SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Should long term anchoring in ports be regulated?

8K views 81 replies 24 participants last post by  SchockT 
#1 ·
In Vancouver BC the port authority is taking action against the practice of anchoring boats for long term storage or liveaboards. Areas like False Creek, which is right in the heart of the city, have become congested with an assortment of liveaboards and stored boats, many of them unseaworthy hulks and eyesores, to the point where visiting boaters have a difficult time finding a place to drop their hook. Many of the liveaboards never leave their mooring, which presumably means that they are flushing their heads directly into the "Creek". (False Creek, as it's name suggests, is not actually a creek but an inlet with very little tidal flush)
Some people have taken issue with the term "squatters" to describe some of these boats. Perhaps the name is a bit inflamatory, but what else do you call it? If I drove into a popular park with my old Winnebago, parked it, and made it my home, would I not be squatting? If I pitched a tent on the front lawn of the Art Gallery and made that my home? So what is the difference? In both those cases I would be moved along because there are regulations against such things, and so there should be! So why shouldn't there be similar rules on our waterfront?
 
#4 ·
Regulations, no; laws yes. It should be illegal to anchor for more than 2 weeks, especially in areas like False Creek. It unfair to commercial ships like the freighters paying high port fees and recreational boater paying moorage and slip fees, and for sanitary services like water and pump out. Where's the trash and crap ending up? Back in the 80s I paid $800 per month for a slip at Canada Place. I'm sure it's higher now. The port authority should have the power by LAW to evict or remove boaters breaking the law. It's unfair for other transient boaters who come and find the back lagoon full with nowhere to anchor. Nightly and weekly fees should be put in place just like all harbours and collected on a daily basis. Failure to pay is a ticket/fine with repeat offenses ending in confiscation and removal of offending boats. If you want to squat, go up one of the uninhabited inlets along the coast and live like a hobit. Most federal fisheries docks along the coast have been cleaned up because of squatters abusing the honor pay system that used to be in place for a temporary stay. Off with their heads I say and let them eat salt cake.
 
#5 ·
This one is a complex issue here in Vancouver.. jurisdiction is not completely clear with federal, provincial and municipal bodies competing. The obvious problems such as sewage dumping, derelict vessels, hazards to navigation, sunken or sinking hulks certainly support some kind of regulation, as well as trying to provide space and welcome for visiting vessels (an area where Vancouver has failed mightily, btw, for a waterfront city - look to Victoria, Nanaimo, Sidney, Comox, Powell River etc for good examples of transient vessel policies and facilities)

Another problem has been that as these 'undesirables' are pushed out of False Creek, they move to other areas. Some in English Bay, less sheltered with the inevitable result of several groundings a year as ground tackle fails in a sudden storm. Others move to other sheltered situations in Squamish, Gibsons, Nanaimo, Pender Harbour just to name a few.

Regulation doesn't seem to be eliminating the problem, merely shifting it around to other unlucky areas who then must try to figure out how to deal with them.

For those who are maintaining their vessels on the hook and truly living aboard and not abandoning or neglecting them come under fire from those sanctioned liveaboards paying moorage, city fees and taxes, sewer charges etc.

But all of this is probably inevitable today given the increasingly high cost and lack of availability of decent moorage for boats much over 25 feet LOA in this area.

I do support laws or regs that limit such 'squatting' and keep the playing field even for all boaters in the area generally, and for those who choose to liveaboard. Sea Hunter is correct in saying there are plenty of remote areas where one might live that lifestyle if they choose.
 
#6 ·
I think the False Creek system requires you to obtain a permit which is good for 7 days in the summer and 1 month in the winter. You must then move your boat out for at least 24 hours in order to obtain another permit. No doubt all of these derelict boats were dumping their sewage into False Creek. Most of those boats from false Creek moved over to Port Moody and are now anchored near the mud flats. I took a cruise through there the other day and what a mess. 30% should be scuttled, and the remaining 70% should be in marinas. If you cant afford to look after your boat properly then perhaps its time to downsize.
 
#7 ·
Open water is very different from the front yard of an Art Gallery, IMHO. I just don't tend to think you try to write a regulation for everything. There are ultimately unintended consequences of same and the cost to try to avoid them can be enormous. Often, it requires extensive court costs.

If the community find these boats objectionable, simply try to get rid of them. Some old fashion street corner police work would do the job, or confiscate them as hazards to navigation, if they are abandon.
 
#9 ·
I think "long-term" is the key here, even more than pumpouts (which are fairly straightforward to regulate and rules already exist). Whether storing a boat, or living in a boat unable to move under its own power, "long-term" means someone has taken a shared public resource - a section of the harbor or anchorage - for to their own private use, effectively denying it to anyone else.
 
#10 ·
Vancouver BC is not the only place where this is an issue. Florida is at the forefront of this issue.

Some these to think about.

1) the rights of the public in general to enjoy the waterfront.
2) the rights of private waterfront landowners.
3) the rights of taxpayers not to have to clean up your mess.
4) the rights of free navigation to the mariner under the Law of the Sea
5) the rights of a free person to live free.

Number 5 is the hardest subject really as those that Pay through the nose resent those that found a loophole. Lets face it. A well found cruising boat with solar etc etc and registered in a no property tax state like Florida and on the hook have beat the system.
Your required Land fees are down to a few hundred a year not counting food fuel.
Free fish and cheap rum and a million dollar view........BE prepared to have a lot of enemies. Granted this all takes alot of planning and hard work but Lubbers don't know this. All they know is there Property tax on there house just went up to 8k a year.
 
#11 ·
Minnewaska,

The area in question is not open water, it is in the heart of the city, surrounded by parks, tourist attractions, and high end condos. I don't know how the community could deal with the problem without first creating the regulations or laws to give them the legal authority.

It is true that the problem is just getting pushed to other jurisdictions, and I am all for a regional policy rather than leaving it up to individual communities to deal with. I was in Silva Bay last week, which is a popular anchorage, and I was happy to see a few less hulks anchored there. Many of them were served notice about 6 weeks ago by the coast guard using whatever regulation was at their disposal.
 
#13 ·
.....It is true that the problem is just getting pushed to other jurisdictions, and I am all for a regional policy rather than leaving it up to individual communities to deal with. I was in Silva Bay last week, which is a popular anchorage, and I was happy to see a few less hulks anchored there. ......
I too thought Silva was a bit cleaned up.. but there are still two anchored floats in the middle of the bay and my understanding is that mooring buoys are OK as long as they comply with colour and size regulations, but actual docks or floats are not. The CG is pursuing those angles, a friend in Degnen Bay with a buoy received a letter from the CG saying that it had to be white with yellow stripe and have a valid phone number inscribed.

So the good news is that the cleanup is in play.. how effective or long term it turns out to be will remain to be seen. We are still reluctant to anchor in Silva Bay due to the clutter, esp given it's one of the windier areas in summer.
 
#12 ·
The problem with Laws is they are often written up to deal with the worst of the worst.

Town where posting "no anchor" laws in Florida in violation with Federal Law and International Treaty. Cops would come out and confront you (Marco Island).

It took a lot of work by many people to come up with a semi reasonable solution to the issue.

If this issue is just coming to the forefront in your area now it might be better to have boaters themselves find a solution to take to the government as u probably not like having to get a permit to cruise your own waters or have to shell out $125 a night for a slip.
 
#14 ·
I think you should be able to anchor for as long as you want to wherever there's room, BUT- it should be handled like this.
A free anchoring permit should be required.
To qualify, the boat must be able to make it's way to the existing harbor authority's dock under it's own power every 30 days for inspection.
It should have oil-free bilges, fire extinguishers, working bilge pumps, adequate ground tackle, and a sanitation system.
There should be 1 exemption for the 30 day inspection per boat per year, and that's it.
If you can't comply, leave or lose your boat.
 
#15 ·
I pretty much agree with this type of approach even though it would impose some burden on true cruisers and my time limits might be different depending on the situation.

Fortunately, I currently sail in an area where this is not a problem, but one of the places high on my list of potential retirement locales is an area where many folks abuse the law either living on floating junk piles or outright abandoning boats on an anchor leaving it to others to deal with the boat when storms come.

"Living free" doesn't connote a right to live on a floating junk pile on a public waterway or for free long term storage of a boat in your absense. If your boat is a boat, and you use it like a boat, this type of regulation wouldn't be too great a burden to rid the area of those that would abuse the system.
 
#16 ·
The Boater is often NOT on the ccouncil making up the laws.
Rich waterfront property owners etc often are or have pull with said politicians.
Which is why a proactive approach need to take place rather than waiting for government to fix it.

IF it were not for Boating groups and Maritime Business groups and the sheer Volume of money generated in rec. fishing and boating here in Floridah and some pesky constitutional issues then the situation here would be much different now.
 
#20 ·
The newly installed mooring field at Newcastle seems to be accomplishing this (for transients) now.. reasonable fees, fewer boats dragging, the marine seabed no longer being 'attacked' by so many anchors.. The parks have always had time limits on their buoys and dockspace to keep the squatters away.

Would be interested to see who/what's on those buoys this coming winter in the off season.
 
#21 ·
The problem is that mooring fields are costly to maintain and service. You never know if they are maintained well. When you throw your hook, you KNOW what's down there. When you trust a government-maintained mooring, it's a crap-shoot unless you can dive down to see that it's still in good condition. Nobody's going to do this in the cold, murky NE water. Some of the hardware on these municipal moorings is not maintained very well and is undersized to save money. The cost to anchor is $0. The cost of renting a town mooring is usually $35-$60 a night. That's probably well justified to cover the costs of a mooring field but just too expensive for many cruisers like myself. If people are going to leave derelicts, deal with that problem, not the legitimate cruising boats looking to anchor for a while. Blanket fixes, as folks have mentioned above, often have unintended consequences and ALWAYS require bigger government.
 
#22 ·
Smurf, costly is costly if there's no return. The port authority could create a cash cow in the inner and outer harbours. Even when my father had a marina in False Creek, it was always the same thing with the squatters. They cleaned it up for the fair then gave up controlling the comings and goings of transients. There's a spot off Quebec St. near where my father had a yard where they can stick a 100 ton crane and start removing long term offenders, starting with those abandoned pieces of trash. Every 20 year's or so the city finds a reason to clean up the mess; one fire down there would end this nonsense. This is not a NIMBY issue, it's about creating a clean and safe harbor for everyone to be proud.
 
#23 ·
I wonder if something like a local cruising permit would work? A permit for a set amount of time for a reasonable fee, covering a large coastal area. As a boater, I would have little issue with that. That might be something a harbormaster could keep track of pretty easily and would limit permanent derelicts. Once your time was up, you would have to move on, prove you were a legitimate transient visitor to renew, or the boat could be legally removed. It seems the problem with getting rid of derelicts is usually the legality, tracking down owners, etc. This is true for boatyard owners who get stuck with abandoned boats and have no way to either destroy them or sell them.
 
#24 ·
They should just start enforcing the current rules and regulations, I believe they are more then adequate. Enforce the rules about holding tanks bouy size/color etc... More regulation means more headaches for everyone. Charging a fee or requiring a permit to anchor somewhere is ridiculous, the municipality is providing zero services to the people anchoring.

Why not make money off them in other ways? Provide mobile pump out service for a fee. If they have a vehicle ashore charge a long term parking fee. Make it illegal to have a toilet on board without a holding tank.(I'm against this one on principle. Hundreds of thousands of people living in communities dump sewage directly into the ocean no big deal. If a couple thousand boaters do it HUGE deal. Go to the marina in Victoria get your tank pumped out, they put it into the city sewage system and pump it into the sea. Is it just me or is that a little ridiculous?)

All that more laws and regulation will do is create more laywers and government officials leading to hire costs and taxes for everyone. Maybe we should focus our resources on more pressing crimes such as gangs and pedophiles rather then going after a cosmetic/insurance problem.

As far as the boats being a hazard to navigation, if they are the coast guard has the power to remove them.
 
#25 ·
They should just start enforcing the current rules and regulations, I believe they are more then adequate. Enforce the rules about holding tanks bouy size/color etc... More regulation means more headaches for everyone. Charging a fee or requiring a permit to anchor somewhere is ridiculous, the municipality is providing zero services to the people anchoring.
Not regulation, bylaw under the control of the Port Authority and City Police. By they by False Creek is man made created by the city, I'd say that was a good service.

Why not make money off them in other ways? Provide mobile pump out service for a fee.
Do that as well
If they have a vehicle ashore charge a long term parking fee. Make it illegal to have a toilet on board without a holding tank.(I'm against this one on principle.
Too complicated.

Hundreds of thousands of people living in communities dump sewage directly into the ocean no big deal.
Really in Victoria? Prove it.

All that more laws and regulation will do is create more laywers and government officials leading to hire costs and taxes for everyone.
All good for the economy.

Maybe we should focus our resources on more pressing crimes such as gangs and pedophiles rather then going after a cosmetic/insurance problem.
Maybe.

As far as the boats being a hazard to navigation, if they are the coast guard has the power to remove them.
It's City controlled waters, the CG has nothing to do with False Creek.
 
#27 · (Edited)
Well, the Vancouver situation does need a bit more clairification, since this thread is being started in relation to a discussion the OP and I were having in a previous thread. I'm seeing a fair number of misconceptions about Vancouver liveaboard in this thread.

I would be happy to pay to live-aboard at a mooring, or even a reasonable amount at a slip, but the city currently does not allow this, except in a few grandfathered spots in a couple of marinas, where the marinas charge an extra premium, and then the city charges the equivalent to property taxes on top of that.
my Non-liveaboard slip fee for the year for my Alberg 30 is about 8000$ due every April first, and I have to lease a full year every year, so if I were cruising I'd still pay.

1. False creek, which is basically a wide inlet, not a river or creek allows you to anchor outside of the navigation channel for 14 out of 30 days in the summer, and 21 days every 40 in the winter.
There is no provision for moving, leaving briefly to ensure a boat is still under power etc.
The only other anchorage option near the city have a lee shore, and nasty winds.

Ironically, the city looks the other way on the 2-3 derelict and very unsafe boats that anchor in False Creek, but enforce the regulations very seriously against people who have mobile, and potentially safe boats, as they therefore should be able to afford the thousands of dollars to get a slip to store the boat, and pay rent on top.

2. We have NO MOORINGS in the area. None whatsoever, except for a couple private ones for wealthy people with large waterfront properties.
No mooring field, no paid moorings, can't put your own out and pay a fee etc which I would happily do.

3. Out of the marinas in Vancouver, only two still allow liveaboards, and they limit it almost entirely to people who already live there. The only one which is mostly liveaboard has a 25 YEAR waitlist, and a buy in of 55, 000$ plus 5$/ft per month.
You can liveaboard at some private slips as well, but they cost 200, 000$ to buy and up plus 12$/ft per month on top.

4. The marinas where one cannot liveaboard are still expensive, I pay 20$/ft per month plus taxes and security fees, works out to about 8000$ a year for my Alberg 30, and requires a one year lease, and payment up front April 1st(no credit cards allowed either). I couldn't have found a slip for any bigger boat, I got it because I have a narrow beam so I can just fit.
Most of these marinas have 2-3 year waitlists, do not allow liveaboard, and have rampant theft problems, I know of 2 thefts in the last couple months within the 4 boats on the end of the dock with me.

5. There are many pump out stations around, they already charge. We pay 5$ per press of the button(not a full suck out of the tank) takes 10$+tip to drain my holding tank. The marinas do not provide pump out facilities, so I have to leave my slip and motor over just as I would need to if I were anchored out.

6. It is already law to have a holding tank here, we've been very busy installing them for customers where I work.

EDIT:
I wonder if something like a local cruising permit would work? A permit for a set amount of time for a reasonable fee, covering a large coastal area. As a boater, I would have little issue with that. That might be something a harbormaster could keep track of pretty easily and would limit permanent derelicts. Once your time was up, you would have to move on, prove you were a legitimate transient visitor to renew, or the boat could be legally removed. It seems the problem with getting rid of derelicts is usually the legality, tracking down owners, etc. This is true for boatyard owners who get stuck with abandoned boats and have no way to either destroy them or sell them
Not really an issue here, for example the boatyard where I work which has the marina where my boat is currently tied up charges quite a lot. Just to store my mast alone on the hard would cost me 30$/day. There are no true derelict boats near the city that I've seen, unsafe and questionable ones cetainly. Also, with the winds here even occupied boats wash up ashore, then the city comes after 48 hrs to crush and remove the boat.
They are very good at getting rid of derelict boats, just not at providing any way for people who want to live aboard safetly and honestly.
 
#29 ·
This is the issue, liveaboard rules have nothing to do with derelicts, abandonment, and trespassing. While I do realize the problems related to liveaboards in Van, I can tell you it's not about flower power and squatting. Homelessness is undeniably tragic, yet has nothing to do with where and how you live on the water. Legitimate boaters have rights too. Politicians need to be educated thus. How are you going to make this argument?
 
#30 ·
I wasn't aware that marinas were grandfathering out liveaboards. I wonder why they don't want them anymore?

Is there really nowhere to live aboard or is it just that there is no space in desireable areas like False Creek? Are Mosquito Creek and Lynnwood getting rid of their live aboards too?

Times, they are a changin' I guess!
 
#31 · (Edited)
Yes they're all banning it. Same operator.
The choices are Squamish, but they don't want yuppies etc there so they won't allow Vancouverites to have boats there, they're quite fussy.
Or several hours up the Fraser, but that eliminates sailing, and adds a 1.25 hr commute. They also only have space for about a dozen boats there, and it's full.

I'll PM you about Lynnwood if you like, things are changing a lot more there in the near future as I understand it. Plus I wouldn't want to live there:eek:
The docks are awful. I know of at least one injury this year from that.

EDIT: And liveaboards can be good, my neighbors boat would have been doing a good impression of a submarine if I wasnt' sleeping aboard one day.

EDIT2: I'm not opposed to reasonable regulations, or reasonable fees. Moorings would be wonderful, slips ok. I do think unsafe and derelict boats should be sorted out, but living aboard off the grid while still contributing to society seems fine to me. Also it's not like I don't pay a ton of tax as it is, between Income Tax and HST...
 
#32 ·
I personally have no interest in living on a boat aside from my cruising holidays! I simply couldn't afford the boat I would want to live on!

Seriously though, is living on a boat in False Creek really living "off the grid"? If you really want to be off the grid, anchor up at Cortes Island and live off the barter system with the old hippies!

It's pretty hard to be off the grid in the middle of a city of a million people!
 
#71 ·
:confused:
Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it. Also, for those who can afford the boats they would like to live on, it seems fair, I don't know many people who wouldn't have more than enough space on a Meridan 580 for example.

Personally, the only way I could afford to properly maintain and own a boat I'd like to cruise on is to live on it. It's also the only thing I'd want to do

On a boat you are off the power and sewage treatment grid, which doesn't imply that you don't use these things, just that you must provide them yourself, or pay for them directly instead of indirectly through taxes. This was brought up because one of points was that people living on boats don't contribute to covering the costs of these things for the city. In reality I pay money for every gallon of sewage I produce, and every watt of power and every liter of water.

In regards to them moving to other areas, what else do you expect, or is the goal here to make everyone live on land, because you don't understand why someone might prefer a boat? So long as I do with the correct navigation, safety and sanitation equipment, paying for my power water and sewage, why shouldn't I be able to live on my boat if I damn well please?

Seahunter etc: Marina's here are almost always empty of people except workers like me working on customer's boats, with the exception for the paddleboard launch areas, and the occasional loud party on one of the party boats.
Already one boat would have been lost if I hadn't been on my boat, nobody looking at it, running bilge pumps on battery and leaking(this was a 2008 32' motorboat). It's a shame there aren't any liveaboards left.

False creek has only a few boats at a time, the bad old days of derelicts everywhere are over around here. The laws to prevent derelict boats, pumping out sewage etc were ALREADY on the books before they brought in the new rules, they just chose not to actually enforce them, and to come up with a different system instead. Even with the new laws, they still leave the 2 or three derelict boats alone, but chase out the safe, well maintained boats to less safe anchorage, which people are talking about trying to eliminate.
The dock I have my boat in there's never anything on the docks, we don't even have dock boxes or anywhere to put a dinghy.

The False creek anchorage is out of the wide navigation, in an area unused by anything else, it was quite a nice anchorage.

They could have just enforced the already effective, and appropriate rules.
 
#34 ·
Of course it is but it all boils down to how to get rid of the bum boats without messing it up for everyone. Unfortunately the Urban areas / best spots in NA are going to come to regulation. It's not what your doing but what the other guy is and a certain amount of resentment by people thinking your beating the system is going to happen. Put yourself in there shoes. Imagine that you anchor in front of some waterfront home that is paying 30k a year in property taxes and the property owner sits there and sees u enjoying HIS sunset while all he gets is to watch u enjoying it. Now Imagine he has friends on city council. They will use bum boats as an excuse to prevent u from anchoring withing 2 miles of this guys house. It's better that the Boating Community be the ones to solve the problem in there area before the Lubbers do it for you.
 
#35 ·
Parrot has nailed it, as far as I'm concerned.

Look, this thread was started by Canadians, discussing how the problem should or would be handled in Canada. There's nothing wrong with that, and I support you guys handling this in whatever way suits your nation and your culture.

Please don't construe my next thoughts as criticism of your system or values.

In the US we value (or used to, anyway) freedom and try to (or should try to) limit excess regulation. I am in favor of unlimited anchorage with the following caveats:

1. Anchored boats will be held responsible for any damage they cause by breaking free.

2. Anchored boats can have their santitation systems inspected by the USCG.

3. Anchored boats deemed a health or hazmat hazard can be declared as such, and removed or ordered to be removed by the owner after a 30 day period if the owner doesn't bring the boat into compliance. (leaking sewage, petroluem, garbage)

4. Anchored boats deemed "derelict" can be removed and destroyed after 60 days, if the vessel is in an extreme state of decay, and unable to move under it's own power, and the owner cannot be contacted within that 60 day period.

Ok, let's say that all of my caveats are very poorly worded and leave too much open to interpretation. The whole point is, there are ways to allow extended anchoring, yet control the riff-raff, and water ratz.

I do understand that states and municipalities don't want their shores to be a dumping ground for filth and homeless, but there has to be a way to balance freedom against the abuses of a few.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top