Anti-Liveaboard Laws being considered in Georgia

[Captain Smollett]

Cruiser's Net is watching the development of an anti-liveaboard law being considered in Georgia.

Note that this law would require application (registration?) to the State if you plan to live aboard your boat more than 30 days in a calendar year.

And, as has been discussed before (on the topic of Florida anchoring), behaviors have consequences.

I wonder the motivation behind the Georgia Anti-Liveaboard Law:

It just seems that "liveaboards" and "cruisers" (two distinct groups for those in the know, but probably not for landsmen) are coming more and more into conflict with local communities.  I know that local landsmen are often being hypersensitive, but they ARE reacting to something.

It will be interesting to see how the Georgia law plays out and what its true motivations are.

[Oldrig]

It will be interesting to see how the Georgia law plays out and what its true motivations are.

Smollett:

I'm neither a liveaboard nor much of a cruiser, but I suspect that you've got at least two factors at work here:

1) The ever-growing need for tax and fee revenues: State officials consider people whose boats are registered out-of-state, but who spend a lot of time in Georgia (or other states), to be a source of untapped revenue.

2) See your own posting about Bridge Pointe Marina in New Bern, NC: There's a minority of liveaboards who treat their boats and onshore facilities like "floating trailer parks," and very few shorefront property owners want them as neighbors. (Query: How many trailer parks are there in Georgia, anyway?) The same also applies to some cruisers.

Just speculating ....

--Joe

[JWalker]

Oh....there's plenty of trailer parks in Georgia!  ::)

30 days a year....I know people who just spend weekends on their boats who clock more than 30 days aboard out of the year.

makes no sense.

[Oldrig]

Oh....there's plenty of trailer parks in Georgia!  ::)

Yeah, I was just being snide.

30 days a year....I know people who just spend weekends on their boats who clock more than 30 days aboard out of the year.

makes no sense.

It doesn't make much sense, except if you're looking to get some revenue from all those rich ( :)) boaters, especially the ones from out of state.

--Joe

[Captain Smollett]

I think the pertinent question is "what is prompting this law?"

People living on boats has lain mostly under the radar for DECADES..why is it bubbling to the forefront now in multiple states as a matter to be regulated?

Yes, revenue is part of it, but in the grand scheme of things, there are few liveaboards and thus relatively little revenue.  What then, is the driving factor?

[Oldrig]

I think the pertinent question is "what is prompting this law?" ... What then, is the driving factor?

John,

That's a big question, with many answers. Here are a few guesses, not necessarily in the order of importance:

1) They make an easy target: Liveaboards aren't likely to be registered voters (although they probably should be), they're by definition "outsiders," and it's always been easy to legislate against such people. Just ask the Roma (so-called Gypsies) in Europe or the Travelers in Ireland.

2) Liveaboard boats anchored off exclusive coastal areas are often eyesores--at least in the eyes of the neighbors. (We've had a couple of threads on this topic--I don't know why, but folks don't like the idea of laundry hanging out to dry in public.)

3) Lost revenues: In addition to tax revenues, liveaboards don't tend to spend much money locally. Sure, they buy food and, maybe, eat at local restaurants. But do you see any of them at hotels or B&Bs? (An example: The town of Tisbury, on Martha's Vineyard, has a law on the books that limits anchoring to two nights. It's longer if you rent a mooring or slip, and also longer if you are staying onshore--say parking the yacht while you visit the Clintons, Obamas or James Taylor.)

4) Pollution risks, real or imagined: Authorities really do worry about liveaboards dumping raw waste into local waters--whether that risk is real or not. Examples:

Once again, in my home waters, which are a NDZ, you are supposed to seek permission from the local harbormaster before dropping the hook. Few folks actually do that, especially if they're staying on the hook for one night. But the regs specify doing so. If you do report in, the harbormaster will make sure that you move after 48 hours.

A friend spent two years living in my harbor on board an old Crocker centerboard ketch. For a while he was moving into the next town once every 48 hours, just to "comply" with local ordinances against living aboard. He finally resolved the issue by cutting a deal with the local Board of Health: He agreed to save his wastes and bring them ashore, where he flushed them down his parents' toilet (they lived nearby). The board visited his boat regularly, hoping to catch him in violation. Their visits came close to harrassment, even though he is a local boy from a large, relatively prominent family. And he votes, too.

A few years earlier, a guy brought a reproduction Chinese Junk into the harbor and spent a winter there. His actions were the motivation for the 48-hour rule, I believe. (He still lives aboard that junk, only in another town, where he has also worked something out with the board of health.)

5) Resentment: Liveaboards tend to be living their dreams, and ordinary, settled folks might not like that. (I'm deep in speculative territory here--and this is probably tied to the "easy target" theory above.)

Just a few thoughts, none verifyable.

--Joe

[Captain Smollett]

(sorry so long)

This was posted at cruisers net (Claiborne Young's Salty Southeast site):

Actually it is a little more complicated than just ?filling out a simple
form?. The 30 day law has not changed, now you must file for an
extension of the 30day rule. You have to file for the extension to the
Commissioner of the Georgia DNR. The commissioner, in his or her sole
discretion, may grant or deny any request for an extension of time to
occupy a live-aboard.
Again it is not just a simple form you must meet the following
Eligibility requirements:
1. No live-aboard may be occupied in Georgia coastal waters subject to
the jurisdiction of the CMPA for more than 30 days during any calendar
year unless the live-aboard owner has been granted an extension of time
in writing by the Commissioner.
2. The applicant shall submit a written request for an extension to the
Commissioner.
3. The Commissioner shall promptly consider any written request that
meet the following requirements.
a. The applicant submits the request on the application form provided by
the Department to the Commissioner, c/o the Coastal Resources Division,
One Conservation Way, Brunswick, Georgia 31520.
b. The Coastal Resources Division receives the request at least 15
calendar days prior to the requested extension start date.
c. The applicant certifies that the live-aboard has a secured mechanism
to prevent discharge of treated and untreated sewage.
Examples of secured mechanisms considered to be effective at preventing
discharge include, but are not limited to, closing the seacock and
padlocking, using a non-releasable wire tie, or removing the seacock
handle (with the seacock closed).
d. The applicant certifies that they will not discharge any sewage,
treated or untreated, into Georgia coastal waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the CMPA.
e. The applicant certifies that the live-aboard is capable of being used
as a means of transportation on the water and is capable of safe,
mechanically-propelled, navigation under average Georgia coastal wind
and current conditions.
f. The applicant identifies the eligible marina at which the live-aboard
operator will moor the live-aboard.
g. The applicant provides written documentation of a slip rental
agreement with an eligible marina.
h. The applicant states the reasons for requesting the extension and the
period of time for which the extension is requested.
Doesn?t seem that simple to me! Is working with the government ever
simple? When you give them all that information you have given them all
they need to through you out of the state and band you from ever
entering the state on your way to Florida.
What about the fines when you break one of their laws?
There is no fee or tax this first year!
What other state do you have to go before a Commissioner to live in that
state?
Kevin R. Quinn

Three key points:

(1) DNR Commissioner says yea or nay on if your application to live aboard is approved.  In essence, the chief Game Warden is making WHERE YOU LIVE decisions.

There is something seriously wrong with this, on MANY levels.

(2) They specify mechanical propulsion is REQUIRED.  

I guess the Pardey's won't be staying 30 days in Georgia....not that that care, I guess.

(3) This does not apply to anchoring...you have to have a paid slip rental receipt to qualify for approval.

Now, you can rent a slip then anchor out, of course; this law does not pertain to anchoring per se, but to SPENDING THE NIGHT ON YOUR BOAT...ANYWHERE.

This morning, a friend of mine sent me an email (spawned by a general discussion on 'the welfare state').  In it, he talked about property values, artificially inflated property values and the cost to society when one person's freedoms to do what they want on their property is infringed (in this case, he was speaking of growing tomatoes on your own property, or having a garden in general, a real case that occurred in Michigan) because another claimed said action "lowered their property values."

His point:  the complainer's property was artificially inflated to begin with...

That's background to why I typed the following reply in regard to the Florida anchoring law (which, I believe, is related to the Georgia law):

...

Pre-Waterfront Development:

Boaters anchored along the water while enroute to other locations. Some
stayed longer than others.  Some abandoned boats.

Developer built houses, sold at HUGE profits, artificially inflated
property values since it was "waterfront."  Some of us call these kinds
of places "McMansions" since they are cookie cutter "purchased social
status."

NOW, after buying waterfront property, some home owners are complaining
that those nasty looking anchored boats are spoiling their views.  With
$$ to back it up, they get the towns (with vested interest in the tax
base generated by development of the property) to pass ordinances
banning, limiting or regulating what the boats can do.

...

My vocal position on this issue is that (a) the towns/homeowners are
WRONG to be doing what they are doing, but (b) too many boaters are
wrong in how THEY conduct themselves, also.

There are some seriously indecent people running up and down the coast
on boats...folks who cannot see beyond their own selfish "want" of this
particular interest.  Maybe they amount to only 1% or so of the
population, but the fact remains the towns/homeowners are responding to
something, not just making this up out of thin air.

I doubt they have a problem with anchored boats that are clean, well
kept and the crews conduct themselves with decency when ashore.  I am
sure that they DO have a problem with the foul mouthed, uncouth white
trash whose boats look like the floating version of an unkempt hovel
with junk all over.  The difference between your tomato story and the
anchoring story is that the junk laden hovel is coming into the
neighborhood and staying a while, versus being there already when the
home was bought.

Again, sort of.

It's not like waterborn behavior changed with development.  It's just
that's not the 'image' that was sold.  So, it's thorny about 'who's
right' and I maintain BOTH sides have some right and some wrong in this.

My boater "friends" don't like to hear this.  They want to continue to
get drunk, play loud redneck music from their boats, swim naked, dinghy
ashore (drunk), make aggressive demands about where they can get some
laundry done, maybe make a few sexually suggestive comments to any
nearby women, holler from one boat to the other, turn on their generator
at 7 pm so, in their drunken stupor, they can watch TV for a few hours,
fall asleep with the genset running all night, etc....

No, they don't like to hear that they have the responsibility to act
like good neighbors.  Those people, no matter what they paid for their
property and under what pretense it was sold, LIVE THERE.  It pisses me
off, practically and spiritually, that people just cannot act with decency.

What does that mean to me personally?  It means that I TRY to measure
every action with "how will this impact the other guy."  Oh, I'm not
saying we have to be timid little mice, but nor do we have to try to be
flamboyantly offensive.  I'm saddened that this has become the norm in
the US.

We tend to "favor" people who have characteristics like "wild," "crazy"
and those loud "fun loving" partiers that make everyone laugh.  They are
"cool."  They are popular.   Everything in our culture has sunk to the
bottom.  As a people, we no longer even know how to go out to eat at an
eatery, or heck, even walk down the {expletive deleted} sidewalk, without being
obnoxious and doing something to draw attention to ourselves that says
"hey, look at me..."

Finally, I'll close with this.  My own personal answer to the Florida
anchoring law fiasco and the Georgia liveaboard laws is: avoid those
places.  The other thing about the boaters that pisses me off is that
they act like they have some sort of "Right" to be there.  {Expletive Deleted} that.
There's a whole world out there...go somewhere else if you don't like
what Florida is doing.  Say that, and get a long list of reasons why
they "have to" be in Florida....NONE of which are real, just excuses.

I'll guarantee you that some of those towns depend on tourist dollars
and the boating community supplies a lot of that economy.  Between
inflated fuel prices at marinas, restaurants, shops and marine retail
and repair facilities, *IF* they were boycotted, they'd change their
tune in a heartbeat.  The town would tell the homeowners, "suck it up,
you live on the water, you have to deal with boats."

To bad that don't do that anyway...while finding a way to
punish/penalize the bad behavior they don't like rather than painting
all boaters with one brush.

The other thing is that they want to install mooring fields that they
get to charge money for.  How dare us boaters think we can just toodle
in, drop our own anchor and stay for free?  Again, my answer is that you
are NOT going to get my money unless *I* want to spend it...put in a
mooring field and outlaw anchoring?  Fine, don't need to stop at your
town anyway.

There's a whole world out there.  Maybe none of it is perfect.  So
what.  I can accept that...maybe it's time the Florida waterfront
homeowners learn to as well.

Part of my point is this: anchored boats, and yes, abandoned boats, existed before those homes were built and purchased.  It's no less "right" for the homeowner to move in and expect the world to conform to HIS wishes than it is for the boater to come into the home owner's AO and expect everyone to put up with HIS asocial behavior.

Finally, I sure hope that it is clear that I am ABSOLUTELY not talking about all boaters, or even most boaters.  A phrase about bad apples comes to mind, though...

The sad thing is that I personally know people that DO act like I describe..and are proud of it, and make sure everyone knows they will continue to act that way.

I don't think any of this is simple or has simple solutions.  Sad that it has come up at all.

[CharlieJ]

I should point out that the new Florida anchoring law(sept 10) changed lot of town restrictions

Places that previously had banned anchoring or limited it are now not doing so.

I was anchored off New Symrna Bch last night. Previous law said ten days in one spot max. Obviously no longer inforced.

St Augustine has installed mooring fields, but there's still plenty of anchorage.

Even Marco Island, where the poop started in Fl, ignored us last year.

I DO carry a copy ofthe Fl law aboard ;D

[Oldrig]

e. The applicant certifies that the live-aboard is capable of being used
as a means of transportation on the water and is capable of safe,
mechanically-propelled, navigation under average Georgia coastal wind
and current conditions.

This provision appears aimed at folks who might want to live aboard a "hulk," that is, a boat that really can't be used for transportation. I know of folks who live on boats that have not left their marina slips in living memory--but these people are paying for a slip.

And, of course, this would rule out living on houseboats, at least those that are built on barges and need to be towed from location to location.

I wonder if this draconian law could or would be challenged in courts.

--Joe

[Captain Smollett]

e. The applicant certifies that the live-aboard is capable of being used
as a means of transportation on the water and is capable of safe,
mechanically-propelled, navigation under average Georgia coastal wind
and current conditions.

I wonder if this draconian law could or would be challenged in courts.

--Joe

Oh, absolutely it will get challenged.  Never the know the outcome of such a challenge, but the challenge will come.

It's funny, the marina here requires "all boats must be able to move under their power."  "Under their own power" is not defined, so it leaves open sailing, rowing, sculling, whatever.  Shoot, I'd even entertain the idea it is "power of the owner to hire a tow."   ;)

Why not word the law that way?

(My answer?  The law was written by people quite ignorant about boats and liveaboards...a kneejerk response to a perceived problem by folks who did not do adequate research on the topic).

The fight against abandoned boats, people living on 'hulks,' unseemly behavior is a very good fight, in my opinion.  Well, at least it's one I cannot fault them with making.

But this approach?  Nah.  Can't get on board with this kind of thing at ALL.

I'll repeat what Georgetown, SC did while I was there.  They went after the abandoned boats.  They did not say a WORD to me, and my boat was anchored there for 18 months.  But, during that time, they hauled out many abandoned boats and pieces of boats, etc.

THAT makes sense...go after the problem.  Seemed to work there, at least from what I saw.  The liveaboards, even those living at anchor, were not causing a problem in the community.  The anchored boats that were "well kept" were not a problem, either.  They left them alone.

Oh well.  My boat is presently on the hard...wonder when THAT will be targeted.  If we were living aboard a boat yard in Georgia, we'd be afoul of the GA law unless we also rented a slip for that time!  Holy smokes, it's just too narrow.

And...what if you 'break down' while just passing through.  The law requires application BEFORE you hit 30 days.

Let's see:  I spend 2 weeks in Savannah, one week in Brunswick, a week at Cumberland Is. and St. Mary's...with a few anchored nights along the way.  I'm up to, let's just say 26-27 days in Georgia.

In St. Mary's, as I prepare to leave, a major component of my engine fails and I have to order, and wait for, parts.  This happens on the Friday before Labor Day Weekend, so it's Tuesday before I can even call to place the order.

Overnight the part, and I'm violating the law.  I was living aboard my boat in Georgia for 30 days without PRIOR application, and approval, from the Commissioner of DNR.

Dang it..the more I think about this, the more problems I see with it.

[Captain Smollett]

I should point out that the new Florida anchoring law(sept 10) changed lot of town restrictions

Places that previously had banned anchoring or limited it are now not doing so.

I was anchored off New Symrna Bch last night. Previous law said ten days in one spot max. Obviously no longer inforced.

St Augustine has installed mooring fields, but there's still plenty of anchorage.

Even Marco Island, where the poop started in Fl, ignored us last year.

I DO carry a copy ofthe Fl law aboard ;D

Charlie,

I don't think the fight is quite over...the so-called "Florida Pilot Program" are regulations currently being drafted, and it does not look like it is any better than some of the other stuff that's been tried.

Specifically, being FWC "regulation," is may be an attempt to contravene existing law.  Who knows.

As recently as 5 October, there was a meeting in Key West of the Marine Port and Advisory Committee to discuss, in part,

development of regulatory options to address anchoring impacts in association with the FWC Pilot Program

More information on the FWC Pilot Program can be found at:

http://myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring/pilot-program/

where we see some key language:

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 327.60, Florida Statutes, a county or municipality selected for participation in the pilot program may regulate by ordinance the anchoring of vessels, other than live-aboard vessels as defined in s. 327.02, Florida Statutes, outside of a mooring field.

which is an interesting choice of words given that s 327.60 prohibits:

(c)  Regulating any vessel upon the Florida Intracoastal Waterway;

...

(f)  Regulating the anchoring of vessels other than live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of mooring fields

FWC Pilot Program sites:

http://marinersbarr.org/fpp/sites.html


Yes, we thought it was settled.  But that's the thing with stuff like this.  It NEVER goes away until "they" get passed what "they" want.

Let's hope that s 327.60 continues to be the protection it appears to be. 

[CharlieJ]

Yep. All we can do is watch and hope, since we don't live there. Meanwhile I carry a copy of the current law.

Of course my TX numbers could cause trouble too. Can't stay in one spot too long!!

[nowell]

Interesting, maybe Charlie can answer, is this why we have something similar in Texas about only being able to live aboard boats that are 35' or greater? Perhaps its just a Houston thing? Was/is this something dreamed up by marina's trying to make more money, or is it the ground work for something similar as what GA and FL are doing?

[CharlieJ]

Marina standards. I know several liveaboards on smaller boats. 

Port Lavaca USED to insist on five feet per person with a (I think) 20 foot minimum

But I have never heard of a Texas law of any kind onn living aboard.

[Captain Smollett]

5 feet per person, huh?  Interesting.  I wonder how that 'standard' was set.

Was/is this something dreamed up by marina's trying to make more money

Seems to me that a rented slip is a rented slip...beyond that, why would the marina care if someone lives aboard or not?  (Okay, I know that with these new crazy laws, if there are liveaboards, the marinas are supposed to provide certain "infrastructure" and the like that can cost them money...but, well, having a pump-out is not a bad idea for business anyway).

While some marinas in some areas do have an 'aversion' to liveaboards, it really is in their best interest to have them,  Folks living aboard provide an on-site fire and security detail, and there are always people around to answer questions for 'prospective customers' and the like (though that can be a negative, depending on the 'face' the liveaboards present...). 

It is also interesting how many doctors live aboard....two at our last marina, and having on-site medical opinion in an emergency can be a benefit (for example, my wife tended to an older gentleman having a cardiac episode during the hours before Hurricane Earl was about to strike).

My opinion: it is short-sighted for marinas to reduce, limit or ban liveaboards.