Becoming Less Invisible

Anchored boats near Miami

Lots of chatter recently about Florida anchoring restrictions.  (A great summary of the first round of meetings was provided by SSCA, and Waterway Guide describes coordinated next steps)  There's a claim that the restrictions are about derelict vessels and local control, but it's pretty blatant pandering to a few wealthy waterfront property owners who just don't want boats to block their view.  (Scuttlebutt has it that one of the waterfront homeowners behind the pressure to ban anchoring told his congressperson that he was worried that the boats anchored behind his house were peering in his bedroom windows with their binoculars.  That's the kind of ridiculous defamation I want to educate people about.  Cruisers and liveaboards aren't all dropouts and losers and sketchy characters; in fact educating people about liveaboards was the original focus when I first started writing this blog for the Annapolis newspaper.  Most cruisers are no more likely to peer in your bedroom window than anyone else.  Less, really, because we have so many more interesting things to look at, like birds and fish and sunsets.)

Abandoned boats are a legitimate issue, and not just in Florida, although it does seem that Florida has some of the worst of it. The further north you go, the more the weather weeds out at least some of the marginal folks.  Sometimes well-intentioned boaters simply have a run of bad luck, but "Oops, my boat sank and I don't have the money to deal with it, so I'll walk away and let the taxpayers handle it" just doesn't cut it.  I've grumbled and blogged about anchoring rights before.  I've tried to explain that people who choose to live on boats often are ordinary people who do so because they want to live an unconventional life in touch with nature and the sea, with a series of profiles of liveaboards in Washington DC and Annapolis.  I've also wrestled with the fact that in trying to find a balance to address the anchored boats issue, there can be no perfect law that fits all cases.

A community that says, an anchored boat might become abandoned, and cleanup would be at public expense, therefore let's ban all anchoring, is anything but balanced.  There are better ways to protect waterways while encouraging maritime commerce. There are laws already on the books, and at least some cities are taking a tough stance, as recently happened to a boat owner in Annapolis who now is appealing a sentence of jail time if he doesn't address his sunken boat. In the Florida case, similarly, laws already exist that could be used; not to mention the dubious legality of claiming control over public waterways for the benefit of (who or what, exactly?) as is articulated in this* great letter to the Florida FWC from a lawyer who also happens to be a liveaboard boater.  Further, an analysis of available data on derelict boats in Florida suggests that most of them are unlikely to be cruising boats, and in fact a good percentage of them are abandoned in marina slips and not at anchor at all.

With all this contentious background, I had a fascinating e-chat with a cruising friend last month.  She told the story of someone she knew who was just starting out cruising, who wondered whether to skip Florida altogether, due to all the hassle of anchoring regulations.  The new cruiser's idea of skipping the state sparked an idea. "What about a total boycott?" my friend wondered.  What if it was organized by a big boating group, and had lots of media attention and a letter of intent that says none of us are going to spend money in Florida with our boats until you get some balance on this anchoring issue?  How would the retailers react if they didn't have the winter money coming in?

"My fear about a boycott is that even if it was conducted perfectly, it still wouldn't have much impact," I responded, and she sadly agreed.  The cruising community is really tiny compared with the total tourist economy.  And we're a bit of a captive audience, there aren't a lot of warm sunny options on the East Coast without passing through Florida.  But here's where her conversation led me full circle, right back to why I started this blog.  Boycotts are about customers you have taken for granted suddenly deliberately becoming invisible. "Maybe the opposite of a boycott,"  I wondered.  "What if we were all very visible?  Merchants, other than boatyards and marinas, don't realize that some of their customers are cruisers, because we just look (and are) like everybody else.  What if we tried a little harder to let the people we encounter while we are spending money (restaurants, bookstores, wherever we go) know that we are visiting by boat?  This serves two purposes: it helps them realize that most of us are just ordinary, polite customers, not rebels and dropouts and vagrants as portrayed by the homeowner with the dubious "Peeping Tom" fears, and it helps them realize that they are getting more money from us than they think?"

So that's what I'm going to do.  Make sure that, in the course of spending money in town, I chat with merchants, and waiters and service people, and if I can work it naturally into the conversation, I'll let them know that we're visiting by boat.  Be more visible, not invisible.  Side benefit, if I have incentive to chat with more strangers, who knows what other interesting people I'll meet?

PS: Of course, the other thing I'm going to do is comment to FWC and my legislator.  You can submit comments to FWC here.

PPS: The very articulate letter I mentioned above isn't (yet) available anywhere I can link to, it's only on SSCA's Facebook page, so here it is in its entirety (reprinted with permission):

To: Captain Gary Klein, FWChttp://myfwc.com/.../senior-staff/contact-commissioners

From: John R. (Jay) Campbell, JD, 

Dear Captain Klein:

I am a Florida Licensed Attorney, with over 25 years of practice in the State. I have owned many residential properties, including waterfront property in Tampa, as recently as 2013 when my wife and I moved full time on to our boat in Palmetto. We reside at a Marina, but often cruise Southwest Florida and Southeast Florida, anchoring as is prudent, dictated by weather, tide, travel schedules and the need to rest.

I have read and completely oppose the proposed FWC restrictions on anchoring in "concept 2" related to establishing setbacks from residential property. These proposals seem designed to benefit only a few wealthy landowners at the expense of the public's right to use and enjoy these waters, as established by the federal public trust. The proposals do NOT set forth any concerns or problems the proposals are designed to address, nor do they note any review done by the FWC to ensure the setbacks are a reasonable response to any such problems. Therefore, the proposed setbacks are not reasonable encroachment of the public rights, and are illegal. 

Regarding the set back proposals, I note the following in support of all boaters, and voters, who also oppose these proposed restrictions:
1. Where are the studies FWC has done or reviewed to support the proposed 150' or 300' anchoring set backs?
2. Where are the concerns, set out in writing, that FWC is attempting to address with these setbacks?
3. Where are the legal opinions that these proposed setbacks are lawful, and not an illegal encroachment on the federal regulation of waterways as a public trust?
4. If the concern is derelict boats, or stored boats, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern, rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?
5. If the concern is the potential discharge of sewage, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern, rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?
6. If the concern is a reasonable amount of unencumbered room for landowners to use near their docks and access channels, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern (for example, using a common standard of 1 1/2 times boat length from the protected structure) rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?
7. Regarding the proposal to return regulation, in part, back to small local governments, why does this proposal suggest that FWC should administer a program which will allow every municipality to apply for and create it's own anchoring rules, thereby turning Florida into a patchwork quilt of regulations without a sound basis, or statewide enforcement?

The proposals seem to be unlawful, poorly thought out, against the interest of Florida citizens who are boaters, against the interests of Florida businesses which cater to boaters, and in support of ONLY a few wealthy landowners, represented by legislators who control the FWC funding. This is not how laws and regulations should be developed and implemented to support the public interest. - Jay Campbell, JD

A Politician Who Gets It!

image from here

When I first started blogging for the Capital in 2008, (wow, have I really been at this for six years?) I was a girl on a mission.  I wanted people in my adopted hometown of Annapolis to understand why people would want to live on a boat, and that we're not all weird rebels and dropouts and losers or one step above homeless and a threat to property values or safety.  My very first post alluded to this, in fact.  I profiled several liveaboards at the Gangplank marina in Washington DC who were also trying to get this message to their community.  I defended liveaboards and anchored vessels when the question of restricting anchoring in Back Creek came up a few years ago.  I even wrote a piece for a CNN series on small-space living about what its like to live on a small boat.

So I was really excited to read a story in the Capital last week about a tiny house being built by students at Key School that was featured as home of the week. I've been following the Tiny House movement because of how much it has in common with living on a boat.  I think the house was/will be pretty cool but my favorite line in the article was the reaction from Governor O'Malley: "He pointed out the Annapolis area is already full of tiny houses. They’re called “sailboats.” " Someone in power who gets it? Oh, YESSSSS!

What Kind of Error Would You Rather Make?

Yep.  It's another anchoring post.  My last one is here.

The plan was to get a few boat friends together, pick up a Navy mooring in Weems Creek, raft together, then go out to Mexican Café on Saturday night to celebrate an early Cinco de Mayo.  If we had one too many margaritas, we only needed to walk/row back to the boats to sleep instead of driving home.  The weather report was encouraging, for warmth and some sunshine after a chilly spring that has seemed to go on forever.  We arrived at the planned meeting point at Weems Creek after a brief pleasant Friday afternoon sail to find … disappointment.  No moorings were available; they were occupied by a number of dilapidated, neglected or abandoned boats – one covered with a threadbare tarp, one without a mast, one trailing a deflated waterlogged dinghy. There was still some prime anchoring real estate available, so we set the hook and let out plenty of chain, and got our heads into weekend mode.

We spent a pleasant day chatting with other boats in the anchorage, old acquaintances who had returned to the Chesapeake for the summer.  We met some new folks who, drawn by our hailing port of Northport, Michigan, came over and introduced themselves as fellow Michiganders new to the Chesapeake.  And then our gang showed up, some by boat, and others came to the restaurant by land.  Much laughter ensued; later there were even fireworks we could watch from the cockpit.  The derelict boats spoiling the mood were reduced to a minor annoyance, grit under my fingernails or pebble in my shoe, but the irritation never completely went away.  As the boats themselves will never go away, which is of course the issue with abandoned boats – they cost tax dollars to remove.

There was a recent situation elsewhere in A.A. County that was diametrically opposite: a police launch came along side an anchored boat and very politely said that one of the shore residents had suggested perhaps that boat had stayed long enough and should be moving on.  The heavy irony here is that the boat in question was an extremely beautiful and well-maintained one; the owners, Evans Starzinger and Beth Leonard, long-distance sailors well-known in the cruising community, were aboard; and there was no chance of mistaking this for a dilapidated boat about to be abandoned.   (For Evans’ take on the incident, go to their blog  and scroll back to the post from 4/16/2013; another blogger's reaction to his post is here) In addition, there are no regulations prohibiting anchoring in the Chesapeake as long as the boat is properly lit and not blocking a channel or access, so I'm not sure which I find more disturbing, that a shore resident thought he/she had a right to control who anchored nearby, or that the local law enforcement did nothing to disabuse him/her of that notion.

The inconsistent, in fact contradictory way local authorities react to anchored boats in the county is confusing, or worse.   In one case, boats are allowed to sit unattended for long periods; in the other, a properly-anchored and attended boat was asked to move.

In statistics they call them Type 1 and Type 2 errors.  The technical definitions include lots of confusing phrases like “failing to reject the null hypothesis,” but it’s simpler to think of them as “false positives” or over-reacting, and “false negatives” or under-reacting.  See, in the real world, no matter how you make the decision rules, it is likely that there will be a few extremes or special cases that aren’t properly covered.  The trick is to define the rules in a way that minimizes harm from these errors.  In some cases it is very clear to see which type of error is the more dangerous.  If the rule, for example, is about a new cancer screening, then a false positive means some people will get unnecessary followup tests even though they don’t have cancer.  But a false negative means some early cancers will be missed until it is too late, and people could die.  So you skew your test to have very few false negatives, even if that means you might have more false positives – you over-react.  The Coast Guard does the same thing with “mayday” calls – they’d rather go out on a false alarm or multiple false alarms, than miss someone in danger that they could have helped.  In other cases, false positives are clearly the more dangerous error: for all its faults, our judicial system is skewed to minimize the chances of an innocent person being found guilty, even if that means that some guilty may go free.

There are other cases when it is not clear whether type 1 or type 2 errors are worse.  My favorite example of this is the rules for eligibility for public assistance.  No matter how we write the rules, some people just won’t fit in those boxes and their circumstances won’t be covered properly.  If we write the rules too broadly, there is a chance that some freeloaders will game the system.  But if we write the rules too strictly, there is a chance that some folks who really deserve help will fall through the cracks.  There’s no obvious right or wrong answer, but which type of error we are more tolerant of says a great deal about our values as a society.

Perhaps the case of abandoned boats in Weems Creek is a “Type 2” error, and the seaworthy boat asked to move along is “Type 1” error?  In writing public policy, it is hard to find a perfect balance.   Write the anchoring rules too lax, and you get derelict boats that we all (somehow) have to deal with.  Write the rules too stringently, and no one ever anchors out and learns to appreciate the natural beauty of the Chesapeake.  Right now, we’re making both types of errors; do we have the worst of both? Which error are we more concerned about? What do we value?
= = = =
Life Afloat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Life-Afloat/211190278933810
A slightly different version of this post was first published in the Annapolis Capital-Gazette on May 11, 2013:

Clarification: I’m “Houseless,” not Homeless

Posted: June 16, 10:48 am | (permalink) | (2 comments)

I believe one of our jobs as members of the human race is to help build the world we want to live in. Part of the world I want to live in is one that is welcoming and understanding of why I choose to live not in a suburban house or city apartment, but full time aboard a sailboat. That was why we picked Annapolis, advertised as the Sailing Capital, for our home, and why I started this blog – to help increase the community’s knowledge of what living aboard is all about.

So I think I have some work to do! I really feel a need to respond to two views quoted in Elisha Sauers’ recent article “Back Creek Could Get Anchoring Restriction.” Her article nicely presented views on both sides of the issue of transient –and in some cases long-term – boats anchoring in a cove near the dinghy landing at the end of Sixth Street. It is a convenient location for many, but at the same time, boats anchored there improperly can complicate access for other boats in nearby marina slips, or drag and cause damage.

The first quote I’d like to respond to comes from the manager of Mears Marina, proposing the anchoring ban. She says, "Really, these people [her slipholders] are paying to be here, they're paying into the establishments here, they're paying taxes here, they're contributing to this economy. The others [anchored boats] aren't contributing anything to us." I disagree – I think that anchored boats contribute to the local economy, just not to the marina segment. Many of the anchorers are visitors passing through Annapolis on their way north for the summer or south for the winter. If it were me, I’d pick someplace more tranquil if I was just going to stay aboard my boat for the night. Otherwise, why anchor in a city, near a convenient dinghy landing, if you don’t intend to go ashore? And do what, ashore? Tour the historic district or the Naval Academy or other tourist attractions, go out to dinner, contract for boat repair work. In other words, spend money in our town. Tell friends about your experiences, move on, return, repeat.

The second quote I’d like to respond to is one that compares anchored boats to a “homeless person living in a box in [your] apartment complex." I think this is a bad analogy for two reasons. The first is that an apartment complex is private property that someone living in a box is illegally encroaching on, while the cove on Back Creek is public property and, at present, anchoring there is legal.

The second reason I think this is a bad analogy gets to exactly why I started this blog: liveaboards are not homeless. We have homes, just, floating ones. When I first moved aboard I was pretty quiet about where and how I lived, especially with my new boss, wary that he also might have fallen prey to the image that liveaboards were a bunch of rebels and dropouts and losers. (I blogged about it back in my very first post.) Indeed, there are a few liveaboards that fit that image. But the vast majority of those I’ve met are instead an intelligent community that includes many professionals with an adventurous side. There’s a lawyer I know who so loves life on a boat that she owns two boats – one in D.C. close to her office, and one in Annapolis for weekends. There’s a couple raising their young family, a retired physicist, a shopkeeper, airline pilots and nurses and artists and computer systems analysts. To help further dispel that wrong impression, I’ll try to occasionally profile some long-term Annapolis liveaboards in this blog.

(Side note: I commented in the original article that I think long-term (we’re talking *years*) anchored boats have essentially taken a section of the creek that is public property for themselves, which is wrong; I think it’s equally wrong to take public property and deny others access for the convenience of a private marina. I think banning anchoring should be a last resort after we’ve exhausted all the other options in the existing framework. That includes having the concerned marinas post signs informing visiting boaters of the current regulations prohibiting anchoring within 75 feet, and giving the harbormaster the resources necessary to enforce those regulations quickly and aggressively. The public meeting on the anchoring issue is at 7 p.m. June 28 in City Hall. I’ve unfortunately got a previous commitment; wonder if written comments can be submitted on this issue?)

[photo: sign on a piling in a marina on Back Creek]

Of Jellyfish and Plastic Bags

If you google "beaches" and "jellyfish" together, you get articles from the Med to Australia about resorts inundated with these stinging blobs. Here in the Chesapeake, NOAA publishes predictions of the likelihood of encountering sea nettles, based on water temperature and salinity: http://155.206.18.162/seanettles/ People are reduced to swimming in Lycra skins or in small areas fenced off with fine mesh nets. And much of the population explosion is due to overfishing the jellyfish's natural predators, sea turtles and tuna and other similar large fish.

The poor sea turtles! If that wasn't bad enough, when they do try to get a jellyfish meal, they can be far too often tricked by an imposter in the form of a plastic bag. We tried a little experiment:

We tried to see if we could make a plastic bag look like a jellyfish by putting it on the end of a boat pole and swirling it around in the water.

Here's a jellyfish we photographed in Mill Creek last month.

And here's our best attempt with the plastic bag.

Okay, it wouldn't necessarily fool me, but then, I'm not swimming in the murky water, either. And if nothing else, it was the starting point for some great conversation on the dock!

I doubt this was what the City of Annapolis had in mind when the plastic bag ban was being discussed last year. I hate seeing plastic bags caught high in trees or pasted to fences, and we've seen them, and mylar party balloons fallen back to earth, 50 miles off shore in the emptiness of the Atlantic. On the other hand, I'm not particularly a fan of such things as bans, it seems to me awfully like trying to regulate common sense. We bring reusable cloth bags to the grocery store (when we remember). Whether we do paper or plastic is so much about how we can reuse the bags after they've carried our stuff home. Paper bags so rarely work in our boat life - they are heavier, bulkier, and besides - you can hardly use them to pack your wet swimsuit home from the pool!

Click on the monkey's fist to read others bloggers on this topic.

Housebarges?

I was all set to blog about jellyfish, sea turtles, and the plastic bag ban when this article about housebarges appeared in the Capital. Links to articles in the paper expire in 30 days unless you access them from a library, so I'll try to summarize: the article is about the growing popularity of houseboats and the controversy over whether they are allowed in Annapolis. Current zoning is very restrictive, the manufacturer wants to have "discussions" with the City. Similar discussions are popping up in a lot of places, like this NY Times article : "Houseboats Emerge as a Cheaper Form of Housing" The manufacturer's spin on them is here Note that they're billed as "cheap waterfront living" NOT as boats. If your 3-year-old nephew saw one, he wouldn't say "Oh, look at the pretty boat." Nor would your Aunt Betty from Kansas. And that's my point.

Those barges? They look to me like doublewides on pontoons. And despite the manufacturer's claim, they aren't boats - can you imagine being in even mild waves in one of them? It is generally accepted that they don't move often, if at all. There are waiting lists for boat slips at many marinas here for recreational boats - do we really want to further decrease the opportunities?

I'll admit to my obvious prejudice - I live aboard because I love boating. The waterfront view and the community are tremendous plusses, but most of all I live this way simply because I like to sail. Most of all I think what offends me is this: Annapolis has tried hard to preserve its maritime heritage and feel. Enterprise zones to encourage marine industries to stay on the waterfront instead of ripping out marinas to replace them with endless condos. These housebarges impress me as a disrespectful way of trying to do an end run around that zoning.