ex Elly 261 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Apparently the Auckland Harbourmaster has increased mooring fees by $50 to cover the cost of dealing with abandoned vessels. Auckland's ghost ships: Number of abandoned vessels surge - and boaties are footing the bill Mooring fees have increased $50 to cover the costs or removing abandoned boats from Auckland's waters. Hundreds of ghost ships litter Auckland's waters and require recovery, costing ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Auckland Harbourmaster Andrew Hayton said when he started in the role over eight years ago they were plucking https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?objectid=12290246 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 479 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Thats a shame they used a picture of what appears to be an old Wylo 11 a great seagoing design. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 There's no way I'd pay to read anything in the Herald. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigal.nz 61 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 There's no way I'd pay to read anything in the Herald. There was an international article in the Herald the other day. I googled the teaser paragraph and the exact same article came up free on another news website (might have been NY times). I was quite surprised they are just middlemen for some of there content which they clip the ticket for, but is available for free anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The big T 45 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Seems on the nose that responsible boat owners are penalised for the lack of ability of Councils staff to maintain an accurate database of its mooring holders and boats occupying moorings in terms of the permits it issues and charges for. Surely a requirement that all moored boats need annual proof of insurance would sort this as a condition of the permit - as happens with marinas. Keep boat standards up and maintain an annual link with mooring holders aside from an annual invoice. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Perhaps lodging a bond which would cover disposal might be an idea. Forcing insurance would just mean premiums go up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cantab 341 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 How is forcing insurance going to reduce abandoned boats, more likely to increase numbers abandoned. If you cant afford to or don't want to maintain a boat your going to be hardly inclined to try get insurance for it. I like the bond idea, but an amount sufficient to cover costs incurred might be a little bit high. Bit like the Bio security charge in Northland, no benefit to boaties above that of the general population but boaties get the full costs because the council can target them easily. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
khayyam 101 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 The bond idea is appealing, but it would have to be pretty significant. I remember another thread with disposal cost estimates. 5k? 10k? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sail Rock 32 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Agree. If you want to rent (i.e. occupy) a house you invariably have to pay a bond. The same principle applies to occupying a piece of the harbour. I am all for appropriate measures to force abandoned, derelict boats off moorings and marinas so as to release the much needed space for others to use. Question is how much should a bond be? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
khayyam 101 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 On the other hand, if you want to abandon a boat you hardly need to put it on a mooring to do so... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 697 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Always thought that a vessel on a mooring in Auckland boundaries had to at a level of sea worthiness? https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/bylaws/Documents/navsafetybylawcontrols2014.pdf Page 10 Seaworthiness in relation to any vessel means being, in the opinion of the Harbourmaster in a fit condition of readiness to safely undertake a voyage within its designed capabilities. page 14 15 Vessels to be seaworthy (1) The person in charge of a vessel anchored or moored in any navigable waters must keep the vessel in a seaworthy condition at all times, unless the Harbourmaster has given prior written approval for it to be anchored or moored in a condition which is not seaworthy. (2) Except in an emergency or following an accident or incident, a person must not operate a vessel that is unseaworthy, except to comply with the directions of the Harbourmaster to move that vessel to an alternative location. (3) In an emergency or following an accident or incident that renders the vessel unseaworthy, the person in charge of the vessel must not move the vessel except: (a) to clear a main navigation channel, or to prevent further damage, or to position the vessel in a safe mooring or anchorage; or ( in accordance with directions from the Harbourmaster, enforcement officer or honorary enforcement officer. (4) If a vessel is not seaworthy or has the potential to cause a hazard to navigation, the Harbourmaster may give a direction to the person in charge of the vessel to move the vessel to an alternative location or remove it from navigable waters within a reasonable time. (5) If the person in charge of the vessel fails to comply with the direction of the Harbourmaster or if the owner or person in charge of the vessel cannot be located, the Harbourmaster may move that vessel to a position where it is no longer a hazard or remove it from the water and dispose of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chariot 244 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Another worthless bylaw that is never enforced. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,765 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Bonds on housing are minuscule relative to the cost of repairs after a bad tenant Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 697 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Another worthless bylaw that is never enforced. Hows this for stupidity. Friend has his vessel at home for long period while rejuvenating it,so to stop randoms using his mooring and creating havoc,he took the bouy off and let it sink.pays the fee no problem.But along comes some official and said he needs to reinstate the bouy as mooring is non compliant.Tried to explain why but no,do it or get a fine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chariot 244 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 The sad part HT is that official is on 100k plus. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sail Rock 32 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Indeed! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SloopJohnB 328 Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Its happening in the States. https://www.marinij.com/2020/01/07/tiburon-couple-sues-sausalito-over-marine-cleanup-program/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cj! 19 Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 A possible solution to the housing crisis and abandoned boats. https://unusualplaces.org/equihen-plage-village-of-upside-down-boat-houses/?fbclid=IwAR2jST59iOFGr28Dq9okhw61FRgWPgFzOF9NAwkLcrsB2UJcolG5lXVfoyc 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.