When is a boat a boat?

[DrWatson 374]

This story is interesting and worrying.

 

It could have long lasting ramifications for all of us.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/9992595 ... oatbuilder

 

As a house boat, is it not a boat? Therefore, as long as he moors it somewhere else occasionally, (every 2 weeks?), wears a life jacket when conditions require, keeps his trash onboard and dumps his chemical toilet in the local park loos, Which laws are he actually breaking?

 

I don't think there are any laws on how ugly you boat can be, and it seems (tested) seaworthy for it's intended purpose.

 

I smell a raft of new and onerous regulation drifting in on the high tide with this one... The minute someone refuses to live as they are expected to, we dump all over them. Let's start a new witch hunt 'cause "that guy" has found a way to live which everyone else resents 'cause its "cheap"

 

[PaulR 3]

The scenery looks just the same as from those ever so slightly super expensive hotels ashore as well

[Black Panther 1,581]

Yes, I would very much like to know what law is being invoked here. I am a big fan of shanty boats as they are called in the US.

He sounds like a bit of a character and could loose this. Maybe he could move to another harbourmaster's jurisdiction and start the process over again?? (just keep moving).

[wheels 543]

This story is interesting and worrying.

 

It could have long lasting ramifications for all of us.

No it won't.

Firstly, It's not a recent story. This situation has been going on for a long time now. The guy is a nutter for a starter. The "shed" is an eyesore and is plonked right smack in a stunning view. Does it look like a Boat? It's more a Raft. He can not move it at will like a Boat.

It is simply a blatant attempt at trying to live somewhere for free. All area's have some form of Building restrictions/minimums and no one would be able to build a "house" like that on any of the sections in that area. How would you guy's feel if you had a nice home and an eyesore like that sprung up next door, dropping your property values. It's all very well saying, "as long as he keeps moving it, empties the Toilet in the proper place, blah blah blah", but he can't and he doesn't. He can't move it because he doesn't have the means. It is only moved when he has the chance. To fit within the laws of of anchoring/mooring, he has to move it every so many days and he can't. So that's one issue. Secondly he is discharging his waste straight into the Estuary.

The Council had thought the issues had gone a way a few months back, when we got a really good blow and the "shed" was virtually destroyed. But obviously it's back.

[BNG 44]

Yes, I would very much like to know what law is being invoked here.

Resource management act, mooring areas have approval under this act.

 

BP - how would you feel if you were trying to sell a $2m house with that parked in front? I'm picking probably not as friendly. Or if you owned that house paying 3k in rates and he is living out front for free?

 

Appreciate your sentiment but there has to be some rules.

[rossd 16]

Ramshackle, eyesore? I think it looks quite cool!

[wheels 543]

Appreciate your sentiment but there has to be some rules.

And if he gets away with it, then it won't be long before others catch on and are out there with their own versions of shanty shacks. Nelson is full of weir.....I mean.... very colourfull Characters and they would be out there in droves before you could say the word Boulder Bank.

[DrWatson 374]

Yes, I would very much like to know what law is being invoked here.

Resource management act, mooring areas have approval under this act.

 

BP - how would you feel if you were trying to sell a $2m house with that parked in front? I'm picking probably not as friendly. Or if you owned that house paying 3k in rates and he is living out front for free?

 

Appreciate your sentiment but there has to be some rules.

 

There are rules, and this is a vessel anchored. This does not fall under the resource management act for that reason. You don't need a resource consent to anchor your boat. And you don't need any warrant of fitness for your boat. I wonder if he shows an anchor light? It doesn't look like the vessel in question is larger than 20m in any dimension, and probably less than 12m.

 

This is the same as a guy parking a house bus outside your place for 2 weeks. You may not like it but it's completely legal as long as he doesn't sh*t on your lawn. And if he does, it's not his parking that is the issue.

 

BNG you have perfectly filled the character of the hypothetical complainant I suggested who is pissed because someone else is smart enough and bold enough to get something cheaper than they are. Envy and elitism. The view is free. What's more, from the perspective of the guy on the vessel, some rich bugger has paid 2m to plonk an ugly arse house right in the middle of his view of the shore...

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

There is nothing in the article to suggest he's crapping in the water. Leave the man in peace.

[Black Panther 1,581]

I am fully aware that when I buy a house I have no control over what the neighbours choose to do with theirs as long as they aren't breaking the laws and by laws. The only time that would not be so would be if there were restrictive covenants as you might find in a gated community (I could never live in a gated community - they give me the creeps). I also would like to one day build a house and it would be somewhat unusual, so I support the concept of a landowner retaining maximum freedom to do what they want on their land even knowing that some controls and restrictions remain necessary (you can't run your stormwater onto your neighbour's property).

 

 

Back to the guy on his boat. As long as he meets a few simple requirements leave him alone. And none of those requirements should have anything to do with the appearance of his boat.

[DrWatson 374]

Dan, I'll very rarely challenge you, but liveabord as a definition is different to living on your "boat" while cruising around, no?

 

The "vessel" is no longer fixed to or part of the foreshore. It's anchored.

 

The harbour master can ask him to move on. I think that's about the extent of it. The vessel appears to be seaworthy for it's intended purpose, and in general, vessels have to be abandoned or pretty much sinking and likely to create an imminent danger to shipping before invoking such removal powers.

 

More troubling is the definition of nuisance. How does one define a nuisance? It's quite open to interpretation, no? pretty poor definition.

[Adrianp 119]

 

how would you feel if you were trying to sell a $2m house with that parked in front? I'm picking probably not as friendly. Or if you owned that house paying 3k in rates and he is living out front for free?

 

Its a slippery slope from there. Where does it end?

 

"Ring Ring - Excuse me Mr Councilman, some freeloader motorboatie has anchored his Classic Launch in front of my Bach. I'm a dot.com millionare and only like soulless plastic things, so I think its ugly and want it removed from MY view"

[Steve Pope 243]

You want to read some of the posts on Cruiser Forum re the hastles that boats / yachts have travelling down the intra coastal waterway and being not allowed to stop / anchor at various safe / good places on their way South, because they upset the local "rich" condo folk who don't want boats clutterering up their view, and who have the waterway police in their pockets to carry out the harrassment.

[BNG 44]

There are rules, and this is a vessel anchored. This does not fall under the resource management act for that reason. You don't need a resource consent to anchor your boat. And you don't need any warrant of fitness for your boat. I wonder if he shows an anchor light? It doesn't look like the vessel in question is larger than 20m in any dimension, and probably less than 12m.

 

 

I agree he is probably not defined as moored under the law so RMA doesnt apply and I'm not aware of any precedents where a vessel is anchored for so long that it might be considered to be permanently moored. Maybe there aren't any but perhaps there should be to allow councils or harbourmaster discretion to prosecute or whatever. All of this will be about definition as always...and majority vs minority in our democratic society.

 

BNG you have perfectly filled the character of the hypothetical complainant I suggested who is pissed because someone else is smart enough and bold enough to get something cheaper than they are. Envy and elitism. The view is free. What's more, from the perspective of the guy on the vessel, some rich bugger has paid 2m to plonk an ugly arse house right in the middle of his view of the shore...

 

Not quite Doc, my online persona has filled that character, I wouldn't buy a house with a predominant view of the road as you suggest, always the other way and usually use the road frontage as a carpark/workshop. In fact historically I haven't really given a sh*t what happens in my street unless it involves burglary.

 

I don't envy him for the fact that he got a better deal - every house I have owned I have bought right and added significant value to so at the end of the day Im confident I got the best value in the street. Through my own hard work generally. So no envy re a better deal. Anyway thats a sh*tter in my and it seems others opinion.

 

Elitism? no, sorry, I'm an ordinary guy with very normal expectations but I dont believe

the worlds a better place with everybody doing exactly as they please, hence the comment re needing rules.

 

And I do appreciate the view from the water looking back, if Eric Watson or whoever told me to get my boat out of their bay I would tell him where to go. Difference is my boat is better presented but thats all. Or maybe it isnt. Comes back to definition, standards, expectations and sometimes rules/law.

 

So yeah nah not really dude on that from me.

 

Its all very well to point out the law and define this stuff but I was suggesting BP may have a commercial impediment to sell that hypothetical $2M house with that out front. That would generally be considered to be a pain by most. Not an unreasonable assumption or perhaps there are lots of people out there looking to buy places with one of those special features out front. They are probably queuing up, I'm not in real estate, perhaps BP can comment on this?

 

I think I'm with the majority of the public that would take that view and that he might be pissing off the majority of homeowners in the area. Personally I dont have a problem with him doing whatever as long as its not a nuisance to others i.e. ratepayers and therefore the majority that voted representatives into council. Which it seems he has become, a nuisance so maybe there is more to it.

 

I didnt suggest he crapped in the water BTW.

 

I like a nice easy orderly society where weirdos (for example, not saying he is, just to spell it out) are free to be weirdos as long as that behaviour is generally acceptable to the majority of good people. Which it seems in this case, its not.

 

Appreciating the 'eye of the beholder' olive branch inserted Doc as you don't know me and words can paint the wrong picture as many of us are aware (or should be) in forums and email etc.

 

Anyway, I have to go over to Ponsonby now to throw buckets of paint over some homeless people. (actually I'm not just to spell it out)

 

You guys enjoy arguing with people you don't know on the internet.

[BNG 44]

Back to the guy on his boat. As long as he meets a few simple requirements leave him alone. And none of those requirements should have anything to do with the appearance of his boat.

 

Agree in principle but in this case I think the majority of people would agree its ugly and society is geared around majority rule,democracy, rules, structure and its supposed benefits so maybe its not the way it plays out.

 

How do anchored vessels unattended for more than 24 hours fare under insurance law? Not well, thats their definition and I read somewhere it was unattended for 2 weeks so therefore probably no insurance, assuming he had/could get it in the first place.

 

Is insurance one of your simple requirements you mention above? Probably not you BP, when you are offshore because you know the risk increases exponentially near land, well he is near land. So perhaps he should be insured, at least third party. Do boaties owe it to other boaties to be insured and comply with it. Do you have third party on your car? Do you 'owe' it to other motorists to do so? If you do have 3rd party why did you buy it, for you to save money if you have to claim or to ensure any other party is taken care of or both? Both I hope.

 

So is he complying with your 'simple requirements' so far? Maybe he is maybe no, don't know, doubt he would be insured.

 

I bet he has a great life, just the majority don't seem to like it.

[wheels 543]

Yes it is Ugly.

It's not Seaworthy!! Far from it. Come on, in the next big blow, that thing is going to get torn apart.

And it's floating on rusty steel drums, no Anodes, I doubt even a decent anchor/chain. The hasn't got any money. He can't get the Dole because he has no proper permanent address. He's a complete nutter and has no clue as to building, let alone anchoring. It'll get torn apart and then there will be a mess strewn across the Estuary and most likely a Body along with it.

He is dumping waste into the Estuary, which is very shallow and pretty much completely dries out at low tide.

The area is designated to rowing type activities and is not a designated anchoring area. There is a designated anchoring area further over toward the Boulder Bank.

And besides, you can't just lift the anchor and move a few metres and drop it again to get around the Permanent Anchoring becoming a Mooring thing. You have to actually move some distance, as in to another bay/area.

He does not meet minimum hygiene standards for an accommodation.

Also, we are not talking about a guy anchoring for several days, weeks or months, he has set up a permanent Home. You can not park permanently park a Bus, or even Car for that matter, on the side of the Road. It will get towed.

In fact, many places will not allow Buses, Caravans or even Sheds as Dwellings on empty sections, nothing to do with covenants, but due to minimum Health standards.

BP, you don't have to be in a gated community to have Building covenants. Ordinary Subdivisions have covenants and they are there to protect your investment from being devalued by an eyesore like that.

We are not a third world country, even though some may think that at times. If this guy gets to do this, then there will be dozens out there in no time and next you have a raft of these "shelters" out there.

[DrWatson 374]

There are some interesting points of discussion being raised here, and at the moment we're working mostly with logical arguments. Good. I'm not trying to pick fights or insult people, but rather encourage robust well thought out argument. There are other threads where people insult each other.

 

BMG I agree that it's the online persona that filled the stereotype character and perhaps elite is not quite the right term here - maybe exclusivity? It's not a term directed at "you" but rather at the "one". I also wasn't intending to suggest you would buy a house with a view of the road but rather that many houses look on to such a road and they're all owned by someone.

 

Seawothy? The article stated that it appeared to be well built and had already withstood a couple of big blows

 

He does not meet minimum hygiene standards for an accommodation.

Most boats don't.

re. Parking and being towed. I had a quick look through the AKL city bylaws and the road code. I didn't have time for a thorough look (I'm supposed to be working) but I think (and I might be wrong) you can be towed from public space only if you are parked illegally ie. blocking an entry/exit or a fire hydrant, broken yellow line etc. You can be ticketed for no reg or WOF. Lots of people can only park their cars on the street, and some people don't drive them very often at all.

 

Let's remember not to overreach our authority here and in the process seek to apply laws from one area across into another.

 

So his main crime, if you will, is that he is exhibiting nuisance behavior? I wonder how much of his anti-social behavior is reactionary to the majority telling him to f'off? Dan, thanks for the definitions of nuisance, but I'm alarmed to read that such apparently arbitrary and subjective judgement can be made.

 

It seems that people who live in a society expect more and more that those they live with should fit into an ever decreasing number of boxes, increasingly restrictive, constraining people to mediocrity. A less-tolerance-more-obedience kind of scenario. Covenants are an ever increasing example of this. Many houses will be built to comply with covenants which in 15y will be pieces of crap, all looking essentially the same. Rubber stamped soulless and no one brave enough to build something better/different because at the end of the day one worries that the neighbours houses which aren't as nice will depress the value of your house. I purposely avoided buying property which had covenants. I don't want to live in that kind of community.

 

Wheels, your assessment of him as a nutter is a bit on the nose. Are you or I qualified to pass such judgement? No. I'm not saying he's the kind of guy I'd choose as my best friend - I don't know him - but if he moved in next door I'd have to tolerate him. I have a right to be pissed if he damages my boat or steals my stuff. It's a basic tenet of our western society, no? "I won't interfere in your stuff and you don't interfere in mine." And by "stuff" I don't just mean physical property; If I want to think that the sky is a giant carpet painted by God then I'll think that.

 

A cautionary note on invoking democracy as an argument in this case. Just because a majority deem it should be so doesn't make it right. 60% of people could vote that they wanted all people with red hair to be banned from voting and have to pay x2 tax. Fair? Where I live, currently ~24% of residents don't have any right to vote (not including minors so it's probably well over 40% of the population who can't vote) and yet those 24% all pay tax and on average they pay a greater amount of tax than their proportion of the population. Fair?

 

What I'm getting at here are the constant attempts to erode and limit the rights of people who choose to live on the edges of society to exist in the public space. Banning homeless people from parks at night etc. etc. No overnight staying on the beach - what if I want to sit and look at stars all night? Forcing people to live in a certain way through legislation which makes it impossible to live in an alternative way, effectively marginalising people who have no money simply because we feel they should get a job, have money, work hard and "fly right". We should be very careful to thoroughly examine the reasons why any legislation is passed. Who does it actually benefit? The latest "food safety" legislation is one in question.

 

Moreover, less and less often is an actual majority of +50%, of people affected by any given legislation, ever acquired. When you remove the people who can't vote, or don't vote, and if you have more than two choices in the pot, a decision affecting everyone can often effectively made by fewer than 30%. How is that fair? also the frightening thing about democracy is that 50% of people are below median intelligence...

 

Now his boat is not exactly my style of house boat - this is more my style...

 

 

But let's just say for a moment he had this great vessel. Would people be so upset?

 

I doubt his life is super comfortable in his present digs. He's making sacrifices, and he probably carries less debt than most on this forum. Excessive private debt is a destabilizing force, no?

[wheels 543]

Wheels, your assessment of him as a nutter is a bit on the nose. Are you or I qualified to pass such judgement?

Nutter maybe wrong word to use, so.... He is well known in Nelson as trouble with Alcohol and Drugs and all the standard activities you associate with that.

I guess the one benefit with him being out there, is that he is off the streets.

[DrWatson 374]

Oh, BNG, I meant to add that yes, you are dead right, I don't know you, just as many here don't know each other. I have no intention of making enemies or insulting people.

[DrWatson 374]

Wheels, your assessment of him as a nutter is a bit on the nose. Are you or I qualified to pass such judgement?

Nutter maybe wrong word to use, so.... He is well known in Nelson as trouble with Alcohol and Drugs and all the standard activities you associate with that.

I guess the one benefit with him being out there, is that he is off the streets.

 

Yes, off the streets. This is a "new" venture for him, relatively speaking, and it could be him actually trying to clean up his life, albeit in a way which is not standard to judging eyes. But you can't say he's not industrious. Each man has his way.

 

Many here read Mulgan's "Man Alone"?

[vic008 17]

Lot of you peeps will remember that guy who went by the name "Zeus" and caused plenty of headaches with a similar lifestyle afloat