Editorial on local discussion about one of our last liveaboard marinas

[mikeedmo]

Here's a good example of how we can be our own worse nightmares in protecting our diminishing number of liveaboard marinas. This debate involves the Riviera Beach Municipal Marina here in Palm Beach County.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...edit_0805.html

[camaraderie]

Looks like a pretty reasonable argument to me. Living aboard at a marina...especially a public one... should mean that the general public doesn't have to pick up the tab for your derelict hulk or the damage you do to their facilities or other boaters.
One thing I do disagree with is the statement that boaters don't contribute to fire/police services etc....we do through our dock fees which in turn are paid by the marina in taxes (or profit to the town if they are competitively priced.).
BTW...that marina IS a dump and needs some investment!
Good link Mike!

[sailaway21]

It does seem reasonable.

It also seems, to little surprise, that the community has given little prior thought to the impact of hurricanes and other, readily foreseeable events, upon the marina and surrounds. I am sure that they are quite pleased with the over 2 millions the marina generates for them, but less pleased or inclined to imagine that it might impose some level of responsibility upon them.

Since they are operating the marina at a profit they should be ultimately responsible for it's maintenance and wreck removal as necessary. I would find it hard to believe that a private marina would not carry insurance to cover uninsured vessels that may sink or cause damage. There is no reason a public marina should not exercise the same due diligence to the protection of it's client's interests. Slip fees would be the obvious source of revenue, giving a hefty nod to the uninsurability of some boats.

The fact that the several counties do not have any effective plan in place for removal of derelicts does not remove their responsibility for their maintenance of those waters. At the risk of sounding cynical, one might question where the 2 millions collected per annum have gone. Are they reinvested in the area responsible for their generation or are they treated more as manna from heaven to be used without discretion.

I personally do not favor an insurance requirement. Not because it is undesirable, but because it is unenforcable. A brief glance at how such a requirement works with automobiles reveals that, while all are required to carry some level of insurance, the insurance companies know that the requirement is easily circumvented and so require their policy holders to carry un-insured motorist coverage on their policy holder's vehicles. In my opinion, it would be much better to have a general insurance policy, funded by slip fees, that covers all boats insured and un-insured. Length of at risk exposure would be the determining rate factor.

[Tartan34C]

When I was in the business I had “Care custody and control insurance” that covered the customer’s boats while they were at my work docks or had my men working on them. It was more expensive then if the owner took out a policy to cover the same risk and on the larger boats we required that they do just that and we carried an umbrella policy on top of that. The way it was explained to me was an insurance company would not insure a big risk boat but by having a blanket policy we could have a big risk boat come in for service without the insurance company having the opportunity to decline insurance. So they set the premium higher to cover that risk.

I think each owner should have his own insurance and if he wants an older boat that’s his decision and he alone needs to bear the added cost. If you can’t afford or don’t want insurance then move to a mooring or make other arrangements. The boatyard I store at now requires a certificate of insurance handed over when you sign the storage contract. No proof of insurance, no contract. Its good business and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

The tax the marina owner pays doesn’t cover the tax the boat owner should pay if they are a live-aboard. I am a live-aboard and I think the town should tax the live-aboard at the same rate as the homeowner. It’s even worse if you are discussing a town marina because there is no tax revenue at all. All the boats might need to be taxed to pay for the town service they use.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

[xort]

Is the state or county going after the owners of these derelict boats? I'm sure some are not traceable but there have to be many that are traceable to an owner who can & should be held liable for costs of removal & remediation.

It pisses me off that I play by the rules and obtain insurance for these possibilities while freeloaders do not and then leave it to the state (you and me) to clean up their mess.

Marinas should absolutely require proof of insurance. It is unfair & unreasonable to expect the marina to assume the liability of any boat in any condition.

Time to run the freeloading boat bums off the water!!!

[camaraderie]

Robert...I agee with you that liveaboards should pay higher rates to cover the public services and marina services they use.
I know the marina being ublic pays no taxes, but since it is a profit center for the town...this effectively offsets the taxes a private entity would pay. and then some assuming the rates are not less than similar facilities.
In any event, it matters little in the long run as $$ will eventually settle the issue when it comes to the public purse and the political power of live-aboards!

[Tartan34C]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Robert...I agee with you that liveaboards should pay higher rates to cover the public services and marina services they use.
I know the marina being ublic pays no taxes, but since it is a profit center for the town...this effectively offsets the taxes a private entity would pay. and then some assuming the rates are not less than similar facilities.
In any event, it matters little in the long run as $$ will eventually settle the issue when it comes to the public purse and the political power of live-aboards!

For lots of reasons I don’t think a town run marina is as profitable as a privately run facility. At Haverstraw Marina and Worlds Fair Marina (one a lease from the town and the other a concession from the City Of New York) we did our own pile driving, dock construction, maintenance etc. A similar town run facility bids out the construction and sets up all the profit centers such as service and boat cleaning as concessions so the town only gets a percentage of the revenue that a private owner would. Looking at the numbers we used I don’t think the town of West Haverstraw will have as much income when they take over the Marina at the end of the current lease as they would just by looking for the tax and rent from a commercial operator. And they will have a harder time managing it so they will probably hire a marina management company to run it for them which further reduces the bottom line. This is just my own thought but I think live-aboards need to be taxed to make things come out even and towns shouldn’t run marinas because they diminish the quality of service.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

[sailaway21]

Xort hits upon a valid point. The loophole in the potential insurance scam is that the boat owner presents proof of insurance for which he has paid the nominal sum down, say $100, and then cancells coverage by never pays a premium. At least that's the way it works with autos and many companies having gone to six month policies does not discourage the practise. I favor the states rolling injury and liability insurance into the gas tax. Everyone would therefore be covered for the most important coverage and it would be on a sliding scale based upon gas consumption. Those who drove the most would pay the most and a side benefit would be further encouragement to use fuel efficiently. Of course I would like to see a pool of insurance companies to provide the coverage, similar to Marine insurance where no company will assume the entire liability for one ship.

Communities face other similar tax burdens. Many is the trailer park that is erected that deposits a large number of students in the local school without a commensurate influx of school tax dollars.

I agree with Robert on the undesirability of government run marinas. First off, it is unwise to have municipalities in competition with private industry. The municipality enjoys resources the private enterprise does not, not the least of which is a reliance on their tax levying powers to remediate any malfeasance on their part. Don't charge enough, there's storm damage, etc...the local tax payer is stuck with the bill. I would think that a long term lease granted to a private contractor would be the most effective way to operate. The lease would reflect the true costs to the community as well as provide the funds necessary for the community to acquire private insurance for it's disaster liability. A private operator, with his profitability at risk, would be much better at maintaining the facility as well as eliminating scofflaws taking advantage of the marina.

[hellosailor]

Speaking of marinas and insurance requirements:
Has anyone ever been asked to produce their insurance policy? And more to the point, has anyone ever had someone at a marina, dockmaster, etc, actually CHECK to see if it exists? In or out of the US?

I mean, "Here it is" doesn't mean much in the days of computers and printers. With US auto insurnace, in theory someone can scan the bar code or cal in the FS-20 to a police dispatch to confirm it...but honest, are any marinas THAT ORGANIZED??

[sailingdog]

If you can't afford insurance, then you really should be off on a mooring or anchoring out, since you probably can't afford to do proper maintenance on your boat, and when it catches fire or explodes, the number of innocent bystanders and collateral damage will be minimized if you're not in a marina, rack storage facility or other close confine situation.