Quote without comment

Derelict boats from Irma

Coconut Grove's Anchorage live-aboards battered by Irma and critics | Miami Herald

It's the same old story:
"Boy builds huge mansion. Boats float on to boy's property. Boy can't see Biscayne Bay while running on his treadmill."

Maybe someday there will be justice for him...maybe the boats will be hauled away by the City. Maybe the boy can find someone to spend $50 large so he won't have to touch his millions.

Meanwhile, children in PR don't have medicine, or a house, or food. I pray for mansion-boy. Life is so, so hard. His view is ruined. It's unconscionable. I can hear him now..."My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?!"

CDreamer said:

It's the same old story:
"Boy builds huge mansion. Boats float on to boy's property. Boy can't see Biscayne Bay while running on his treadmill."

Maybe someday there will be justice for him...maybe the boats will be hauled away by the City. Maybe the boy can find someone to spend $50 large so he won't have to touch his millions.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. Village idiot buys a sailboat. Chooses not to spend money on liability insurance and proper storm anchor etc. Boat ends up in somebody's yard and boat owner goes "not my problem". How do you give the the village idiot a pass and not have some empathy for the homeowners?

If the same village idiot crashed his uninsured car into your houe and walk away saying "you have homeowners insurance that should cover it", I bet you'd be upset.

Ted

Abandon boats have long been a problem, dozens are on the Caloosahatchee River abandoned and a hazard to navigation and the environment. So the guy is rich, doesn't mean some schmuck boat owner can abandon his boat in his yard. People just fail to take responsibility for their actions. I give credit to the guy living in his car, at least he is trying. The rest, track them down and throw them in DCC. Always remember "nothing is free".

Would you have more sympathy for homeowner if he were poor and the abandoned boat was a hazard to him? Would the boat owner have more responsibility then?

Why? Does the homeowner have fewer rights because he might be rich? Does the boatowner have less responsibility because his boat landed on an expensive home?

I said immediately after Irma that you should expect to see a new and intensified effort by some homeowners to further limit anchoring. Those of you who do anchor are the ones who should be most upset because those doing so irresponsibly are the ones who put your rights at risk. There was damage to marinas in Lake Worth, all from anchored boats. The docks were fine, the boats were fine...all except for the damage from anchored boats. This has nothing to do with the dollar value of homes, but a lot to do with consideration and respect for others. It also points out again the need for required liability insurance.

As to Dinner Key, they should have checked lines themselves as many marinas do, who in turn add lines at the expense of the boat owner. Dinner Key had a very disproportionate level of damage.

I don't anchor overnight in any of these areas so I'm not impacted if stronger anchoring restrictions are passed. However, I don't want them passed because I feel for those of you who anchor responsibly. We normally have sailboats anchored near our home but they're not derelict and none of them ended up on peoples lawns.

That's true that this is minuscule compared to Puerto Rico and it is compared to the earthquake hit areas in Mexico and compared to hunger and disease around the world, but that's all totally irrelevant to the issue. I've done what I could for Puerto Rico, but I'd still be angry if four boats ended up in my yard and no responsible owners. The one part left out of the article was that even if the owner of the property is willing to pay to have them removed, he can't legally do that. I suspect if he could just have them hauled to a dump site, he would have done so. I'd be far less troubled by the guy who ended up there on his boat than all those who can't be reached or just decided to leave theirs. At least on the one boat the landowner now may have title and can legally remove it.

I'm not impacted by this in any way, but every person who anchors is and I hope you will push for something that will help protect your interests. The homeowners now have a greatly enhanced argument and you can bet some of them will use it. They have new photos they will use during the next round of battles on this subject.

One thing to have it happen to you as a poor boat owner...another to walk away.

If it were me and I had to cut it up with a butter knife, I would have already started.

Good people in the world see that and often rally to help.

Walk away... and the hottest place in he** has room for you. And mankind should not look on you kindly.

As the article says. They guy showing some guts in life us getting some sympathy if I read it right.

Honor is everything in life, without it you are nothing.

PS BandB, why cant he have them hauled away? Maybe not the guy who is around, but if the others have "dissapeared", it wouldnt be hard to get the maritime court to establish they are salvage.

B&B, you hit on a point that I wondered about when I read the article--you can't legally haul away someone's titled property without then releasing the title to you or getting a court order that allows it.


If you did, the mysterious disappearing owners would be right in your face with a lawsuit for taking their property without authority.


I feel for the landowner. Wealth has nothing to do with his predicament. It's his property and he wants the boats gone.


I think if I were in his shoes I'd contact a civil attorney who could process the paperwork through the courts to gain title to the boats, and at the same time contact his insurance company and start them moving toward removal of the abandoned boats.

psneeld said:

PS BandB, why cant he have them hauled away? Maybe not the guy who is around, but if the others have "dissapeared", it wouldnt be hard to get the maritime court to establish they are salvage.

Click to expand...

All sorts of loops he has to go through. Has to go to court, get orders, deliver those orders, get proof he tried but couldn't, give more time, then perhaps finally. As to maritime court, I'm not sure it will even have jurisdiction now since they're no longer on the water. Perhaps, but that's not quick either.

If they were in the water, the first step would be to get the state to mark them derelict. Again, not sure what happens there on land. That would be one of the first problems, just finding who has jurisdiction to do what. If you could remove the water factor and how they arrived, might be easier to get abandoned property on land removal.

Just saying a lot of lawyer time and a lot of elapsed time until it will be done. Just keep in mind too that the ones who would do this and now ignore him are the same people who might be quick to sue later.

I've seen abandoned boats sit in shipyards for years.

It can all be done and I'm sure he's already got lawyers working on it, just will be more painful than the cost.

PS. I thought from the smell and perhaps growth and mold, might even be easiest getting them declared health hazards, but then would have to be removed as hazardous waste. lol

I think the storm and the results are tragic, and situations like this make me sad for humanity. I get that the one guy just handed over the title and bailed out for the NC mountains. That storm probably scared the sailing bug right out of him. But in regards to the homeowner and the liveaboard that DOES want his boat back, there is an opportunity for the seemingly rich homeowner to reach out and help the guy get his boat back. The quote for $50k for the removal. It doesn't say if that is back into the water or not. Still, is $50,000 such a burden on someone that can afford coastal property there? Would it noot be a better use of their money to accomplish both party's needs?

I see it as a chance for the 1% to do a good thing for humanity. Sure, that is easy for me o say not having the means, but it sure seems like the right move from here in the cheap seats.

Here is the Florida statute on removal. Read section 715.07.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Then note these last sections as to the recourse or crime.

(4) When a person improperly causes a vehicle or vessel to be removed, such person shall be liable to the owner or lessee of the vehicle or vessel for the cost of removal, transportation, and storage; any damages resulting from the removal, transportation, or storage of the vehicle or vessel; attorney’s fees; and court costs.
(5)(a) Any person who violates subparagraph (2)(a)2. or subparagraph (2)(a)6. commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Any person who violates subparagraph (2)(a)1., subparagraph (2)(a)3., subparagraph (2)(a)4., subparagraph (2)(a)7., or subparagraph (2)(a)9. commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Tom.B said:

I think the storm and the results are tragic, and situations like this make me sad for humanity. I get that the one guy just handed over the title and bailed out for the NC mountains. That storm probably scared the sailing bug right out of him. But in regards to the homeowner and the liveaboard that DOES want his boat back, there is an opportunity for the seemingly rich homeowner to reach out and help the guy get his boat back. The quote for $50k for the removal. It doesn't say if that is back into the water or not. Still, is $50,000 such a burden on someone that can afford coastal property there? Would it noot be a better use of their money to accomplish both party's needs?

I see it as a chance for the 1% to do a good thing for humanity. Sure, that is easy for me o say not having the means, but it sure seems like the right move from here in the cheap seats.

Click to expand...

The liveaboard who wants his boat back is the least of his problems. The one who gave title, assuming it was signed, isn't a big issue. But the other two are major issues. We're talking four boats and four different situations. I don't think the homeowner's real concern is the money.

He's got one boat he's been given Title to.

He's got one that the owner is there but no estimate on cost to repair and relaunch. This one he's been nice to.

He's got one that the owner is in Spain and says he wants it but another boat is in the way.

He's got one boat where the owners are on a charter somewhere in the world and have been uncooperative. To me, they're the scariest one.

I swear some of you make it sound like the homeowner is the one at fault. Please tell me one thing he's done wrong.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. He's got money. That's what he's done evil.

"Free anchorages" ain't free...at least not for those who have to pick up the tab, be it homeowner or taxpayer.

If you filed for salvage in maritime court, bet it would have jurisdiction as it is a boat and it got there unintentionally....and it is on YOUR property, not public.

Yes hoops, but they can be expedited in various ways...such as they are now an environmental and health hazard if the article is remotely correct.

Not cheap to get rid of, but no reason to wring your hands and wait.

ancora said:

"Free anchorages" ain't free...at least not for those who have to pick up the tab, be it homeowner or taxpayer.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree.

Most boats come and go and barely disturb the anchorage in any way....maybe the bottom a little.

This scenario is about something else, not a free anchorage.

That's like comparing you sitting in a public park to those that abuse the priveledge. Most boaters are taxpayers in some respect and a small dab of disturbed mud for a day or so is hardly an issue.

ancora said:

"Free anchorages" ain't free...at least not for those who have to pick up the tab, be it homeowner or taxpayer.

Click to expand...

Yep

psneeld said:

If you filed for salvage in maritime court, bet it would have jurisdiction as it is a boat and it got there unintentionally....and it is on YOUR property, not public.

Yes hoops, but they can be expedited in various ways...such as they are now an environmental and health hazard if the article is remotely correct.

Not cheap to get rid of, but no reason to wring your hands and wait.

Click to expand...

I have not thoroughly had the laws checked since I am not facing such a situation. However, it is my understanding that with them sitting on land at this point maritime court will handle it if documented and otherwise it's Florida civil court. Regardless, it will be months before the four boats are removed and I'm sure he's had a lawyer working on it for a while.

We noticed a car parked in the same spot for a few months, then a tire became flat and it sat another two months. Finally we spoke to the building management. They said they couldn't get it towed, that the owner might return. I tried to explain how long it had been. They went through their legal department, found the owner to send a notice to, put a notice on the car and finally towed it. The day after it was towed, they started putting up signs all over the lots.

Please, take title to my abandoned boat and dispose of it.

Ted is on point, he said it exactly right.

Now if it was my home I might be tempted to soak the boats with ten gallons of gasoline and end it all. ��

Look, I DO have sympathy for the homeowner, and I can understand his frustration. But he's built on land that is exposed to this anchorage and right or wrong, it's got to be pretty common knowledge that some derelict boats are out there. They're gonna be a problem in a storm.

Of note: if you were part of the contingent who said of Harvey flood victims, "well, if you build in a flood plain you should expect it." then I hope you'll take the same position in this case.

I'm just saying that while this rich architect is pissed, the poor guy who lost his crappy boat is very likely in worse shape. I'm not condoning his lack of insurance and certainly not his leaving town, but I'm empathetic. He probably has few options.

CDreamer said:

Look, I DO have sympathy for the homeowner, and I can understand his frustration. But he's built on land that is exposed to this anchorage and right or wrong, it's got to be pretty common knowledge that some derelict boats are out there. They're gonna be a problem in a storm.

Of note: if you were part of the contingent who said of Harvey flood victims, "well, if you build in a flood plain you should expect it." then I hope you'll take the same position in this case.

I'm just saying that while this rich architect is pissed, the poor guy who lost his crappy boat is very likely in worse shape. I'm not condoning his lack of insurance and certainly not his leaving town, but I'm empathetic. He probably has few options.

Click to expand...

So the person who did nothing wrong is the one you're condemning. Oh, and some location information you wouldn't know. His house isn't in an exposed anchoring area. Those boats traveled a pretty good distance. Look at the canal.

I feel bad for the guy who was living on his boat even though I dislike the lack of insurance. I feel somewhat bad for those who handed over their title. I feel less bad for the ones in Spain but at least they've been in contact. I don't feel bad for the other owners who have been totally uncooperative.

I don't see any unreasonable behavior by the home owner. He's given some work to the guy who was on his boat, been friendly with him. He didn't say anything outrageous, no threats, just a problem. He didn't claim it was the world's biggest. The reporter wrote a story, not the homeowner.

By the way, I said nothing negative about the Harvey Flood Victims. I did about the continuing issue Houston has and hasn't addressed. Nothing about the South Texas victims, but do believe they need some better building codes for the future.

Now you point out pretty common derelict boats are out there. I don't know if any are really derelict. Don't have details on the man living on his. The others were anchored and/or moored and unattended. Oh, and I do think Dinner Key has to reexamine their situation. Very exposed and far more damage than other marinas very near. There were many boats not tied adequately, both mooring and in slips. I know marinas that did check all lines and did add lines. I don't know what Dinner Key did, maybe they did it all, and maybe it's just their exposure. Note I said reexamine, not saying they didn't do what they should have.

CDreamer said:

I'm just saying that while this rich architect is pissed, the poor guy who lost his crappy boat is very likely in worse shape. I'm not condoning his lack of insurance and certainly not his leaving town, but I'm empathetic. He probably has few options.

Click to expand...

You are empathetic to the guy with the boat but sure don't seem to be toward the architect. This disdain shown toward him by you and some others is something I find very bothersome. Do you resent that he's wealthy in your mind? Do you assume just because he's an architect that spending $50k-100k is nothing? He may have three kids in college he's paying tuition for. He's suffering inconvenience, I wouldn't call it hardship, because of others, not through anything he did.

Those without financial resources are unable to fiscally compensate those they harm. In that way, the poor have a freedom over those they harm. Centuries ago, those poor would be become slaves for those they harmed. Has justice progressed?

CDreamer said:

Of note: if you were part of the contingent who said of Harvey flood victims, "well, if you build in a flood plain you should expect it." then I hope you'll take the same position in this case.

Click to expand...

Very different situations. The homeowners who built in the flood plain put themselves potentially in harms way from mother nature. The homeowners in this situation didn't create the potential for this situation, the sailboat owners did. If the saiboats hadn't been in the area, the homeowners would have had no problem from them.

If my house is a mile from a small airport, and a private plane crashes into my house while trying to land, is it partly my fault for building a house a mile from the airport?

If the boat was owned by a millionaire from another country, and the house was a 1,500 square foot cottage owned by a retired couple of modest means, would you still feel sorry for the boat owner and not the homeowners? Your net worth doesn't make it your fault or excuse you from responsibilities.

Ted

BandB said:

This disdain shown toward him by you and some others is something I find very bothersome. Do you resent that he's wealthy in your mind?

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Right and wrong don’t depend on the wealth (or lack of it) of the people affected, anymore than their race, gender or any other characteristic. It’s wrong to harm another person and just walk away from it. Certainly one’s financial position can limit what he can do to fix the harm, but it doesn’t limit his ability to try.

A saga that keeps repeating itself. Hurricanes and aftereffects, risng coastal populations, ever increasing boating activity, more uninsured live aboards, derelict moored boats etc. On a grand scale there is no answer until the problem is understood.

In many parts of the world some chose to build in avalance chutes. There is no second chance. In hurricane country there is a second chance, in fact a booming business is in place for rebuilders and insurers redoubling their efforts to assist in harms way for the next hurricane.

Sure some guy finds a boat on his lawn. It shouldn't be a surprise to any of the affected parties. Sadly for many, a very clear case of history repeating itself.

Storm debris when living on the water is a fact of life. In my folks house yard in the keys, there was a large section of roof from our neighbors house, as well as tons of smaller chunks of house from who knows where.

We did not make any effort to identify the source of the debris and make any claims toward the source. Should we force the neighbor to pay for the removal because his roof was not properly secured for the storm?

If a dock washes up should the source be required to remove it? How about a tree from someones yard across the sound?

Storm debris is a fact of life. You clean it up. That these boats are rather large and have owners identified means that they might assist with removal. But if they will not or can not assist, do what it takes to clean things up.

Can't advise on any legal barriers that may exist prior to getting the sawzall and bobcat crew to work.

In the Keys, they set up a program to crane out storm wrecked boat with very minimal fuss. Might be a similar thing in Dade.

This is what emergency funds are for

I rented dock space to a Cat about 40feet behind my boat. I to,d the cat owner to tie his boat up tighter with stronger lines. He didn’t and his boat did about $20k damage. I to,d him I was getting an estimate to do the repairs. He left last week in the middle of the night. I have no idea wher he went.

No big deal but it’s a life lesson. Trust and befriend dogs, don’t expect much from people. lOL