staying for a week, month or season. These are permanent environmental and visual dumps!

Thank you. It's essential that land-side residents be able to distinguish between these two groups.

I understand why some residents get frustrated by lack of action and demand a quick fix like "ban ALL anchoring!" I can't say I blame them. But going that route creates an "Us vs. Them" environment which benefits nobody.

My point is, those of us impacted, both land-based home owners and cruisers, have a common interest in solving this. We need to work together. We need to acknowledge each others' positions. Then find workable solutions.

 

[ranger58sb]

all too often lawsuits are brought and laws altered by the justice system that drive the poor agencies tasked with enforcing maritime laws into stalemates that dishearten those agencies and they tend to respond to the "crisis" of the moment driven by political/local frenzies/alliances/ follow the money paths.

Suing governments is why we are in stalemate now.... there ARE laws on the books that allow the removal of derelicts and probably limiting time to anchor without some pressure...but they are often not enforced because of all the different factions fighting instead of problem solving.

Yeah... and often the budgeting process is a serious underlying hurdle.

Probably not dissimilar from the Fed budget process, which I'm more familiar with: Start the build process three-ish years early (with estimates of future requirements and their costs), refine in year -2, refine again in year -1... then in the actual budget year, the legislative body responds with 50% or more cuts.

Make do. And then take the blame for not having enough funding to do the job.

(I expect FEMA and Secret Service are both currently-noticeable victims of all that.)

-Chris