# 52' houseboat aground holly hill,FL.



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Did anyone else notice or hear of the 52' houseboat that was aground in Holly Hill,Fl. ??
We arrived in Daytona a couple days ago and I immediately went to the Halifax river waterfront area to see how many anchored boats were there and generally be nosey as to who is on what and the like. 
I saw this houseboat aground and googled it and found it has been there since October 2011 !
Yesterday I spent the morning watching Sea-tow pull it off the shore w/ three boats and tow it to Aqua Marina in Daytona to be hauled out and Auctioned off to the highest bidder if the owner doesn't pay the $13000.00+ and counting fees associated with it's grounding/fines/recovery etc.
The owner is apparently quite a charactor. He managed to get arrested after threatening anyone who attempted to board or move the vessel.
I doubt he'll be able to pay the costs and will end up loosing the boat, and probably becoming another homeless adding to Daytonas massive homeless winter time population.
Daytona is almost overun w/ homeless and bussinesses are closed all over the place and alot of empty houses as well.
Google grounded houseboat holly hill,fl. to get more info.

It's a sad situation, one that I think could have been completely avoided had this captain execised better anchoring technique. there is another houseboat anchored in the same place for years using 4 anchors and he stayed put.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Wouldn't one get more pounds of pull by using an anchor and a come-along rather than a power boat to pull the houseboat free?


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

it is a sad situation, the city of holly hill committed an act of piracy and i intend to file charges in federal court by the end of june 2012. If anyone knows what really happened it is me. my boat was properly anchored. but still was washed onto the sandbar by hurricane force winds. please do not make comments on what is and what is not a properly anchored vessel. the city of holly hill nor anyother city has jurisdiction in the ICW. Educate yourself on rights of navigation on this waterway before you rush to judgement or comment. I am protected by admiralty laws in the U.S constitution to anchor where i choose without the threat of fines or seisure of my vessel.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

Are you kidding me! My boat weighs 26 tons empty and 30 fully loaded! how big of a come-along would it take!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Texas, was that a houseboat, without self-propulsion, or was that a vessel engaged in navigation, regularly moving in transit?

I don't recall much admiralty law in the US Constitution. Other than reserving to Congress the rights to form a Navy and issue letters of marque and reprisal, and prohibiting the states from that latter issue, maybe I have the abridged version. There's no admiralty section here at all.

Of course if you style yourself a pirate...that falls under 18 USC § 1652 and you can be imprisoned for life. Used ta just be a $5000 fine for citizens, versus death for anyone else, but right now it is life imprisonment. [LATER] Oh wait, darn that only applies on the high seas. WTF do they do with pirates _inside _territorial waters?

Curious minds would love to know more.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

texas pirate said:


> my boat was properly anchored. but still was washed onto the sandbar by hurricane force winds.


Logic, clean-up in General Interest Forums!


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)




----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

No idea what the legal details are here, but state and local jurisdictions do have some law making authority even on the public waterways of the US. It depends exacally on what law was invoked to justify the removal, or if general salvage law was in play. 

This is likely to be considered a high order salvage claim, in which case an judicial award of 25-40% of the market value of the boat, her cargo, and anything aboard would be pretty typical. If a judge determines it to be low order salvage then more like 15-30%. It will be pretty fact dependent though.

There aren't enough facts given, but I highly doubt an act of piracy was involved. Unless the owner was physically present on the boat when the eventual salvager showed up, and refused help. If the owner (or his representative) ever got off the boat, then if the boat was subject to the perils of the sea (being aground by itself counts), a salvager can begin rescu operations. Once those operations are started the owner has a limited ability to halt the work, and will be liable for some percentage of the value of the vessel immediately. 

Salvage law is a fun area to practice law in, but a terrible place to wind up unwittingly, without insurance. I feel had for the owner, but would recommend everyone else check to see if their insurance policy cover salvage claims. Not all do.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

texas pirate said:


> was properly anchored. but still was washed onto the sandbar by hurricane force winds.


"Was" is the key word here. if it were still properly anchored this would not be an issue. properly anchoring for the weather conditions is the responsiblity of the skipper.
the city/state will through down the in the interest of public health and safety card and haul it away. $ 13000 is a expensive lesson in how not to anchor for hurricane winds


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Stumble, I doubt if insurance or salvage laws would have anything to do with it. Sounds like a "houseboat" ran afoul of Florida's "houseboat" laws, which may or may not be legal but are in effect. At that point once process has been served and actions start, no insurance will reimburse you for government seizure after due process.

ICW= Federal, state, local in that order are applied.

Of course, since we haven't been told whether the vessel is a houseboat as defined by Florida, and we haven't been told whether the grounding was declared an obstruction or menace to navigation, and we haven't been told why the process was served and under what theory the boat was arrested...

All that's missing are the black helicopters. Wait, let me look on the web.

Okay, the black helicopters weren't there after all. Apparently a houseboat, no engines, floating home, got beached last October on a spit of city-owned land adjacent to a park. During a major un-named storm that IIRC the NWS later decided probably should have been named.

Apparently the city wanted the floating home off their property, not a sandbar but a spit, which changes "grounding" into "trespass" as it is part of the shore. And since the owner says he's broke, the city gave him his notice and then removed the vessel from their property.

FWIW this is also in the famous Volusia County, where sailors have reported some gung-ho boardings by watercops in the ICW. But all the local media seem to have published stories singing the same song: Broke homeowner (not sailor) went hard aground on the shore. Refused to remove his home from city property. Had it removed for him.

Texas? Are they _all _lying? You got engines? It isn't a floating home, rather than a vessel capable of self-propelled navigation? It wasn't beached?

It may be a sad state of affairs, but it seems the only crime here is trespassing.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Meh,

Legally if it floats is a vessel. If its a vessel it's subject to salvage. It may also be subject to trespass and other local laws, but salvage laws are pretty clear on this. The fact that is does or does not have engines or is capable of navigation doesn't change the equation.

I hate relying on news reports for legal analysis, and even more so when it is involving maritime law since they get stuff wrong so much. But in this case it looks like the owner was given a reasonable time to remove it, or have it removed, and he either couldn't or didn't. Legally this might quality as legal abandonment. In which case a salvage claim gets even more pricy (50% typically).


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

It wasn't abandonment, he was still living on it. And the city was apparently bein very reasonable, not asking for salvage but just for costs originally. No doubt a barge is subject to salvage, but Florida has additional laws passed on floating homes, as opposed to vessels that move under their own power.

And no matter how you look at it, beaching your barge on someone else's land for four months is likely to cause some problems. It isn't as if they gave him 48 hours to remove it.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Legal abandonment may have occurred even if he was still living on it. It's a tricky question of law. 

But you are defiantly correct that leaving it stranded on someone else's property for any significant time, particularly without attempting to make arrangements to have it removed it going to cause major headachs.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Stumble said:


> I hate relying on news reports for legal analysis,


It can be very entertaining.....like here where the boat owner (supposedly "Texas Pirate" claims to be Robert McGary) chimes in with ridiculous legal claims and assertions demonstrating he has no knowledge of legal matters at all, just an ability to string together some terms.

All I have to go on is the media coverage and the boat owner's silly comments here. Seems like a lack of seamanship to properly anchor a vessel for the expected conditions caused the beaching. 4 months is MORE than enough time for the owner to do something about it, but instead he just sat there with a "too bad, I don't have any money" attitude, even stupidly threatening violence against anyone attempting to intervene. Legal process was done. The city moved the boat and seized it pending payment of expenses. The owner disagreed (too bad, you lost in court) and now is making all sorts of stupid claims...of piracy, constitutional violations....just wow on that one.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

for those of you who do not know admiralty law,you need not make comments beyond your intelligence.I did not make outlandish claims that were not afforded to by law. If you think you know how to properly anchor and stay at anchor during hurricane force winds,then fell free to let us all know!. Now if you really look at my story and research admiralty law,you will find me to be in the right


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"for those of you who do not know admiralty law,"
That's 100% your fault, tex. You're the only one here who knows where our Constitution imposes Admiralty law, and you've refused to respond to a direct request for that reference. 
Kinda shakes our credibility in your own claims to be a sea lawyer, if you can't respond to a simple request for a citation on something so vital to your point.

Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not entitle you to park your barge rent-free on someone else's beach, and then go off for a brewskie.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Awesome thread! Considering the way you present yourself Tex, i'm not surprised how things went for you... Classic!


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

texas pirate said:


> for those of you who do not know admiralty law,you need not make comments beyond your intelligence.


Then why do you keep replying?


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

texas pirate said:


> for those of you who do not know admiralty law,you need not make comments beyond your intelligence.I did not make outlandish claims that were not afforded to by law. If you think you know how to properly anchor and stay at anchor during hurricane force winds,then fell free to let us all know!. Now if you really look at my story and research admiralty law,you will find me to be in the right


Really strange since before I started working as a salesman I was a maritime attorney. Actually I still keep my license active, so I am an attorney with five years of experience in maritime law. I also have 10 years working as a boat captain (paid for law school).

I certainly could be wrong, but I have done a lot of work in salvage law, and abandonment claims, so ya I think I have some basis to work from.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Stumble said:


> Really strange since before I started working as a salesman I was a maritime attorney. Actually I still keep my license active, so I am an attorney with five years of experience in maritime law. I also have 10 years working as a boat captain (paid for law school).
> 
> I certainly could be wrong, but I have done a lot of work in salvage law, and abandonment claims, so ya I think I have some basis to work from.


The pirate constitution says otherwise...


----------



## Squidd (Sep 26, 2011)

Firstly it's not really "pirate constitution" or "admiralty law" as much as it is pirate code...

"Secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not.

Thirdly, the code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

o.k. here we go again. look under navigable servitude clause and find under admiralty law,right to navigation. The laws governing our waterways are very vast. I did everything in my power to remove my boat but was stopped by the state of florida. I cannot go into all of the legistics of this case,but you can bet i will exaust every avenue of law availiable to me.Also, the state statutes 327 are very clear. No county or city has the authority to regulate anchoring or mooring in navigable waters. Please read these statutes and be kind next time you make a comment regarding this matter. I am trying to not only to protect my rights but also yours when i take this case to federal court.


----------



## Mobnets (Apr 24, 2011)

Texas:
First, I've been following this thread the last couple of days and am not going to take any shots at you. I googled up the old news articles December through early March and then after the boat was removed to storage the story pretty much died.

What's transpired since then and where are you currently at with the whole situation?

One thing I found interesting was that the police stopped you from using a power washer in your attempts to free your vessel, citing environmental damage concerns, but (per the news photos and captions) that's the first thing they resorted to when attempting to free your vessel. I'm sure the damage was much greater at that point than it would have been months earlier before your vessel really got settled in to its accidental location.

Mobnets
Paceship Chance 32/28 "Westwind"


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Good...I'm glad you posted the reference to navigable servitude. That makes sense now....since you were engaged in commerce and the government entity sought to preserve the navigable waterway by removing a hazard...okay, it all makes sense now.

I can't find any reference to "legistics"....is this some form of legal logistics? Or is it something else you made up, or mis quoted, or took out of context.

I do find it quite curious that you have all this money for an extensive legal battle, but didn't have any money to clear your hazard to navigation.

Or, is this just more smoke?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)




----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

Finally, someone who knows a little of what has happened. So far I've to court three times and have won a significant battle. the city tried to auction my boat but i have it homesteaded. they did'nt see that coming. now they are stuck and running around like chickens with their heads cut off. I am confident in my abilty to fight this corrupt city government in federal court. You're right the state of florida stopped me from using a pressure washer but let the city use one. talk about discrimination.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

my boat was not a hazard. and again read up on your rights to navigate and also not just federal laws but state statutes starting at 327


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"o.k. here we go again. look under navigable servitude clause"
ROFLTMAO, obfusticate away. If you can't say or quote the clause you think applies...
Lincoln cut loose the slaves, servitude has been invalidated in the US. "_Navigable _servitude" doesn't appear in my edition.

"and find under admiralty law,right to navigation."
You're beached, hard beached, you're not navigating.

" I did everything in my power to remove my boat but was stopped by the state of florida. " That seems to be the only question, what you did (which you won't disclose) and just how many months or years it is reasonable to wait. You certainly don't seem to have any want or knack for building public opinion in your favor.

This is not the way to preserve anyone's rights. Pulling the boat off is one thing. Washing away the island...quite another.


----------



## Mobnets (Apr 24, 2011)

Texas:
Thanks for the update. No matter what side of the fence the Sailnet members weigh in on regarding this situation it is an interesting one. In the end, I just hope you get your boat back.

Mobnets
Paceship Chance 32/28 "Westwind"


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

For better or worse they are real prickly about wetlands dammage up this way and any type of dredging is always a nightmare of permits

Even Billy Joel with all his money had issues with his oyster bay dock


----------



## Mobnets (Apr 24, 2011)

I wonder if an environmental permit was in place for the outfit the city hired to remove the boat as they blasted water jets under the hull in an attempt to refloat it?

See picture and caption in the article below.

Rubberneckers descend on Holly Hill for houseboat removal - Breaking News

I'm all for the environment and conservation, particularly as it relates to water and associated resources. However, public entities seem to do whatever they like to our wetlands, shorelines, etc. if it suits them while raking private citizens over the coals for the same (although usually on a much smaller scale) activities/actions.

Mobnets
Paceship Chance 32/28 "Westwind"


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Mobnets said:


> In the end, I just hope you get your boat back.


Me too...even though I'm ripping on ya, I do hope you get your boat back and it all gets worked out. I'd hate to see someone lose their boat, whatever the circumstance.

Good one on the homestead blocking the seizure auction....I bet that was like kicking the fire ant mound.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Interesting idea of using a homestead exemption to protect the value. I have never seen it used this way, but it defiantly could work.

I am not a Florida attorney, and it looks like an issue of first appearance, but I would be cautious about one of the exceptions to the exemption is workers or mechanics leins might be able to breach the exemption. I don't know how the courts would apply a salvage lein in this case, but it certainly is interesting.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

thanks to all who have replied. I just won a court battle against the city regarding my homestead of my boat. I did win, the judge awarded my boat to me saying that the city nor the marina it was at had no claim of lein against my property. That was thursday, the city could'nt wait to move my boat from the marina without my or the courts knowledge or consent. They moved it friday evening to their public works lay down yard. The city is not insured or qualified to move such a vessel without knowledgable help. Now i was told by a city employee who helped in moving my boat that the city is currently debating how to compensate me for all of the injustice and suffering they have caused me.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

NO! there was not permit in place. Now the D.E.P.of florida will be hearing from me in regards to how they discriminated against me in this matter


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

for your viewing and education. please look at what mike mcdougal in st.augustine is having to do against the city regarding almost the same ordinance i have been fighting


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Hmmm...

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-06-04/sailor-vows-fight-mooring-rule#.T-ir5_K3X-E


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

well,I just got off the phone with the U.S.Attorney's office. I'm now ready to file piracy charges on the city of holly hill and all parties who helped in the theft of my boat. City is still trying to fight my homestead of my boat but I'm confident I will be victorious in court. Stay tuned same batty time,same batty channel.LOL


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Nice to know that you spoke to the AG's office.

Nice to know you're ready to continue on.

Nicer still to know what the AG's take on this was, since it appears clear that piracy is defined as an act taking place in international waters, so by definition, whatever happened to you wasn't piracy and can't be prosecuted as such. 

Of course, you won't tell us what section of the USC or other governing law you think applies to the "piracy" here, because apparently there is none.

Good luck with that. You'd have a far more convincing case if you were able to provide straight answers to straight questions. But this way? In Florida, they'll Baker Act you.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

yes, piracy can be committed in the navigable waters in the U.S. The AG will inform me later today if an investigation is needed. Either way I'm still going to file charges of piracy. As far as your immature remark as to the Baker Act, grow up and be more responsible when replying to comments made on this site


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

Was it these guys? Looks like they've been taken care of...


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Yeah, took care of those guys....


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Right, tell me to grow up. And ignore the question I asked you, as to how you figure you can bring a piracy charge when the US and international laws say there's no such thing on inland waters.

Florida's Baker Act, for those who don't know it, allows for 48-hour lockup pyschological examinations when someone is acting irrationally or possibly endangering themselves.

If Tex brings enough lawsuits that are thrown out as frivolous...they'll order a psychological examination and lock him up for 48 hours.

Bringing suits for imaginary crimes is a good way to make that happen. Showing evidence of delusions, another way to make that happen.

Tex, I'm not calling you names, i'm just saying that you're throwing around terms that are irrational, and showing an inability to respond on point to any question about them. You can call the judge names too--but act that way in front of a couple of them, and they'll order an examination.

Of course, styling yourself a pirate and then claiming piracy against yourself, that's a pretty rich joke to begin with. Under western common law, pirates were outlawed and despite the 14th amendment, you'd still be held unable to bring charges of piracy against anyone as, as an equitable matter. 

Once your suits and delays are formally labelled frivolous (or worse) you may be held liable for court costs, storage fees, and other expenses as well. So by all means keep it up. You've had fair warning you're digging yourself into a deeper hole. Doesn't matter if that offends you, that's the way they're going to read it and play it. Your choice is whether you want to keep on digging. And further pissing off the folks who now hold your boat, ergh, housebarge, along with the courts.

AG's office? No federal jurisdiction. They're just making sure about that, and they'll take their time and make Real Damn Sure so they can put that out in a press release.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

Wow.

Best of luck.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

LandLocked66c said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-06-04/sailor-vows-fight-mooring-rule#.T-ir5_K3X-E


Good luck to him too.

I espceially like the part about Luhrs dock being closer to the channel than his boat.


----------



## texas pirate (Jun 18, 2012)

navigable waters act 1977 and inland navigable waters act 1980. This will give you some information on this matter. My claims are not frivilous. But you are safe in your dingy from any actions taken against you. A.G.'s office just called me this morning and are sending the neccessary paperwork to start the process. They also advised me to contact the local F.B.I as to my complaint so to start an investigation. If any of you doubt the legality of my claims,you can call any maritime experienced attorneys and ask them if this matter has merit or not. Again, please refrain from comments regarding the baker act, since you obviously do not know maritime laws governing our nations waterways. maybe you need to spend time in time-out.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"navigable waters act 1977 and inland navigable waters act 1980."
No doubt, tex, but if you'd use the proper names fo whatever you're referring to, you might make a point.
Can anyone find any reference to "acts" of those names?

Or just to USC 333 and 333 CFR 245, the latter of which interestingly forces constructtive abandonment in order to ensure wrecks are promptly cleared.

How come none of the laws you cite can actually be looked up and located, tex? None of them, any them?

AG passed it off and told you to try the FBI to see if they thought any federal crime was done?

I'm still waiting to hear of any federal law defining piracy as being possible, inside the venue of any of our states. _Every _new point you make, you similarly fail to be able to cite _any _sources for. Or do you think someone is reading your posts and then rapidly removing all the answers from all the search engines?

I'd really like to see you get your home back, and a couple of nice anchors, and some engines, and an apology from all those people. But so far, you're just giving them all the ammunition and we all know how that plays out.

"Mickey Smith: You're just making it up as you go along! 
The Doctor: Yup. But I do it brilliantly. "
[Doctor Who, The Age of Steel, 2006]


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

You know...I was starting to sit back and watch....thinking maybe this guy has a point....but this last post is just whacko.

I find no reference to any "Navigable Waters Act of 1977"...however there is a Clean Water Act of 1977.

There is a Navigable *Rules* Act of 1980....but what it has to do with all this.....ask the Coast Guard I guess.

While it's perfectly okay for an individual to contact the FBI....I feel it highly doubtful the Florida State Attorney General would advise an individual to contact the FBI to initiate an investigation. The AG would do this themselves once they decided to take on the prosecution of this...BUT I highly doubt the AG would even acknowledge this outside of "hire an attorney and prosecute" advise to the complainant.



> Again, please refrain from comments regarding the baker act, since you obviously do not know maritime laws governing our nations waterways.


Here's a link to some more info on Florida's Baker Act. It has nothing to do with maritime law.

I'm sorry Tex...and I'm not trying to call names...but seriously, now you're just coming over as a blathering fool....and in all of this, perhaps the Baker Act is the most appropriate citation in the whole thread.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Joe-
"I feel it highly doubtful the Florida State Attorney General would advise an individual to contact"
I had occassion to contact a Florida "authority" in order to try getting their handicapped parking rules enforced for someone who needed to use one. The lot owners had installed hald the legally required number of spots, which lead to a lot of canes and walkers being bashed about for months and months and I said, oh, this is silly, let's just get the law enforced.
I got referred between SEVEN municipal, state, country, and local agencies, each one saying, gee, that's someone else's job. Worked my way up the scale to Talahassee so that when the **** ran back downhill, no one could complain they hadn't been given a chance. Sure enough Talahassee said "No, what you read is the law, there are no exemptions, there is no grandfathering, if they don't want to fix it we'll come down and apply the daily fines ($10k?) retroactive to the day they built it."

Funny thing, when you have quotes for chapter and verse, there's only so much bumph that can pushed around. When you can't cite chapter and verse--it often means someone is just trying to push around more bumph.

Rarely as well as when Doctor Who does it.<G>


----------



## Harrison B (Aug 28, 2012)

The saga continues. The City of Holly Hill now owns the boat.

Holly Hill buys seized houseboat to recoup losses - News


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Wonder of TP will be back to spew more "maritime law" and "Baker Act" drivel?

It's good the City was prepared for the low ballers at the auction. Too bad TP wasn't prepared to bid. Maybe he could have got his house back for a fraction of the lien.


----------



## emoney (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm surprised he didn't file a claim under the "Maritime Piracy Baker Act". 

You know, it's kind of sad because in re-reading this thread, it looked as if at one time he was closing in on getting his boat back, but was h*ll-bent on getting his 'due', if you will. Seems to me that in today's environment, we tend to focus so much on retribution that we often overlook our own priorities. Almost every victim I've heard say, "I refuse to be a victim" still ended as such.

What's the old expression; you can attract more bees with honey? (how does that go?)


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Yup, the ad hominems continue as well. Some people just don't know when to cut their losses.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

That's a most peculiar auction. No reserve price, and the lienholder, who is the same party compelling the auction, places a BID in the auction? To Yankee ears that's a damned curious conflict of interest and a door opening into quicksand.

The city can't find any bidders...so they pay 12x the high bid price because maybe they can get more bidders next time for 40x the highest price offered?

Federal investigation. Movie Rights. Steve Carrell. With any luck this will wind up on the big screen in a couple of years, and everyone will get a couple million out of it. Does it get any wierder?!


----------



## Vartok (Aug 7, 2012)

From my reading of this thread, a few points that stuck out.

He was not allowed to use the same method that the city did to free the boat.

He was charged when he stated he would defend his home (boat), those same charges were later dropped. [I'm assuming after the boat was seized.]

The city bought the same boat they were auctioning off.

Sounds personal to me.


----------



## boatsail1 (Jul 8, 2012)

Sad situation all the way around.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I watched the houseboat get pulled off the land spit next to the park/public launch . I don't recall seeing any pressure washer in use . The fire dept was there as well maybe they used water from the trucks, but I didn't see it . 
I also attempted to catch up w/ the owner of the vessel to meet him and get his take on the situation but was unable to find him asking around I always seemed to just miss him where ever he was. 
Since I started this thread I haven't followed the situation . I just found the thread and read it all. curious as to the current situation and how it's progressing. 
As I originally posted the other boats anchored in the area held up and were much better anchored apparently. 
I've anchored in the area myself without incident , there are much better locations to anchor in the immediate vicinity that are better protected and sheltered when the wind and weather threaten.
I think the anchoring restrictions in places like St. Augustine are causing some of the long term anchoring vessels to move to other areas that are less regulated and as the situation continues I wouldn't be suprised to see alot more long term anchoered vessels in the daytona /holly hill area , a nice addition to the already enormous homeless population around Daytona. 
too bad really, as daytona could be a great place to lay-over and /or provision . they have public trans. and a multitude of services and marine bussiness near the river, but it is rarely advertised or mentioned .


----------



## BillyOC (Jul 18, 2012)

wow, I was bummed to have this end. I just kept hoping there was another page. We really need Tex to come in and wrap this up.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

BillyOC said:


> We really need Tex to come in and wrap this up.


Considering the "quality" of previous posts....I doubt any future comments would add any value....or make any sense.


----------

