# Florida is at it again



## SVAuspicious

As most of us are aware there is legislation pending in the Florida Legislature that would ban overnight anchoring anywhere within 200 feet of any waterfront homes, whether they have boats or even docks or not. This provision could have significant adverse effects on the freedoms of cruisers and boaters cruising Florida waters. The Seven Seas Crusing Association (SSCA) have engaged to strongly oppose this.

The background is really quite simple. First, there is a problem with derelict boats in Florida just as there is in some other states. Cruisers and other boaters are as disturbed by the problem of derelict boats as anyone else. Second, there is an unpleasant movement by wealthy waterfront homeowners who feel they have bought the view with their property and want to preclude anchoring in "their" view.

SSCA has effective volunteer and professional lobbyists meeting with members of Florida leadership, committee chairs, committee members, committee staff, and member staff. They are making progress.

You can help. We NEED your help. Here is what you can do:

1. Join SSCA. It's the best $55 you can spend each year to protect your rights and to gain other benefits of membership.

2. If you are a Florida voter, write to your state representative and senator making clear you are watching them. See http://www.ssca.org/downloads/ccc/SSCA_Anchoring_brochure.pdf .

3. If you are not a Florida voter, write your Federal representatives to let them know you are concerned about pending restrictions on the Federal rights to navigation.

4. Contact the manufacturers of equipment you own or are considering purchase and ask them to wake up the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) and get them in the game.

5. Write to BoatUS Government Affairs ( BoatUS - Contact BoatUS Government Affairs ) and let them know this issue is important to you.

SSCA is a global organization. We care and work in support of cruisers across the globe. It happens that Florida, a cruising waypoint that many of our members pass through, seems to be sending a message that Florida wants our money but not us. We've been successful in Florida before. We've been successful in Maryland and Rhode Island and Mexico. We need your help to be successful again.

For more information about SSCA see Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association ; for member benefits see The Seven Seas Cruising Association - IX - Member Benefits .


----------



## chrisncate

I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home. 

What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please? As a non cruiser, I can certainly see the homeowners perspective that they paid a very high premium to live in the area, while cruisers didn't. As a former wannabe cruiser I can definitely see why you'd want to be able to anchor freely, but it makes less sense to me nowadays without viewing it through boaters eyes. 

Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?


----------



## Minnewaska

The cruising community needs to unite to come anywhere near balancing the voice of the landowners, who greatly outnumber the boaters. However, there also needs to be a compromise here, as there are two valid sides of the story. 

Personally, I have a hard time sleeping, when anchored less than 200 feet from anything hard. As we all know, that looks a lot closer than it is.


----------



## eherlihy

chrisncate said:


> I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.
> 
> What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please? As a non cruiser, I can certainly see the homeowners perspective that they paid a very high premium to live in the area, while cruisers didn't. As a former wannabe cruiser I can definitely see why you'd want to be able to anchor freely, but it makes less sense to me nowadays without viewing it through boaters eyes.
> 
> Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?


Some communities ban overnight parking on the streets within their jurisdiction. The community members either pay the taxes to INSTALL and maintain the street, or pay directly to install and maintain the street, and it's supporting infrastructure.

That said, unless there are perking restrictions, or an overnight parking ban, I believe that you could pull up in your Winnebago and set up camp. There is a large motor home parked just around the corner from me here in my private community in Ft Myers, Florida. I believe that my neighbors have guests.

While some Florida communities have constructed canals, they have not constructed the lakes and ponds that are tied to the canals. Nor did they construct the mangrove swamps. The property owners, and the communities have paid for the rights for the land up to the mean HIGH high water mark, and nothing more. The water rights belong to the State (within 3 miles) and Federal Government, and they are to managed for the PUBLIC good.

This comes down to a property rights issue, and delineating where property ends. The native americans had no concept of PRIVATE property, and why they relinquished the right to Manhattan for $24, and some beads...


----------



## Minnewaska

The entire public certainly invests significantly in our waterways, from navigation to dredging to environmental control, policing, rescue, etc.

I am ultimately on the side of the boater, despite my willingness to compromise, but I'm trying to make sure the blade is sharp here.


----------



## SVAuspicious

chrisncate said:


> What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.


The RV analogy is raised periodically. There are several differences. First and foremost is the history, captured in Federal law, of freedom of navigation. There is the precedent of free anchoring going back to the formation of our country. Just look at the issues of where property rights end (generally MHHW or the high-water mark).



Minnewaska said:


> Personally, I have a hard time sleeping, when anchored less than 200 feet from anything hard. As we all know, that looks a lot closer than it is.


There are many parts of the country where there is little choice. In my own stomping grounds Spa Creek and Back Creek in Annapolis are not wide enough to swing 200' clear from docks and shores. Similarly the upper reaches of the Magothy River, Granary Creek and Dividing Creek off the Wye, common anchorages along the tributaries to the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, and much more.

In Florida the proposed restrictions would turn almost all of Southwest Florida into a no-anchoring zone. The shape of canals, lakes, and ponds really limits anchoring space.

Many other portions of the US and anchorages across the globe require being pretty close to shore, including the use of shore lines.


----------



## Ajax_MD

Dave,

I'm not very clever. Does the SSCA have a "pro-forma" letter that I can use, to write my Federal rep? I understand the problem, but I'm not sure I could articulate it in an effective manner.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BubbleheadMd said:


> I'm not very clever. Does the SSCA have a "pro-forma" letter that I can use, to write my Federal rep? I understand the problem, but I'm not sure I could articulate it in an effective manner.


I'll get one up here today.


----------



## night0wl

chrisncate said:


> I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.
> 
> What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please? As a non cruiser, I can certainly see the homeowners perspective that they paid a very high premium to live in the area, while cruisers didn't. As a former wannabe cruiser I can definitely see why you'd want to be able to anchor freely, but it makes less sense to me nowadays without viewing it through boaters eyes.
> 
> Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?


Waterways, unlike roadways, are in the PUBLIC TRUST. They are designated for all to use unfettered.


----------



## Minnewaska

The argument that relies on the way navigable waters had been originally regulated 200 years ago, will be refuted with witch burning and slavery. Laws change. That's directly their point for introducing legislation to do so.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> The argument that relies on the way navigable waters had been originally regulated 200 years ago, will be refuted with witch burning and slavery. Laws change. That's directly their point for introducing legislation to do so.


Yes, but are there Federal limitations that supersede the states' ability to legislate over this? NJ shore towns' ability to ban non-residents from their beaches was overturned overturned in the Federal courts. Does similar issues apply here?


----------



## chrisncate

I did some minor reading on the public trust doctrine, what legal arguments to counter are Florida/Florida homeowners using against the public trust doctrine?


----------



## JimMcGee

SVAuspicious said:


> There are many parts of the country where there is little choice. In my own stomping grounds Spa Creek and Back Creek in Annapolis are not wide enough to swing 200' clear from docks and shores. Similarly the upper reaches of the Magothy River, Granary Creek and Dividing Creek off the Wye, common anchorages along the tributaries to the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, and much more.
> 
> In Florida the proposed restrictions would turn almost all of Southwest Florida into a no-anchoring zone. The shape of canals, lakes, and ponds really limits anchoring space.


OK as someone who sails and who also just bought a home on a Florida waterway I can see a LOT of room for compromise if some common sense is applied.

Auspicious raises a good point. One area of compromise could be that areas that have historically been used as anchorages would remain anchorages. If you buy a home fronting an anchorage you should have a reasonable expectation that people will anchor there.

While towns would not be able to restrict anchoring they could for example enforce noise ordinances after 10PM. So there would be some recourse against bad actors.

Another compromise could be to limit the time (days) a boat could be anchored. This would prevent derelict vessels but allow a cruiser to wait out the weather.

Remember not every waterfront homeowner in Florida owns a multi-million dollar mansion and most are not spoiled billionaires. In fact most waterfront homeowners in Florida are probably boaters themselves.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> If you buy a home fronting an anchorage you should have a reasonable expectation that people will anchor there.


I suggest that if you buy a waterfront home you should expect people to anchor there.

I also suggest that if you have a dock you should reasonably expect (if you have any competence at all) to be able to get your own boats on and off your dock.



JimMcGee said:


> While towns would not be able to restrict anchoring they could for example enforce noise ordinances after 10PM. So there would be some recourse against bad actors.


To date, in the anchor wars the waterfront houses have been the sources of noise.

In my opinion what anchorage restrictions are appropriate should be at the State level, not by towns and other localities. Is it asking too much for cruisers to expect consistent regulation in a State?



JimMcGee said:


> Another compromise could be to limit the time (days) a boat could be anchored. This would prevent derelict vessels but allow a cruiser to wait out the weather.


Why? There are lots of ways to directly address derelict vessels without restricting the rights of law-abiding people. There are in fact existing laws that address derelict vessels. Unfortunately there is no funding to deal with the problem. The politicians are proposing to pass laws that hurt lots of people, driven by a small number of wealthy waterfront landowners who are motivated entirely by keeping anchored boats out of "their" view over waters they do not own.


----------



## JimMcGee

SVAuspicious said:


> I suggest that if you buy a waterfront home you should expect people to anchor there.
> 
> I also suggest that if you have a dock you should reasonably expect (if you have any competence at all) to be able to get your own boats on and off your dock.


Why the insult???? I never mentioned docking????

Because I bought a house with a dock I'm the enemy now? 

And in the case of the canal behind our place there really isn't room to anchor in the channel without restricting vessel traffic.



SVAuspicious said:


> To date, in the anchor wars the waterfront houses have been the sources of noise.


Again, not sure where that came from? Noise ordinances go both ways.



SVAuspicious said:


> In my opinion what anchorage restrictions are appropriate should be at the State level, not by towns and other localities. Is it asking too much for cruisers to expect consistent regulation in a State?


I suggested no such thing. *I was agreeing with you* that some areas, while narrow, have historically been anchorages *and should not be restricted*.

I would disagree that they should be regulated at the state level. Navigable waterways should be Federally regulated under a well defined set of rules to prevent local cat fights. That way if I'm cruising south down the ICW I don't have a different set of laws in every state.



SVAuspicious said:


> Why? There are lots of ways to directly address derelict vessels without restricting the rights of law-abiding people. There are in fact existing laws that address derelict vessels. Unfortunately there is no funding to deal with the problem.


I'm suggesting a compromise at 30 days. maybe that could be rephrased to limit anchoring to 30 days if you are outside a designated anchorage.

It wouldn't make much sense for someone to anchor their vessel permanently as a liveaboard in the middle of a 40' wide channel in the middle of a residential neighborhood would it? I'm not talking about the ICW here. I can think of one neighborhood on Big Pine where there's barely enough room for two center consoles to pass in the channel. A boat anchored there would be a hazard to navigation.



SVAuspicious said:


> The politicians are proposing to pass laws that hurt lots of people, driven by a small number of wealthy waterfront landowners who are motivated entirely by keeping anchored boats out of "their" view over waters they do not own.


I can't speak to who's driving the laws or to their motivation.

My point is most waterfront home owners aren't billionaires. Most are regular people who are also boat owners. Why not tone down the rhetoric and tap into them for support?


----------



## SVAuspicious

For starters, neither of us gets to decide so this is just a discussion.



JimMcGee said:


> Why the insult???? I never mentioned docking?


I intended no insult. My point is that homeowners with marine infrastructure like private docks have a reasonable expectation to get on and off their docks, just as slipholders in marinas do, and users of boat ramps do. I think 200' is excessive but access is reasonable. I think that stand offs from bulkheads aren't appropriate. I don't think a 12' jetski needs 200' to get on and off the dock. Frankly I don't think a 40' boat needs 200'.



JimMcGee said:


> Because I bought a house with a dock I'm the enemy now?


Nope. I want you on our side. *grin*



JimMcGee said:


> And in the case of the canal behind our place there really isn't room to anchor in the channel without restricting vessel traffic.


And that may be the case. Send me lat and long and I'll check charts and we can engage civilly.



JimMcGee said:


> Again, not sure where that came from? Noise ordinances go both ways.


I was referring to a particular individual, one Frederic Karlton of Miami Beach (see Florida: The Most Cruiser Unfriendly State? (VIDEO) | | PassageMaker ). Most people who have followed the anchor travails in Florida are familiar with Mr. Karlton. I'm not aware of any instance in which cruisers (not ski boats or day boaters) have been the instigators of a noise issue.



JimMcGee said:


> I would disagree that they should be regulated at the state level. Navigable waterways should be Federally regulated under a well defined set of rules to prevent local cat fights. That way if I'm cruising south down the ICW I don't have a different set of laws in every state.


I'd be thrilled to have it regulated at the Federal level. Federal agencies and courts have deferred to states unless commercial or interstate commerce is affected.



JimMcGee said:


> I'm suggesting a compromise at 30 days. maybe that could be rephrased to limit anchoring to 30 days if you are outside a designated anchorage.


Why? To my mind if a boater can demonstrate that his or her boat is suitable for navigation and all sewage and other regulations are met why set a number? That won't help with the real derelict boat problem and just drives more tourists away from Florida.



JimMcGee said:


> I can't speak to who's driving the laws or to their motivation.


I've been working this issue for some time. I ask you to take at face value my description of the motivations of the money behind SB 1548.


----------



## SVAuspicious

SVAuspicious said:


> I'll get one up here today.


Here you go:

Subject: Oppose Ban on Anchoring

Dear

The Florida state Senate is considering SB 1548 which contains a provision that is attacks the rights and freedoms of boaters. The Florida House of Representatives may take up a similar bill soon.

The bill, titled "An Act Related to Vessel Safety", attempts to remedy a number of true safety issues, attributed usually to derelict and unattended vessels: fuel and oil leaks, dumping of waste, sinking, and unmaintained ground tackle or moorings.

Under this same label of vessel "safety" there is an orphan provision promoted by some special interests, specifically a small group of waterfront landowners, who want to eliminate boat anchoring across huge swaths of Florida based solely upon proximity to spots where another person chose to build an upland "dwelling unit". The politics driving this provision seem to be some anecdotal disputes between high-profile homeowners and boaters in specific locations, mostly in the urban lower east coast. Such fights should be resolved through existing enforceable remedies related to harassment or nuisance on a case-by-case basis, not through an over-reaching statewide ban.

While stripping the rights of boaters throughout coastal Florida from the panhandle, through the Keys, and all the way to Jacksonville, the supporters have not performed an assessment of how many anchoring areas would be eliminated and how many of the 1,000,000 boats visiting Florida each year would be shut out. Also, these supporters have not performed an assessment of the adverse economic impact, lost revenue, lost jobs and lost taxes that would result when these boating customers no longer frequent the thousands of Florida's small businesses that rely on this activity.

The portion of SB 1548 creating an anchoring setback to rope off a view for a few politically-active landowners is an over-reaction to a problem that has better, more fair, solutions. This provision would establish one class of people located shore-side and define them as "winners" while others who choose to be on Florida's public waters as a class that
"loses". This setback is not safety related. It is not fair to boaters. It is unfair to all Floridians who pay taxes and collectively own the submerged land beneath these public waters. It is unfair to coastal small businesses. And it is not Florida.

As a boater who values the maritime rights existing on the public waters of Florida, I respectfully ask that you vote against this bill or vote to remove this orphan provision.

Respectfully yours,


----------



## JimMcGee

SVAuspicious said:


> ... we can engage civilly.


Dave, the heck with that we should argue over beers like gentleman ! :laugher

I'm coming to this party a bit late. I checked out the video you linked and yes, it looks like the guy in the McMansion is a bit of a nut job. You could anchor the Queen Mary in there!

I'm looking at it from the perspective of having a place on a little canal in the Keys (I sail a 30 ft Catalina, I'm not buying a Miami mansion).

So my perspective is a little different...


----------



## Johnniegee

I just retired and hope to get as far as Florida by boat. If the state makes it a hassle to visit I will just sail until I feel welcome.


----------



## chrisncate

200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here. 

From a non cruisers perspective, it's kind of hard to view why exactly your recreation/vacation whims should take precedence over homeowners who have invested in the area for the long term and actually live there and pay taxes there. 200' seems pretty reasonable, you're still close, and the homeowner doesn't have a bunch of anchored transient cruisers parked on top of him with a 200' buffer law in place. 

Property is valued higher when it's on the water (typically), and there is a reason for that. Seems kind of entitled to think you have an automatic right to anchor wherever you want in an area you have zero investment in just because you want to, regardless of what the locals feel about the matter. Saying things like "they think they own the view", while whining about not being able to (temporarily) own that view yourself seems like double speak.

I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens. I also do believe sincerely that if RV's suddenly started landing less than 200' from your home, blocking your views that you don't own, you'd probably be up in arms and have the problem dealt with in short order.


----------



## TakeFive

chrisncate said:


> 200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.
> 
> From a non cruisers perspective, it's kind of hard to view why exactly your recreation/vacation whims should take precedence over homeowners who have invested in the area for the long term and actually live there and pay taxes there. 200' seems pretty reasonable, you're still close, and the homeowner doesn't have a bunch of anchored transient cruisers parked on top of him with a 200' buffer law in place.
> 
> Property is valued higher when it's on the water (typically), and there is a reason for that. Seems kind of entitled to think you have an automatic right to anchor wherever you want in an area you have zero investment in just because you want to, regardless of what the locals feel about the matter. Saying things like "they think they own the view", while whining about not being able to (temporarily) own that view yourself seems like double speak.
> 
> I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens. I also do believe sincerely that if RV's suddenly started landing less than 200' from your home, blocking your views that you don't own, you'd probably be up in arms and have the problem dealt with in short order.


Dude, you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

Have you ever heard of "moving to the nuisance?" If not, GIYF.

There area areas that have been anchorages for decades - long before the fancy homes were built. Some of the anchorages are critically important safety shelters during bad weather.

But the fact is, the vast majority of cruisers are good stewards of the water, and leave no footprint. And the few that aren't can be dealt with without a total ban, using laws that are usually on the books already.


chrisncate said:


> ...I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens.


Back up this statement with facts. Give examples where cruisers "often show none of this courtesy..." Hi shoulder, here's chip.


----------



## chrisncate

TakeFive said:


> Dude, you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
> 
> Have you ever heard of "moving to the nuisance?" If not, GIYF.


Well, attacking me personally was to be expected I guess. I can see how my perspective as a non cruiser might offend, though I don't agree that it really should.



> There area areas that have been anchorages for decades - long before the fancy homes were built. Some of the anchorages are critically important safety shelters during bad weather.


And this land belonged to the Native Americans before we had it... how far back does the argument actually go? Is your point that transient cruisers on vacation are grandfathered in somehow? As I mentioned before, people who built these homes decided to invest there. Cruisers don't. It is what it is, and times change and evolve. What used to be wide open land and water might not be anymore. Again, it is what it is.



> But the fact is, the vast majority of cruisers are good stewards of the water, and leave no footprint. And the few that aren't can be dealt with without a total ban, using laws that are usually on the books already.


200' doesn't seem unreasonable to me, it's not as though they are trying to ban you completely. What's wrong with a 200' minimum (besides the fact that you might not be able to anchor anywhere you feel you want to)? Are there no places to anchor except less than 200' in front of someone's home?



> Back up this statement with facts. Give examples where cruisers "often show none of this courtesy..." Hi shoulder, here's chip.


I can only to point to my own experiences and observations, but I will happily oblige. I have had boats in various marinas on the Chesapeake Bay over about a 12 year period. Inside the marina gates, it was often the "good vibes" and "cruisers help cruisers" type attitude (until it wasn't with the high school like politics of the marina, but I digress). Outside the marina gates however, the same folks often reverted right back to the default setting for these parts, which is not at all the same as inside the marina bubble. People would sit at the table, drink and opine for hours about how awesome the locals were at (fill in the blank) tropical location, then we'd make a store run together and the same folks would practically run over the poor brown immigrant standing in the median selling flowers while making some comment about the guy as we fly by him within inches in the Range Rover. This is what I mean when I wonder how you might react if RV's suddenly decided they needed/had a right to overnight less than 200' from your front door, and that you don't own the view.

I have no chip or grudge (sorry if you read it that way, it's not how I feel about cruisers), but after getting out of sailing for the time being I do think a dose of reality - or at least another perspective from someone who is at least familiar with the cruisers p.o.v isn't such a bad thing on this forum. Unless of course there is just the one "correct" p.o.v, then I guess it might be such a bad thing. Cruisers can be sort of phony sometimes, and certainly can begin to take themselves a bit too seriously about the whole cruising thing in general considering what it actually is - which is simply vacation leisure play time for people with money. I don't know if you realize this, but you're usually in the same class as those evil "rich" people you're railing against about this issue. Doesn't that fact strike you in the least bit? People with money whining about people with slightly more money not letting them vacation in their backyard that they paid big money to live in on a permanent basis? It's funnier looking at this from the outside of the bubble I guess.


----------



## irwin37

"200' doesn't seem unreasonable to me"

200 ft may not seem to be unreasonable and in some places this may be true but this will become a blanket rule if enacted and no research to find out how many anchorages this will affect was done. Looking at the charts this will all but eliminate anchoring in a large section of West Palm Beach as the city docks are only 500 ft apart and extend out to with-in 500 ft of the ICW, not enough room to swing. Many smaller anchorages will be wiped out completely, I have counted a dozen in a 30 mile stretch of the ICW (based on measurements on google earth) If 200 ft rule is enacted this year what stops a 500 ft rule next year ..... This law, if enacted as it stands, will prevent anchoring in anything less then 2 - 3 football field lengths of open water in all directions.

This whole thing is similar to what happened to our local airport. A developer came in and bought property right next to the airport and built more than 100 new homes, sold them. A year later the new residents were all in an uproar over noise and claimed the airport was not safe being that close to their homes. They spent several years tiring to have the airport closed. Fortunately the local pilots won the court battle this time. Many small airports have not won. I see the same thing happening to boaters rights. Then it will be a rich mans hobby because the little guy will not be able to afford it.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> Yes, but are there Federal limitations that supersede the states' ability to legislate over this? NJ shore towns' ability to ban non-residents from their beaches was overturned overturned in the Federal courts. Does similar issues apply here?


That's a good approach. Unless the issue becomes federal.


----------



## Don L

It would seem that if you called the 200' distance a "setback" that you could then call it unreasonable unless there is a zoning requirement for that in a community. Saying that a 20' setback for houses is OK, but 200' is required for a boat to land is required may be a good way to challenge this whole thing.


----------



## Ajax_MD

CnC,

The 200' setback is being specifically chosen, precisely because it's impossible to comply with that setback in many places. Since you can't comply, no anchoring is allowed.

It has nothing to do with whether or not it gives the home owner enough privacy or space to get on and off their dock, it has everything to do with being a specially calculated number to prevent ANY anchoring at all.

Also, you keep mentioning landowners that have "invested in the community for the long haul". Just because the cruisers are transient in nature, doesn't mean that they haven't invested in the community for years, by visiting and spending their dollars. Home ownership and property taxes are not the "ultimate sacrifice" or the only measure by which community investment should be measured.

Unconstitutional laws, and civil and state laws which conflict with Federal law get passed all the time, and sometimes stay on the books for years. That doesn't mean that these laws are correct or just. Justice is exposing these bad laws before the courts and getting them overturned. Then, the local authorities can attempt to craft new laws that don't run afoul of our rights, and higher laws.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> I'm looking at it from the perspective of having a place on a little canal in the Keys (I sail a 30 ft Catalina, I'm not buying a Miami mansion).


Understood and agreed. There are a lot of little canals in Florida that are unsuitable for anchoring. Heck - what does a 200' setback mean when the canal is only 150' wide?



chrisncate said:


> 200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.





chrisncate said:


> 200' doesn't seem unreasonable to me, it's not as though they are trying to ban you completely. What's wrong with a 200' minimum (besides the fact that you might not be able to anchor anywhere you feel you want to)? Are there no places to anchor except less than 200' in front of someone's home?


In fact "they" ARE trying to ban anchoring completely.

200' is unreasonable. Consider an anchorage that is 12' deep and a 40ish foot boat with a bow roller 4' above the waterline. 5:1 scope is 5*(12+4) = 80'. With 200' setbacks in place an anchorage must be 560' across for just _ONE_ boat to anchor. In Southwest Florida where anchorages are commonly in narrow lakes, ponds, and canals 200' setbacks will effectively ban anchoring.



chrisncate said:


> it's kind of hard to view why exactly your recreation/vacation whims should take precedence over homeowners who have invested in the area for the long term and actually live there and pay taxes there.


The tax issue is a red herring. Tourists including cruisers do pay taxes. We pay taxes every time we eat at a restaurant, buy provisions, pay for services, and spend money in any other way. We pay sales tax directly, and through the profits local businesses earn from us _they_ pay more taxes with our money.



chrisncate said:


> I have no chip or grudge (sorry if you read it that way, it's not how I feel about cruisers), but after getting out of sailing for the time being I do think a dose of reality - or at least another perspective from someone who is at least familiar with the cruisers p.o.v isn't such a bad thing on this forum.


I don't get to decide but as far as I'm concerned everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do feel (and this is not directed at you, just a general observation) that there is often confusion between the relative merits of fact and opinion.

Your statement that 200' is reasonable is an opinion (or a judgment if we want to get nitpicky). That statement is either not fully informed (so I made the effort to provide additional facts that are relevant) or disingenuous. I happily give you the benefit of the doubt on the matter.


----------



## Argyle38

chrisncate said:


> From a non cruisers perspective, it's kind of hard to view why exactly your recreation/vacation whims should take precedence over homeowners


Cruising is not necessarily a "recreation/vacation whim." It's a way of life, just as having waterfront property is a way of life. Your phrasing it as such is provocative and unnecessary.



> who have invested in the area for the long term and actually live there and pay taxes there.


They do not pay taxes for the waterways any more than the rest of us. Those are federally funded. They are trying to control that which they don't own.


----------



## DavyJ

> 200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.


I'm always amazed that there is one of these guys in every anchoring thread _on a sailboat forum._

When I go cruising I always try to anchor as far away from _any_ structure as possible. The problem comes when multiple boats are in the same place. It's not always possible to _keep moving_, because the next safe anchorage may be hours or many miles away. The sad part is that this bill only affects a handful of waterfront property owners. Because the water _behind_ their property happens to be a safe place to anchor.

An unintended consequence of the bill is that anchorages that can support multiple boats from the set back will become more filled with boats, thus making the anchorage less safe. And some people will end up anchoring in less sheltered places making those vessels and others less safe as well.


----------



## Brackish_Beard

Waterfront property owners bought the land, not the water. With that in mind I'm having a hard time understanding the validity in these owners dictating what can and can not be in the publicly held waters they paid to live next to and share, not own.

Also, not all cruisers have money. I'll never be able to afford property let alone a house. I can own a boat though and that opens the entire world up to me without displacing natural habitats that have been destroyed through urban sprawl. The impact on the overall environment is significantly less on a boat as opposed to a house in terms of habitat displacement and energy consumption. Homeowners may be investing in the capitalist community but what about the health of the community? I say this because the fertilizers and pesticides being used by homeowners here in Florida have wreaked havoc on the local ecosystem; poisoning OUR (all flora & fauna) waters. On my boat I only displace water. Like Mahatma Gandhi said "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

All things considered, when the polar ice caps melt my property increases exponentially and this subject will become moot


----------



## JimMcGee

> There area areas that have been anchorages for decades - long before the fancy homes were built. Some of the anchorages are critically important safety shelters during bad weather.





chrisncate said:


> And this land belonged to the Native Americans before we had it... how far back does the argument actually go? Is your point that transient cruisers on vacation are grandfathered in somehow? As I mentioned before, people who built these homes decided to invest there. Cruisers don't. It is what it is, and times change and evolve. What used to be wide open land and water might not be anymore. Again, it is what it is.


That's a specious argument.

Common sense says that if you don't want to look at anchored boats you don't buy a home that overlooks an anchorage.

But common sense doesn't always play out when people have enough money to use the courts as a weapon. A scenario that's increasingly common in South Jersey (I can't speak for the rest of the country).

Are you advocating that the guy with the most money should always get his way at the expense of the community as a whole? That's really what's being discussed here.


----------



## TakeFive

chrisncate said:


> ...People would sit at the table, drink and opine for hours about how awesome the locals were at (fill in the blank) tropical location, then we'd make a store run together and the same folks would practically run over the poor brown immigrant standing in the median selling flowers while making some comment about the guy as we fly by him within inches in the Range Rover...


Clearly the driver was rude, inconsiderate, and potentially dangerous. So you use this one experience to condemn a whole group of people by claiming that "at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens"?



chrisncate said:


> ...Cruisers can be sort of phony sometimes...I don't know if you realize this, but you're usually in the same class as those evil "rich" people you're railing against about this issue. Doesn't that fact strike you in the least bit?


Exactly what "facts" do you know about me? You know nothing about my income level, where I live, whether I've ever complained about anything in my neighborhood, or even if I'm a cruiser. You might be surprised at how wrong your assumptions are.

I have nothing against rich people. However, I do have great concerns over the disproportionate clout that a small group of ultra-rich people are buying with their campaign donations. I do think that Citizens United is one of the most damaging decisions ever handed down by USSC.

I never said that you aren't entitled to have and express your opinion. But you go overboard when you start referring to it as "fact."


----------



## Jiminri

A number of years ago I bought a house on a lake. One of the reasons I loved the house so much was that it was private. Although there were neighbors on both sides, I could not see their houses from my property because of the trees and bushes.

A few months after the purchase, the neighbor on one side put up a huge garage. And the neighbor on the other side cut down all the trees that were such a nice visual screen and put on a huge addition to his house. My privacy was gone!

I wasn't happy, but they were within their rights to do what they did. What they did was on their property. So, I did what I could do. I spent a lot of $ to plant tall trees and bushes on MY property to regain my privacy.

What's my point? Just that the waterfront homeowners own their land, but not the view and not the water. If they do not want to see boats anchored in front, they can plant trees. That will block the view of the water too...but that's their choice.

I do agree that minimum stand off distances that have a real purpose, such as to ensure a waterfront owner's dock is not blocked is reasonable. In Annapolis, I think the distance is 75 feet. Something along those lines seems reasonable. But passing a law primarily to grant additional aesthetic view rights to homeowners seems wrong.


----------



## Minnesail

If I may chime in with a landlocked anecdote…

A similar thing has played out a few times in Minnesota. When rail shipping patterns changed about fifty years ago a lot of rail lines fell into disuse. The railroads gave the easements to the state and the state turned the old lines in multi-use biking/hiking/skiing trails.

Fast forward thirty years and these use-to-be-rural properties are now part of the exurban building boom. The new owners decide they don't like all the bikes going along the property line of their big new houses, so they started suing the state using some pretty obscure logic to claim that the railroads weren't legally able to transfer control to the state. Some even went so far as to use a Bobcat to pile debris over the trail to block it.

Same situation as Florida, it seems. You have a publicly controlled area, open to use by all. New homeowners buy property next to this already existing use, then get all litigious to try to change the original rules.

Fortunately in Minnesota the state prevailed and the trails remain open. I wish Florida the same luck.


----------



## Ajax_MD

I think this issue will fester and eventually erupt at a federal court level where it will be solved, once and for all.

I won't even hazard a guess at what the outcome might be.


----------



## chrisncate

Well, there have been a lot of responses so I'll try to discuss them all in general instead of a bunch of specific quote boxes.

The tax argument - It's hard to see how the argument can be made that the relatively tiny amount a cruiser might spend over a few days at anchor by eating out, buying small things etc can really be fairly compared to thousands and thousands spent by local homeowners over the course of a year. Add to that the hidden costs cruisers enjoy the benefits of without paying into, things like local DNR, sewage infrastructure, etc, and it's not that hard to see that cruisers enjoy a vastly lopsided benefit regarding investment vs benefit. As a general rule, sailors are a self sufficient bunch, it's not hard to imagine many cruisers passing through might actually spend zero dollars locally. 

The boaters rights argument - There are many (most) areas in life where rights are regulated (and frankly I'm not sure there is such a thing as boaters rights, but for the sake of argument lets assume there is). While the roads are public and usually at least 80% funded by federal dollars, you can't just park and use them wherever and however you see fit. Again the RV argument (no one seems to quote or discuss this particular one I notice), how long would you put up with an influx of RV's on your street less than 200' from your front door? I doubt for very long. A fun experiment would be to park 20 RV's on the road leading in to the very popular marina district in Annapolis, some right outside the front gates. I'd be curious to see how the marina and it's slip holders react. 

They're trying to regulate us out of existence argument - Doesn't seem like it, seems like they are trying to regulate you out of anchoring in tight areas. As stated here, you need room to swing, so basically you need to take up an area of what, 200 plus feet if you have 100' feet of chain out? plus room to drag if need be? If you look at it from a non cruisers perspective, you need a lot of space for your vacation needs. Seems like mooring fields might be a good answer, or even picking up a slip for the night. If the supply of either isn't available, it's akin to not being able to park in the city. Sometimes you just can't be in close proximity to where you'd prefer to be. 

The it's a life style argument. At best, it's a vacation lifestyle. More often it's simply a long vacation/vacation retirement. When you're cruising and traveling and spending your days enjoying the sun and environment without holding down a job, you're on vacation. There is nothing wrong with this, but lets not delude yourselves into thinking this is your life's work or you're curing cancer or anything. The masses who have to work actual jobs and have no money to go one extended sailing cruises on expensive boats would probably vehemently disagree that months long cruising is anything but a vacation or retirement. I said before, cruisers are well off folks complaining about slightly more well off folks in this thread. I stand by that.

Basically what I see is cruisers want to remain free to anchor when and where they please. I can relate, and I can respect that. The problem is that cruisers require a lot of space, spend relatively little locally compared to the locals, have little investment in the area (after all, being able to pull up anchor and take off is one of the big draws of cruising on a boat), and don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that their footprint is large and gives the locals little to no benefit. Also unacknowledged by cruisers is the fact that FL is crowded. Very crowded. Regulating anchoring is probably going to be a very needed thing. It's not only sailboats out there you know, there are power boats, jet skis, fisherman and a whole host of others who might want to be able to access the areas you want to be able to anchor in. Do sailboats have the market cornered on free access on the water?

Mooring fields, designated areas and setbacks measured in feet don't seem unreasonable, and it also doesn't seem unreasonable to come to grips with the fact that areas change and the places you could once anchor are getting developed and/or too crowded to continue to support the fairly vast space requirements a sailboat needs to anchor out. I think if you take off the sailors goggles and see this from a typical persons perspective, none of what said is out of line with common sense.


----------



## JonEisberg

Jiminri said:


> What's my point? Just that the waterfront homeowners own their land, but not the view and not the water. If they do not want to see boats anchored in front, they can plant trees. That will block the view of the water too...but that's their choice.


One of the more amusing ironies of this pending bill - that one has to wonder whether supporters of its passage have even bothered to read it closely enough to have noticed - is that anchoring within 200 feet of a developed shoreline is only prohibited *"...between the times of one hour past sunset, and one hour before sunrise..."*

In other words, you can still park your unsightly Conestoga Cruiser right in front of some homeowner's living room all day long, and even long enough into to the evening to mar his view of sunset, as well... It's only after dark, when you are pretty much no longer visible, that you have to vacate the area...

Brilliant, eh? But of course, further evidence this legislation is targeted directly at cruisers, and no one else... This restriction does not apply to anyone engaged in fishing during those hours, for instance... Even in Florida, no legislator could be dumb enough to mess with the fishing lobby, after all...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> Common sense says that if you don't want to look at anchored boats you don't buy a home that overlooks an anchorage.


Agreed. That's like buying a house near an airport and complaining about the noise.



Jiminri said:


> I do agree that minimum stand off distances that have a real purpose, such as to ensure a waterfront owner's dock is not blocked is reasonable. In Annapolis, I think the distance is 75 feet. Something along those lines seems reasonable. But passing a law primarily to grant additional aesthetic view rights to homeowners seems wrong.


It is 75 feet, but only from marine infrastructure (docks and ramps) not from the shore line.


----------



## Ajax_MD

chrisncate said:


> Well, there have been a lot of responses so I'll try to discuss them all in general instead of a bunch of specific quote boxes.
> 
> {snip}
> 
> *The boaters rights argument - *
> 
> There really aren't "boaters rights". There are the rights to free and unfettered use of public, navigable waterways. These rights have existed nearly since our nation was founded. I simply cannot understand why homeowner's rights should suddenly extend far beyond the mean high tide waterline. I cannot wrap my brain around why an entire long-standing community should alter their behavior to accommodate a single, new, disruptive element that has entered that community. (other than the fact that the disruptive element exerts undue influence via finances.)
> 
> {snip}
> 
> *The it's a life style argument.*
> 
> You can "stand by it" all you like, it's still your opinion masquerading as fact.
> I have a cruiser/liveaboard friend who *makes his living* working at marinas, doing canvas, composites and engine work. He lives alone, aboard an immaculate Albin Vega. He works hard, and is hardly "sun-ing and fun-ing" his way through life. He's not retired by any stretch.
> 
> Basically what you're saying, is that people have no right to decide to live and work on/from a boat instead of a ground based dwelling. They are deviants who have no rights, and it's perfectly ok to suddenly revoke rights which have existed nearly since this nation was founded, to satisfy a handful of people who don't want to look at them.
> 
> {snip}
> 
> You keep using the term "reasonable" with regards to terms like "setback" and "200 feet" without ever having visited the area, or really having done any research into the issue. It just "sounds reasonable" to you.
> 
> You also keep insisting that home ownership is the only valid basis of contribution to the tax base of a community, without any real numbers to back up what the cruising community contributes in total tax and sales revenue vs a handful of McMansion powerful owners. Sure, they may pay more in total taxes, but they also have a much larger "footprint" and a larger demand for community services than cruisers. You may be right, but you don't really have any facts to support that statement.


At one point, you were poised to enter this lifestyle. I wonder what your tune would be, if you actually had, and were attempting to cruise down in this area. Since you're not cruising, it all seems perfectly reasonable to you, I guess.


----------



## JimMcGee

Chris,
I'm not sure if you really feel this way or are simply feeling contrarian.

My initial concern was in regard to the small canals that are common in the Keys (I haven't boated in mainland Floraida yet). But keep in mind the ICW is a federal waterway with large areas of open water.

Your tax and density arguments don't hold up as we all pay federal taxes and we're not talking about areas where an anchored boat is a hazard to navigation.

As for homeowners rights, if I decide to build on a piece of property should I then get to dictate changes in the rights and behaviors of everyone around me? That would seem to fly in the face of our form of government. The case involving NJ beaches tested exactly this argument and the courts ruled repeatedly in favor of public access.

And waterways _are_ considered to be "public" areas. Riparian rights are well defined and typically end at a tide line, though in some areas homeowners may own "bottom rights" to a setback off the tide line for docks.

You also make the assumption that only cruisers on sailboats are affected. There are far more powerboats than sailboats on the water.

As for SailNetters all being rich, well you've been around here long enough to know that's simply not true.

Jim


----------



## travlin-easy

Chris, as you know, I'm a history buff, and I can assure you that much of the land in Florida that is now developed was not owned, or inhabited by native Americans. In fact, much of the land where those McMansions are situated were nothing more than tidal marshlands and uninhabitable by anything other than gators, fish and birds. And, don't forget about the Chinese that were frequently in the area long before those native Americans - whoops! The land where those McMansions arose was frequently filled in my developers, allowed to settle and compact for a couple years, then those homes were constructed. I know several folks that live in them and they are mostly retirees from up north, people who hoped their children and grand children would either move down to Florida, or at least spend lots of time with grandma and grandpa during their retirement years. Ironically, the kids didn't do this very often and the homeowners continued to rattle around in their mega-mansions looking for things to do. 

By and large, the vast majority of the wealthy folks I met in my travels were very hospitable, loved to have fun and party, and I was the musician/singer/entertainer that kept those parties jumping through the night. At some of these events, I arrived in my old 33 Morgan OI, pulled up to their dock, and unloaded my music gear. Of course, I did this with their permission and graces. Their guests arrived in everything from a Rolls Royce to a Harley Hog, and no one ever seemed to complain about those vehicles, no matter how outlandish they may have appeared. 

Unfortunately, in this nation, we have folks that seem to thrive on making ridiculous regulations that never seem to effect them personally. I think the Florida anchoring regulations may be a classic example of this.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## DavyJ

> Again the RV argument (no one seems to quote or discuss this particular one I notice), how long would you put up with an influx of RV's on your street less than 200' from your front door?


The reason no one is quoting this or discussing it, is that it has been beat to death about 5000 times in other threads. Navigable waters are not private property, navigable waters in Florida can not be regulated by municipalities. Anchoring is part of navigation.

What's happening here is like you buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise.


----------



## miatapaul

chrisncate said:


> I have no chip or grudge (sorry if you read it that way, it's not how I feel about cruisers),


If you have to say you don't have a chip or a grudge, you may well have such... just saying.


----------



## Argyle38

DavyJ said:


> The reason no one is quoting this or discussing it, is that it has been beat to death about 5000 times in other threads. Navigable waters are not private property, navigable waters in Florida can not be regulated by municipalities. Anchoring is part of navigation.
> 
> What's happening here is like you buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise.


I also think no one's quoting him because they realize that he's just being a troll and trying to stir up crap and no one's biting.


----------



## chrisncate

travlineasy said:


> Chris, as you know, I'm a history buff, and I can assure you that much of the land in Florida that is now developed was not owned, or inhabited by native Americans. In fact, much of the land where those McMansions are situated were nothing more than tidal marshlands and uninhabitable by anything other than gators, fish and birds. And, don't forget about the Chinese that were frequently in the area long before those native Americans - whoops! The land where those McMansions arose was frequently filled in my developers, allowed to settle and compact for a couple years, then those homes were constructed.


Good post Gary, and one better directed at the poster I was responding too (since I was also disagreeing with the notion of "but, it's always been...").

Hopefully that poster sees your post.



DavyJ said:


> The reason no one is quoting this or discussing it, is that it has been beat to death about 5000 times in other threads. Navigable waters are not private property, navigable waters in Florida can not be regulated by municipalities. Anchoring is part of navigation.
> 
> What's happening here is like you buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise.


Actually, I must have missed the 5000 other threads on that. A link or two might have been nice, but ok.

Since I didn't see any of those 5k threads, I will say that roads and waterways are indeed public space, yet one can be regulated (RV's) and one cannot(?)? I'll ask you directly - if a bunch of RV's parked in front of your home, or marina, do you feel like the prevailing attitude would be "it's a public road, and I don't own the view"?



miatapaul said:


> If you have to say you don't have a chip or a grudge, you may well have such... just saying.


Or, looked at another way - in a post peppered with multiple accusations towards me personally, taking one measly line to apologize and mention that I don't actually feel that way towards cruisers might actually _not_ mean confirmation of.. "Witch! Burn the heretic!"



Argyle38 said:


> I also think no one's quoting him because they realize that he's just being a troll and trying to stir up crap and no one's biting.


Care to expound on why a differing opinion than yours automatically means troll? Is it really so difficult to accept that others who like boats might not tow the party line so to speak? I haven't attacked anyone personally (while being attacked personally), and I have made every attempt to present a thoughtful and detailed set of posts regarding my thoughts on this topic.

Look, I get it - no one wants to hear the other side's argument, especially when it goes against something you would like to be doing (in this case anchoring out in FL where they are trying to ban you), but there is another side to this argument. I doubt the "rich" people are basing their argument on "we're rich and want to ban you from anchoring 'cause we're big jerks and meanies". I don't know what all of their arguments are (as nothing but one side of this topic is presented here on SN), but I'd bet they make similar arguments at least at some point to what I have said.

And while I am thinking about it, someone mentioned that Sailnetters aren't rich. To which I would reply that I agree, no, generally not. I was speaking more in a general comparison to the vast majority of the American public that can't afford even a humble little Catalina 22 on a trailer. In the overall scope of things, just having enough disposable (some might say flushable, but I digress again) cash to own any kind of boat to cruise long distance on extended vacation means rich, and this is a classic "first world problem".

Flame suit's on, have at it gents. I have said all I wanted to say unless someone says something interesting.


----------



## TakeFive

chrisncate said:


> ...in a post peppered with multiple accusations towards me personally...


Oh GIVE ME A BREAK. Multiple accusations toward you personally? All i said was you come across as having a chip on your shoulder. Chippy is as chippy does. Let's have some violin music! :laugher


Argyle38 said:


> I also think no one's quoting him because they realize that he's just being a troll and trying to stir up crap and no one's biting.


OK, I'm feeling feisty tonight so I'll feed the troll.

Which of these paintings would anyone, anywhere, be more likely to hang on his wall?










...or...








I rest my case.

:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## Brackish_Beard

Chris, you have to understand that while most people look out on the water and see random transients coming and going, they do in fact belong to a community that is hundreds of years old, outdating any N.American nation even. This community has been active with every subsequent generation and have seen coastlines filled in with houses. A homeowner may buy land on the waterfront, but most likely the sailors who share the water with him/her has been using those anchorages for decades longer than the homeowner has lived there. The reason people are getting upset is because they've been traversing these waterways for many years just to have newcomers bulldoze the natural environment, chase away the wildlife, and then demand these vessels stay far away from these anchorages because... Why?

I have to ask Chris, what is the motivation behind your viewpoint? Why must vessels remain 200' away from these properties? What threat are we posing exactly to justify such legislation? Your neighbors live closer to you than the anchored boats so I don't understand. In addition to what DavyJ said about buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise; it's like forcing your neighbors out too because they only live there seasonally (albeit for the past 30 yrs). That's why the push back to this legislation is so spirited.


----------



## RobGallagher

chrisncate said:


> Well, there have been a lot of responses so I'll try to discuss them all in general instead of a bunch of specific quote boxes.
> 
> The tax argument - It's hard to see how the argument can be made that the relatively tiny amount a cruiser might spend over a few days at anchor by eating out, buying small things etc can really be fairly compared to thousands and thousands spent by local homeowners over the course of a year. Add to that the hidden costs cruisers enjoy the benefits of without paying into, things like local DNR, sewage infrastructure, etc, and it's not that hard to see that cruisers enjoy a vastly lopsided benefit regarding investment vs benefit. As a general rule, sailors are a self sufficient bunch, it's not hard to imagine many cruisers passing through might actually spend zero dollars locally.
> 
> The boaters rights argument - There are many (most) areas in life where rights are regulated (and frankly I'm not sure there is such a thing as boaters rights, but for the sake of argument lets assume there is). While the roads are public and usually at least 80% funded by federal dollars, you can't just park and use them wherever and however you see fit. Again the RV argument (no one seems to quote or discuss this particular one I notice), how long would you put up with an influx of RV's on your street less than 200' from your front door? I doubt for very long. A fun experiment would be to park 20 RV's on the road leading in to the very popular marina district in Annapolis, some right outside the front gates. I'd be curious to see how the marina and it's slip holders react.
> 
> They're trying to regulate us out of existence argument - Doesn't seem like it, seems like they are trying to regulate you out of anchoring in tight areas. As stated here, you need room to swing, so basically you need to take up an area of what, 200 plus feet if you have 100' feet of chain out? plus room to drag if need be? If you look at it from a non cruisers perspective, you need a lot of space for your vacation needs. Seems like mooring fields might be a good answer, or even picking up a slip for the night. If the supply of either isn't available, it's akin to not being able to park in the city. Sometimes you just can't be in close proximity to where you'd prefer to be.
> 
> The it's a life style argument. At best, it's a vacation lifestyle. More often it's simply a long vacation/vacation retirement. When you're cruising and traveling and spending your days enjoying the sun and environment without holding down a job, you're on vacation. There is nothing wrong with this, but lets not delude yourselves into thinking this is your life's work or you're curing cancer or anything. The masses who have to work actual jobs and have no money to go one extended sailing cruises on expensive boats would probably vehemently disagree that months long cruising is anything but a vacation or retirement. I said before, cruisers are well off folks complaining about slightly more well off folks in this thread. I stand by that.
> 
> Basically what I see is cruisers want to remain free to anchor when and where they please. I can relate, and I can respect that. The problem is that cruisers require a lot of space, spend relatively little locally compared to the locals, have little investment in the area (after all, being able to pull up anchor and take off is one of the big draws of cruising on a boat), and don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that their footprint is large and gives the locals little to no benefit. Also unacknowledged by cruisers is the fact that FL is crowded. Very crowded. Regulating anchoring is probably going to be a very needed thing. It's not only sailboats out there you know, there are power boats, jet skis, fisherman and a whole host of others who might want to be able to access the areas you want to be able to anchor in. Do sailboats have the market cornered on free access on the water?
> 
> Mooring fields, designated areas and setbacks measured in feet don't seem unreasonable, and it also doesn't seem unreasonable to come to grips with the fact that areas change and the places you could once anchor are getting developed and/or too crowded to continue to support the fairly vast space requirements a sailboat needs to anchor out. I think if you take off the sailors goggles and see this from a typical persons perspective, none of what said is out of line with common sense.


You are making a lot of assumptions. People give and take all through life, it's not fair, it never will be fair.

That guy/gal anchored out living his retirement/vacation dream for a few years until he can't may just have cured something. You don't know jackshit about his or her story. You have NO idea how much in taxes, fees and whatnot they pay or have paid over their lifetime.

He might be a decorated veteran, AND a bum. Maybe a retired school teacher who spent his years making less than in the corporate world teaching thankless little brats how to do long division on MY DIME. My dime because I don't have kids, yet I pay through the nose because I don't have them. People in my income bracket pay THOUSANDS less every year in all kinds of ways because someone chose not to pull out. It's not fair, but I live with it and I'm happy to pay. Happy until someone comes along and starts telling me what's fair and isn't, then I tend to get a bit pissy and go on a rant.

Don't like people enjoying life and nature? Don't buy a house in front of an anchorage or a campground.

There is plenty of waterfront property on this planet not fit for boats to anchor, places where it's already against regulations, go buy a house there.

Don't buy a house and then try to start changing laws because you don't like what you bought into. It is EXACTLY like buying a house on a freeway and then trying to enact laws to stop the traffic.


----------



## chrisncate

Brackish_Beard said:


> Chris, you have to understand that while most people look out on the water and see random transients coming and going, they do in fact belong to a community that is hundreds of years old, outdating any N.American nation even. This community has been active with every subsequent generation and have seen coastlines filled in with houses. A homeowner may buy land on the waterfront, but most likely the sailors who share the water with him/her has been using those anchorages for decades longer than the homeowner has lived there. The reason people are getting upset is because they've been traversing these waterways for many years just to have newcomers bulldoze the natural environment, chase away the wildlife, and then demand these vessels stay far away from these anchorages because... Why?


I get this viewpoint, and agree in a lot of ways with it. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint however, I also get that waterfront property has value and people pay a premium to invest for their long term in it. I'd understand it better if we were talking about pristine wild lands that all of a sudden were developed and all boating was outlawed, but we're actually talking about long developed land where new regs are being proposed that don't outlaw boating, just setbacks for anchoring out near homes.

I'm not sure you can lump everyone who sails together as being legacy sailors automatically enrolled in the history of hundreds of years of sailing history either. I mean, another way to say it is there are some who cruise regularly, and many who do it one or two times. I used to drive a fancy little shooting brake, it didn't automatically enroll me in the annals of auto history. I was just a guy with a nice ride, no more no less. Frankly on that topic, I don't think there is any sort of real brotherhood of cruisers out there or online either, as advertised. I think that notion likes to get talked up and sometimes acted out in a role playing type capacity, but genuinely? I don't think so. Cruisers are just like the rest of the people out there.



> I have to ask Chris, what is the motivation behind your viewpoint? Why must vessels remain 200' away from these properties? What threat are we posing exactly to justify such legislation? Your neighbors live closer to you than the anchored boats so I don't understand. In addition to what DavyJ said about buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise; it's like forcing your neighbors out too because they only live there seasonally (albeit for the past 30 yrs). That's why the push back to this legislation is so spirited.


My motivation? Well, I still like boats and some boat topics, and sometimes a thread piques my interest like this one did. No big motive or mystery. Honestly since getting out of the bubble, I am often fascinated by the cruising dream and sailing scene as advertised and marketed vs the reality and truth of what my and others personal experiences and observations have been about the entire scene, and certainly what I often read right here on Sailnet. A simple scroll back at some of the comments made in this thread towards my posts show what I am talking about. It's kind of like "NO ONE puts baby in a corner!" when you dare go against sailing doctrine of any variety. Hell, you can't even mention that "marine" grey butyl is nothing but a scam and is identical to RV grey butyl without being burned at the stake around here. It's funny.

Regarding what you said, I didn't say a vessel must remain anywhere, I just mentioned that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable and homeowners who invested big money in the area might have a point about the 200' reg. It's all academic in my world, I won't be cruising anytime soon or buying FL real estate. Also regarding what you wrote, I can report I have no neighbors within three acres of me on any side. I have much more than a 200' buffer, but then again I live on a small farm in a rural area so...



RobGallagher said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions. People give and take all through life, it's not fair, it never will be fair.


I don't think I am making any more or less assumptions than many here are about the evil "rich people".



> That guy/gal anchored out living his retirement/vacation dream for a few years until he can't may just have cured something. You don't know jackshit about his or her story. You have NO idea how much in taxes, fees and whatnot they pay or have paid over their lifetime.


Do I have to know jackshit about anyone's personal history? We're talking about policy here, which applies across the board and doesn't take emotional stuff like this into account. I do have an idea that if said cruiser never lived in such and area but anchors there, he hasn't really "invested" in the area, he's just using it.

Also, my comment about curing cancer was based on the notion that some sailors seem to have, that being that sailing actually contributes anything to humanity, like sailing is somehow this important endeavor. It doesn't and isn't, it's just a pleasant and fun pastime (and there is nothing wrong with that fact).



> Don't like people enjoying life and nature? Don't buy a house in front of an anchorage or a campground.


Well, the same argument could be made that "Don't like anchoring restrictions? Sail somewhere there are none. It's a big ocean out there".



> Don't buy a house and then try to start changing laws because you don't like what you bought into. It is EXACTLY like buying a house on a freeway and then trying to enact laws to stop the traffic.


This is such a false argument, it assumes the world stops and freezes at where it currently sits. Times and things change, and what was once a place you could express your freedom in might not be in the future due to a myriad of factors like population growth/shift, economics etc. Life changes, what are you gonna do.


----------



## RobGallagher

chrisncate said:


> I get this viewpoint, and agree in a lot of ways with it. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint however, I also get that waterfront property has value and people pay a premium to invest for their long term in it. I'd understand it better if we were talking about pristine wild lands that all of a sudden were developed and all boating was outlawed, but we're actually talking about long developed land where new regs are being proposed that don't outlaw boating, just setbacks for anchoring out near homes.
> 
> I'm not sure you can lump everyone who sails together as being legacy sailors automatically enrolled in the history of hundreds of years of sailing history either. I mean, another way to say it is there are some who cruise regularly, and many who do it one or two times. I used to drive a fancy little shooting brake, it didn't automatically enroll me in the annals of auto history. I was just a guy with a nice ride, no more no less. Frankly on that topic, I don't think there is any sort of real brotherhood of cruisers out there or online either, as advertised. I think that notion likes to get talked up and sometimes acted out in a role playing type capacity, but genuinely? I don't think so. Cruisers are just like the rest of the people out there.
> 
> My motivation? Well, I still like boats and some boat topics, and sometimes a thread piques my interest like this one did. No big motive or mystery. Honestly since getting out of the bubble, I am often fascinated by the cruising dream and sailing scene as advertised and marketed vs the reality and truth of what my and others personal experiences and observations have been about the entire scene, and certainly what I often read right here on Sailnet. A simple scroll back at some of the comments made in this thread towards my posts show what I am talking about. It's kind of like "NO ONE puts baby in a corner!" when you dare go against sailing doctrine of any variety. Hell, you can't even mention that "marine" grey butyl is nothing but a scam and is identical to RV grey butyl without being burned at the stake around here. It's funny.
> 
> Regarding what you said, I didn't say a vessel must remain anywhere, I just mentioned that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable and homeowners who invested big money in the area might have a point about the 200' reg. It's all academic in my world, I won't be cruising anytime soon or buying FL real estate. Also regarding what you wrote, I can report I have no neighbors within three acres of me on any side. I have much more than a 200' buffer, but then again I live on a small farm in a rural area so...
> 
> I don't think I am making any more or less assumptions than many here are about the evil "rich people".
> 
> Do I have to know jackshit about anyone's personal history? We're talking about policy here, which applies across the board and doesn't take emotional stuff like this into account. I do have an idea that if said cruiser never lived in such and area but anchors there, he hasn't really "invested" in the area, he's just using it.
> 
> Also, my comment about curing cancer was based on the notion that some sailors seem to have, that being that sailing actually contributes anything to humanity, like sailing is somehow this important endeavor. It doesn't and isn't, it's just a pleasant and fun pastime (and there is nothing wrong with that fact).
> 
> Well, the same argument could be made that "Don't like anchoring restrictions? Sail somewhere there are none. It's a big ocean out there".
> 
> This is such a false argument, it assumes the world stops and freezes at where it currently sits. Times and things change, and what was once a place you could express your freedom in might not be in the future due to a myriad of factors like population growth/shift, economics etc. Life changes, what are you gonna do.


No one ever said the world stops and freezes, things change. Most things anyway. What happens below the tide mark is one of those things that currently may not be decided by the landowner, and I hope it stays that way.

I live aboard, part time, sometimes for days at a time, at anchor, sometimes on my mooring. I pay taxes in more than one municipality on the waterfront I sometimes reside in. I have a say in what goes on, as do you. Just so happens that in this particular disagreement you are wrong and I am correct


----------



## chrisncate

RobGallagher said:


> Just so happens that in this particular disagreement you are wrong and I am correct


Lol, spoken like a true Sailnetter.

Honestly I am not advocating for the evil rich people or even a setback. I just expressed that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Frankly speaking I don't actually care one way or the other, but I will enjoy watching it play out.


----------



## RobGallagher

chrisncate said:


> Lol, spoken like a true Sailnetter.
> 
> Honestly I am not advocating for the evil rich people or even a setback. I just expressed that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Frankly speaking I don't actually care one way or the other, but I will enjoy watching it play out.


It's unreasonable because they do not own it. It is public property and, lest you are unaware, most local municipalities already impose restrictions on things like:
How long one can anchor.
Enforcing mandatory registration of the vessel.
Enforcing payment of other mandatory fees and/or taxes.
Mandatory safety equipment.
The right of law enforcement to inspect at any time.
The right of law enforcement to board at any time.

I have an idea, let them try to enact legislation that says they have to maintain and pay taxes on that extra land under the water that they want to control. I maintain that the tune will change rather quickly.


----------



## chrisncate

RobGallagher said:


> It's unreasonable because they do not own it. It is public property...
> 
> ....I have an idea, let them try to enact legislation that says they have to maintain and pay taxes on that extra land under the water that they want to control. I maintain that the tune will change rather quickly.


I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.

One thing that just occurred to me regarding the right to navigation argument: Is there anything in that that states navigation includes stopping and overnighting? The word Navigation seems to imply navigating, ie; the passage of ships as defined. Just a thought.. anyone know?


----------



## RobGallagher

chrisncate said:


> I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.
> 
> One thing that just occurred to me regarding the right to navigation argument: Is there anything in that that states navigation includes stopping and overnighting? The word Navigation seems to imply navigating, ie; the passage of ships as defined. Just a thought.. anyone know?


Anchoring is generally restricted in navigable, known or marked, channels. My argument is that we are not talking about navigable channels or it would all be moot.

The general reason people anchor in these areas is that they are out of Navigable channels.

We have open oceans, navigable channels, private marinas/mooring, etc.

Then we have the places we are discussing; for recreation, anchoring, shell fishing, light fishing, small boat sailing, tubing, water skiing, general relaxation on the water etc, etc.

Once the stage is set to regulate what you want to see, then you get to move on to other things. After all, it's the landowners view and they should be able to choose what they look out at. Maybe they don't like 12 year old kids on floating by on a tube. Maybe they don't like skiffs fishing for snapper blues. Maybe they just don't like you and your long haired hippy friends drinking beer from a can and playing that rock and roll. After all, you are in their view.


----------



## TakeFive

chrisncate said:


> I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.


I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. Are you suggesting that those who pay more taxes should have privileges that others don't? Because IMO that's exactly the sort of attitude that is destroying the middle class in this country.


----------



## chrisncate

TakeFive said:


> I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. Are you suggesting that those who pay more taxes should have privileges that others don't? Because IMO that's exactly the sort of attitude that is destroying the middle class in this country.


I do think that those who live and pay taxes locally should have more of a say on local issues, yes. I don't see how that idea is destroying the middle class.


----------



## Minnewaska

The local municipality may or may not have the legal right to restrict usage of their waterfront. But, what's the argument, if this was done on a federal level? They do, in fact, own the waterfront. 

While the FL legislation may be stoked by money, I believe, most landowners would sympathize on a federal level and they greatly outnumber cruisers. Democracy sucks when you're in the minority.

The lobbying game is played by asking for more than you are willing to accept. No other way. However, I think a reasonable compromise is logical here. If not 200ft, then what? 100? 75?

Having a requirement that a boat actually be navigable in navigable waters make sense, with some grace for repair.

I also see a reasonable point to only allow a certain number of days in one location, at least in a location that is so tight that these setbacks are an issue at all. By definition, one would be blocking another user, in those spots, if you stayed perpetually.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BubbleheadMd said:


> Justice is exposing these bad laws before the courts and getting them overturned. Then, the local authorities can attempt to craft new laws that don't run afoul of our rights, and higher laws.


All true, and all expensive.



chrisncate said:


> Honestly I am not advocating for the evil rich people or even a setback. I just expressed that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Frankly speaking I don't actually care one way or the other, but I will enjoy watching it play out.


It seems from this statement and some inconsistencies in your previous posts that you are just here to stir the pot, which is unfortunate. As you say you don't care about the issue. You seem to be enjoying winding people up. That's an odd hobby.



chrisncate said:


> One thing that just occurred to me regarding the right to navigation argument: Is there anything in that that states navigation includes stopping and overnighting? The word Navigation seems to imply navigating, ie; the passage of ships as defined. Just a thought.. anyone know?


Yes. Navigation includes anchoring. My understanding is that anchoring rights within the US are protected as part of interstate commerce. This is a broader definition than the international one under UNCLOS.



Minnewaska said:


> The lobbying game is played by asking for more than you are willing to accept. No other way. However, I think a reasonable compromise is logical here. If not 200ft, then what? 100? 75?


Part of the discussion will include what upland property setbacks apply to at all. If property rights end at the high water mark (as they do in Florida, different than MHHW in many jurisdictions since there is so much non-tidal water) why should any setback apply at all? I'm all for access to private, commercial, and public docks and boat ramps at some reasonable level (which again requires judgment and negotiation).


----------



## Minnewaska

I would like a set back for anyone anchoring near my boat. 

We're talking about distances I worry people will drag into me. Being that close to shore must often be impractical, due to depth. Unless in a dredged channel. Whoever dredged it, probably feels like they should have some say over who now has access to it.


----------



## Brackish_Beard

I understand your viewpoint Chris so let me try to explain my situation so you can fully understand mine. Take into consideration how many full-time cruisers there are out there sailing from one location to the next; probably doesn't break 6 digits worldwide. With that in mind, only a couple will be in any one location at a time which means the majority of people using these anchorages are locals. Take me for example; I pay taxes in Hillsborough county, I sail in Hillsborough county. I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, heritage citizen of the USA (seeing as how I didn't colonize the continent 200+ years ago) and my money supports the ecosystem I sail in. Did taxpayer dollars build the waterways I traverse and the anchorages that shelter me? No. They existed as far back as the Eocene epoch 56 million years ago. With that said, my taxes and the other citizen's taxes equally pay for the management of our SHARED and PUBLIC resource so why am I to be treated like a second class citizen just because I don't pay property taxes on a property I don't own? It's not like property is mandatory, especially waterfront which is purely a luxury that comes at a premium price. My money supports the waterways just as much as any homeowner, besides which their property taxes end at the high tide line so what gives? It's not like I'm infringing upon their rights on the land they pay for and live on. This legislation on the other hand does so to me despite the taxes I equally pay.

I'm not being hostile towards you Chris, I understand you're not the one proposing the legislation but in lieu of the homeowners who do, we here at SN only have you to converse with on this subject. What we're talking about here is not about noise, pollution, trespassing, or any other sort of inconvenience, it's about a blanket law that punishes every boater for no apparent reason. When I asked what kind of justification you saw in the 200' proposal the only answer I got was about property taxes which I hope you view in a different light after my post here. The only other motivation I see is that waterfront properties just want an unobstructed view of the water which is hardly justified in my opinion.

These anchorages aren't free vacation spots, they're an integral part of boating life providing shelter from the weather. A house has the luxury of being in a single stable place, wind and water currents control our lives and these anchorages are the only respite we have from the elements.


----------



## JimMcGee

Chris is deliberately skirting the topic he cannot address -- specifically that waterways are considered public access and therefore cannot be restricted.

Restricting access to waterways is EXACTLY like restricting access to highways. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of public access. Of course that doesn't stop people from trying...

I'd say he's also enjoying baiting folks on this thread -- not that that would EVER happen on the Internet 

_"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." ~George Bernard Shaw_​
.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> I'd say he's also enjoying baiting folks on this thread -- not that that would EVER happen on the Internet.


In which case perhaps the best response is not to answer the troll.


----------



## JimMcGee

FYI, online petition regarding Florida's proposed anchoring restrictions:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/323/655/890/stop-floridas-attempts-to-limit-access-to-public-waterways/?cid=FB_TAF

.


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> FYI, online petition regarding Florida's proposed anchoring restrictions:
> 
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/323/6...ys/?cid=FB_TAF


Broken link for me.


----------



## JimMcGee

SVAuspicious said:


> Broken link for me.


It should work now.


----------



## DavyJ

According to the FL Senate website the bill will be on the Environmental Protection Committee agenda on Tuesday March 31st at 1:30.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548

The list of FL senators on that committee:

Charles S. Dean Sr., District 5 (R) Chairman
Wilton Simpson, District 18 (R) Vice-Chairman

Thad Altman, District 16 (R)
Greg Evers, District 2 (R)
Alan Hays, District 11 (R)
David Simmons, District 10 (R)
Christopher L. Smith, (D)
Darren Soto, District 14 (D)

Maybe send them a last-minute email voicing your opposition and tell them that you will urge your own representatives to oppose the bill if it comes out of committee.


----------



## SVAuspicious

SSCA is rounding people up for a pre-brief and to testify on Tuesday. More info to follow.


----------



## DavyJ

> SSCA is rounding people up for a pre-brief and to testify on Tuesday.


Can you tell me more about this? (Not a SSCA Member, shame on me....)

As a waterfront property owner and a multi-boat owner, I may be able to "clear my schedule" to drive to Tallahassee on Monday.


----------



## SVAuspicious

There will be more specifics The Seven Seas Cruising Association - IX - Concerned Cruisers later today. The hearing just got scheduled and we're working on the details of where to meet ahead of the committee meeting. You can also contact [email protected] . There is a lot going on so please only e-mail if you realistically expect to make Tallahassee in time for hearings Tuesday afternoon (which means pre-brief sometime in the morning).


----------



## souljour2000

Thanks Jim, et al...Seems this is gonna be a constantly re-ocurring fight...If enuff of us all do our part and kick off some emails......we "should" maybe be okay...and the whole thing gets aborted in the early stages...until the next time...


----------



## TakeFive

SVAuspicious said:


> There will be more specifics The Seven Seas Cruising Association - IX - Concerned Cruisers later today. The hearing just got scheduled and we're working on the details of where to meet ahead of the committee meeting. You can also contact [email protected] . There is a lot going on so please only e-mail if you realistically expect to make Tallahassee in time for hearings Tuesday afternoon (which means pre-brief sometime in the morning).


I heard that the bill passed the committee unanimously. What happened in the testimony?

Senate Bill 1548 (2015) - The Florida Senate


----------



## Minnewaska

I understand there are significant restrictions to the proposed setback. However, I'm in the Canaveral area right now and its gong to be hard for statewide elected reps to imagine a restriction. We all know the rivers aren't deep enough across to utilize it all, but not the land lubber from the shore. They will think, let them all come here, if they want to anchor. Educating reps is important.

However, I have to add this. I've seen two sailboats at anchor with no masts. I've seen several others that clearly look derelict. If I was a FL resident, I would want that dealt with too. I would not expect boats in bristol condition, just seaworthy.


----------



## SVAuspicious

TakeFive said:


> I heard that the bill passed the committee unanimously. What happened in the testimony?


The public hearing did not go well. Reports from SSCA volunteer lobbyists are that meetings with staff and members went much better. A statement will be posted on the SSCA website this evening and I'll get a link up here as soon as I see the statement.

The short version is that the agenda was managed to put 1548 last and there was time only for all the many people who traveled to speak to say if they supported the bill or not. *sigh*

The bill goes to other committees before it goes to the floor. SSCA continues to work against the setbacks.



Minnewaska said:


> I understand there are significant restrictions to the proposed setback.


I think the word you are looking for are exceptions. There are some but simply not adequate for most cruisers, and chip away at both freedom of navigation and the public trust doctrine.

We haven't lost yet and lots of people are still working hard to turn yesterday's setback (pun not intended) around.

Volunteers can still be put to use. If nothing else, please join SSCA and tell 'em I sent you. See Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association .


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> ...I think the word you are looking for are exceptions. .....


No, I meant restrictions, but wasn't clear. I meant to say that the proposed setbacks cause significant restrictions to anchoring. However, if the uneducated were to take a look at the ICW in many places, it would be hard to visualize a restriction. The landlubber can't tell depth and would think you had plenty of place to go, other than 200 ft in front of peoples houses. Since the vote is statewide, many may view the issue through the lens of the ICW near themselves or the many places they've seen it, which appear to have ample anchorage. Reps from Ocala aren't going to appreciate why not anchoring in one particular narrow stretch matters. Educate, educate.


----------



## SVAuspicious

See Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association for the latest information. If you care about anchoring rights in Florida or anywhere else consider joining SSCA.


----------



## smurphny

Maybe it would be a feasible project to survey and identify more anchorages. I have all the published anchorage books for along the ICW but constantly see more unidentified spots where anchoring is possible, even for my 5.5' draft. Why isn't it on the table to actually dredge some obvious anchorages? Might this not kill two birds with one stone, thinning out the compacted fleets that tend to huddle in certain popular spots and actually increasing the choices to drop the hook? I just got back from months of cruising FL and can certainly see the shoreside objections to derelict boats. They really are eyesores. Perhaps some USCG target or underwater demolition practice is in order


----------



## DavyJ

> Why isn't it on the table to actually dredge some obvious anchorages?


These attempts to restrict anchoring are not about finding solutions.

All of these attacks on boaters are the direct result of one mans money and his political connections. Fred Karlton does not want you or anyone else anchoring behind his house in Miami Beach and he is willing to spend thousands of dollars and political clout to do it.

I attended the committee hearing on SB 1548, more than 14 objections and only two or three supporters. Yet, passed committee.......

It would probably all go away if everyone promised not to anchor in Sunset Lake.......


----------



## Group9

DavyJ said:


> These attempts to restrict anchoring are not about finding solutions.
> 
> All of these attacks on boaters are the direct result of one mans money and his political connections. Fred Karlton does not want you or anyone else anchoring behind his house in Miami Beach and he is willing to spend thousands of dollars and political clout to do it.
> 
> I attended the committee hearing on SB 1548, more than 14 objections and only two or three supporters. Yet, passed committee.......
> 
> It would probably all go away if everyone promised not to anchor in Sunset Lake.......


Can you imagine what Florida is going to be like when people like Fred Karlton have run the last remaining native Floridians out of the state? It's going to be just what they want. New York and New Jersey with good weather.

Thank God hurricanes can't be bought off, or these people would be trying to take over the Bahamas next.

I'm just hoping the Cuba situation can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Florida can then go completely New Jersey.


----------



## smurphny

Group9 said:


> Can you imagine what Florida is going to be like when people like Fred Karlton have run the last remaining native Floridians out of the state? It's going to be just what they want. New York and New Jersey with good weather.
> 
> Thank God hurricanes can't be bought off, or these people would be trying to take over the Bahamas next.
> 
> I'm just hoping the Cuba situation can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Florida can then go completely New Jersey.


You mean there are native Floridians? Don't think I met one this year. I could not believe the traffic jam almost the entire length of Georgia driving back on 95 last week. Mass migration north


----------



## bvander66

Bahamas, Cuba, Central America welcome cruisers. Have friends who even gave up storing boat in Florida, some up in Ga, others in Green Turtle


----------



## Minnewaska

smurphny said:


> ......I could not believe the traffic jam almost the entire length of Georgia driving back on 95 last week. Mass migration north


Spring breakers......


----------



## JonEisberg

smurphny said:


> Maybe it would be a feasible project to survey and identify more anchorages. I have all the published anchorage books for along the ICW but constantly see more unidentified spots where anchoring is possible, even for my 5.5' draft. Why isn't it on the table to actually dredge some obvious anchorages? Might this not kill two birds with one stone, thinning out the compacted fleets that tend to huddle in certain popular spots and actually increasing the choices to drop the hook?


Hmmm, so Florida - after the inevitable commissioning of a few years of Environmental Impact Studies - should be dredging new anchorages using public funds so that large numbers of cruising sailors from out of state and Canada don't have to pay for marina slips, or mooring balls?

Yeah, I'm sure all Floridians will be fully supportive of that sort of use of their tax dollars... 

Sorry, but "dredging new anchorages" is - at least on the East coast - is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist...



smurphny said:


> I just got back from months of cruising FL and can certainly see the shoreside objections to derelict boats. They really are eyesores. Perhaps some USCG target or underwater demolition practice is in order


Here's a classic example of why the disposal of derelicts in Florida can be so problematic... This Hunter 30 still sits on the beach in front of an upscale oceanfront neighborhood in Vero Beach almost 2 months after its drunken liveaboard owner ran his 'home' up onto it, then "high-tailed it", leaving the state to deal with the mess...

Now, it sounds like it may have to sit there a while longer, until the sea turtles are finished doing their thing...



http://www.veronews.com/32963_featu...cle_eecbf6d6-d99e-11e4-9624-db28201dc72a.html


----------



## Minnewaska

The idea that you could combine anchoring restrictions in front of peoples homes (ie within 200 ft) by providing anchorages elsewhere is a good idea. But probably impractical. As Jon says, the land lubbers aren't going to rally around spending money, when they could just shoo you away. 

There are really two different strategies at play here and I'm not at all clear which one is being executed.

The first is that the State doesn't have the right to restrict the use of a Federal waterway. In that case, all our arguments over fairness, alternatives, user testimony, etc, is moot. It's a simple matter of law.

The second is a negotiation on fairness and historic anchoring rights on waterways. That's where some negotiation is warranted. While I'm sure there is a poster-child rich dude that is pressing, this is simply an issue that the majority of land owning voters will not understand. You drive over a bridge spanning the inter-coastal and it would look like there are tons of places to anchor, without being that close to a house. We know that all that water isn't necessarily deep enough and we can't anchoring with the channel. It's just not the way it looks to the average Joe. If this is the strategy, there needs to be education and compromise.


----------



## JimMcGee

Minnewaska said:


> There are really two different strategies at play here and I'm not at all clear which one is being executed.
> 
> The first is that the State doesn't have the right to restrict the use of a Federal waterway. In that case, all our arguments over fairness, alternatives, user testimony, etc, is moot. It's a simple matter of law.


Which requires a test case, that then has to wind it's way through the legal system. A process than can take several years depending on how high it's appealed.



Minnewaska said:


> The second is a negotiation on fairness and historic anchoring rights on waterways. That's where some negotiation is warranted. While I'm sure there is a poster-child rich dude that is pressing, this is simply an issue that the majority of land owning voters will not understand. You drive over a bridge spanning the inter-coastal and it would look like there are tons of places to anchor, without being that close to a house. We know that all that water isn't necessarily deep enough and we can't anchoring with the channel. It's just not the way it looks to the average Joe. If this is the strategy, there needs to be education and compromise.


Which costs money. BoatUS is the only real lobbying group for boaters. I doubt they have the funds to undertake such a campaign.

Better to try and prevent it from becoming law in the first place.


----------



## night0wl

bvander66 said:


> Bahamas, Cuba, Central America welcome cruisers. Have friends who even gave up storing boat in Florida, some up in Ga, others in Green Turtle


Bahamas is getting greedy too. No one mentions this, but they DOUBLED the entrance fee for boats between 30-35 feet. It used to be boats under 35 feet, $150, over 35 $300. Now its under 30 for $150, and anything over $300.

There is even talks about regulating/charging for anchorages everywhere on a per day basis like they do in parts of the Caribbean and Europe. Florida may be getting annoying, but nowhere near as bad as the rest of the world.

But I get the point. Supply and demand. I *HOPE* the opening of Cuba is going to smack some common sense into the Bahamians when they realize the golden goose of US boaters will now passing them by. Imagine a great trip down the keys then off to an exotic lush isle vs. the hardscrabble expensive spits of rock that the Bahamas are. No offense, but no one goes to the Bahamas for the scenery...the actions is all under water and how many pretty sand beaches can one look at for so long?


----------



## TakeFive

JimMcGee said:


> ...Better to try and prevent it from becoming law in the first place.


I agree. It is ALWAYS best to work through the political system first. Courts are a crap shoot (the only winners are the lawyers), and must be the absolute last resort.

Unfortunately, our political systems are broken and getting worse, with the increasing and unlimited infusion of corporate money to buy influence. Thanks to Citizens United, money is now considered "speech" and its influence cannot be limited. With that thinking, bribery may soon be legal.


----------



## JonEisberg

JimMcGee said:


> Which requires a test case, that then has to wind it's way through the legal system. A process than can take several years depending on how high it's appealed.


There have already been "test cases", that hasn't stopped the momentum for new legislation...



> BoatUS members prevail in Florida anchoring decision
> 
> A court decision in Collier County, Florida, that found a restrictive Marco Island recreational boat anchoring ordinance in violation of state law could help lead to a statewide solution to Florida's patchwork of local anchoring laws.
> 
> The Marco Island ordinance restricted recreational boaters to a maximum 12-hour anchoring period when located within 300 feet of a seawall, and maximum six-day anchoring period anywhere beyond that distance. Collier County Judge Rob Crown's decision on October 26, 2007, said that the Marco Island ordinance was "an unlawful regulation of publicly owned sovereign waterways in violation of Florida law."
> 
> "Across Florida other local governments have enacted similar ordinances, that unfairly give local interests control over public waterways," said Margaret Podlich, BoatU.S. vice-president of government affairs. "We hope this court decision contributes to a statewide solution that is fair to all Florida citizens."
> 
> To get the anchoring case to court, BoatU.S. member Dave Dumas, a resident of Marco Island and owner of the Krogen 42 Kinship, intentionally broke the law in January, 2007, because he and other local boaters from the Sailing Association of Marco Island thought it was overly restrictive.
> 
> Another BoatU.S. member, Donald Day, of the Naples, Florida, law firm Barry, Day, McFee & Martin, handled the case pro bono.
> 
> Said Day, "As a result of Judge Crown's decision and current state statutes, many local governments around the state have advised me that they will not be enforcing their anchoring ordinances and will look to the state for guidance in the form of a uniform anchoring regulation. A lot of credit goes to BoatU.S. members who contacted their local governments to voice their displeasure with these inconsistent, arbitrary and restrictive ordinances."
> 
> Said Dumas, "The City Council thought they could do whatever they wanted and chose to take the position of a select few in this community. But they should have maintained a neutral position and arbitrated a solution that benefited all citizens."
> 
> Earlier in 2007, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission held a series of six stakeholder meetings around the state to hear concerns about anchoring issues.
> 
> BoatU.S. - Boat Owners Association of The United States - is the nation's leading advocate for recreational boaters with more than 650,000 members.
> 
> Anchoring in Florida - Trawlers & Trawlering


And, as to the notion of dredging new anchorages, a couple of years ago there was actually an application filed with the Corps of Engineers to do quite the opposite... Namely, to partially _FILL IN_ much of the North Lake Worth anchorage, and plant sea grass to restrict the size of the popular anchorage there...

Full Text of Public Notice to Fill and Plant Sea Grass in Northern Lake Worth | Cruisers' Net

Good overview/history of the ongoing battle over anchoring rights in the archives of the Southeast Cruiser's Net:

Anchoring Rights | Cruisers' Net


----------



## travlin-easy

JonEisberg said:


> And, as to the notion of dredging new anchorages, a couple of years ago there was actually an application filed with the Corps of Engineers to do quite the opposite... Namely, to partially _FILL IN_ much of the North Lake Worth anchorage, and plant sea grass to restrict the size of the popular anchorage there...
> 
> Full Text of Public Notice to Fill and Plant Sea Grass in Northern Lake Worth | Cruisers' Net
> 
> Good overview/history of the ongoing battle over anchoring rights in the archives of the Southeast Cruiser's Net:
> 
> Anchoring Rights | Cruisers' Net


This was done in Boot Key Harbor many years ago when a group planted sea grasses in an anchorage area just west of the City Marina. Knocked out about 100 anchoring boats.

Gary


----------



## SVAuspicious

JimMcGee said:


> Which costs money. BoatUS is the only real lobbying group for boaters. I doubt they have the funds to undertake such a campaign.


Actually not the case. The Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA) is leading the charge with support from BoatUS, AGLCA, and some from NMMA. BoatUS has been a lot quieter this year than in years past. NMMA has been a grudging participant. AGLCA has been late to the show but jumped in with both feet and has been a real help.

At last count SSCA has seven volunteer, registered lobbyists working this issue. No one else has anything like that degree of energy going into support for boaters rights in Florida or anywhere else.

We are reimbursing expenses (gas, lodging, etc) for our core team. If you want to help join SSCA ($55/year - tell them Auspicious sent you). If you want to help follow the updates at Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association and on the SSCA Facebook page and respond to calls for e-mail, letters, and phone calls. If you really want to help, head to Tallahassee to testify before the string of committees that are holding hearings on this issue.


----------



## JimMcGee

TakeFive said:


> Unfortunately, our political systems are broken and getting worse, with the increasing and unlimited infusion of corporate money to buy influence. Thanks to Citizens United, money is now considered "speech" and its influence cannot be limited. With that thinking, bribery may soon be legal.


I don't want to take this thread down an off topic road, but citizens united (talk about a misnomer) basically did legalize bribery.

What else would you call it when the political system is basically for sale to the highest bidder?


----------



## JimMcGee

SVAuspicious said:


> At last count SSCA has seven volunteer, registered lobbyists working this issue. No one else has anything like that degree of energy going into support for boaters rights in Florida or anywhere else.


Dave,
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know the SSCA was that active in lobbying.

Jim


----------



## DavyJ

> NMMA has been a grudging participant.


It seemed worse than that to me. The NMMA representative waived in support of the bill without any objections......

Other than reps from BoatUS, SCCA, there were only a handful of other people there to object to the bill. Of course Fred Karlton was there and was in support of it.

I know it's a PIA to attend, but we are going to need more resistance when this thing comes up again. Even then, I'm not sure it will make a difference. About 80% of the speakers were against the fracking bill and they passed it anyway.


----------



## JimMcGee

Florida spends BIG dollars on promoting tourism (Visit Florida). I think the effort is run out of the governors office. 

Has anyone tried contacting the tourism board and showing them what a huge black eye this is for Florida tourism? There's been a ton of bad press on this. 

It might also make a good story on for one of the networks...


----------



## smurphny

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, so Florida - after the inevitable commissioning of a few years of Environmental Impact Studies - should be dredging new anchorages using public funds so that large numbers of cruising sailors from out of state and Canada don't have to pay for marina slips, or mooring balls?
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure all Floridians will be fully supportive of that sort of use of their tax dollars...
> 
> Sorry, but "dredging new anchorages" is - at least on the East coast - is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist...


It seems to me that cruisers, both power and sail, spend a lot of money in Florida over the course of the winter. Restaurants, groceries, shops, marinas, etc. all benefit. Boaters may not pay real estate taxes but the marinas sure do and sales taxes paid by boaters for dockage, storage, and boat parts must be significant. I've been down there in the summer a few times and the activity of the economy is considerably different. It's too darned hot be outside. Like any seasonal economy, time to make the bucks is limited. Sure, there are the derelicts but they are a very, very small but obvious minority. To discourage winter boater dollars seems like a mistake on their part, instigated and pushed by a vocal, self-interested, monied few.


----------



## smurphny

bvander66 said:


> Bahamas, Cuba, Central America welcome cruisers. Have friends who even gave up storing boat in Florida, some up in Ga, others in Green Turtle


Aren't there prohibitive restrictions on leaving a boat at Green Turtle or anywhere in the Bahamas? Think I checked a few years ago and they hit you with a hefty duty if there for more than a limited time. I'm in Green Cove Springs which is a great spot to store and work on the boat.


----------



## Don L

smurphny said:


> It seems to me that cruisers, both power and sail, spend a lot of money in Florida over the course of the winter. .............. discourage winter boater dollars seems like a mistake on their part, instigated and pushed by a vocal, self-interested, monied few.


I just think people are over estimating transient/winter boaters importance to the State. If there was enough money at risk from this the only people that would really have a voice would be the businesses that would be impacted.

The State of Florida is responsible to the wishes of the its' voters. Not a bunch of out state boaters, SSCA, or Boat US. You may not like it, but that's the correct way of things. I'm sure people would get upset if out of staters started showing up in their State wanting laws passed in their favor.


----------



## bvander66

Don0190 said:


> I just think people are over estimating transient/winter boaters importance to the State. If there was enough money at risk from this the only people that would really have a voice would be the businesses that would be impacted.
> 
> The State of Florida is responsible to the wishes of the its' voters. Not a bunch of out state boaters, SSCA, or Boat US. You may not like it, but that's the correct way of things. I'm sure people would get upset if out of staters started showing up in their State wanting laws passed in their favor.


"You dont know what you have lost till its gone"
We have spent a lot of time over past 6 years in Dinner Key. During winter months there are conservatively over 250 visiting boats, many doing provisioning. Low ball estimate they spend about $1k/month in supplies and entertainment alone, this brings in +$1/4 M a month to Coconut Grove business. Similar stats can be derived for St Augustine, Stewart, Marathon, Vero Beach.....


----------



## bvander66

smurphny said:


> Aren't there prohibitive restrictions on leaving a boat at Green Turtle or anywhere in the Bahamas? Think I checked a few years ago and they hit you with a hefty duty if there for more than a limited time. I'm in Green Cove Springs which is a great spot to store and work on the boat.


We talked to the marina and some folks register the boat in the Bahamas, others renew cruising permit, both seemed cost effective. Our boat wont fit there, as well waiting list is long.
we also like GCS, summer stored there twice, probably again this year. Getting worried though, perpetual broken bridges in Jacksonville have screwed many a cruisers' schedule past two years.


----------



## smurphny

Don0190 said:


> I just think people are over estimating transient/winter boaters importance to the State. If there was enough money at risk from this the only people that would really have a voice would be the businesses that would be impacted.
> 
> The State of Florida is responsible to the wishes of the its' voters. Not a bunch of out state boaters, SSCA, or Boat US. You may not like it, but that's the correct way of things. I'm sure people would get upset if out of staters started showing up in their State wanting laws passed in their favor.


When I go into a restaurant around marinas, sometimes almost the entire crowd are transient boaters. There are other examples of economies that are dependent upon "outsiders." The ski industry is one. If not for "outsiders," many rural areas around ski resorts would literally go away. I would not minimize the impact of losing the dollars of out of state/country boat traffic. The "correct way of things" does not exclude folks who some deem to be "the other." That's a predictable, sociologically narrow perspective. We are all Americans and I include our Canadian friends in that description. The same kind of narrow-mindedness occurs here in ski country.


----------



## Don L

You guys are preaching to the choir if you believe you need to convince me. If you are right and this new anchoring thing is going to affect the bottom line of the resturants etc. why aren't they making their voices known? Those people have a voice, but out of state boaters don't and that is just the way it is. Don't go off track, it is as simple as that.


----------



## smurphny

bvander66 said:


> We talked to the marina and some folks register the boat in the Bahamas, others renew cruising permit, both seemed cost effective. Our boat wont fit there, as well waiting list is long.
> we also like GCS, summer stored there twice, probably again this year. Getting worried though, perpetual broken bridges in Jacksonville have screwed many a cruisers' schedule past two years.


I just passed through Jax on the way to GCS. The FEC RR bridge has been repaired and is no longer a problem. The Main St. lift bridge let me through on a Sunday on demand, without pre-notice. Other times it's still a 2 hour notice so they can get workers off the bridge. Timing is a little difficult to predict exactly if the current is changing but doable. I have a gps route from the ICW intersection to the bridge and just call when the plotter says I'm 2 hrs. out. A phone call lets them know. Not a problem.


----------



## travlin-easy

Boot Key Harbor's Mooring Field and the City Marina is a success story when it comes to this kind of operation. And, yes, those cruisers spend lots of money. Of course, the reason they spend lots of money is most things are pretty expensive in the keys. If you wish to enjoy those swaying palm trees, warm weather, incredible sunsets, turquoise colored waters, great fishing, snorkeling, diving, and excellent day sailing, then you know right up front that it's gonna cost some big bucks. Of course, this is the case in ANY resort areas of the US. The cost of renting a home in Marathon is very expensive, but it's about the same price in Ocean City, MD, anyplace along the Jersey Shore, Mystic Harbor, most of southern CA, etc...

Unfortunately, south Florida's tourist season is very short, especially in the keys. The tourista/cruisers are only there from about November 1st till the end of April. On May 1st, there's a mass exodus, only a handful of boats in Boot Key Harbor, mainly at the marina, and you could shoot a cannon ball down US Route 1 and likely not hit anything other than one of the bridges. 

Ironically, the fear of hurricanes, which are pretty rare in the lower keys, and the dreaded rainy season seems to make folks scurry north. In reality, I've been to the keys in mid June, the weather was nowhere near as hot as it was in Baltimore and the humidity was half what Baltimore experienced during the same time. 

I suspect that in the not too distant future, south Florida and the keys will becomes a year-round vacation destination area - not just a place for the snow birds. More and more folks seem to be traveling to Mexico during the summer months as well. And, I also suspect that Florida's legislators will do something to make traveling to those areas by boat more inviting. I was amazed at how many small businesses close up during the summer months in the keys. Believe me, they would rather remain open and packed with tourista/cruisers laying down their hard earned dollars.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## svjobeth

travlineasy said:


> I suspect that in the not too distant future, south Florida and the keys will becomes a year-round vacation destination area - not just a place for the snow birds.


I moved away from the Keys/S. Florida in '98 as it was my impression this had already happened...but not because of it...there were better economic opportunities north and away from FL. That said, I recall the other locals grumbling in '90 that 'there wasn't any 'season' anymore.


----------



## SimonV

I have been looking at the charts for Florida, that's a lot of skinny water and now they want to make anchoring difficult. Do they want visitor to their State.


----------



## Minnewaska

SimonV said:


> I have been looking at the charts for Florida, that's a lot of skinny water and now they want to make anchoring difficult. Do they want visitor to their State.


The issue is that more people go through the gate at Disney properties in one day (100k+) than anchor in FL all year. Add to that the multiples of tourists that go to FL and not the parks. Cruisers don't figure in the rounding of tourist dollars in FL.


----------



## bvander66

smurphny said:


> I just passed through Jax on the way to GCS. The FEC RR bridge has been repaired and is no longer a problem. The Main St. lift bridge let me through on a Sunday on demand, without pre-notice. Other times it's still a 2 hour notice so they can get workers off the bridge. Timing is a little difficult to predict exactly if the current is changing but doable. I have a gps route from the ICW intersection to the bridge and just call when the plotter says I'm 2 hrs. out. A phone call lets them know. Not a problem.


Sometimes works great, Dec two years ago was closed for three weeks, many boats stuck on wrong side.
Jan this year we were stuck for 5 hours because rr bridge broken, two weeks later 15 cruisers and a tug were held up for three days because main st bridge broke. These two bridges are not dependable.


----------



## JonEisberg

Minnewaska said:


> The issue is that more people go through the gate at Disney properties in one day (100k+) than anchor in FL all year. Add to that the multiples of tourists that go to FL and not the parks. Cruisers don't figure in the rounding of tourist dollars in FL.


Seems to me that the economic impact of cruisers who habitually anchor throughout FL is hugely overestimated, probably more akin than a single molecule in the bucket, as opposed to even a full drop... 

I'd bet Steven Spielberg spends more on dockage & electric alone for his 268-footer at Pier 66 over the course of a winter, than what all the snowbirds anchored in Lake Sylvia and Middle River contribute to the local economy, combined...


----------



## smurphny

bvander66 said:


> Sometimes works great, Dec two years ago was closed for three weeks, many boats stuck on wrong side.
> Jan this year we were stuck for 5 hours because rr bridge broken, two weeks later 15 cruisers and a tug were held up for three days because main st bridge broke. These two bridges are not dependable.


I've been held up as well by the FEC RR Bridge when it was broken. Both bridges are ancient. They also do not communicate with each other to make an attempt at any kind of coordination. At present they are both working but that is like saying a 1960 Dodge is working The free dock at Jax is convenient but noisy as the dickens.


----------



## travlin-easy

Jon, that's probably true. But, regardless of the percentage to the economy, be it relatively small, why throw it away. As a small business owner, I try to please ALL my customers - not just the rich ones.

Gary


----------



## DavyJ

Looks like it is on the Appropriations Subcommittee On General Government agenda for today 4/14/15.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/AGG/ExpandedAgenda/3055

Two amendments have been added:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/Amendment/964588/PDF

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/Amendment/554434/PDF

Still no amendment to the set-back.......


----------



## JimMcGee

This whole things sounds a bit like a Dave Barry column. 

Are there any news outlets that might do a story on how one puffed up rich guy has the legislature screwing with Florida tourism just to please him?

I wonder if some bad publicity might make it go away?


----------



## DavyJ

> Are there any news outlets that might do a story on how one puffed up rich guy has the legislature screwing with Florida tourism just to please him?


This article is a few years old, didn't seem to make much of a difference. Most land folk do not care one way or the other, so one guy with a pile a of cash can buy any legislation he wants. TBO.com article:

TBO.com: Tampa Bay Online, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times - breaking news and weather. | Print


----------



## DavyJ

Watching this bill pass through committees makes me sick to my stomach...uke

In both instances the bill has been brought up at the end of the meeting. In todays case they actually brought it up, with about a half hour left, then postponed it, until you guessed it, four minutes left.

Only let two people speak, both were against. Then instead of letting the others comment, read the names of the people opposed and the people for.

More than 12 in opposition, only 4 in favor.... Passed committee.

You can watch video of the BS here, skip to about the last half hour:
https://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2015041158

Thank you Tampa Sailing Squadron for showing up and bringing out some troops. Sorry the SOB's didn't let all of you speak.


----------



## RTB

DavyJ said:


> Watching this bill pass through committees makes me sick to my stomach...uke
> 
> In both instances the bill has been brought up at the end of the meeting. In todays case they actually brought it up, with about a half hour left, then postponed it, until you guessed it, four minutes left.
> 
> Only let two people speak, both were against. Then instead of letting the others comment, read the names of the people opposed and the people for.
> 
> More than 12 in opposition, only 4 in favor.... Passed committee.
> 
> You can watch video of the BS here, skip to about the last half hour:
> https://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2015041158
> 
> Thank you Tampa Sailing Squadron for showing up and bringing out some troops. Sorry the SOB's didn't let all of you speak.


That's pretty disgusting. Thank you (everyone) to those that show up and try to fight this. I applaud you from the Lone Star State.

Ralph


----------



## travlin-easy

Unfortunately, I've been to too many similar hearings in Maryland and the outcome is always the same. Just follow the money, which is largely contributed to the politicians just prior to every election. Amazing how all this works, isn't it!

Gary


----------



## Minnewaska

Money does influence politics. Both parties. I'm sure it plays a big role in this issue.

However, the balance of people that appear at hearings is never going to decide a committee's direction. Everyone knows that the public is not proportionately represented at these hearings.

In this case, I have no doubt that landlubbers (who outnumber boats by hundreds of multiples) either don't think the proposed restrictions are all that onerous or sympathize with owners of expensive water front real estate, as most wish they lived there. 

It's not just money. It's being in the minority in a democracy. That's why the strategy to defeat this is complex. Education and compromise or the wee little minority interest in this democracy will be rolled over like a can on a highway.


----------



## Group9

DavyJ said:


> so one guy with a pile a of cash can buy any legislation he wants.


Most citizens go through life kind of suspecting that this is the way things work, but hoping they are wrong. It's only when they get interested in one particular piece of legislation, that they find out that their original suspicions were correct and things are much worse than they ever dreamed.

I worked on a pubic corruption squad for three years, with over fifty per cent of our time investigating state legislative officials for bribery. The stuff I saw and heard during that three years pretty much made me into a unrepairable cynic when it comes to how laws get passed, and why.

The most disturbing thing was the undercover operations, and watching people take our bribe money so casually that you knew there was no way this was their first rodeo. The other thing that was surprising, was fining out just how little money it took to bribe most of them (about the same amount as it takes to have someone killed coincidentally). On TV it's always tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In real life, a few thousand will usually suffice for either one.

But, I think we all knew how this one was going to come out in the end. Boaters have to win every single time. Wealthy landowners and real estate brokers, only have to win once and can reset the fight over and over until they get that one win.

Thank God for the Bahamas and hurricanes!


----------



## DavyJ

And it gets worse...........

House bill HB 7123 that originally only targeted derelict vessels now has an amendment that would prohibit anchoring within 200' of residential property.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=095501.docx&DocumentType=Amendments&BillNumber=7123&Session=2015


----------



## DavyJ

Ok, so after having a chance to watch the video of the House committee meeting on HB 7123, the amendment to add the 200' set-back to the bill was withdrawn. It was also mentioned a few times that the reps don't think this thing will be done during this session.

You can watch video of the meeting here, some very good points were made by several cruisers:

House Video Player: State Affairs Committee

You will need to skip to about the 45 minute mark.

Again thank you Tampa Sailing Squadron for showing up in opposition.


----------



## archimedes

DavyJ said:


> You can watch video of the meeting here, some very good points were made by several cruisers:
> 
> House Video Player: State Affairs Committee
> 
> You will need to skip to about the 45 minute mark.
> 
> Again thank you Tampa Sailing Squadron for showing up in opposition.


Wow, the guy with the beard really hit it out of the park. I'd vote for him.


----------



## nolesailor

I thought I'd join the conversation...SB 1548 is now in the Fiscal Policy committee and I noticed that there is committee substitute bill from Fiscal Policy...there doesn't seem to be much change, aside from this...

(1) The anchoring or mooring of a vessel *other than live-aboard vessels *on the waters of this state may be regulated only as provided in this chapter and chapter 403.

This is the first time I recall seeing the phrase live-aboard vessels in this legislation...although it may have been added before. Does FL Statute define live-aboard vessel anywhere? How do you prove live-aboard status vs. out for a weekend (or longer). Could the focus of this bill be aimed at abandoned/derelict vessels vs. all anchoring? It also seems that the definition of recreational fishing has been expanded considerably...maybe just a hang a line out?


----------



## travlin-easy

Yes, it does, but for the life of me I cannot recall the chapter and verse where it is defined. And, there are marinas and mooring fields that are designated as live aboard only, locations where your boat cannot be unattended for more than 7 days.

Gary


----------



## H2O-Dave

Hello to all. First comment but have been reading here for months, and have found the group freer of TROLLS than others. Just another guy here that believes the new law is simply another result of easily purchased lawmakers in Florida. Daytona Beach has been going through a similar fiasco. The beach was always open to the public, and free when I first started going many years ago. Now a big time developer wants to build a high dollar condo, but insists he will only build if he owns the beach rights also. At first, he was turned down flat, but it is looking more and more like he will get his way. Where will that lead? In ten years there may be little if any beach left to the citizens of this state. The waterway issue is the same. I understand having limits on time anchored at the same spot, but denying a boat the right to anchor for the night, even if they are quiet, is one more case of us having our rights taken away by the wealthy that are buying public officials for pocket change. There is rarely a week that local channel 9 out of Orlando, doesn't run a story of another elected official caught taking bribes. A great example of how bad it is, the news agency inquired about what was done by the company given $40,000 to promote tourism in Seminole county. After stalling for weeks by the council, they directed them to a single aluminum framed cardboard sign placed on the baggage claim at a local airport. Years ago, I read a book on the history of law enforcement. It showed in many example, that they exist primarily to protect the rich from the poor. This, I believe is nothing more than that. Those that are wealthy can afford to spend every night at a marina, for those that can't, too bad. I'll write in, but doubt thousands of letters will deter the passing of this new infringement on our rights.


----------



## RTB

I just saw this on Facebook - 

Update on SB 1548 
After speaking with a Florida Senate intern, I want to encourage everyone to call Senator Flores' office this week @ 305-270-6550. The intern told me that online petitions and emails are ignored, but tie up their office resources and the Senator will do something to make the pain stop! So take a few minutes out of your busy Monday and call the Senator!


----------



## archimedes

Didn't they already vote down the 200 ft setback amendment?


----------



## H2O-Dave

Latest I could find indicates many complaints have slowed but not stopped bill. 

Still in senate-Last Action: 4/16/2015 Senate - Now in Fiscal Policy
votes so far, 6 yeas, 0 nays

Date Reported: Mar 4, 2015
Reported By: Mike Ahart, News Editor
Source: WG, Florida State Senate

Florida.jpgA bill restricting legal anchoring has been introduced in the Florida Senate (a House bill is likely forthcoming). SB 1548: Vessel Safety specifies how vessels may be anchored or moored on the state's waterways, and would change current navigation laws as early as July 1, 2015. (Current "Vessel Safety" statutes can be found here: Florida Statutes Chap. 327)


----------



## TakeFive

I watched the Senate and House committee videos several days ago. I'm not going to go back and re-watch them, but here's my recollection and speculation:

IIRC the House bill originally did not have the 200 ft setback requirement. A House member proposed an amendment adding in the setback language that was in the Senate bill. During the hearing there were numerous well-stated objections to the amendment raised by cruisers, and late in the testimony one of the anti-anchoring advocates (apparently a hired gun representing the wealthy landowners) tried to sugar-coat the bill saying something to the effect of, "we're not trying to stop overnight anchoring. It's the long-term and derelict boats that we're trying to reduce." (paraphrasing)

My immediate thought was, "That's silly. So why are you pushing a bill to ban overnight anchoring?" I think that she committed a severe gaffe, because her statement was 100% in conflict with the amendment. My speculation: I have a funny feeling there were similar discussions in the back of the room, because a few minutes later the sponsor of the setback amendment appeared back at the podium and withdrew the amendment.

So the path that things appear to be headed is conflicting bills from the House and Senate. IIRC, the House committee chair did make a statement that it's unlikely these differences will be resolved before the legislative session is over.

If all is as it seems in public, it sounds like the system is working. People are voicing their objections, putting the anti-anchoring people on the defensive, and forcing them to commit gaffes to sugar-coat their damaging legislation.

Does anyone have any hard facts that the House amendment will get rammed through anyway even after their failed hearing?

Also, it will be interesting to see if the sugar-coating hired gun loses her job for committing that gaffe. I do think that her comments basically blew the anti-anchoring case.


----------



## RTB

nolesailor said:


> This is the first time I recall seeing the phrase live-aboard vessels in this legislation...although it may have been added before. Does FL Statute define live-aboard vessel anywhere? How do you prove live-aboard status vs. out for a weekend (or longer).


Maybe this helps?

*Full time, active cruisers who sleep on their boats with no permanent residence on land are no longer considered
live-aboards under this law. As a result, their anchoring cannot be regulated by local governments. It is no longer
relevant that the vessel is a boater's "legal residence," that term has been removed from the statute.*

*(from Chapter 2009-86, section 6)
327.02 Defi nitions of terms used in this chapter and in chapter 328.- As used in this chapter and
in chapter 328, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning, the term: (17)
"Live-aboard vessel" means: a) Any vessel used solely as a residence and not for navigation;
b) Any vessel represented as a place of business, or a professional or other commercial enterprise;
or c) Any vessel for which a declaration of domicile has been fi led pursuant to s. 222.17.*

http://www.boatus.com/Assets/www.boatus.com/gov/pdf/2013 BoatU.S. Florida Anchoring Information.pdf


----------



## H2O-Dave

"So the path that things appear to be headed is conflicting bills from the House and Senate. IIRC, the House committee chair did make a statement that it's unlikely these differences will be resolved before the legislative session is over."

That is the impression I got as well. Boat US, and other groups are doing there best to stop it from passing. All I know, is if it does pass, there will be no Keys trip for me. Planning on going North in a few weeks. Plans? uh..hopes might be more accurate.


----------



## archimedes

DavyJ said:


> Ok, so after having a chance to watch the video of the House committee meeting on HB 7123, the amendment to add the 200' set-back to the bill was withdrawn. It was also mentioned a few times that the reps don't think this thing will be done during this session.
> 
> You can watch video of the meeting here, some very good points were made by several cruisers:
> 
> House Video Player: State Affairs Committee
> 
> You will need to skip to about the 45 minute mark.
> 
> Again thank you Tampa Sailing Squadron for showing up in opposition.


The 200 ft setback amendment was withdrawn.


----------



## RTB

H2O-Dave said:


> All I know, is if it does pass, there will be no Keys trip for me. Planning on going North in a few weeks. Plans? uh..hopes might be more accurate.


Well, if they would just dig a nice 6' deep canal from Pensacola to Jacksonville, we could just skip visiting most of Florida's waters. No way to get from Texas to the Chesapeake without dealing with whatever Florida comes up with in this bill. (I think the amendment is the only problem)

Maybe Florida doesn't realize that the waterways are like a highway. Even if Florida isn't the destination, some of us must pass through their waters to get where we are going.

Ralph


----------



## RTB

archimedes said:


> The 200 ft setback amendment was withdrawn.


Was that in the video? I must have missed it....

Ralph


----------



## archimedes

RTB said:


> Was that in the video? I must have missed it....
> 
> Ralph


It happens at about the 1 hour 20 minute mark of the video.


----------



## RTB

Thanks. After reviewing the tape again, you are right. 

Ralph


----------



## TakeFive

1:11:25: Hired gun Kelly Mallette: "I represent City of FtL and Concerned Waterfront Homeowners Assn." "Not someone who is staying for a few days...but there for an entire season....not just safety concerns, but privacy concerns."

It's interesting that they say they would rather have waterskiiers than anchored boats. (So they pass a law to get the anchored boats out at night?) Let's bring in the waverunners and really give them some "peace and quiet."


----------



## SVAuspicious

The Florida state Senate bill continues through a string of committees unchanged - it continues to include the 200' setback.

The effort to amend the Florida state House bill to include the 200' setback failed.

While we may break through on the Senate floor it is more likely that both the Senate bill and the House bill will pass as they are today.

At that point either the conference committees will take up the two bills together or--conceivably--as separate initiatives. The latter would be very bad for cruisers. Regardless, events will begin moving very quickly on 1 May (as if they aren't already).

For the latest information your best sources are the SSCA website and the Waterway Guide Weekly Cruisers News.

At the risk of repeating myself, the Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA) is leading the charge to protect anchoring rights in Florida with able support from Waterway Guide and AGLCA. BoatUS supports our efforts but has not been nearly as active as they were last year. NMMA has displayed staggering indifference.

We all own a debt of gratitude to the many cruisers who have put their personal plans aside and made the trek to Tallahassee, usually on short notice, to provide a show of force against restrictions on anchoring rights.

If you want to help join SSCA, contribute to the GoFundMe account dedicated to this effort, and/or join us in Tallahassee. See Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association .


----------



## DavyJ

In an attempt to determine when the Fiscal Policy Committee might meet again to bring up the senate bill, I came across this calendar;

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Calendar/2015/Session_Dates_2015-02-12_121616.PDF

It seems to indicate that today, 4/21/2015, is the last day for regularly scheduled committee meetings. Does anyone know if the Fiscal Policy Committee will meet again?


----------



## KiteRider

TakeFive said:


> 1:11:25: Hired gun Kelly Mallette: "I represent City of FtL and Concerned Waterfront Homeowners Assn." "Not someone who is staying for a few days...but *there for an entire season*....not just safety concerns, but privacy concerns."
> 
> It's interesting that they say they would rather have waterskiiers than anchored boats. (So they pass a law to get the anchored boats out at night?) Let's bring in the waverunners and really give them some "peace and quiet."


As a Floridian, I don't consider those people residents and their opinion really shouldn't count.


----------



## H2O-Dave

RTB said:


> Well, if they would just dig a nice 6' deep canal from Pensacola to Jacksonville, we could just skip visiting most of Florida's waters.
> 
> Ralph


KEMAH, TX... Yep, If it were so, I'd move back to Texas fast. Just checked marina boat slip fees and found one in Corpus Christi for $100 a month, and found several great deals a couple of years ago. To keep a boat in the water in Florida is insanely expensive, as is a night on the ICW. I moved back here because 40 years ago the fishing in the ICW was fantastic, plenty of shrimp, a wonderland. Went to all my old spots when I came back, nada, no bait=no fish. AND, back then I rented a house on the ocean, $250 a month. Oldest house in the area, built by the founder of the Mellon Bank. It was heaven.


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> Well, if they would just dig a nice 6' deep canal from Pensacola to Jacksonville, we could just skip visiting most of Florida's waters. No way to get from Texas to the Chesapeake without dealing with whatever Florida comes up with in this bill. (I think the amendment is the only problem)
> 
> Maybe Florida doesn't realize that the waterways are like a highway. Even if Florida isn't the destination, *some of us must pass through their waters to get where we are going. *
> 
> Ralph


Actually, you don't ... If stopping in Florida has become so onerous to some, no reason you just can't sail right on by... Heading N to the Chesapeake, hitching a ride on the Stream sounds like a hell of a lot more fun than motoring up the Ditch, anyway... 

Understand, I don't like any of these moves towards restricting anchoring in FL, or elsewhere, any more than the next guy... And, if people choose to boycott the state as a form of protest or personal preference, I completely get that... But even if this legislation goes thru in its present form, it's really not gonna make all _THAT_ much immediate or widespread difference in a transient sailor's ability - especially with a bit of planning - to get from Point A to Point B along Florida's East coast, without too much drama, or expense...

The anchorage south of Venetian Causeway behind Miami Beach, for example, is one of my favorites, anywhere...










Awesome setting, highly entertaining people and girl watching, amazing convenience to provisioning and the shoreside attractions of Miami Beach, free city wifi, and the relative security afforded by the proximity of a Marine Patrol substation... Pull in there, hang out for as long as you like, and when a good weather window presents itself, head on out of Government Cut... You'll be in the Stream in 30 minutes, and with any luck, off the Georgia coast in 36 hours or less...





H2O-Dave said:


> To keep a boat in the water in Florida is insanely expensive,* as is a night on the ICW.*


Uhhh, you do realize you're not actually _REQUIRED_ to stop in marinas along the ICW, right?

Take a trip up north, spend a summer cruising New England, that'll cure you of whining about transient dockage rates pretty quickly...


----------



## Minnewaska

KiteRider said:


> As a Floridian, I don't consider those people residents and their opinion really shouldn't count.


Who is that you object to begin considered a FL resident? A full time liveaboard?


----------



## H2O-Dave

"Uhhh, you do realize you're not actually REQUIRED to stop in marinas along the ICW, right?"

UHHH...You do realize that this thread is about keeping some FREE ANCHORAGES, right?

I lived in San Francisco, San Diego, Philadelphia, and don't need you wise cracks about where prices are high.


----------



## JonEisberg

H2O-Dave said:


> "Uhhh, you do realize you're not actually REQUIRED to stop in marinas along the ICW, right?"
> 
> UHHH...You do realize that this thread is about keeping some FREE ANCHORAGES, right?


My mistake, I thought your mention of the "insanely expensive" cost of spending a night on the ICW referred to paying transient rates at marinas, as I'm not aware of any places along the ICW in Florida where one must currently pay for the privilege of anchoring...


----------



## H2O-Dave

JonEisberg said:


> My mistake, I thought your mention of the "insanely expensive" cost of spending a night on the ICW referred to paying transient rates at marinas, as I'm not aware of any places along the ICW in Florida where one must currently pay for the privilege of anchoring...


JE, I am referring to marina costs as one goes down South to the Keys. This Bill, if passed, would drive the costs of a night at a marina even higher, and free anchorages far fewer. Contrast..I'm planning to go up near Philly by way of the Delaware river. I have two marinas lined up there that will charge me $21. per night for a week, so my family can visit. Find THAT in Miami or the Keys. From the picture of your boat, it's a beauty, I have to assume you have $$$. Many members don't, I was injured badly in an auto wreck 8 years ago and have been living on disability,1K a month. It's a risk going alone, friends say I'm crazy, one slip up and I'll be incapacitated, frozen in pain. Sailing, I wish, but will likely put-put along on the motor, no mast or sails. And if I can't find free anchorage often, I can't go. Please sir, remember that many who love the water, are not as fortunate as you. and what is insanely expensive to me, is probably nothing to you. It takes all kinds of people to make up this big, big world. And each of us must push ourselves to attain our goals, whatever they may be, if we are to have a reason to stay above ground.

My best to you,
Dave


----------



## travlin-easy

Dave, the cost of staying in most of the ICW marinas varies from $1.50 to $2.50 per foot per night, which is a fraction of the cost of staying in the Holiday Inn Express in the same vicinity. I should know, I just did that a few months ago. And, when you get to the keys, hotels and motels are insanely high. So my wife and rented a home, 1,600 square feet on a canal at Key Colony Beach. How about $3,000 a month, and that was the least expensive place we could find. Most went from $4,500 and up per month, or about $1,500 a week. 

On contrast, a mooring ball at Marathon's City Marina was $300 a month, while dockage in the canal was $750 a month for my 33 footer. There were a couple nice marinas on the gulf side of Marathon that were significantly less expensive. 

I found lots of sheltered, relatively deep anchorages in Florida along the ICW that would not have impinged on that 200 feet regulation, especially in the keys. The only reason I stayed at the Marathon City Marina was the convenience of being able to easily load and unload my music equipment while berthed in the canal. It was a straight shot from the gunwale of the boat to the concrete bulkhead and I could position the boat as close as 8 inches from the walkway. Sure made life a lot easier. Plus, I had water and electricity, which was included in the price, right next to the boat.

With the exception of Georgia, I made the trip down the ICW single handed on my Morgan 33 Out Island. Much of the trip, obviously, was motored, but I tried to keep the jib out most of the trip to cut fuel expenses. I sailed around Georgia with a fellow sailnetter, who graciously offered to assist me on that leg of the trip. At my age, I'm not sure I can still stay awake for 24 hours straight, which is what it took to get around Georgia.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## H2O-Dave

Gary,

Thanks for the valuable first hand info. I talked with the state park in Largo, not bad if I get desperate, it's just the unknown of getting down there that scares me. I was living in a new house on a golf course in Casa Grande AZ when I was injured. Now I live in a 40 year old trailer (small but decent recording studio as well, Yamaha DX 7, latest Sonar on the dedicated computer, etc) in a trailer park four miles from Monroe Lake. I started selling computers and software in L.A. in 1984, installed and configured the most powerful computers in the world for Lockheed Martin. Then the accident left me unfit for steady employment of any kind. A simple one second twist of fate.

But to more happy things, "unloading musical equipment" you are a musician then? So am I. I started with classical piano in 63, but switched to guitar in 65...maybe you remember those days, I'm just now 65. Music was to be my life until a few years around the serious drugs brought to my place, a gathering spot because I had pro PA, amps, gold top Les Paul, hand made Martin from their shop foreman Mossman. To save my life I moved to Florida and only dealt with old fishermen. I still play when not working on the boat and such, so you can understand why I would prefer to be as far away from other folks as possible. I use a J-45 copy, great sound and loud. And I am taking many books, history, Ethology, got the digital complete 6 books by Gibbon on the Roman Empire, last week, so I don't mind being alone. The only reason I am attempting this trip, is because I get five months of "storage" on my place, nicer than it sounds, allowing me about $900 for expenses a month. I don't drink, don't eat out, have canned a couple of months of good food, and tricked out the cabin for max entertainment.

My apologies to all for hijacking the thread, but I never did an intro about myself.

I'll get quiet now.

Dave


----------



## travlin-easy

Dave, I'm 75, played guitar and sang country songs at a couple blood and guts saloons when I was young, then switched to an arranger keyboard and never looked back. Now I play a Yamaha PSR-S950, I have a couple Bose L1 Compact amps for my PA system, still sing to the ladies 5 to 7 days a week. The only difference between now and a decade ago is that when October rolls around, I'm putting the sails up and pointing the bow south, and not stopping till my age and the temperature are the same, which should put me back in Marathon Key for the winter months. I played at a few locations there this past winter and the managers didn't want me to leave. I didn't want to either, but had contractual agreements to perform back home from April 1 through October 1, so, reluctantly, I returned to the frozen north of Maryland.










Unfortunately, I somehow messed up my lower back and may have to have some surgery to correct the problem, which may preclude me taking the boat back to the keys this winter. I hope not, but you never quite know.

Gettin' old ain't fer wimps and sissies, 

Gary


----------



## H2O-Dave

You added a pic... nice, the Silver Tongue Devil surrounded by pretty gals.

*Dave, I'm 75, played guitar and sang country songs at a couple blood and guts saloons when I was young, then switched to an arranger keyboard and never looked back. Now I play a Yamaha PSR-S950, I have a couple Bose L1 Compact amps for my PA system, still sing to the ladies 5 to 7 days a week.*

You DOG..so cool. Nothing like hearing true applause, such a great feeling. When I bought the boat about 10 months ago, all my time has gone to it. Now if I pick up the guitar, my fingers say"you want me to do WHAT? Big reason I want to get on the water to get them back. I'm taking a mixer to power the acoustic mic, and all the recording software is on the Lenova I'm taking. A bunch of sheet music as well. That Yamaha you have is great. Unlike my DX-7 that requires a computer to access all the potential voices, a PITA, you have all you need at your finger tips. I'm curious, when I played and sang 20 hours a week long ago, Shure Vocal Master..took a truck to move it, I played much better, but to my surprise, my voice has gotten better with the years, especially on those great old country songs. Life experience counts!

*The only difference between now and a decade ago is that when October rolls around, I'm putting the sails up and pointing the bow south, and not stopping till my age and the temperature are the same, which should put me back in Marathon Key for the winter months. I played at a few locations there this past winter and the managers didn't want me to leave. I didn't want to either, but had contractual agreements to perform back home from April 1 through October 1, so, reluctantly, I returned to the frozen north of Maryland. *

WOW, Gary, you're a pro. I couldn't ever be. When I said I moved from Dallas to Florida to get away from drugs, it's not changed. I can turn down a drink no problem, but if someone throws a bag of dope on the table in front of me, it's a risk. I've stayed clean for 35 years only because I'm careful, very careful, who I let in my life. So it's just recording for me, and I have little to show because of the boat. My brother plays flute well and has the same software and tastes, and is better at handling the drum tracks, strings, I have about mastered, and there is a new gal in the park that plays stand up base with a Blue Grass team, not my thing, but I might check her out. They have invited me, but like you, I prefer to play alone. I tend to do tempo changes and improv. So I don't play well with others, that doesn't make me a bad person...although not all agree.

*Unfortunately, I somehow messed up my lower back and may have to have some surgery to correct the problem, which may preclude me taking the boat back to the keys this winter. I hope not, but you never quite know. *

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope it isn't as serious as mine. Herniated disc, three years ago kept me in a recliner for 6 months. I can lift carefully but not twist my spine. Work on the boat took several time as long because of it. MANY days, I would get in an hours work in cramped quarters and the rest of the day in bed. The effort set me back about a year on the daily pain level, so until you know for sure what's what back there, take it as easy as you can, and as I'm sure you know, get a trusted second opinion before letting them go in with the tools. My brother is smart and wealthy and after 12 years with his, he has had too many Docs tell him it's a very risky gamble. So he lives with it, as do I. Why I'm afraid of the sails. Maybe after this trip, I'll have more confidence, and put em on to test close to home.

*Gettin' old ain't fer wimps and sissies, 
*
I heard Katheryn Hepburn coined that first. What I DO know, is it's for darn sure true.

Take care, and thank you for sharing, you have my utmost respect. I hope you are able to do the winter Keys, If all goes well, I'll be there in your audience.

Dave,

If the Mod wants to move this conversation, I understand. Thanks for your tolerance.


----------



## SVAuspicious

KiteRider said:


> As a Floridian, I don't consider those people residents and their opinion really shouldn't count.


Really? Even in a tourist economy like Florida? So we should just mail our money in and stay home?



JonEisberg said:


> Actually, you don't ... If stopping in Florida has become so onerous to some, no reason you just can't sail right on by... Heading N to the Chesapeake, hitching a ride on the Stream sounds like a hell of a lot more fun than motoring up the Ditch, anyway...


Darn tootin'. As it happens I'm presenting a webinar entitled "Offshore to the Bahamas" for those intrigued by the idea of heading from Norfolk VA or Beaufort NC direct to the Bahamas. 6 May on Seven Seas U see Seven Seas U .


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

I wish I could get a list of these derelict boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

H2O-Dave said:


> JE, I am referring to marina costs as one goes down South to the Keys. This Bill, if passed, would drive the costs of a night at a marina even higher, and free anchorages far fewer.


I think those fears might be a bit overstated. I've spent a fair bit of time in the Keys, I doubt something like the 200' setback will affect many, perhaps more than a relatively small number of those squeezed into the margins of a place like Boot Key, or Tarpon Basin...



H2O-Dave said:


> Contrast..I'm planning to go up near Philly by way of the Delaware river. I have two marinas lined up there that will charge me $21. per night for a week, so my family can visit. Find THAT in Miami or the Keys.


I could be wrong, but I believe there are probably a couple of other factors beyond simple supply and demand that might be driving the discrepancy between transient dockage rates in Miami or Key West, and Philadelphia or other locales on the upper Delaware... 



H2O-Dave said:


> From the picture of your boat, it's a beauty, I have to assume you have $$$.


Thanks for the compliment, but I'm sorry to say you are sadly mistaken regarding the latter... 

My boat is invariably the smallest, or certainly among the smallest, pretty much everywhere I go. I tend to cruise in a pretty modest style, might splurge for a marina stay from time to time, but that's generally if my girlfriend is along. When I take my boat south by myself, it will be rare if I have more than a handful of stays in marinas over the entire course of the trip... One of the best things about cruising Atlantic Canada, for instance, is that in the rare event one does have to pay for dockage, the cost is negligible...



H2O-Dave said:


> Many members don't, I was injured badly in an auto wreck 8 years ago and have been living on disability,1K a month. It's a risk going alone, friends say I'm crazy, one slip up and I'll be incapacitated, frozen in pain. Sailing, I wish, but will likely put-put along on the motor, no mast or sails. And if I can't find free anchorage often, I can't go. Please sir, remember that many who love the water, are not as fortunate as you. and what is insanely expensive to me, is probably nothing to you. It takes all kinds of people to make up this big, big world. And each of us must push ourselves to attain our goals, whatever they may be, if we are to have a reason to stay above ground.
> 
> My best to you,
> Dave


No worries, you'll do fine heading north, you'll find no shortage of free anchorages the entire way... You might want to pick up a copy of Skipper Bob's Guide to Anchorages on the ICW. I think it's probably the most comprehensive anchorage and 'free dock' guide out there, that guy didn't miss anything, and the entries are usually written with regards to access to shoreside conveniences, grocery shopping, and so on... It's a no-frills guide, but very useful...

It's a wonderful trip, you're in for a treat... good luck, enjoy, and my best to you, as well...


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

In the end. If this passes, word will spread about where they enforce it or not. I doubt that many police forces are going have the manpower to bother this "domestic type call" I mean really fat cat homeowner does not want a boat obscuring his view! Talk about 1st world problems.... The officer gets to choose between that or the domestic violence call.... I think we know what will be chosen.

A previous poster did state that the waterways are like th highways, so I'm not sure if its enforceable. afterall you cannot expect anyone to make all of florida without stopping. 
maybe they should make marinaa state subsidized, since this where everyone will have to go. 

They would have been better just stating that you cannot anchor more than say 48hrs.
then you have to move a mile along your route etc..

that seems more reasonable. but I believe this is for boats that sit and sit and sit and never move. 

I think its unenforceable for the traveling boat. 

they should amend it stating that those looking to rest overnight or fleeing a storm or making major repairs are exempt.

I know I'll be ignotring it.


----------



## denverd0n

Latest news is that the amendment to include anchoring restrictions did not make it into the House bill. The Senate bill is still out there, but with only about a week left in the current legislative session it is highly unlikely to pass.

I think we can all take a deep breath at this point. Thanks to all who kept on top of this, and testified against it. Keep your eyes open, though, because this issue WILL come around again.


----------



## travlin-easy

You can bet your bottom dollar that someone will try to sneak this legislation in through the back door by making it an amendment to another, totally different kind of legislation that pertains to a completely different subject. Nothing unusual.

My personal thanks to those that took the time to testify against this legislation,

Gary


----------



## nolesailor

If I'm not mistaken, a companion bill in the house (presumably the one already in existence) would need to be merged with the Senate bill to form one bill...and that one bill would then be voted on by the house and senate...I don't believe they can both pass separate bills. Oftentimes the absence of a companion bill on the other side of the legislature is what ends up killing a bill, and if one chamber is intent on killing a bill, they will introduce a companion bill and then delete everything in it...

It seems that the 200' anchoring restriction amendment to the house bill was an attempt to have the bills similar enough that they could be combined and voted on by both chambers...the fact that the amendment was withdrawn is a good sign for us boaters. That's not to say that something can't, or won't, happen in the final hour, but the house's seeming opposition to the anchoring restriction is hopeful.


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

i'm glad it appears to be looking up. However given politicians and big money its never over.


----------



## travlin-easy

For all of you folks that carry musical instruments aboard your boats, many municipalities in Florida and other states have a regulation pertaining to amplified music played outdoors. The restriction in most states is that no outdoor, amplified music can played after 10 p.m.. That includes your radio, CD player and TV. This particular law is strictly enforced and the fine is pretty hefty. When I performed at the tiki bars and marina restaurants in the keys, the music usually was from 6 till 9 p.m.. They used to have music from 7 till 10 p.m., but if you ran five minutes beyond 10 p.m., there was a sheriff's deputy having a serious talk with the club owner and he was writing them a citation. One owner told me that the fine was $500 per offense, but I'm not sure if that's true. 

They also have a DB level law that is strictly enforced as well. Exceed that level and there will be a deputy sheriff knocking on your hull to get your attention. They DO have DB meters in some of the patrol cars. Unfortunately, that law never seems to apply to the motorcycles that roar down US Route 1 with straight pipes and no mufflers.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

sigh. I had worked out a way that my entire boat was going to be a sub woofer! low volume but boom da da roooooooommmmmmm would have vibrated the china in a near by home.

Sigh. No chance of that now. 

I kid I kid....


----------



## DavyJ

With the Florida House of Representatives early adjournment the bills are dead for now. It will be a sure bet that they will come up again at the next session. News release from Waterway Guide:

'Time to celebrate' - Florida anchoring battle won...for now located in General | Waterway Guide News Update


----------



## nolesailor

That is definitely good news...aside from the likely possibility that this will come up again next year, does anyone know if the FL House and Senate can take up other issues/bills in the event they are called back for a special session, which they undoubtedly will due to the health care/budget issue going on? Or, are they only allowed to debate/discuss/pass legislation specific to the purpose of the special session (i.e. health care/budget)?


----------



## RTB

DavyJ said:


> With the Florida House of Representatives early adjournment the bills are dead for now. It will be a sure bet that they will come up again at the next session. News release from Waterway Guide:
> 
> 'Time to celebrate' - Florida anchoring battle won...for now located in General | Waterway Guide News Update


Thanks to all you who had a hand in slowing this thing down. We're heading that way again soon, and it has been hard sitting here in Texas waiting to see how things played out. Thanks again!

Ralph


----------



## Group9

DavyJ said:


> With the Florida House of Representatives early adjournment the bills are dead for now. It will be a sure bet that they will come up again at the next session. News release from Waterway Guide:
> 
> 'Time to celebrate' - Florida anchoring battle won...for now located in General | Waterway Guide News Update


Good news for now, but have I have no doubt, that the people pushing this, will be back next year, with more money to spread around. All it takes to get these bills re-introduced, is money, and they have plenty of that.

We have to win every time. They only have to win once. Sooner or later, they will.


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

Of course it only law if you choose to obey it. short of that I believe its unenforceable really.
a cruising boat meh.

Some guy who boat has turned into a garbage scow will have a problem. I hope it cleans it up if its really a problem. I would love to see these boats show up for purchase.

Enjoy the freedom while you guys have it.


----------



## TakeFive

Group9 said:


> Good news for now, but have I have no doubt, that the people pushing this, will be back next year, with more money to spread around. All it takes to get these bills re-introduced, is money, and they have plenty of that.
> 
> We have to win every time. They only have to win once. Sooner or later, they will.


Their lobbyist (forget her name right now) says they're not going after short-stay cruisers, that it's the derelict boats that they're really opposed to. If so, it's a shame that the money they're pissing away on lobbyists and political donations (ahem, bribes) can't be redirected to pay for enforcement of existing laws against derelict boats. A "removal and disposal" fund, perhaps. That would solve their real problem without hurting legitimate cruisers.


123456Wannasail654321 said:


> Of course it only law if you choose to obey it. short of that I believe its unenforceable really.


So when they succeed at outlawing overnight anchoring in small coves (<200 feet from shore), a LEA boat goes around to all anchored boats and writes a citation. If the citation is ignored, the next time he arrests the occupants.

What about this is unenforceable?



123456Wannasail654321 said:


> Some guy who boat has turned into a garbage scow will have a problem. I hope it cleans it up if its really a problem. I would love to see these boats show up for purchase.


I've seen you say this before, and I think you really don't understand derelict boats. They're worthless. Nobody wants to take possession of them because of high disposal costs. I guarantee you that if they had value, people would take possession and put them up for sale. It's not happening because the boats have no value.


----------



## DavyJ

> Good news for now, but I have no doubt, that the people pushing this, will be back next year,


You are surely correct. At least now we have seen how they may approach it next year. _Derelicts_, blah, blah blah. _Vessel safety_, blah, blah, blah.

Florida boaters should also mark their calendar's. This will come up again in a short nine months.

Most likely, will once again be introduced by the Senate Environmental Preservation Committee or the House Highway and Waterway Safety Committee.

It should also be noted that the FWC has been a willing participant in trying to enact these anchoring restrictions. Richard Moore has gone out of his way and way above the call of duty in helping set the stage for these bills, especially SB 1548.


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

TakeFive said:


> Their lobbyist (forget her name right now) says they're not going after short-stay cruisers, that it's the derelict boats that they're really opposed to. If so, it's a shame that the money they're pissing away on lobbyists and political donations (ahem, bribes) can't be redirected to pay for enforcement of existing laws against derelict boats. A "removal and disposal" fund, perhaps. That would solve their real problem without hurting legitimate cruisers.
> 
> So when they succeed at outlawing overnight anchoring in small coves (<200 feet from shore), a LEA boat goes around to all anchored boats and writes a citation. If the citation is ignored, the next time he arrests the occupants.
> 
> What about this is unenforceable?
> 
> I've seen you say this before, and I think you really don't understand derelict boats. They're worthless. Nobody wants to take possession of them because of high disposal costs. I guarantee you that if they had value, people would take possession and put them up for sale. It's not happening because the boats have no value.


Oh I see. I figured it was just live aboards who just didn't keep up with the boats.

As for an LE boat..Do they have the money to do that? with all the other real issues going on, will they spend time and manpower bothering the 65+ old couple on their way to the ICW? What id the demographic of a cruiser? I think it more innocuous than some one who plays golf!

Suggestion: Perhaps legislators should be approached to promulgate rules for transient boats.you can remain no more than 48 hours in one place. then you have to move on. Still probably unenforceable, but then again cruising boats aren't the problem they are trying to solve, if I understand the situation.


----------



## DavyJ

> but then again cruising boats aren't the problem they are trying to solve, if I understand the situation.


No, you do not understand the situation........

It's any boat anchored near their property. That is the problem they are trying to solve. They do not care if you are in a 27 year old Catalina 22 or a $5,000,000.00 Swan. They do not want you to anchor behind their house........


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321

DavyJ said:


> No, you do not understand the situation........
> 
> It's any boat anchored near their property. That is the problem they are trying to solve. They do not care if you are in a 27 year old Catalina 22 or a $5,000,000.00 Swan. They do not want you to anchor behind their house........


 that BS do they own the water? it is in their lot line?

Will they now have "rights" to the view scape?

yuck.

again I'd work on exceptions for cruising boats. derelicts or squatters sure move em out. In my neighborhood you can't park RVs like that (on the street) but if its not permanent (like 48 hours) they have to leave.

I think that would be a good compromise for cleaning up the problem (derelict boats, squatters) and people legitimately using the public waterway.

This is the approach I would take.

So I say Sail net member in Florida need to start buttonholing their reps to set the ground up before the next session. or talk to the sailing orgs already on the job and convey that message.


----------



## Group9

DavyJ said:


> It should also be noted that the FWC has been a willing participant in trying to enact these anchoring restrictions. Richard Moore has gone out of his way and way above the call of duty in helping set the stage for these bills, especially SB 1548.


Yeah, there can't be anyone left who doesn't realize at this point, that the FWC survey was specifically written to support the proposed legislation. FWC has picked sides, and it's not the boaters' side.


----------



## souljour2000

FWC should have better things to do...but they are controlled ultimately by Tallahassee...
For starters, the weekend ICW in populated areas is a pretty wild place...drunk boaters behind the wheel of 1000 hp fast vessels in narrow channels with growing numbers of kayakers,paddleboarders and small craft trying to negotiate the "wave pool" the ICW has become...Then there's illegal mangrove cutting...poaching, and otherwise undersize fish and seafood harvesting,and the list of things goes on and on that are occurring that are more important to the general citizenry which need to be addressed before a few bitchy waterfront owners should be catered to...


----------



## travlin-easy

Take Five, at one time, Florida had a large, very effective artificial reef program, one that took derelict boats, both sail and power, stripped the engines and fuel tanks out, then took the boats to designated areas and sunk them, often in depths of just 35 to 50 feet. Within a couple years, you would be hard pressed to find a square inch of the boat that was not covered with marine growth. The sunken craft provided an incredible reef system that attracted and protected juvenile fish and predators alike. The boats, mostly confiscated drug runner boats and derelict live aboards, that used to be seen on a regular basis, soon pretty much disappeared from the scene. And opponents of the reef program managed to get the program scrapped.

Several other states had similar programs and funding, while somewhat limited, was still more than sufficient to remove several hundred boats every year. Last fall, a nice looking 44 foot powerboat, trawler looking boat, was abandoned in the Susquehanna River at the north end of Garrett Island. It sat there till about October, when a sailboat, looked like a 25 footer, was also abandoned and tied to a cleat of the power boat. The powerboat eventually filled with rainwater and sunk, leaving only the top of the cabin exposed, the sailboat broke loose and drifted downriver and lodged against the railroad bridge at Perryville until someone towed it to the newly constructed municipal piers and tied it up. It soon filled with rainwater and sunk at the dock, leaving only the mast sticking out of the water. When I called Maryland DNR about the boats they said they would contact the appropriate authorities, which was likely the USCG. However, when I talked with the USCG, they said because the boats did not pose a navigational hazard, they would not be taking any action to remove them. Maryland DNR no longer has a fund to deal with derelict boats.

On both boats, I was told the serial and hull numbers were all ground off so the owners could not be identified. This was the case with hundreds of derelict boats anchored in San Francisco Bay. California has funded a removal program but can only remove about 300 boats a year, which is about half the number of new derelicts they see every year.

Keep in mind that Florida has a huge number of recreational and commercial vessels within the state. While there are some folks that paint pictures of half sunken boats to sell and think they look quaint, the owners of those multimillion dollar homes are not of similar ilk - can you blame them. The legislation they proposed won't solve the derelict boat problem, and for the most part, doesn't even address the issue at all.

Just another fun day in boaters paradise,

Gary


----------



## 7MileBeach

Will this legislation stop anyone from towing a hulk in the middle of the night and leaving it in somebody's senic view? Does this legislation provide for the removal of abandoned boats? Or, is it just a way of harassing live-aboards and boaters passing through? Sounds like this will not benefit the general public, just a privleged few.


----------



## pappa

Can't remember the details right now, but does anyone remember when Sarasota, about 5-8 yrs ago, didn't want a liveaboard staying in their view. I believe they waited till the lone boater went ashore for supplies, then towed his boat to shore. There they used their biggest front-end loader to smash it to pieces and loaded waiting dump trucks to haul away.
Nice town, Sarasota? If you don't consider its dark side, I guess.


----------



## Group9

pappa said:


> Can't remember the details right now, but does anyone remember when Sarasota, about 5-8 yrs ago, didn't want a liveaboard staying in their view. I believe they waited till the lone boater went ashore for supplies, then towed his boat to shore. There they used their biggest front-end loader to smash it to pieces and loaded waiting dump trucks to haul away.
> Nice town, Sarasota? If you don't consider its dark side, I guess.


I watched someone do the same thing with some mangroves that were spoiling their view in Sunny Isles Beach in Florida. Chainsawed them and bulldozed them with the DEQ guy jumping up and down and telling them to stop. When they finished, they asked him how much the fine would be so they could send in a check.

Money talks in most places, but more so in Florida than any other place I ever lived.


----------



## pappa

pappa said:


> Can't remember the details right now, but does anyone remember when Sarasota, about 5-8 yrs ago, didn't want a liveaboard staying in their view. I believe they waited till the lone boater went ashore for supplies, then towed his boat to shore. There they used their biggest front-end loader to smash it to pieces and loaded waiting dump trucks to haul away.
> Nice town, Sarasota? If you don't consider its dark side, I guess.


+1. Group9. Though born in Tampa and grad from HS there, I have lived in CT twice, GA, and TN. FL ranks lowest on fair equitable conduct by LEO, Permitting, taxation, courts, and what one can or cannot do is based purely on who you know and how much you have. Strictly a class based society with separate standards, laws, and penalties. I only returned to be near family. Never know if person who overhears you voice your opinion is disliking what they hear. So, do not invite petty vindictive retribution. Better to avoid those folks and keep life on a sweeter kinder note.


----------



## thumprs

Yep they are still at it...


----------



## ImASonOfaSailor

Now i am not anyway someone who travels on the ocean and looking for an anchorage but i don't understand this either, now its like the claim the back of there home is their body of water? They cant take it with them this down right stupid.. Motor home is totally different that can be closer to your house, a boat is way out at sea! 20 feet what are people doing using someones backyard and beach? now if you are trespassing i can see that to be an issue not every sailor has respect for others!


----------



## DavyJ

The FWC has set meetings for more discussion of derelict vessels. Here is the info copied from Waterway Guide:

_As a follow-on to the derelict vessel meeting held in Tallahassee July 1, 2015, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be holding five public meetings around the State to gather additional input from stakeholders and waterway managers.

"We have narrowed down the list of 50 solutions that were discussed at the meeting. We now have your top-ranked solutions with potential opportunities for improvement," wrote Phil Horning, FWC Derelict Vessel Program Administrator in an email.

The most popular solutions focus on registration and titling regulations to assure that the owner would be made responsible for a derelict vessel. Horning points out that any solution's popularity is just one factor in determining the best strategy, as some may be impractical or impossible to successfully implement.

All are invited - no need to register. The schedule for the meetings are as follows:_

August 3rd (Monday) 2:30pm - 5:00pm EST
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners (Commission chambers)
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982

August 11th (Tuesday) 2:30pm - 5:00pm EST
Edgewater City Hall (commission chambers)
104 N. Riverside Drive
Edgewater, Florida 32132

August 12th (Wednesday) 2:30pm - 5:00pm EST
Brandon Regional Service Center
311 Pauls Drive
Brandon, Florida 33511

August 13th (Thursday) 2:30pm - 5:00pm EST
Murray Nelson Government Center 
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (Commission chambers)
102050 Overseas Highway
Key Largo, Florida 33037

August 17th (Monday) 2:30pm - 5:00pm CST
Bay County Board of County Commissioners (Commission chambers)
840 West 11th Street
Panama City, Florida 32401

Link to article:
Five derelict vessel legislation meetings announced located in General | Waterway Guide News Update


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

I really appreciate the diverse discussion regarding anchoring restrictions. We sailed in Florida for about 30 years and I have some experience with the issue of anchoring near homes. In my mind there is a huge difference in storing one's boat for months or years at a time very close to someone's home versus trying to find a suitable place to anchor for a few days. We have had to anchor near homes (which we do not prefer) due to bad weather, poor holding in other areas, approaching darkness and no other options in sight, or just to get a few days rest on a long passage. The issue I have with the legislative approach in Florida to date, is that there is not a real good distinction between these two uses. Yes, I know a provision was added to one of bills to allow one to anchor near a home in the case of exhaustion.

However, how would the exhaustion provision be enforced by police officers? Here is the scenario: One is forced to anchor within the setback limit for one of the "legitimate" reasons listed previously. It is midnight, and a homeowner complains to the water police. The police are obligated to motor out to investigate and wake up a very tired old couple (like us) from a deep sleep. Ever been approached on the water at night by law enforcement? We have and it can be quite unsettling (for everyone involved). So, then what happens? Does the officer tell you move if you can't convince them that you are "exhausted"? Are you issued a ticket to later argue in court?

If you think I am overplaying this, you haven't done enough cruising in Florida and its coastal waters. The problem with this law, like many others, is that the unintended consequences of such a provision will not be addressed adequately before it is passed. Further, the law could give individual municipalities the right to make there own set of rules, which could be completely different than the municipality just next door. Does everyone know exactly where the county line or city limit crosses a waterway?

I am thankful that organizations like SSCA and BoatUS appreciate these difficulties and are attempting to work out a good law that will address derelict and at-risk vessels while maintaining reasonable access and use of the waterways.


----------



## miatapaul

To me the issues is simple, if the boat does not have a current registration/documentation, then the owner is fined and required to move the boat. If they refuse to move the boat, the local authority removes it and bills the owner. How many of the truly derelict boats have current registrations not many I would guess? Perhaps a requirement to be aboard after a certain amount of time? But the real issue is not derelicts, but people feeling that others should not have access to the water. Rich entitled home owners that don't want to see boats in front of there homes. If the issue was derelicts it would be simple.


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

Unfortunately I suspect the "real" agenda of some is being hidden behind the derelict boat issue, because it really is a problem. I think Florida Fish and Wildlife, SSCA, BoatUS, and many of the reasonable legislators are trying to keep the two issues clearly separated, whereas the last proposed Senate Bill was wildly out of perspective and balance. If we are successful in exposing the hidden agenda by passing a sound derelict boat law, I believe few legislators would support the unreasonable anchoring limits proposed in the previous Senate Bill.

As a side note, it is often difficult to find the current owner of a derelict boat (in order to force removal or levy a fine) and the cost of removal is not cheap, particularly if it has sunk. I agree that local governments and their tax payers shouldn't have to pay to remove a derelict boat, and that a fair process of monitoring the status of an anchored boat will cost the tax payers in additional enforcement. The easy attempt at fixing the problem would be to restrict all anchoring, which we boaters and many others find unreasonable, unsafe and unworkable. There are always good,balanced solutions to be found. I encourage all boaters to support the work of SSCA and BoatUS, particularly by donating a few dollars to fund their efforts. Waterway Guide, BoatUS and SSCA can tell you how to donate online.


----------



## misfits

miatapaul said:


> To me the issues is simple, if the boat does not have a current registration/documentation, then the owner is fined and required to move the boat. If they refuse to move the boat, the local authority removes it and bills the owner.


This is a real slippery slope because freedom is freedom. We can't pick & chose which freedoms we want to have while giving up the freedom of others.

Giving local authorities the right to seize derelict boats, it's still private property & I compare that to the eminent domain issue. Taking private property because it allegedly benefits the greater good, the greater good is usually the rich.

Once WE as boaters assist in eliminating them, we're not far behind. That's how the greenies keep adding to the wilderness areas in the national forests, a little at a time until finally the whole kingdom belongs to them.

Just saying...


----------



## JonEisberg

Here's a very distressing development in the situation regarding the anchorage in Miami Beach, and shore access in the vicinity of Collins Canal...

This has always been one of my favorite spots in South Florida. Beautiful surroundings, a great place to stage for jumping off to the Bahamas. Free municipal wifi, and convenient access to the Lincoln Road Mall and the heart of Miami Beach, a fantastic Publix grocery for provisioning, hardware, drug and liquor stores all convenient to a host of places to tie up along the Collins Canal...










Well, until now...

Signs have been posted along the canal walls, prohibiting tying up to these long-standing shore access points... SeaTow has been charged with the responsibility of towing offenders away, you'll be able to get your dink back after the payment of a $300 fine... Hmmm, the cost of that Bahamian cruising permit no longer sounds too bad, eh?

Details are still a bit sketchy, this is all coming from a thread over on CF...

Miami Beach eliminates shore access by dinghy - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Here is the pertinent post in that thread, showing the municipal statute amendment that prohibits gaining shore access _at a public seawall_...

Miami Beach eliminates shore access by dinghy - Page 3 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

In recent years, Miami Beach in general has been quite friendly to cruisers, at least in my experience... This obvious attempt to drive cruisers away is VERY disappointing, but I'm afraid it's just a taste of what's to come elsewhere in Florida... Even if a municipality can't restrict anchoring, they do have considerably more latitude in preventing cruisers to gain access to shore...


----------



## TakeFive

Time to boycott Seatow nationwide. Send your business to TowboatUS.


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

It is unfortunate that Seatow didn't decline the business. BoatUS, on the other hand, is spending quite a bit of their resources defending boaters' access.

I think what Miami Beach is doing is just silly. This is unfortunately becoming a "personal" war between the land and boating communities. Very sorry to see that. I hope the State legislature continues to be more objective about the real issues at hand.

The Miami Beach response tells me the anchoring limits might just be the tip of the iceberg in what could become a pretty bad situation for all involved. Would someone from Miami Beach care to tell us what the harm is in tying up ones dinghy so they can go to the store or have a meal out?


----------



## RTB

Well, that sucks. We always enjoyed our time wandering around south beach. Publix always got a good chunk of change from us. Last time there, picked up propane and refilled the wife's BP meds nearby. We're heading that way again in October. It looks like Florida is going to be a challenge. Just sad, really.

Ralph


----------



## JonEisberg

RTB said:


> Well, that sucks. We always enjoyed our time wandering around south beach. Publix always got a good chunk of change from us. Last time there, picked up propane and refilled the wife's BP meds nearby. We're heading that way again in October. It looks like Florida is going to be a challenge. Just sad, really.
> 
> Ralph


This doesn't really surprise me, seemed just a matter of time...

I was last in the area south of Venetian Causeway 3 winters ago, though I always prefer to anchor by myself out closer to Monument Island... But in that area closer to the Collins Canal, there was a number of pretty sketchy near-derelict boats... I remember one large steel-hulled POS, the hull covered with rust stains, no mast, that had been sitting there for a LONG time... Obviously incapable of making routine trips to the pump out dock ;-) This is directly below that large high-rise condo development on that little island at the E end of the causeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those residents were getting weary of the view 

A couple of years ago, again in the same area, there was a fire aboard one of two boats that had been sitting there long term, rafted together... One of them burned to the waterline, a couple of the owner's dogs perished in the blaze... Again, not a pretty picture...


----------



## katiejai

RV' ers can usually find a walmart

Sorry guess I should have stated that I was talking about the proposed law that would prohibit people from anchoring for even a few hours, overnight or a few nights---

Not the mess we have been shown of some boats left to rot. 

If an RV is still running on the roads it has been licenced and should have passed some sort of standard of safety it should not look too derelict---For sure if you parked something in a Walmart lot and left it for long as the lot is private property I am sure you would be told to remove it or it would be removed for you.


----------



## JonEisberg

katiejai said:


> RV' ers can usually find a walmart


I would imagine even the good folks at WalMart might take action, if the RV equivalent of this was sitting in one of their lots, for years on end...

;-)












Cal31Windchaser said:


> As a side note, it is often difficult to find the current owner of a derelict boat (in order to force removal or levy a fine) and the cost of removal is not cheap, particularly if it has sunk.


On the other hand, when people have 'tagged' their abandoned hulks with links to their YouTube videos, seems they shouldn't be too hard to track down... ;-)

I've been watching this piece of crap sink lower into the mud near Oak Hill at the entrance to Mosquito Lagoon for well over a decade... Until recently, it was the "Base Camp" for the "Action Team Family"... And, as of June, it had yet to be "removed", nor will I be holding my breath on that one... ;-)










And, one of their YouTube masterworks...


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

Amen JonEisberg! Great examples of what the real problem is. I don't like looking at eyesores like this either. With as many boat registrations and renewals that occur in Florida each year, you would think a few earmarked dollars per registration and an appropriate state-wide derelict boat removal law would go a long way to ridding the waterways of that junk. Also, if derelict boats were dealt with sooner they wouldn't be as hard to dispose of or create such bad will.


----------



## katiejai

Perhaps they could pass a law that would restrict the length of anchorage---somewhat like camping in some locations--you are only allowed to camp for two weeks in a location and then have to move on--BUT this may also restrict the person who is anchoring out in front of their own property----A real quandry----


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

Katiejai, I believe Florida recognizes riparian rights, in which a landowner abutting a water body can construct a dock or mooring on submerged lands that are within Waters of the State. Accordingly, I don't think a permit system that restricts anchoring time would affect them. Now, if you can figure out how to make that work without a huge and onerous administrative and enforcement cost...

I understand that, with the help of SSCA and BoatUS, the FFWC has identified five potential approaches to identify and deal with derelict and at-risk vessels. I am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. 

Again! Please donate a few bucks to SSCA's anchoring law fund so they can keep up the good work!


----------



## miatapaul

misfits said:


> This is a real slippery slope because freedom is freedom. We can't pick & chose which freedoms we want to have while giving up the freedom of others.
> 
> Giving local authorities the right to seize derelict boats, it's still private property & I compare that to the eminent domain issue. Taking private property because it allegedly benefits the greater good, the greater good is usually the rich.
> 
> Once WE as boaters assist in eliminating them, we're not far behind. That's how the greenies keep adding to the wilderness areas in the national forests, a little at a time until finally the whole kingdom belongs to them.
> 
> Just saying...


So what you are saying is allow them to sink and become navigation hazards? Oh and as a side bar, it gives the land owners the excuse to ban all anchoring? As that is the way it is going. These are boats that are obviously abandoned. No one is saying that the government should seize private assets, these are boats that have been abandoned and in many cases have had all identifying markings removed, so the owner cannot be traced. The preferable thing would be to find the owners and force them to remove it, but if they will not or can not, then action should be taken. Say for instance a car is left on the side of the road, serial numbers removed license plates removed. How long should it be left on the side of the road?


----------



## misfits

miatapaul said:


> So what you are saying is allow them to sink and become navigation hazards? Oh and as a side bar, it gives the land owners the excuse to ban all anchoring?


I'm not saying that Paul. Whenever other parties hop on board an issue thinking if we get rid of X then the spot light won't be on me, 
I think it's dangerous. I don't blame the landowners for wanting to rid the scenery of this trash. Given the anchoring issues & landowners feelings, once it starts it will eventually include folks like you & me. I don't like the looks of your boat, get off, we're confiscating it. That's why I said this is a slippery slope, I don't trust them.


----------



## travlin-easy

I just went through an extensive list of the marinas in the Florida Keys to check which ones permitted live aboards - most DO NOT. I was amazed! You really don't have many options other than anchoring out unless you are prepared to shell out nearly $800 a month for a 33 foot boat to be tied to a concrete bulkhead of floating dock that is owned by a city or municipality. Nothing, absolutely nothing, amazes me anymore.

On my way south two years ago, I pulled into a large cove to spend the night along the ICW in central Florida, and on shore there was a sign that said "NO OVERNIGHT ANCHORING!" I was tired, hungry, thirsty, and it was damned near pitch black dark. I said to myself "The Hell with it" and dropped the hook. Got a couple stares from someone on shore the next morning, but I could have cared less - they were 500 yards away and it ain't their damned water and they don't own the damned bottom.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## CouchSurfer

Thanks for the reply. I had the same thought. It's well below what I had projects my cost to be.


----------



## Skipper Jer

Abandoned or illegally parked cars are towed to an impound lot. You want it back? Pay the fine and towing bill. After so many days the car is auctioned off.
I don't know why this can't be done for boats. No registration numbers, no HIN, tow it. 

As far as the action team family and their piece of crap, they are not cute, those are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us responsible boaters.


----------



## TakeFive

Captainmeme said:


> Abandoned or illegally parked cars are towed to an impound lot. You want it back? Pay the fine and towing bill. After so many days the car is auctioned off.
> I don't know why this can't be done for boats...


Because the derelict boats that you are talking about are worthless, and will cost thousands of dollars to dispose of. That's why nobody wants to touch them - you touch it, you're responsible for it.

The car analogy is not relevant. Most cars have some value, even if just for parts. Abandoned boats almost always have negative value.


----------



## gudgeon

Here are the executive officers of SeaTwo.

Not sure about these email addresses, but email address I found in some of their press releases shows that their standard email address format is first initial, last name @Seatow.com

So, I added my guess for their email addresses might be. I sent an email to each of them and only received one bounced-back message (Cindy McCaffrey), so perhaps these are their correct email addresses.

Captain Joseph Frohnhoefer - Chairman / CEO / Founder
(email address unsure, recently passed away)

Georgia Frohnhoefer - Executive Vice President
GFrohnhoefer (-at-) seatow (-dot-)com

Captain Joseph Frohnhoefer III - Chief Operating Officer
(email address unsure)

Kristen Frohnhoefer - Chief Administrative Officer
KFrohnhoefer (-at-) seatow(-dot-)com

Jim Foley - Chief Financial Officer
JFoley (-at-) seatow(-dot-)com

Cindy McCaffery - Vice President of Program Development
CMcCaffery (-at-) seatow(-dot-)com


----------



## TheSailingRode

Make sure while you are cruising around Florida that you let businesses you visit know that you are anchoring nearby and you are spending money with them that will go away if the landowners get their way. Make them aware of the issue now and get their support long before a vote is a week away. Keep track of the $$ you spend while cruising in Florida and include that in the first line of letters you send to legislators. Battles are won in the planning.

-Steve


----------



## Minnewaska

Plan for sure. However, how much money, in the grand scheme of things, would one think that anchored boats spend in the FL economy. All boats are not the issue. Then discount that for the amount that is going to be spent anyway. One could accidentally prove this isn't a big deal. 

(I am not in favor of unreasonable anchoring restrictions)


----------



## wfish11

This law will do nothing to affect derelict boats. It will only affect the honest people who want to anchor for a night or two, they will be harassed at the rich landowners behest by the FWC. The people who remove the IDs and leave these boats will continue to do so even if there is a law. They are breaking the law now. A new law won't make any difference. The towns, cities, state, do not have enough personnel or impound areas to do anything about this. There simply is not enough money to address this problem. In my opinion, if someone removes the HIN#s, the registration and/or sticker, they have broken the law and it is a derelict. If the owner can't be tracked down it is derelict. The state should placard it for 30-60-90 days and sell or destroy it. Again the state does not have the money to do even this.

This is a boating problem, the state needs to tack $10 -$15 per year onto every boat registration to pay for removal. The fee for removal will be paid upfront while the boat is current. The money needs to go into a separate fund for only this or the state will spend it out of the general funds and there still will be no removal fund. 

It would probably be a big help if the state would create or contract for some one to recycle these boats before their owners dump them out of desperation. Engines, masts, winches, etc. all have a recycle or parts value. The main reason that derelicts are worthless is that they have been left out too long and the vultures have stolen everything of value they could tear off of them. 

The problem with derelict boats is money and here's a way to solve it.


----------



## DavyJ

Get ready to get in the fight again..................

*Florida House to hold anchoring regulation public workshop in October*

Florida House to hold anchoring regulation public workshop in October located in General | Waterway Guide News Update


----------



## travlin-easy

You REALLY didn't believe this would all go away - did you?  

Gary


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

wfish11,

I believe you are absolutely correct. There are several very good mechanisms, as you mentioned, to deal with derelict boats. 

My sense, however, is that the anchoring setback discussion is really about something else. A good example is the recent action by Miami Beach, making it illegal to tie dinghies up to a seawall so the cruiser can go shopping or enjoy a meal at restaurant.

I believe the anchoring setback issue is really about social and economic status, and the inequalities thereof. I was told by one marina on Florida's snob coast (Stuart, FL) that sailboats were not welcome there because they spent very little money, often didn't pay their bills and were a pain in the neck (they buy a gallon of fuel, tank up on free water and steal the toilet paper from the restroom). That's what I was told. However, the welcome mat was always out for the high end yachts and well endowed checkbooks.

I fully admit that, while we enjoy anchoring out more than staying in a marina, we are also motivated to do so by our budget. As Minnewaska touched on, the mid to low economic bracket cruiser (like us) possibly doesn't contribute that much to the Florida economy. However, we are US citizens, we pay our taxes like everyone else, pay our bills, obey the law, keep our boat in good condition, are concerned about protecting the environment, are sensitive to the rights and safety of others and don't steal the toilet paper. That should earn us equity in the use of all public waters...I would think!

Also, keep a close eye on the upcoming rules being promulgated by the Everglades National Park. Permits to cruise and anchor within the Park are forthcoming, which likely will involve fees and anchoring limitations.

It takes a lot of money for organizations like SSCA, BoatUS, Waterway Guide and others to argue our case in the Florida legislature. If this issue really is important to you, put $20 in the defense fund to support them. Just contact any of the above and they will direct you to the appropriate website.


----------



## Group9

The derelict boat issue is a smokescreen. This is about, and has always been about, wealthy landowners who pay seven figures for waterfront property, and believe with all of their little black hearts, that they own the adjoining water, too. And, they know who to write checks to, to make their opinion into the law of the land. And, they only have to win once. The people they are trying to steal the water from, have to win every time


----------



## fallard

Group9 said:


> The derelict boat issue is a smokescreen. This is about, and has always been about, wealthy landowners who pay seven figures for waterfront property, and believe with all of their little black hearts, that they own the adjoining water, too. And, they know who to write checks to, to make their opinion into the law of the land. And, they only have to win once. The people they are trying to steal the water from, have to win every time


The derelict boat issue is not a smokescreen, but it can be used to cloud the issue of anchoring in a residential area. The "wealthy landowners" as a group may be overreaching in excluding legitimate transients from public water space, but there is another side to this coin. Just as in landside zoning, there needs to be consideration of buffering disparate activities (residential and boating in this case.)

In our harbor, we have a 150' separation of moored/anchored boats from adjacent residential areas. This does not guarantee a lack of conflicts, but it is an accommodation to residential and boating interests. Conflicts can arise if a boater chooses to run a generator (the cheap, noisy, portable kind in particulary) or have a noisy party on board (loud music, assorted loud people) later in the day in close proximity to an otherwise quiet residential area.

As easy as it is to vilify the "wealthy landowner" for wanting to maintain a high end environment in the adjacent water space, it is only fair to note that the public assesses property taxes based on a "neighborhood factor" with a premium for waterfront. That needs to part of a balanced discussion.


----------



## Woodvet

"What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please? As a non cruiser, I can certainly see the homeowners perspective that they paid a very high premium to live in the area, while cruisers didn't. As a former wannabe cruiser I can definitely see why you'd want to be able to anchor freely, but it makes less sense to me nowadays without viewing it through boaters eyes."
You're kidding right? 
A boat is not an RV.... An RV gets a break once in a while... While a boat has no brakes at all... 
The $$$ to operate a safe vessel, makes an RV look like -to a boat, what a boat looks like to an airplane.... 
There are storm that any RV can drive in while a boat risks life and limb and or needs to repair from to make way. 
Thanks for being honest and saying you never cruised. 
Who out of envy would taxes others because they don't have that which is taxed. 
They just banned RVs here from being parked on your own private property. I had always had the idea that value was increased on property you could park an RV on. They sold it as a down grade to the hood and the public lapped it up. 
As it turns out it was actually discovered that they sell the pollution credits from the RVs to power plants and refineries after they were removed from the DMV rolls. 
My goodness, what is freedom coming to?


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

All good points! However, the message many of us cruisers are trying to get out is continuously obfuscated by polarized thinking. What we are trying to say is:
1. Yes, yes, yes derelict boats are a problem and need to be addressed. However, anchoring setbacks don't solve that problem. Derelicts and at risk boats are there because the owners have decided to dump their trash in someone else's backyard out of shear disregard for anyone including other boaters.

2. There is a world of difference between the derelict/at-risk boat and the active cruiser who needs to find a safe spot to anchor for a few nights. However, early efforts by the Florida legislature made little to no effort to discern that difference. They were attempting to employ the big hammer approach. That is, if some boats are a problem, fix it by punishing all boat owners.

3. In the same vain, if there is a problem with boater noise or inappropriate behavior there are already laws to deal with the violator. Ever, call the cops because the neighbor was playing loud music at 2:00 am? I have. Again there are always balanced approaches to dealing with the few who are insensitive to others, without punishing the vast majority of cruisers who do care.

4. I don't get why residential and boating activities are "disparate". Can you explain that? My neighbors thought having my boat in their canal was visually pleasing and were disappointed when we moved it. Is there something innately ugly about a boat that a landowner doesn't want to see it from their window? Are all cruisers loud, dirty, insensitive thugs bent on destroying someone' quiet evening? We, as boaters, have been in anchorages where a few people were acting inappropriately and the local water police were rightly summoned to deal with them.

All many of us are asking the Florida legislature to do is to approach the derelict/at-risk boat issue and the rights/desires of all citizens with a little more balance; dealing with the people who are the problem, without punishing the innocent.


----------



## Woodvet

fallard said:


> In our harbor, we have a 150' separation of moored/anchored boats from adjacent residential areas. This does not guarantee a lack of conflicts, but it is an accommodation to residential and boating interests. Conflicts can arise if a boater chooses to run a generator (the cheap, noisy, portable kind in particulary) or have a noisy party on board (loud music, assorted loud people) later in the day in close proximity to an otherwise quiet residential area. .


Wow, I thought Florida knew how to make laws... I know I would start with laws about disturbing the peace before kicking boaters out. Are you saying there's no laws to prevent boats or houses from having wild parties? I'm sure rich land owners would never want something others are not allowed... 
Generators will be phased out soon, replaced by hydrogen and solar.
I can't believe people say things about the government like they do... I'm somewhat certain the legislature is unaffected by the millions it receives in campaign contributions for such a low paying public service job as they have... 
I think they should get rid of boats/ YEAH!!!! Get RID OF ALL OF IT AT ONCE!!! Start with the boats and then tell them airplanes off too. The nerve of them flying over the rich peoples air space with those loud engines... In fact why have the waves either. They're just as loud. Hasn't that been been brought up? Those sea gulls? BAN THEM ALL and if it's still too hard for the rich to sleep at night, then those darn boaters should come ashore and put them in their little horsie pajamas and comfort them with special grown ***** willows that they make into sheep to count... Make all those nightmares go away about windmills that won't stop and fighting them on horseback :devil


----------



## fallard

Cal31Windchaser said:


> All good points! However, the message many of us cruisers are trying to get out is continuously obfuscated by polarized thinking. What we are trying to say is:
> 1. Yes, yes, yes derelict boats are a problem and need to be addressed. However, anchoring setbacks don't solve that problem. Derelicts and at risk boats are there because the owners have decided to dump their trash in someone else's backyard out of shear disregard for anyone including other boaters.
> 
> 2. There is a world of difference between the derelict/at-risk boat and the active cruiser who needs to find a safe spot to anchor for a few nights. However, early efforts by the Florida legislature made little to no effort to discern that difference. They were attempting to employ the big hammer approach. That is, if some boats are a problem, fix it by punishing all boat owners.
> 
> 3. In the same vain, if there is a problem with boater noise or inappropriate behavior there are already laws to deal with the violator. Ever, call the cops because the neighbor was playing loud music at 2:00 am? I have. Again there are always balanced approaches to dealing with the few who are insensitive to others, without punishing the vast majority of cruisers who do care.
> 
> 4. I don't get why residential and boating activities are "disparate". Can you explain that? My neighbors thought having my boat in their canal was visually pleasing and were disappointed when we moved it. Is there something innately ugly about a boat that a landowner doesn't want to see it from their window? Are all cruisers loud, dirty, insensitive thugs bent on destroying someone' quiet evening? We, as boaters, have been in anchorages where a few people were acting inappropriately and the local water police were rightly summoned to deal with them.
> 
> All many of us are asking the Florida legislature to do is to approach the derelict/at-risk boat issue and the rights/desires of all citizens with a little more balance; dealing with the people who are the problem, without punishing the innocent.


Pretty much agree with the perspective above, but the "disparity" between transient boater activity and waterfront residents' interests remains. This isn't about your boat (or mine) in our home port, where we are known entities and probably paying taxes for the infrastructure enjoyed by transients. The basic issue here is that the transient boater does not have a vested interest in an anchorage, unlike the adjacent landowners.

Rather, transients bring an unknown element into residential areas that rightfully concern the local permanent inhabitants. While most transients (inlcuding me when I am cruising) are responsible, there are those who ignore rules and basic consideration of others. We've seen the type who overstay our 7 day transient anchorage and park vessels that are not seaworthy (2 notable examples this year). Some of these vessels are obviously unattended for longer than our 24 hr limit. We know that dogs are "walked" on the nearby shore and we suspect a significant number cannot be trusted to keep their heads closed--despite an effective, free pump out boat service in our area.

Part of our local problem is that we do not have an effective enforcement process (which would require additional tax revenue from landside property owners.) The local police have very limited resources (staffing, equipment) and funding of harbormasters in CT is a joke.

While I see this issue from both sides, I would be more concerned that legitimate transient boaters are more likely to lose if an equitable balance is not struck for use of what is--in the end--public water space.


----------



## UnionPacific

People are so fixated with dumping poop into water.
It causes no harm.
Our local town dumped 50,000 gallons of untreated sewage into the water.
Within a few hours levels were "normal" and "acceptable" so 50,000 gallons dissipates in a few hours, do you really think 1/3 gallon will take a toll on the environment?


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

fallard,

Thanks for the response back. I think we are pretty much on the same page as to what the problems are. The sticky part to this issue really surrounds questions like "Does the application of a setback solve the problems you've clearly stated, how large does the setback need to be to mitigate noise, how far will a boater have to be kept from land so as not to walk their dog on the beach, is this really the answer to dealing with bad behavior, and how many key anchorages will this make off-limits to cruisers?"

Here is my point by way of example: Our boat does not go fast. It took us all day to sail/motor from the west side to the east side of Mobile Bay to enter the ICW. Almost without exception, recreational boats do not transit the ICW in the dark (really a bad idea). The only anchorage we could make before dark that is shown in the boating guides is a small finger of water fronted on one side by mud flats and on the other by houses and a Tiki bar. We draw 5 feet and the water depth maxed out at about 7. By the time we put out a 7:1 scope in 6 feet of water to make sure we wouldn't drag anchor and made sure we would not swing into the mud flat, we would have been within some of the setbacks being proposed. We went to sleep, enjoying Buffet-like music from the Tiki bar (sound travels great distances over water) and left at first light to continue our trip. If the more stringent setback rules had been in place, this account would would be very different and unreasonable. The precedent of public use of submerged lands long pre-dated the construction of homes on the water's edge. The precedent has existed intact for so long because it makes good sense. To compromise it because of the inappropriate behavior of a small minority can't be a good thing, particularly when it is attempted to be applied State-wide.

I respectfully continue to assert that setbacks do not solve the problems you and others have discussed and just create more problems for the cruiser, landowner and law enforcement. As you intimated, more effective enforcement focused on dealing with the real problems is what is needed. Just a question...how much more law enforcement will be needed to police the setbacks and who pays for it? If each municipality can set its own setback (as proposed by the Senate bill) how does the law-abiding cruiser, particularly one unfamiliar with the area, know what municipality they are in at any given time (maybe a whole lot of signs to really pretty up the waterway)?

Again, thanks for responding. I hope that someone with a lot more pull than I have is reading these messages and can develop a model that will work State-wide for everyone involved.


----------



## DavyJ

I can guarantee that they will once again push for a 200' set-back. No matter how many people show up at the "workshop" and complain and present facts. I've attended all of the anchoring "workshops" on the west coast of Florida going back to the "pilot program" workshops. 90% of the public's input at those "workshops" was against set-backs and time limits. Guess what shows up in SB 1548 ????

Why 200'.......? Because that's what is needed to keep boats out of Sunset Lake in Miami Beach, that's why. It's just over 400' wide and the main supporter of the anchoring restrictions lives there.

I probably posted this earlier in this thread but here is senate bill 1548:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/BillText/Filed/PDF

Notice you can anchor there all day long. Just not overnight. However, if you throw a line over the side and fish, you could stay as long as you want. This really targets only one group of people.

It will be what they will push for again.


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

DavyJ, thanks for jumping back into the discussion. When one is following this issue as closely as you have, it becomes clear that there are other agendas afoot besides dealing with derelict boats and rowdy boaters. Miami Beach really doesn't like cruisers as evidenced by the dinghy towing thing.

I would hope, however, that the grown-ups in the State legislature would use the discussion to solve some real problems like derelict/at risk boats and some of the other things we have been debating.

Thanks for re-posting the bill.


----------



## Don L

If the State really wanted to "solve" the derelict boat issue they would have by now. Stop drinking the derelict boat issue and come to terms with the real goal of "not in my backyard".


----------



## fallard

Cal31Windchaser said:


> I respectfully continue to assert that setbacks do not solve the problems you and others have discussed and just create more problems for the cruiser, landowner and law enforcement. As you intimated, more effective enforcement focused on dealing with the real problems is what is needed. Just a question...how much more law enforcement will be needed to police the setbacks and who pays for it? If each municipality can set its own setback (as proposed by the Senate bill) how does the law-abiding cruiser, particularly one unfamiliar with the area, know what municipality they are in at any given time (maybe a whole lot of signs to really pretty up the waterway)? .


I can flat out agree with you that setbacks to not solve the problems mentioned, but that is a minimum concession to the waterfront property owners who have legitimate concerns. In our area, the setback is 150', but we suffer from landd-based loud music carried over the water from over 1500' away--enough to disrupt conversation on our front porch. The police will do nothing until the time out at 10:00 PM. My point is that 150'--or 200' for that matter is not adequate to protect from noise pollution, but zero setback would be worse.

When it comes to other forms of pollution from boats and their pets, we are 2.3 miles up an estuary with limited flushing. We periodically see brown scum on the water and that is in an area where you can go online and have the local pump out boat service your boat whether you are there or not and it's free!

Unfortunately, waterfront property owners have a legitimate beef and the bad apples on the water will make it worse for the rest of us.


----------



## Don L

Is there a 200 foot setback requirement between houses? I know when I had a house in CT that there needed to be 20' total between houses with 8' min on the side. If houses can be that close why do boats need to be so far away?


----------



## TakeFive

Legal Rights? Moving to a Nuisance


----------



## Minnesail

Woodvet said:


> Start with the boats and then tell them airplanes off too. The nerve of them flying over the rich peoples air space with those loud engines...


This is happening now in the Hamptons. The very very rich are squaring off against the merely very rich who have the nerve to fly helicopters over their mansions on their way to slightly smaller mansions.

Judge Limits Restrictions on Flights to East Hampton


----------



## fallard

Don0190 said:


> Is there a 200 foot setback requirement between houses? I know when I had a house in CT that there needed to be 20' total between houses with 8' min on the side. If houses can be that close why do boats need to be so far away?


My house in CT is 20' from that of a neighbor. We are in a neighborhood that was established over 100 yrs ago and most of the houses are non-conforming. In our town there are various residential zones, including multiacre lots. If you want more privacy and separation from your neighbors' activities, you can move to the high acreage zones. Whereever you locate, you generally know who your neighbors are, unless you move to a waterfront location.

Considering that waterfront property includes riparian rights, you can expect that a lot of waterfront properties include docks as an exercise of those rights. If you allow for an extension of those docks from shore (typical in our area) and then allow maneuvering room beyond the dock, you will quickly figure out that 150' or more is a reasonable minimum breathing room for the waterfront properties.

So, getting back to "if houses can be that close", the answer is that in most case they can't. Given the premium that waterfront owners pay in taxes, you need to think in terms of the large acreage zoning to relate to why waterfront property owners want breathing room. That isn't to say that all waterfront property owners are reasonable, but niether is is appropriate to invoke class warfare as some have done on this post.


----------



## DavyJ

Ok here's the date.

The public workshop for new vessel anchoring laws in Florida has been scheduled for:

Thursday, October 8, 2015
9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Morris Hall (17 House Office Bldg.)
Florida Capitol, Tallahassee, FL.

Florida anchoring regulation workshop date announced located in General | Waterway Guide News Update

If you have the ability, please attend. Even if you don't live in Florida.


----------



## erick

If I were a wealthy waterfront home owner, I would probably side with them. I am not, 
so I do not. 200' this year, 500' next ?


----------



## VallelyJ

Waterfront property owners pay taxes based on a government's appraisal of what other people would pay to own the same piece of property. They don't pay taxes to accrue exceptional rights.
Absolutely nothing entitles property owners to arbitrary control over the scenery, nor requires the government to ensure that the water view conforms to their tastes. Towns might feel they can keep those taxes high by catering to land-owners' whims, but that doesn't justify it, and it's probably not even necessary. Waterfront is never going to sell for less just because people have boats on the water.
Noise ordinances are good but they don't prohibit people from occupying public space--they only prohibit them from making noise there. No reason that noise on the water should require different laws than noise on the land.
Zoning laws prohibit eyesores and hazards everywhere. They don't otherwise prohibit you from siting your home, or using public space, where some rich guy can see it out his window. 
Consider that property owners who are near, but not on, the water also pay higher taxes than those further inland. Are their rights to use the water inferior to the rights of people who can see the water out their windows? The higher-taxes argument falls apart there.
There's no valid argument for the way some Fl. municipalities are dealing with this issue, other than "money talks".
JV


----------



## fallard

VallelyJ said:


> Waterfront property owners pay taxes based on a government's appraisal of what other people would pay to own the same piece of property. They don't pay taxes to accrue exceptional rights.
> Absolutely nothing entitles property owners to arbitrary control over the scenery, nor requires the government to ensure that the water view conforms to their tastes. Towns might feel they can keep those taxes high by catering to land-owners' whims, but that doesn't justify it, and it's probably not even necessary. Waterfront is never going to sell for less just because people have boats on the water.
> Noise ordinances are good but they don't prohibit people from occupying public space--they only prohibit them from making noise there. No reason that noise on the water should require different laws than noise on the land.
> Zoning laws prohibit eyesores and hazards everywhere. They don't otherwise prohibit you from siting your home, or using public space, where some rich guy can see it out his window.
> Consider that property owners who are near, but not on, the water also pay higher taxes than those further inland. Are their rights to use the water inferior to the rights of people who can see the water out their windows? The higher-taxes argument falls apart there.
> There's no valid argument for the way some Fl. municipalities are dealing with this issue, other than "money talks".
> JV


You are missing the point about higher taxes on waterfront property. The reason folks are willing to pay more for these properties is based on the desirability of the "neighborhood". If you want to know the parameters of "desirability", ask the property owners. That isn't to say the waterfront property owners should dictate policy--that is, in fact, the job of government--but their inputs to the regulatory process are legitimate.

The kind of consideration that waterfront property owners might seek is equivalent to the kind of land-based consideration that has some communities prohibit someone from camping out in an RV in front of your home. There are appropriate areas for RVs, but it isn't everywhere that RV owners would like.


----------



## DavyJ

> The kind of consideration that waterfront property owners might seek is equivalent to the kind of land-based consideration that has some communities prohibit someone from camping out in an RV in front of your home. There are appropriate areas for RVs, but it isn't everywhere that RV owners would like.


I'm not sure why the RV analogy keeps coming up....?
It does not apply to boats in Florida. The state of Florida has a law that prevents municipalities from enacting their own restrictions on anchoring.
On land, it's the municipalities that deal with RVs. Not the state. Secondarily, parking an RV means that 1) you are parked on your property, 2) you are parked on someone else's property, 3) you are parked on public property. Which one of those three applies to boats?


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> I'm not sure why the RV analogy keeps coming up....?
> It does not apply to boats in Florida. The state of Florida has a law that prevents municipalities from enacting their own restrictions on anchoring.
> On land, it's the municipalities that deal with RVs. Not the state. Secondarily, parking an RV means that 1) you are parked on your property, 2) you are parked on someone else's property, 3) you are parked on public property. Which one of those three applies to boats?


Whether it is the state or municipality (generally operating under state enabling statutes--at least here in CT) that makes the rules is immaterial to the bottom line: the rules are set by a government body--not the property owners.

Secondarily, the analogy is to RVs parked on public streets in a residential neighborhood. Cruising boats are directly analogous to RVs IMHO.

Further, why is so difficult to understand that waterfront property owners generally have a legitimate interest in their "neighborhood"? (Not to say all property owners are reasonable, of course.) Regulating waterside activities, including setbacks, is nothing more than the equivalent of landside zoning. Unfortunately, there are enough bad actors on the waterside that the regulations are being driven to the more restrictive side and likely to lack the balance some of us seek.


----------



## DavyJ

> Further, why is so difficult to understand that waterfront property owners generally have a legitimate interest in their "neighborhood"? (Not to say all property owners are reasonable, of course.) Regulating waterside activities, including setbacks, is nothing more than the equivalent of landside zoning.


I own waterfront property, I am not allowed to restrict anyone from using the water behind my home. Why should someone who may have paid more for theirs restrict anyone??

Zoning is set at the local level. See my previous post. FL local governments may not restrict waterway use.


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> I own waterfront property, I am not allowed to restrict anyone from using the water behind my home. Why should someone who may have paid more for theirs restrict anyone??
> 
> Zoning is set at the local level. See my previous post. FL local governments may not restrict waterway use.


It isn't the property owners who are restricting the water, it is a public body that does so under state statutes--whether or not that power is delegated to a municipality. If the specifics of water use, right down to anchorage boundaries are set universally at the state level, that would worry me.

Here in CT the state allows municipalities to set up harbor management plans that are vetted by the state before they can be enacted by the local legislative body. The state ensures, for example, that the local plans provide for transients and water access. The state also has standards for water quality that determine how close to a mooring field or anchorage that shellfishing is allowed. Subject to such state oversight, our local harbor commissions can establish where boats can be parked. In our harbor, we opened up a fairway through a mooring field that preexisted an official harbor plan to reduce the conflict between moored boats and transiting boats. The state subsequently established a "slow - no wake" zone for most of our harbor under their authority.

Bottom line: conditions vary from harbor to harbor and imposing a universal regulation down to the last detail doesn't make sense. Imposing rules within which municipalities have some room to tailor water use is reasonable.


----------



## DavyJ

> Bottom line: conditions vary from harbor to harbor and imposing a universal regulation down to the last detail doesn't make sense. Imposing rules within which municipalities have some room to tailor water use is reasonable.


The Florida law was put into place to combat just that.........
How are transients supposed to know from anchorage to anchorage what some non-boating city council members have put into place?

You may want to read up here:
BoatUS - Government Affairs - Federal Boating News Archives


----------



## VallelyJ

I don't think that navigable water, regulated by the federal government, equates to 'neighborhood', a place where people live, or could, or don't. If you want to equate the two, then what about the neighbor who's half a block from the water, pays more in taxes because of that, and wants to anchor or moor his boat nearby? What about waterfront property owners who'd prefer to see anchored boats? What about the same people who object to working boats? Foghorns? Nav aids?
Boats are a fact of life on navigable water. If you don't like traffic, don't live close to a road. If you don't like cows, don't buy a house in farmland. If you really want to be near water, you have to make trade-offs.
Waterfront owners here in Maine have to listen to the occasional lobster boat, and smell the diesel if the wind is right. But in NE, the culture of deference to rich autocrats never took hold as it did in the deep south. So don't expect the town to kick the lobster boats off the water.
If I'm likely to pay x for a piece of waterfront land, then that's the value it's taxed at. The taxable value isn't in how much the present owner likes or dislikes what he sees out the window.
Roads aren't waterways, either.
If someone doesn't like seeing boats out the window, sell up and buy inland.


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> The Florida law was put into place to combat just that.........
> How are transients supposed to know from anchorage to anchorage what some non-boating city council members have put into place?
> 
> You may want to read up here:
> BoatUS - Government Affairs - Federal Boating News Archives


You could extend your argument to "how are transients supposed to know the local rules from one state to the other as they travel down the ICW?" Simple: they call the harbormaster.

Regarding your reading assignment, I am a BoatUS member and already had read that. I pretty much agree with it and am at a loss to see how that might be at odds with my position on this thread.


----------



## fallard

VallelyJ said:


> I don't think that navigable water, regulated by the federal government, equates to 'neighborhood', a place where people live, or could, or don't. If you want to equate the two, then what about the neighbor who's half a block from the water, pays more in taxes because of that, and wants to anchor or moor his boat nearby?
> .
> .
> .
> If you really want to be near water, you have to make trade-offs.


If you want to argue about what "neighborhood" really means, consult a dictionary--it's not just about where people live.

In our harbor, we allow for folks to moor a boat even if they don't live in the Town. How close it can be depends on availability of space in a nearby mooring field.

I agree that if you really want to be near water in a boat, you have to make trade-offs. It's a 2-way street and throwing rocks at waterfront property owners that you imply are all bad rich people doesn't help in working out a balance.


----------



## RTB

fallard said:


> I agree that if you really want to be near water in a boat, you have to make trade-offs.


What the hell are you saying? I'm leaving Texas in the next week, heading for the Bahamas. I do need to anchor in Florida along the way, you know? We'll anchor out most of the time. Maybe take a slip here and there. Realistically, there are few anchorages where we will cause any problem with the locals. Do the homework, and avoid problem areas. It really isn't that hard.

Ralph


----------



## VallelyJ

> waterfront property owners that you imply are all bad rich people doesn't help in working out a balance.


I'm a waterfront property owner.
Balance has nothing to do with it. What's wrong is wrong.


----------



## fallard

RTB said:


> What the hell are you saying? I'm leaving Texas in the next week, heading for the Bahamas. I do need to anchor in Florida along the way, you know? We'll anchor out most of the time. Maybe take a slip here and there. Realistically, there are few anchorages where we will cause any problem with the locals. Do the homework, and avoid problem areas. It really isn't that hard.
> 
> Ralph


Sounds like a trade-off to me. (N.B.: stated without invective.)


----------



## fallard

VallelyJ said:


> I'm a waterfront property owner.
> Balance has nothing to do with it. What's wrong is wrong.


If it is wrong, it isn't balanced is it? Balance is what it is all about: that is, balancing the rights of all parties involved.


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

You have to be familiar with Florida cruising and the specifics of what was being proposed in the Senate bill to really discuss the FLORIDA issue with knowledge.

Further, if one agrees that a setback doesn't solve noise, environmental pollution and dog poop problems, one can't logically conclude that a setback is what is needed to address them. Attempting to convince boaters that creating a law that doesn't solve the "stated" problems just widens the credibility gap. In fact, look at the first sentence in the Florida Senate Bill. It says "An act relating to vessel safety...". I wouldn't let that one sit in the hot Florida sun for very long.

What is really happening in Florida is that the homeowner who has paid a lot of money to be on the waterfront to enjoy the view is incensed that a low budget boat owner can anchor and enjoy the same view for a whole let less money (I think we all agree that derelict boats are a problem and that is not what I am talking about here). I understand and respect that, as fallard said a homeowner should be and has a right to be concerned about the value of their property, which can be impacted by what goes on around it. I think that is a legitimate concern. However, it gets lost when an attempt is made to hide it behind solutions that don't make sense relative to the stated problems.

If everyone was honest about what their real issue is, significant progress could be made; like limiting the amount of time a boat can be anchored within so many feet of a waterside residence. Admit it...wouldn't this resolve the real issue, i.e. some person(s) taking up permanent residence on the water 50 feet behind your house when they don't even pay property taxes?

It should also be noted that in Florida it has been concluded that land development activities too close to the waterline have significantly impacted water quality, key spawning estuaries and water-dependent plant/animal viability. So, who is ruining what for whom?


----------



## DavyJ

> I do need to anchor in Florida along the way, you know? We'll anchor out most of the time. Maybe take a slip here and there. Realistically, there are few anchorages where we will cause any problem with the locals.


Do not miss Long Boat Pass, it truly is a beautiful place to stay. let me know if you need local info!!


----------



## RTB

DavyJ said:


> Do not miss Long Boat Pass, it truly is a beautiful place to stay. let me know if you need local info!!


Hey, thank you. I need to look that one up, cause we never stopped there, and always looking for something new. I gotta say, the west coast of Florida is pretty sweet for the most part. The east coast, a bit more challenging, but feel we can find anchorages without any offset being a problem.

I'm not quite sure if those from Connecticut have actual experience anchoring in Florida? For me, I was a bit worried about what I'd find in Florida once we got there last time. Actually, we had absolutely no problems at all, and totally enjoyed our time there. No doubt, if cruisers start having major problems in Florida, it will be very well advertised. I'll surely announce any problems when cruising through. Honestly, I doubt that will be a problem.

Ralph


----------



## fallard

RTB said:


> Hey, thank you. I need to look that one up, cause we never stopped there, and always looking for something new. I gotta say, the west coast of Florida is pretty sweet for the most part. The east coast, a bit more challenging, but feel we can find anchorages without any offset being a problem.
> 
> I'm not quite sure if those from Connecticut have actual experience anchoring in Florida? For me, I was a bit worried about what I'd find in Florida once we got there last time. Actually, we had absolutely no problems at all, and totally enjoyed our time there. No doubt, if cruisers start having major problems in Florida, it will be very well advertised. I'll surely announce any problems when cruising through. Honestly, I doubt that will be a problem.
> 
> Ralph


Many years ago we bought our current sailboat at Clearwater Beach and sailed her the 1700 miles home to CT. Our first stop was at Longboat Key where we anchored near Moore's Stone Crab restaurant. We picked up slips for the most part enroute to east coast, but also anchored fore-aft on the side of the Caloosahatchee Canal west of Clewiston. You'd need to compare your air draft to the bridge clearances, but I recall there was a 49' clearance near Indiantown that may not allow you to cross FL via Lake Okeechobee. We left FL at Fort Pierce and rode the Gulfstream to NC, so we didn't anchor on the east side of FL.

Maybe 10 years ago we chartered out of Burnt Store Marina and anchored a 35' sailboat at Gasparilla, inside Boca Grande, and also behind the barrier islands in Pine Island Sound. Never had a problem in FL, but the only area we anchored near homes was Gasparilla.


----------



## Woodvet

Done time as a NIMBY so let me show you some pointers. 
All those "helping" the boaters should be suspect... Likely as not, they may work for the homeowners, not the boaters. Anyone with a brain cell left knows boaters are orphans in the political theater. The service these planted helpers and "leaders" preform as "volunteers" is to test the water for likelihood of passing it. Like whether the opposition has a lawyer and how serious the threat to them is. If the threat is bad they simply fold up shop and come back stronger another day after everyones gone home. 
The tricks they have in their arsenal are well established and go back before you're born. The activists are at best sitting duck because the people they hire "perform" the most critical tasks and that is so they can drop the ball if asked. 
Don't think for second they see their job as subversive because people have a way of justifying how they make a living and the risk to them from the boaters??? Come on... It's a cake walk. Most are hiding in plain sight and if you expose them they send new ones, too good to be true. One can only imagine if the impostors are exposed how that demoralizes the opposition. Their purpose is not to collapse the opposition but to nurture it and thus later they will claim the "people were well informed, the meetings well attended and so. If no one showed they would be required to locate opposition to create the air of contest. 

There are but a few players to these operations and they are: The developers and residents who pay consultants to represent them and are well funded. The politicians who pretend none of the money they have in their campaign chest affects their vote. And then the novelist activist who makes up for a poor education with passion... The money from the first goes to the second and there is plenty of co-operation between them. The politician tells the proposers of the law that they will loose votes if they support such a law. They won't call it a bribe but they donate to their re-electionof the second. Now you have 2 to 1 odds of it's passage. 

If there is no opposition the politician in some cases must create it, (seen that)... That is likely the only time you would have the so called activist "paid" since his or her job is not to oppose in a affective way but to present enough obvious threat to the politician's re-election that he would need a donation to off set the margin... Nothing I have indicated here is at all in anyway illegal. 
The only party unpaid in this equation is the passion fed "legit activist" who will tire over time. The meetings will have all the necessary rhetoric guaranteed to put you to sleep and draw it out with tax payed engineers and and consultant paid experts who give for all the world to see, a seemingly logical conclusion while the passionate speeches while away the hours into the morning. 
Soon the most ardent and stubborn supporters head back to the feed bag and as it was said on this thread, the proponents can loose till the cows come home but the activists need only loose once and the bill is law. 

Few people have the time to even look at what the legislators do setting aside the municipalities so there can be no rescue. We live in the busiest times of all time. You might have some sad case on disability or public assistance but I guarantee the working class has barely time to vote let alone shape that vote. "Lost at sea" we are, while the machine has specific steps to do away with our freedoms and corral us cash cows into their paddock where we can't view them living high on the hog... 
I am mature enough to sympathize for the long journey it takes to climb to a high end home in a gated community. However, many of them profited if not sold us that bringing more people "yearning to breath" here, was in fact good for US all... Imagine the impacts caused by the newbees dumped into our rivers, bays and lakes and yes the ocean. Yet it only becomes an issue when a boater does it. 
There's no way around it. You profit from more people -there will be less room and privacy and quality of life for all... Fair is fair!!!


----------



## Cal31Windchaser

Ralph, not too far south of Long Boat Key is Charlotte Harbor. There is an absolutely wonderful anchorage called Pelican Bay on the inside of an Island called Cayo Costa. It is right on the way to the Caloosahatchee River if you are planning to cross the State their.

The bay is well protected and the State runs a tractor pulled wagon across the island to a beach on the Gulf.

You are absolutely correct about the west coast. It is loaded with great anchorages, nice marinas and good seafood.

We are making the leg from Carrabelle, FL to Ft. Myers, then to Glades Storage on the Caloosahatchee next month.


----------



## DavyJ

Well I was unable to attend due to work related duties, as I'm sure many of you were, but did watch the video stream of the hearing on anchoring restrictions. You can watch the video archive here:

House Video Player: State Affairs Committee

What I can say, is that if boaters don't speak up about this, we are going to lose this battle. My suggestion is to email the representatives on this committee, the State Affairs Committee, and voice your opinion. The State Affairs Committee can be found here:

Florida House of Representatives - State Affairs Committee


----------



## Group9

We're cruising the west coast of Florida right now on our way to the Bahamas. A 300 foot set back or a 72 hour time limit would be unworkable most of the time, especially when fronts come through. Luckily, the west coast is still mostly Floridians rather than emigrant New Yorkers, so crazy and mean and entitled hasn't struck here, yet.


----------



## Don L

I think it very silly for people to think that the Florida political system cares what a small number of out of state boaters think!


----------



## JonEisberg

Group9 said:


> We're cruising the west coast of Florida right now on our way to the Bahamas. A 300 foot set back or a 72 hour time limit would be unworkable most of the time, especially when fronts come through. Luckily, the west coast is still mostly Floridians rather than emigrant New Yorkers, so crazy and mean and entitled hasn't struck here, yet.


Wait 'till you get to Marco Island... ;-)

That was scene of Round One of the legal wrangling that brought us to where we are today, after all...

Score One for the Anchoring Activists | Cruising World


----------



## Group9

Don0190 said:


> I think it very silly for people to think that the Florida political system cares what a small number of out of state boaters think!


When I lived in Florida, I got the distinct impression the didn't care what in state boaters think, either. All politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, but Florida embraces it a little too enthusiastically for me.


----------



## DavyJ

> We're cruising the west coast of Florida right now on our way to the Bahamas.


Good luck on your passage. The weather forecast for my area, Tampa Bay, looks great for the next 7-10 days. However, light winds may be the norm.


----------



## RL24er

Minnewaska said:


> The argument that relies on the way navigable waters had been originally regulated 200 years ago, will be refuted with witch burning and slavery. Laws change. That's directly their point for introducing legislation to do so.


Yes, laws change as times change, but one huge distinguishing difference is that people can own and use a particular portion of land, but with the oceans they can not so easily be divided up and used by any one person or entity. Water flows, tides and currents move the waters from one location to another, therefore it may be understood that the oceans of the world belong to ALL of the people of the world, and are available to use (not abuse with pollution!) by watercraft of all types. So this concept establishes the right to anchor in these public waters without claiming them for any particular person, so that all anchorages should be vacated periodically, otherwise people will abuse the right of access to the oceans and live their entire lives in one location on one boat. So this is where we are at in Florida--who regulates the anchorage laws and how often must a person move their watercraft, without being denied access to use the waters?


----------



## Group9

JonEisberg said:


> Wait 'till you get to Marco Island... ;-)
> 
> That was scene of Round One of the legal wrangling that brought us to where we are today, after all...
> 
> Score One for the Anchoring Activists | Cruising World


I forgot about that one.


----------



## Minnewaska

The idea that land can be divided, but water can not, is culturally biased. There are plenty of cultures that do not support the concept of land ownership either. Primitive as they may be. There are in fact, seabed ownership rights in some circumstances as well, albeit not typically ocean front. 

Navigable waters are clearly regulated now. The world's citizens do not have unfettered access to the world's waters. In fact, the moment you drop your anchor inside a sovereign nation's waters, you are considered to have made landfall and must be properly authorized to be within that country. 

While it sounds like this law is being funded by some rich self-entitled idiots, the concept is quite understandable. If you were talking about a reasonable setback, I see no problem with it. Generally, I don't ever want to be within 100 ft of anything I could drag into. I'm not okay with banning anchoring altogether.


----------



## chrisncate

Minnewaska said:


> The idea that land can be divided, but water can not, is culturally biased. There are plenty of cultures that do not support the concept of land ownership either. Primitive as they may be. There are in fact, seabed ownership rights in some circumstances as well, albeit not typically ocean front.
> 
> Navigable waters are clearly regulated now. The world's citizens do not have unfettered access to the world's waters. In fact, the moment you drop your anchor inside a sovereign nation's waters, you are considered to have made landfall and must be properly authorized to be within that country.
> 
> While it sounds like this law is being funded by some rich self-entitled idiots, the concept is quite understandable. If you were talking about a reasonable setback, I see no problem with it. Generally, I don't ever want to be within 100 ft of anything I could drag into. I'm not okay with banning anchoring altogether.


Sounds about right, not sure how anyone could argue with that.


----------



## fallard

RL24er said:


> Yes, laws change as times change, but one huge distinguishing difference is that people can own and use a particular portion of land, but with the oceans they can not so easily be divided up and used by any one person or entity. Water flows, tides and currents move the waters from one location to another, therefore it may be understood that the oceans of the world belong to ALL of the people of the world, and are available to use (not abuse with pollution!) by watercraft of all types. So this concept establishes the right to anchor in these public waters without claiming them for any particular person, so that all anchorages should be vacated periodically, otherwise people will abuse the right of access to the oceans and live their entire lives in one location on one boat. So this is where we are at in Florida--who regulates the anchorage laws and how often must a person move their watercraft, without being denied access to use the waters?


Unfortunately your notion about the right to anchor in public waters without claiming them for any particular person is historically and currently incorrect. For a very long time there have been CT state shellfish leases that reserve the bottom for use by private individuals/corporations. In our area of Connecticut our harbor commission recognizes these areas as appropriate for transit only, and has does not designate these areas for mooring or anchoring use.

Bottom line: there is a precedent going back more than a century for the public leasing the bottom for private use.


----------



## Group9

fallard said:


> Unfortunately your notion about the right to anchor in public waters without claiming them for any particular person is historically and currently incorrect. For a very long time there have been CT state shellfish leases that reserve the bottom for use by private individuals/corporations. In our area of Connecticut our harbor commission recognizes these areas as appropriate for transit only, and has does not designate these areas for mooring or anchoring use.
> 
> Bottom line: there is a precedent going back more than a century for the public leasing the bottom for private use.


And, the precedent of paying politicians to get something you want, but legally shouldn't have, goes back even farther.


----------



## Minnewaska

Group9 said:


> And, the precedent of paying politicians to get something you want, but legally shouldn't have, goes back even farther.


Actually, I'm not so sure. Representative government is fairly young compared to the navigable waterways. Sovereign nations laying claim to their seas goes back to the monarchies. You didn't pay them anything, they just took it. Imagine trying to anchor in front of the Prince's waterfront summer home.

Thankfully, we stand a change to solve this conflict with a reasonable compromise.


----------



## Woodvet

The idea that someone can by lease take away rights of the public to sell to an individual is lacking in legality as much as it is in brain cells but just for argument's sake lets say their lease ownership is allowed. Where would such leases (greed) end? 
When all the oceans are leased? 
What would prohibit an oil rig or lease of bottom land to dump on? 
Yes, oysters need clean water or they get contaminated with sewage from house or boat but to claim the public cannot do without oysters or that they are necessary is over the top. 
So they say two days and you have to go. That will mean the long term people living on the hook who recognize problems would not be there and short termers would not know what was going on. 
The idea of owning the ocean is something born under tyrannical rulers like North Korea. 
Much as I love the idea of living on the shore line too and paying FEMA rates, I am a boater and cannot argue the finer details of the land lubber. 

Knowing that the sea will be taken up and sold like shares in a condo, my days are limited but for now we still go and stay as we choose. 
I will not side with bureaucrats who see the world as a vending machine to pay for their lunch. 
You bought a view of those said free boats and now like a junkyard dog claim all you see as what you own. 
The sailor is not bound by the same laws but if it were an easy life, you'd join them. 
The boats were there long before your house, you have no argument here... Least not one you do not bribe to occur.


----------



## wfish11

I've said it before the derelict boat is not an issue. There are laws in FL already to cover this, what doesn't exist is the money to provide for enforcement and removal. These people are already law breakers, a new law will not end this. They will still drop their boats wherever they please and run off.

The RV comparison is all BS. Most of Florida has deed restricted communities. The buyers have agreed to abide by these restrictions before they buy. They can be fined and their houses placed under lien for payment. One of the usual restrictions is that you cannot park a trailer or RV or boat in your driveway, property or street. Many require you to park your cars in the garage at night. If there was an RV in the street in front of my house and if I wasn't in a deed restricted community and I called the police, they would probably consider it a civil matter and do nothing. I would have to pay someone to tow it away and I would run the risk of the owner suing me for damages. 

The reason people don't park their RV out in front of your house and raise H is there are laws against it and the police already exist and we pay for them to enforce the laws already. There would also be no services in the street and these big RVs can't live for long without power, water, sewer. There are already patrol cars probably only 5 minutes or so away. If every one of these people pushing for this new law were told that their property taxes would probably have to be raised to provide for enforcement and removal, I think you'd lose a lot of them. Local police and the FWC are already budget strapped, to add these enforcement needs they would need a huge increase in their budgets. 

The real rich people should just lease the water rights from the county, pay the yearly fees and put bouys and ropes how ever far out they want to pay for. MY sailing squadron has docks and we pay a yearly fee for the water the docks cover. In the end you get what you pay for. In Florida if you didn't buy the view, you won't have it too long. Somebody will throw up a condo or something between you and it.


----------



## JonEisberg

Woodvet said:


> The boats were there long before your house, you have no argument here...


Uhhh, not necessarily...

Take the Sunset Lake anhorage in Miami Beach, for example...










Sunset Lake is not a 'natural waterway', that pre-existed the development surrounding its perimeter... It is a man-made feature, and in fact would not exist today, were it not for the creation of the Sunset Islands - like virtually all of the islands situated between Miami and Miami Beach - by the Sunset Islands Corporation back in the 1920's, headed by the President of Paramount Pictures at the time...

So, like much of the development and construction of man-made 'waterways' in South Florida, I think it fair to say that the residences came first, and the boats followed. And, it would require quite a revision of history to maintain boats were anchoring in Sunset Lake prior to the homes being built on those islands, or that the lake was created to provide safe harbor for all those recreational watercraft in Miami a century ago, instead of providing the landfill to create those residential islands from what was basically a swamp...

;-)


----------



## DavyJ

> Sunset Lake is not a 'natural waterway', that pre-existed the development surrounding its perimeter... It is a man-made feature, and in fact would not exist today, were it not for the creation of the Sunset Islands


This really doesn't have any weight. The waterway I live on was also man-made. I cannot choose what water activities are able to occur there.

Let's say I decide I don't like jet skiers.... Would you think it correct for me to contribute to some politician to attempt to enact a law to restrict jet ski use behind my house??


----------



## albrazzi

This has some parallel with the gun rights debate. "All my guns are protection guns so don't bother me with the issues with the bad guys" For me there's nothing more representative of the freedom of life than a sailboat, but anchor a crap pile broken down Junker in my view for a couple of weeks and my view will change. What I'm saying is as Boat owners we have a responsibility to observe and help police the derelicts in the mix. IMHO free navigation wins but what would a listening man hear in this argument.
If this is not part of the issue forgive me, but anyone who travelled to KW 30 years ago and enjoyed Houseboat row understands however unique and interesting it was it had to go.
I understand air Boats are being banned on personnel level from the Glades, I think excluding commercial air Boating. I would assume they are reacting to a problem as they see it.
200' seems pretty close to anchor to anything especially someone's house. At least when Miami is underwater we will still be floating.


----------



## DavyJ

> What I'm saying is as Boat owners we have a responsibility to observe and help police the derelicts in the mix. IMHO free navigation wins but what would a listening man hear in this argument.


They don't care about derelicts, they just don't want _any boat _behind their house. If you watch the recent hearing, you will see both Miami Beach residents argue that_ NO Boat _should be able to anchor overnight. And one of those residents even tells the panel that some of the yachts are very nice, some over a million dollars. They don't care about that, they just don't want anyone behind their house. By the way, they don't care about your house, just theirs. That is why the 200' keeps getting brought up. If the 200' set-back gets adopted, it will eliminate anchoring in Sunset Lake. That is all those residents want.......


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> ......If the 200' set-back gets adopted, it will eliminate anchoring in Sunset Lake. That is all those residents want.......


Understood and that's not acceptable. However, I find the argument that one should be able to anchor anywhere, for however long they like, because the ocean is the last bastion of freedom, to be equally manipulative.

A reasonable setback makes sense. A reasonable number of nights for a transient makes sense. The debate should be over what they should be.

Here's a scenario. You drop anchor off a waterfront home and notice a bunch of tents and chairs in the lawn, but no activity. After shutting down, the owner says that his daughter is getting married the next morning on their lawn and politely asks if you wouldn't mind moving, as you're currently 50 ft from his yard (ie closer than most guests will be). Yes, a regular voice conversation could be had at that distance.

I would move in a heartbeat. If you wouldn't, we see this very differently.


----------



## DavyJ

> I would move in a heartbeat. If you wouldn't, we see this very differently.


Personally, I wouldn't anchor in Sunset Lake. I have never anchored within 200' of any structure. The canal I live on is about 175' wide. And I wouldn't want to be that close to a sea wall. However, if these guys get their way, what's next?? 500', 1000', 2000'. Once the battle is over in Sunset Lake, they will march right over to the next larger cove and demand anchoring restrictions there.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> Personally, I wouldn't anchor in Sunset Lake. I have never anchored within 200' of any structure. The canal I live on is about 175' wide. And I wouldn't want to be that close to a sea wall. However, if these guys get their way, what's next?? 500', 1000', 2000'. Once the battle is over in Sunset Lake, they will march right over to the next larger cove and demand anchoring restrictions there.


Got it. The concern is politics, not practicality.

You may be right, but your argument is the same for gun control. Most don't really minds tighter restrictions, they fear what might be next.


----------



## DavyJ

> they fear what might be next.


Well, we don't even have to wait until the battle in Sunset Lake is over. Once again, if you watch the video of the hearing, you will see that Rep. George Moraitis is proposing an entire ban on anchoring in the Middle River. The Middle River is about 775' wide.........


----------



## JonEisberg

DavyJ said:


> This really doesn't have any weight. The waterway I live on was also man-made. I cannot choose what water activities are able to occur there.
> 
> Let's say I decide I don't like jet skiers.... Would you think it correct for me to contribute to some politician to attempt to enact a law to restrict jet ski use behind my house??


I'm not saying that such an argument necessarily "carries any weight"... I was simply pointing out many of the anchorages being threatened in places like Dade and Broward counties are not really 'natural waterways', nor were they being frequented by boats _before_ the existence of houses on the waterfront - a point the poster I was responding to apparently does believe "carries some weight"...


----------



## Sal Paradise

I have been reading about this, trying to educate myself on this issue. This bog has some information and comment on the issue that I think is worth reading - one thing I agree with in general is the view that politicians are being legally bribed and that this generally has a negative impact on both the public and public resources. I dont think any campaign contribution over $100 should be allowed ever, by anyone and none by corporations. Anyway his commentary below and on the link

_"I'm completely fed up with these ongoing attempts to eliminate the rights of the general public in favor of a few wealthy homeowners."

"...you bought the land to your property line, and not one inch beyond that. The rest of it belongs to the public."

"To limit the rights of the general public with any sort of anchoring legislation would be in essence a conveyance of those rights to the hands of those benefiting from said conveyance - the waterfront landowners. After all, it is they who are driving this process of endless fighting over this issue, not the boaters, not the guy living inland or the casual tourist visiting the state. It's a few wealthy homeowners who are the force behind this fight."

_LiveBloggin' the ICW: Florida is doing it AGAIN!


----------



## denverd0n

Minnewaska said:


> Understood and that's not acceptable. However, I find the argument that one should be able to anchor anywhere, for however long they like, because the ocean is the last bastion of freedom, to be equally manipulative.


Of course. Reasonable people should be able to come to a reasonable compromise that protects the rights off all.

That's the problem, though. That word "reasonable." There are just way too many people--let's be honest, on both sides of this issue--who refuse to be reasonable. So it is going to come down to whoever can muster the political clout to get what they want.

It is unfortunate that it has to come to that, but that seems to be the way most such things get resolved these days.


----------



## Minnewaska

Every candidate should be given a fixed budget from which to campaign. Public access television, standard debates, etc. Level playing field.

Ban political parties. Both parties fund virtually their entire primary, with the resource of the wealthiest members of their clan. Once you achieve the nomination, it's already too late. You sold out to get it.

You won't see reform in our grandchildren's lifetime.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Interesting short wikipedia article on Public Trust Doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine


----------



## Group9

Minnewaska said:


> Got it. The concern is politics, not practicality.
> 
> You may be right, but your argument is the same for gun control. Most don't really minds tighter restrictions, they fear what might be next.


Much easier to slowly boil a frog to death than to throw him into a pot of boiling water.


----------



## Group9

chrisncate said:


> 200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.
> 
> From a non cruisers perspective, it's kind of hard to view why exactly your recreation/vacation whims should take precedence over homeowners who have invested in the area for the long term and actually live there and pay taxes there. 200' seems pretty reasonable, you're still close, and the homeowner doesn't have a bunch of anchored transient cruisers parked on top of him with a 200' buffer law in place.
> 
> Property is valued higher when it's on the water (typically), and there is a reason for that. Seems kind of entitled to think you have an automatic right to anchor wherever you want in an area you have zero investment in just because you want to, regardless of what the locals feel about the matter. Saying things like "they think they own the view", while whining about not being able to (temporarily) own that view yourself seems like double speak.
> 
> I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens. I also do believe sincerely that if RV's suddenly started landing less than 200' from your home, blocking your views that you don't own, you'd probably be up in arms and have the problem dealt with in short order.


Well, that's certainly the view of the guys pushing this. What's the point of being rich if you can't buy everything you want?


----------



## chrisncate

Group9 said:


> What's the point of being rich if you can't buy everything you want?


Finally, someone who gets it.

Before someone pops an oxygen bottle hose and keels over, I am kidding. On a serious note though, perhaps one of the villains the cruiser set might want to set their sights on is Captain Onions and his derelict 27' 1978 Hunter who in the process of "getting away from society and being, like _free_ man!", takes up residence in front of some contributing member of societies multi million dollar waterfront home ruining it for the rest of you.

Scratch that, Captain Onions is alright. Just misunderstood and a little stinky. Perhaps it was simply one too many noisy wind gens that finally galvanized the 1% to fight for legislation. Who can really tell.. point is there is more than one side to this debate...


----------



## Group9

chrisncate said:


> Finally, someone who gets it.
> 
> Before someone pops an oxygen bottle hose and keels over, I am kidding. On a serious note though, perhaps one of the villains the cruiser set might want to set their sights on is Captain Onions and his derelict 27' 1978 Hunter who in the process of "getting away from society and being, like _free_ man!", takes up residence in front of some contributing member of societies multi million dollar waterfront home ruining it for the rest of you.
> 
> Scratch that, Captain Onions is alright. Just misunderstood and a little stinky. Perhaps it was simply one too many noisy wind gens that finally galvanized the 1% to fight for legislation. Who can really tell.. point is there is more than one side to this debate...


No doubt, homeless people, low life's, and bums are unpleasant to look at where ever the are found, but restricting the rights of transient cruisers in the name of stomping out this problem is like restricting commuters from stopping at rest stops because someone saw a homeless person living in their car.

It reminds me of the sixties when all of our public pools had to be closed right after intergration was ordered because they all suddenly had severe maintainence problems and were too expensive to fix. It kept the blacks out of those neighborhoods for sure, but I sure missed having a pool to go swim in. But, it was never about discrimination, you see. The pools all simply broke at once.


----------



## Minnewaska

I've read the argument that a 200ft setback would effectively close miles of the ICW and one isn't permitted to transit the ICW in the dark. While I don't subscribe to providing anchorages, as I can count may places that never had any for miles to begin with, I also can't see a measure that effectively closes long stretches of the ICW to anyone that can move fast enough between anchorages. We also don't want to open it up to night travel, or the consequences and cost could be greater. In a sense, we've already created the problem.

There must be a compromise in there somewhere. Does 100ft allow for anchorages close enough that they can be transited during daylight? Could the regulation exclude anchoring in some places between 1hr after sunrise and 1 hr before sunset, rather than excluded it entirely by the setback, just to allow transiting? 

I'm not saying these are good ideas, only that we all need to get along and come up with something. There are a-holes in all walks of life, ashore and afloat. 

The slow boiling water analogy is a damnation against democracy. I should decide all these matters, rationally.


----------



## UnionPacific

Minnewaska said:


> one isn't permitted to transit the ICW in the dark.


That is incorrect. You can transit 24/7. Tugs do it all the time.


----------



## Minnewaska

UnionPacific said:


> That is incorrect. You can transit 24/7. Tugs do it all the time.


No kidding. Where did I get that, I wonder? Are there restricted sections or vessel types. Could have sworn this was an issue.

Fair enough.


----------



## Group9

UnionPacific said:


> That is incorrect. You can transit 24/7. Tugs do it all the time.


Which is one of the reasons not to transit it at night.


----------



## UnionPacific

Minnewaska said:


> No kidding. Where did I get that, I wonder? Are there restricted sections or vessel types. Could have sworn this was an issue.
> 
> Fair enough.


Not many cruisers do it. There is floatsum to worry about, unmarked shoals, ect. Must tugs and commercial boats have been there before, have a saved track, or know the waters. 
I have done the ICW at night myself, its not much fun.


----------



## JonEisberg

Group9 said:


> Which is one of the reasons not to transit it at night.


Yet when compared with the amount of traffic seen north of the FL-GA line, tug traffic on the ICW in Florida - particularly South Florida - is so minimal as to be practically non-existent...


----------



## tellemark32

I am in Florida and you are wasting time if you think things will change. Find another place to anchor. Pretty simple and not a lot of effort. This may be a bit inconvenient; just remember that sailors created the problem for sailors--not home owners. If you want to unite, unite against cruising folks being irresponsible. Florida homeowners are simply responding to the small percentage of sailors who do not have the foresight to understand how their behavior might affect others.

This is no different than having some rust bucket truck, car or mobile home park in front of your home and get left there. You cannot find the owner. Or, if you do, they ignore you. Would you put up with that? The street is not your property, but it would still aggravate you to no end. And, it could affect the perceived value of the area. Most cruising folks and liveaboards are outstanding. But, there are always going to be low-life liveaboards. It takes just a few to cause problems like this.


----------



## fallard

Minnewaska said:


> I've read the argument that a 200ft setback would effectively close miles of the ICW and one isn't permitted to transit the ICW in the dark. While I don't subscribe to providing anchorages, as I can count may places that never had any for miles to begin with, I also can't see a measure that effectively closes long stretches of the ICW to anyone that can move fast enough between anchorages. We also don't want to open it up to night travel, or the consequences and cost could be greater. In a sense, we've already created the problem.
> 
> There must be a compromise in there somewhere. Does 100ft allow for anchorages close enough that they can be transited during daylight? Could the regulation exclude anchoring in some places between 1hr after sunrise and 1 hr before sunset, rather than excluded it entirely by the setback, just to allow transiting?
> 
> I'm not saying these are good ideas, only that we all need to get along and come up with something. There are a-holes in all walks of life, ashore and afloat.
> 
> The slow boiling water analogy is a damnation against democracy. I should decide all these matters, rationally.


One size for setbacks does not fit all situations. Nor does a setback, per se, address other legitimate waterway uses, like transiting, recreational boating (vs. parking) to include sailing, kayaking, etc.

In our harbor we have designated transient anchorages, a fairway through a mooring field (to reduce confllicts between moving and parked boats), and a designated open area to facilitate setting sail before reaching open water at the mouth of our harbor. That is in addition to mooring field setbacks, which are 150' for residential areas and 100' for commercial areas.

My point is that there are a variety of legitimate boating issues that should be accommodated in resolving the transient issue. As some have insinuated, you could turn a narrow waterway into wall-to-wall "parking lot" or, for that matter, you could turn a much larger area into a parking lot to the detriment of boaters who need some open space. One example in our area is the area to the southeast in what is known as the Noank anchorage. Our harbor management plan, which is in effect, designates the area to the east of a north-south line tangent to the west coast of Ram Island and south of Seal Rocks (by Masons Island) to be cleared of moorings through attrition and by precluding new moorings there. FWIW, AC incorrectly identifies this area as an anchorage. Also, FWIW, the southern end of this area has an active shellfish lease--all the more reason to keep moored/anchored boats at a distance.


----------



## Sal Paradise

tellemark32 said:


> I am in Florida and you are wasting time if you think things will change. Find another place to anchor. Pretty simple and not a lot of effort. This may be a bit inconvenient; just remember that sailors created the problem for sailors--not home owners. If you want to unite, unite against cruising folks being irresponsible. Florida homeowners are simply responding to the small percentage of sailors who do not have the foresight to understand how their behavior might affect others.
> 
> This is no different than having some rust bucket truck, car or mobile home park in front of your home and get left there. You cannot find the owner. Or, if you do, they ignore you. Would you put up with that? The street is not your property, but it would still aggravate you to no end. And, it could affect the perceived value of the area. Most cruising folks and liveaboards are outstanding. But, there are always going to be low-life liveaboards. It takes just a few to cause problems like this.


You want boaters to take the law into their own hands? I have no jurisdiction and its a crime for me to take someone's boat or to interfere with it. There are people who are authorized to do it. Police. Why doesnt the state just pull the derelict boats and fine the owners? Ahh see that's the problem! Lazy inefficient corrupt government not doing it's job - cheaper and easier to ban everyone! That may be a good approach for a derelict neighborhood car ........not for the water. Demand more from your government.


----------



## Group9

tellemark32 said:


> I am in Florida and you are wasting time if you think things will change. Find another place to anchor. Pretty simple and not a lot of effort. This may be a bit inconvenient; just remember that sailors created the problem for sailors--not home owners. If you want to unite, unite against cruising folks being irresponsible. Florida homeowners are simply responding to the small percentage of sailors who do not have the foresight to understand how their behavior might affect others.
> 
> This is no different than having some rust bucket truck, car or mobile home park in front of your home and get left there. You cannot find the owner. Or, if you do, they ignore you. Would you put up with that? The street is not your property, but it would still aggravate you to no end. And, it could affect the perceived value of the area. Most cruising folks and liveaboards are outstanding. But, there are always going to be low-life liveaboards. It takes just a few to cause problems like this.


Like blacks trying to move into your neighborhood. Some 
may be okay, but safer to keep them all out.


----------



## Group9

JonEisberg said:


> Yet when compared with the amount of traffic seen north of the FL-GA line, tug traffic on the ICW in Florida - particularly South Florida - is so minimal as to be practically non-existent...


Just think, every time you see a day marker, or bridge dolphin taken out, and picture it being your boat instead.


----------



## shananchie

Group9 said:


> Like blacks trying to move into your neighborhood. Some
> may be okay, but safer to keep them all out.


Personally, I avoid neighborhoods with bigoted ******** in them. Who needs rusty pickup trucks, pit bulls, middle-aged fat guys toting guns, meth heads, old refrigerators in the back yard and Confederate flags? Not in my backyard.


----------



## fallard

shananchie said:


> Personally, I avoid neighborhoods with bigoted ******** in them. Who needs rusty pickup trucks, pit bulls, middle-aged fat guys toting guns, meth heads, old refrigerators in the back yard and Confederate flags? Not in my backyard.


Is this some kind of bad joke? This comment and the Group9 comment to which it responds are out of line for this thread. This isn't about political correctness (******** are people, too) but about civility (or lack thereof.)


----------



## chrisncate

#rednecklivesmatter


----------



## jcapo

shananchie said:


> Personally, I avoid neighborhoods with bigoted ******** in them. Who needs rusty pickup trucks, pit bulls, middle-aged fat guys toting guns, meth heads, old refrigerators in the back yard and Confederate flags? Not in my backyard.


I75 north leads you to I95 and further north. Bye.


----------



## shananchie

UnionPacific said:


> Agreed. As a fat middle age man with a gun I prefer the south.
> I gotz me a Bible, a God, a gun, a dog, and freedom. This is why the civil war happened, people from up north thought they knew better.
> The bad news, for you, is the north has turned their guns into welfare cash, so the south will win this one. Enjoy sailing in the snow. FWIW Bahamas is cool with guns too, so don't go there neither. I hear Venezuela is nice in the winter, and no guns!


Ever hear of sarcasm?

My point is that the casual racism of Group 9's comment has no place on Sailnet or anyplace else, for that matter.

Every group has its good and bad people -- white, black, Asian, Jewish, Arab and everyone else. Making offensive comments about an entire ethnic group based on the actions of a few is ignorant.

You want to say bad things about black people? It's easy enough to say equally awful things about white people and every other ethnic group, based on the behavior of some members of the group.

For another example, people could be complaining about the poor Southern whites who comprise most of the people living on derelict boats and are largely causing the anchoring problems in Florida. But they're not.

That is the point of my post.

Also, by the way, the only reason most of the Southern states are not part of the Third World is that Washington sends them many billions of Northern tax dollars every year to help compensate for the widespread poverty among white and black residents. Only Texas and Florida pay their own way.

You could look it up, if you read.


----------



## UnionPacific

shananchie said:


> For another example, people could be complaining about the poor Southern whites who comprise most of the people living on derelict boats and are largely causing the anchoring problems in Florida.


I have met some. Unless they forgot how to have an accent, they are not originally from the south. They are transplants.



> That is the point of my post.
> 
> Also, by the way, the only reason most of the Southern states are not part of the Third World is that Washington sends them many billions of Northern tax dollars every year to help compensate for the widespread poverty among white and black residents. Only Texas and Florida pay their own way.
> 
> You could look it up, if you read.


I live in FL, so I cannot speak for other southern states. I have only visited, and only so brief a time that I could not make such observations. Of course if they send money to help them, please stop sending it. People can and will take care of themselves when the government stop providing everything for them.

As for the derlicts, sink them. They they can move back to land and be a land problem with the rest of the lazy homeless people.


----------



## Group9

fallard said:


> Is this some kind of bad joke? This comment and the Group9 comment to which it responds are out of line for this thread. This isn't about political correctness (******** are people, too) but about civility (or lack thereof.)


No, it's political correctness heading to its ultimate goal: no debate on anything.
It was an analogy and trying to make a point.

Sometimes, I just forget how politically correct and easy to offend so much of the world has become. I will endeavor to remember that here.


----------



## fallard

Group9 said:


> No, it's political correctness heading to its ultimate goal: no debate on anything.
> It was an analogy and trying to make a point.
> 
> Sometimes, I just forget how politically correct and easy to offend so much of the world has become. I will endeavor to remember that here.


If you want to debate an issue, please stick to the issue. Invoking a racial or ethnic "analog" confuses the issue IMHO.


----------



## sharkbait

.


----------



## UnionPacific

sharkbait said:


> I dont understand why so many people want to be in Fl. Passports arent that expensive. I much prefer the Bahamas.


I think Bahamas would have a lot more visitors if they lower the $300 check-in fee.


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## UnionPacific

It should be $150 for anyone under 50m.


----------



## JonEisberg

UnionPacific said:


> I think Bahamas would have a lot more visitors if they lower the $300 check-in fee.


And yet, I'll bet you spend more than that to stay tied up to a dock in St Augustine each month... Go figure... ;-)

Yup, the Bahamians have their priorities backwards, alright... Just imagine the vast amount of untapped wealth among those who might balk at paying the present price of admission...










...when compared to so many of those currently cluttering up places like the Exumas...












UnionPacific said:


> It should be $150 for anyone under 50m.


I suspect your tenure as Minister of Bahamian Tourism would not be a lengthy one...

;-)


----------



## UnionPacific

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, the Bahamians have their priorities backwards, alright... Just imagine the vast amount of untapped wealth among those who might balk at paying the present price of admission...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...when compared to so many of those currently cluttering up places like the Exumas...


Good point, but that little boat would only be 150. So make them all 300 then?


----------



## Capn Jimbo

chrisncate said:


> I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.
> 
> What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please?
> 
> Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?


The difference is simple. Florida is primarily a watersport state. Many homes with access to the Intracoastal and/or the many, many waterways, canals, etc. often have docks (one of the things that helps sell homes btw), and the sight of uncountable power and sailboats is commonplace, acceptable and for most - desirable. And no one across the canal complains that their same or opposite side neighbor has a sailboat docked 24/7.

It's what Florida is all about. Keep in mind that the waterways are both legally and for all practical purposes distinct from neighborhood streets. This poster also posed the made up problem of "random RV's parked for extended periods in residential neighborhoods, which is simply a strawman unworthy of dissent.


----------



## fallard

Capn Jimbo said:


> The difference is simple. Florida is primarily a watersport state. Many homes with access to the Intracoastal and/or the many, many waterways, canals, etc. often have docks (one of the things that helps sell homes btw), and the sight of uncountable power and sailboats is commonplace, acceptable and for most - desirable. And no one across the canal complains that their same or opposite side neighbor has a sailboat docked 24/7.
> 
> It's what Florida is all about. Keep in mind that the waterways are both legally and for all practical purposes distinct from neighborhood streets. This poster also posed the made up problem of "random RV's parked for extended periods in residential neighborhoods, which is simply a strawman unworthy of dissent.


Well, your neighbors next door or across the canal have a vested interest in the neighborhood, whereas transients don't. Furthermore, consideration of the proximity of transients and the density of transients in an anchorage are analogous to land side considerations of setbacks and neighborhood lot area requirements.

I don't understand the argument that the analogy is "unworthy of dissent"--whatever that means--unless one is not prepared to provide a logical counterposition. Whereever one stands of anchoring rights, I believe the analogy is spot on. But, haven't we been here before?


----------



## VallelyJ

> And no one across the canal complains that their same or opposite side neighbor has a sailboat docked 24/7.
> 
> It's what Florida is all about. Keep in mind that the waterways are both legally and for all practical purposes distinct from neighborhood streets


There are lots of streets on which it's perfectly legal to park an RV overnight. Maybe just not the ones some waterfront owners have spent much time on.
I've seen the RV/boat analogy before. But I've yet to see a valid analogy between using the infrastructure of roads, side-street, highways, on- and off-street parking places, etc that's available to motor vehicles, and using our federally-controlled open water on which boats keep their occupants safe by staying afloat and intact.
And can you tell me why an anchorage and a parking lot aren't analogous? Can people who live across from a business's lot say, "No parking across the street from my house"? You can buy property on a shoreline where anchoring isn't feasible if you're that troubled by anchoring. 
I'd also like to know the difference between a boat operator's right to move through water and his/her right to anchor in it. IOW, if stationary boats trouble you, what will happen when you decide that moving boats do also? What about stopping but not anchoring, like lobster boats here in Maine do all the time? How long is it OK to stop for?
You can point to instances of anchored boats causing problems with noise, pollution, dereliction, etc. and I think anyone would be sympathetic to aggressive ordinances tailored to those problems. But it's unreasonable, and pretty arrogant, to say, "I own the shoreline, it's expensive to own because of my water view, therefore I get to control the water view."


----------



## VallelyJ

> Well, your neighbors next door or across the canal have a vested interest in the neighborhood, whereas transients don't.


Define "the neighborhood".
My property is adjacent to land that is controlled by the government (a small state park). The state may or may not have considered the impact that permitted use of the park has on me. But I don't have the right to tell the state who can use the park and for what purpose. The park is in my "neighborhood", it affects my property use in ways both positive and negative, but I have no more right to dictate it's use than anyone else who lives in my state, and therefore owns a stake in the park.
Proximity to your home doesn't give you more rights over publicly-owned/controlled space than the general public has. If by 'neighborhood' you mean proximity, you take the good with the bad. Or move.


----------



## fallard

VallelyJ said:


> I'd also like to know the difference between a boat operator's right to move through water and his/her right to anchor in it. IOW, if stationary boats trouble you, what will happen when you decide that moving boats do also?
> You can point to instances of anchored boats causing problems with noise, pollution, dereliction, etc. and I think anyone would be sympathetic to aggressive ordinances tailored to those problems. But it's unreasonable, and pretty arrogant, to say, "I own the shoreline, it's expensive to own because of my water view, therefore I get to control the water view."


Let's get the last point out of the way. It is arrogant for a shoreline owner to expect to control the water view. That said, it is also arrogant for the transient cruiser to expect to control that same water space. That's what public agencies, like harbor commissions, are for: to sort out conflicts and come up with solutions in the public interest. Yes, I know that there are some public agencies that don't get it right, but so, too, are boaters who expect no limits.

So back to the first part of the quote. There are neighborhoods where parking on public streets is reserved for residents as a result of abuse by the public. One example is Newport, RI, where certain neighborhoods have been repeatedly overrun by tourists and boaters arriving by land in the downtown harbor district. The city subsequently established "Resident parking only" areas so the locals could find a place to park within walking distance from their homes. We have a situation in New London, CT, where employees from a commercial operation were saturating the nearlby neighborhood parking. The city is now instituting the "residential parking only" restriction. These areas are typically enforced with the help of stickers for residents who have registered with the city.

Now, I'm not saying that boaters are generally abusing the waterfront, but there are enough troublemakers to generate resentment of uncontrolled transients. In our harbor alone, there have been at least 3 problemmatic boats that required town legal and police action to resolve. Do you think that the waterfront owners' property taxes might have paid for that enforcement?

If you haven't dealt with the issue of irresponsible boaters from the perspective of public agencies, you have no idea of the public burden resulting from attempts at enforcement. Aggressive regulations don't enforce themselves. If you need an example, check out the saga leading up the the destruction of a sailboat that was run aground in Niantic, CT, this year.


----------



## VallelyJ

> That said, it is also arrogant for the transient cruiser to expect to control that same water space.


Transient cruisers don't expect to control the water space. They do expect to be free to use it. Someone anchors too close and won't move, we can't call the cops or sue them. So that point's not out of the way at all.


> The city subsequently established "Resident parking only" areas so the locals could find a place to park within walking distance from their homes. We have a situation in New London, CT, where employees from a commercial operation were saturating the nearlby neighborhood parking. The city is now instituting the "residential parking only" restriction.


So you want to eliminate anchoring in an anchorage because you want to anchor there? I don't think so. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.


> 3 problemmatic boats that required town legal and police action to resolve. Do you think that the waterfront owners' property taxes might have paid for that enforcement?


Three problematic boats? Out of how many? Four? Six? A thousand? And you want to abolish anchoring altogether? And waterfront property owners' taxes aren't the only ones paying for it. Your neighbors a couple blocks back from shore, who may want a place to anchor, are also paying taxes. Federal tax money goes towards enforcing local ordinances, too. We all pay those.


> Aggressive regulations don't enforce themselves.


Of course they don't. Neither do speed limits (in our neighborhoods) or drunk-driving laws. But somehow municipalities manage without banning all use of the roads. And do you think enforcing a law restricting everyone is going to be cheaper than enforcing one that's targeted at a few?
Waterfront owners derive great advantages from their locations. They have some occasional disadvantages. The rest of us don't owe them a fix at our common expense.


----------



## Woodvet

RV's have laws and cannot be parked on public streets and that is because they are not subject to currents, drift, tide and so on. Boats can't be pulled over, they have limited choices. This does not address the difficulty w/ shipping lanes and shoals. People who compare RVs to boats at sea should not be allowed to voice an opinion because the comparison is just that lame. 
At 62 I've seen a lot. People are like junkyard dogs. The lay idle, they are more likely to complain about anything.... 

The country keeps importing people so "rich developers" can squeeze tax payers to build them housing. Many of there developers and others who benefit from it, made a fortune overpopulating our country. Yet hate it when subject to the same grief we are. 
Selfish people bent on giving us the crime and expense of dealing with their capitalization on our neighborhoods but then whining when that population bleeds over into their gated communities. 
I don't know where it stops. Most can live in these places without locking their doors and I have enjoyed that myself but where the line is, is we need to slow the piling in of other countries or see this even more. It's not that I lack a heart. It's that my heart is in my home first. 
You can see it in our rich leaders who are wealthy but figure out ways to give away our homes through eminent domain. 
The boat escapes many of these problems and it infuriates them that such freedom exist. I can't really speak to all situations. Some people who are rich deserve a rest, I am all for it.


----------



## Curious Sailor

Though I understand both sides I don't think 200 ft is that bad of a compromise... I would not want to be moored to close to someone's back yard and I'm sure they would not like to have a backyard right on top of a mooring field. I live in Florida, and have a dock on the intracoastal. The laws here though often litigated seem to always kind of meet in the middle. At least from my experience..


----------



## fallard

VallelyJ said:


> Transient cruisers don't expect to control the water space. They do expect to be free to use it. Someone anchors too close and won't move, we can't call the cops or sue them. So that point's not out of the way at all.
> 
> So you want to eliminate anchoring in an anchorage because you want to anchor there? I don't think so. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
> 
> Three problematic boats? Out of how many? Four? Six? A thousand? And you want to abolish anchoring altogether? And waterfront property owners' taxes aren't the only ones paying for it. Your neighbors a couple blocks back from shore, who may want a place to anchor, are also paying taxes. Federal tax money goes towards enforcing local ordinances, too. We all pay those.
> 
> Of course they don't. Neither do speed limits (in our neighborhoods) or drunk-driving laws. But somehow municipalities manage without banning all use of the roads. And do you think enforcing a law restricting everyone is going to be cheaper than enforcing one that's targeted at a few?
> Waterfront owners derive great advantages from their locations. They have some occasional disadvantages. The rest of us don't owe them a fix at our common expense.


You are totally missing the points in my post. I didn't advocate "eliminating anchoring", nor did I advocate laws that "target" anyone. Neither did I advocate "fixing" problems for waterfront owners. Rather, I would insist that highly taxed waterfront owners have paid a lot more than most for the privilege of advocating in their own interest.

That said, waterfront owners do not control public water space, but they can have legitimate concerns that should be considered by the public agencies that manage water space. Sometimes these concerns involve egregious behavior by boaters. Analogies to land side management of public space may not be perfect, but public agencies have ample precedent to restrict public use of waterways, just as they do on land, by balancing competing interests. In some cases, it is appropriate to consider the interests of adjacent property owners in setting public policy, just as in the case of residential parking restrictions.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Curious Sailor said:


> Though I understand both sides I don't think 200 ft is that bad of a compromise...


A 200 ft setback will effectively prohibit anchoring in Ft Lauderdale and Miami.


----------



## johnnyquest37

The waterways belong to all of us, not just the few who are wealthy enough to have a waterfront home. There are not that many places to anchor as it is on the Atlantic ICW between Cape Canaveral and Miami. Prohibit anchoring 200 feet from a waterfront home and you essentially make the eastern part of Florida impossible to transit without using marinas.


----------



## Minnewaska

Capn Jimbo said:


> ....Florida is primarily a watersport state.....


Primarily? Disney is an hour from the water and the vast majority of FL residents do not live on or very near the water, nor do they participate in water sports. Therein lies the actual situation. The few boaters arguing their point of view with the overwhelming majority of landlubbers who just look at the water.

Democracy is the best system ever created, but it's not without it's flaws.

There will require a compromise here. 100ft? 150ft? Some areas with 100, others with 200?

Frankly, show me an anchorage where hard stuff or the channel is less than 200 ft (a few boat lengths) in all directions and I don't consider it an acceptable anchorage for anything less than an emergency anyway. 200 ft feels like reach out and touch it distance. I'm not siding with the arrogant waterfront landowner, but I am sympathizing that there needs to be a compromise.


----------



## Minnewaska

johnnyquest37 said:


> The waterways belong to all of us....


So did the dirt, until people created a system of legal ownership of land. In fact, the government gave land away, that arguable belonged to all of us, in order to settle it.

Arguing the history of laws and regulations has some finite applicability in history. There is no inalienable human right here, it's simply what people created as law, which dates back only a puny amount of time we've occupied this planet. People can and do change them.

Compromise.


----------



## Petee

Home owners do not "own" the ocean near their homes!
They should buy someplace else if they do not like sailboats resting at their anchors, legally, where they are entitled to.
Petee


----------



## Don L

The only reason for the 200' setback is get rid of boaters. Otherwise it would not be acceptable for $10M houses to be 20' feet apart. But having been in Fort Lauderdale last week and taking a "cruise" on the Jungle Queen that goes down the river and back talking on a loud speaker behind $20M+ houses it just seems like so much BS


----------



## DavyJ

> There will require a compromise here. 100ft? 150ft? Some areas with 100, others with 200?


There will be no compromise under 200'..................

Why? Because the main character involved in these attempts to restrict anchoring needs 200' to eliminate anchoring in his canal.

That is the situation plain and simple.

There are a lot of ridiculous arguments in this thread about RV's, taxes and property rights. The truth is this, another attempt will be made to restrict anchoring in the upcoming legislative session. If cruisers and boaters do not show up in opposition to these attempts we will get restrictions....................


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> There will be no compromise under 200'..................
> 
> Why? Because the main character involved in these attempts to restrict anchoring needs 200' to eliminate anchoring in his canal.
> 
> That is the situation plain and simple.


I think everyone understands that. However, it's an easy argument for that "character" to make to all the land dwelling voters. Think about it. Only 200 ft would restrict all anchoring. Has to be a very, very, very tight place to anchor in the first place. Easy to make a safety issue out of it.

I think everyone also understands that this particular situation will translate to all of FL, therefore, there may need to be a compromise to keep the non-boating public from just handing such an easy to understand (from the non-boater) win to this character.

Finally, I also understand that lobbying for anything requires an extreme view and ugly fighting. Unfortunate, but true. I'm just afraid that ultimately we'll lose this one and we should try to salvage as much as we can. All or nothing, could seriously end up with nothing. Negotiate a 100ft setback and the legislature is unlikely to ever take it up again, it would be settled at that point. The "character" essentially loses, because there are still some boats, but we have to compromise to a reasonable separation. One which I would never encroach upon anyway.


----------



## Curious Sailor

SVAuspicious said:


> A 200 ft setback will effectively prohibit anchoring in Ft Lauderdale and Miami.


Didn't know that.. Guess I'm speaking for the area I live in just north of west palm beach.. Here we have mooring fields and they kind of keep things in order. I suppose setbacks could vary based on land development....

Good point.


----------



## chrisncate

Capn Jimbo said:


> The difference is simple. Florida is primarily a watersport state. Many homes with access to the Intracoastal and/or the many, many waterways, canals, etc. often have docks (one of the things that helps sell homes btw), and the sight of uncountable power and sailboats is commonplace, acceptable and for most - desirable. And no one across the canal complains that their same or opposite side neighbor has a sailboat docked 24/7.
> 
> It's what Florida is all about. Keep in mind that the waterways are both legally and for all practical purposes distinct from neighborhood streets. This poster also posed the made up problem of "random RV's parked for extended periods in residential neighborhoods, which is simply a strawman unworthy of dissent.


Pff, what is the population of FL in relation to the number of out of state transient sailboaters. What is the population of in state resident sailboaters in relation to overall residents?

It's hardly appropriate to make the argument that FL "is all about" sailboaters rights via the opinion that FL is a "watersport state".

You want to claim my RV example is a "strawman" (it isn't), ok. How about the simple fact that roads and highways are regulated and you can't just pull over and set up shop for weeks on end anywhere you like? Why are waterways any different? Because you feel like sailing is somehow a right?


----------



## DavyJ

Comparing roadways and RV's to the use of the waterway is asinine............

Watch this:


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> Comparing roadways and RV's to the use of the waterway is asinine............
> 
> Watch this:


What will prove asinine, would be losing this fight, because landowners, who grossly outnumber recreational boaters, change the law, while boaters just insist the law was always meant to read like it presently does. Laws are man made.

Yes, this guy is not right. Neither is everyone equally stubborn about it from the other direction. Exhibit A...... declaring a counter argument to be asinine, then posting a video that doesn't even address the RV analogy. To the non-boating public, I'm afraid we look like the stubborn ones. And they outnumber us.


----------



## DavyJ

> declaring a counter argument to be asinine, then posting a video that doesn't even address the RV analogy.


The video presents the FL Public Trust Doctrine, which addresses why RV discussions do not apply.

You may read more here:
https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/8D98D298C0060C0785256B110050FFB7


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> The video presents the FL Public Trust Doctrine, which addresses why RV discussions do not apply.
> 
> You may read more here:
> https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/8D98D298C0060C0785256B110050FFB7


The RV argument is an analogy, not a direct argument. More to the point, land dwellers changed laws at one time to restrict living on public roads and nothing says that can't do it again for inland waterways. They just need enough votes.

I don't want to see it happen, but its one of those classic battles that are held off, then held off again, and again, until one miss and it's lost forever. Compromise now and that will stick for a long, long time.


----------



## DavyJ

> nothing says that can't do it again for inland waterways.


You know how I know you didn't read the link??

The Florida Public Trust Doctrine say's just that............. That they cannot make laws to restrict the use of the waterways, period.


----------



## Don L

Other than BoatUS, what action/effort is being taken by Florida boaters to restriction prevent bills from getting passed?


----------



## SVAuspicious

Don0190 said:


> Other than BoatUS, what action/effort is being taken by Florida boaters to restriction prevent bills from getting passed?


BoatUS has not been very active. SSCA has led the charge with BoatUS and AGLCA and MTOA in supporting roles.


----------



## DavyJ

> Other than BoatUS, what action/effort is being taken by Florida boaters to restriction prevent bills from getting passed?


Unfortunately, not much. I attended the Senate Hearing last year. There were only about three or four other individuals there. BoatUS, SSCA, NMMA had representatives and of course Mr. Karlton was there.

I was hoping threads like this would be more about how FL boaters could come together to defeat bills like these and not about discussing RVs, taxes and BS.


----------



## Don L

It would seem that the battle really needs to be fought by Florida boaters and a very small percentage of them are on forums. Most of course are in marinas, but since marinas don't stand to lost anything here they aren't going to do any battles. The only other places than would care are businesses that get traffic from people anchoring and coming in, but this would seem to be a very small percentage.

Maybe the only real hope is that the Florida legislatures are boaters so they would care.


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> Comparing roadways and RV's to the use of the waterway is asinine............
> 
> Watch this:


What's assinine is the hyperboic argument that the speaker referred to "my backyard" in an ownership context. It is obvious that he was using "my backyard" in the same way it is used in "NIMBY" by folks in zoning issues.

To be clear, "my backyard" was used in the video as a figure of speach--not an ownership claim.

Boaters would be much better served to knock off the name calling and class warfare verbiage and put forth a logical--vs. emotional--counterargument. That would require specifics, of course--none of which appeared in the video.

Minnewaska is right on in his position that compromise is the path to a reasonable resolution of the conflicts here.


----------



## DavyJ

> Minnewaska is right on in his position that compromise is the path to a reasonable resolution of the conflicts here.


I've already pointed out that anything less than a 200' set-back will not be compromised by Karlton. Maybe you guys are not paying attention..........


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> I've already pointed out that anything less than a 200' set-back will not be compromised by Karlton. Maybe you guys are not paying attention..........


So, when did Florida decide Karlton would have the final word on public policy?


----------



## DavyJ

Do really think that Charles Dean Sr., who represents district 5, that bastion of anchoring and boating in FL, who also authored SB1548 pulled 200' out of thin air. Who also refused to remove or alter the set back in the senate hearings............

When they reintroduce the new bill, I can guarantee the set-back will be no less than 200'.


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> Do really think that Charles Dean Sr., who represents district 5, that bastion of anchoring and boating in FL, who also authored SB1548 pulled 200' out of thin air. Who also refused to remove or alter the set back in the senate hearings............
> 
> When they reintroduce the new bill, I can guarantee the set-back will be no less than 200'.


So, the new boating regulations would be the result of a democratic process? If you've made your best argument during the work-up, that's as much as you are entitled to.

Lawmakers, by the way, are empowered to make judgement calls which are arguably not pulled out of thin air, except in the eye of the disappointed beholder.


----------



## DavyJ

You really need to watch the videos of the senate hearings. _*I was there*_ and posted the videos here. I think they are back around page 13. They were determined to not let anyone in opposition of the bill speak.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> I've already pointed out that anything less than a 200' set-back will not be compromised by Karlton. Maybe you guys are not paying attention..........


Have you ever worked the political system before? I think you're not paying attention. No one is suggesting the rich guy is willing to compromise.

You get legislators who are on your side to actively do something that has the political cover of being a compromise (ie 100ft or something else). Once done, it just isn't going to be reopened and the impact is minimized. Trying to make it all or nothing is going to eventually lose.

Courts have the ability to invade trusts under certain circumstances. The public good can be one of them. All or nothing has and may continue to work for a while, but fatigue does them in.


----------



## DavyJ

> You get legislators who are on your side to actively do something that has the political cover of being a compromise (ie 100ft or something else)


If you can't even get the legislators to listen to you how do you suppose to get a compromise? Once again here are the videos of the senate hearings on SB 1548:

https://www.flsenate.gov/media/VideoPlayer?EventID=2443575804_2015031526

https://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2015041158

I doubt you'll watch the videos. However, in both cases, they let very few people speak, and then only allowed those to waive in favor or opposition. In both cases there were more in opposition, yet the bill passed both committees anyway.

How will we get compromise like this ???????????????


----------



## Minnewaska

One doesn't negotiate compromise in open hearings. That's not what they are for. You need lobbyists with access privately, where I know first hand that elected officials will listen. These firms are for hire. Done every day of the week. Not all will listen, but many, and they are remarkably more honest when the cameras aren't rolling too. I can tell you're frustrated, but it doesn't sound to me like there is a professional approach to this challenge, just a lot of anger.


----------



## VallelyJ

> That said, waterfront owners do not control public water space, but they can have legitimate concerns that should be considered by the public agencies that manage water space. Sometimes these concerns involve egregious behavior by boaters.


I think I understand your point clearly.
I agree with your statement quoted above. But making public space off-limits for legitimate public use, as in banning anchoring in anchorages, as has been proposed, disregards the legitimate interests of other members of the public. It's drastic overreach that's ostensibly aimed at a real but very circumscribed problem.
The high taxes you and I pay on waterfront property certainly entitles us to "advocate for our interests". But they don't entitle us to manage our views by assuming control of something that doesn't belong exclusively to us. High tax burdens don't grant us exceptional rights. Simply using a safe anchorage, in itself, is apparently an egregious behavior to some who'd prefer not to have boats cluttering their own personal scenery. If you have a complaint about specific problem behaviors by some transients, I'm in complete sympathy with regs tailored to target those behaviors--behaviors that you yourself seem to have said was not typical of all anchoring cruisers. You want to live by the water, you take the bad with the good. It's everybody's ocean.


----------



## Minnewaska

"Everybody's ocean" is exactly the point. That includes the vast number of citizens that live on land. Disputes like this are settled by democracy and the boaters are greatly outnumbered. This isn't just about the waterfront homeowner, other land dwellers, and their representatives, will also have a say. 

The waterway is already highly regulated, from commerce to navigation to required safety equipment, etc. It would not be that difficult for someone to contrive a new regulation that would not necessarily prohibit anchoring, but would make it all but impossible. Maybe anchor tests, or anchoring registration for safety contacts, etc, etc. Even the navigable channel might be widened to eliminate the anchorage. 

So again, I'm on the side of the boater. I just don't want to see this go down forever. Who exactly even wants to anchor within 100ft of land anyway? Setbacks are legal and highly common, both on the water and on land. Don't lose this one by being stubborn.


----------



## DavyJ

> One doesn't negotiate compromise in open hearings. That's not what they are for. You need lobbyists with access privately, where I know first hand that elected officials will listen.


Well I guess having hearings must be a waste of time then. Please let us know when you will be coming down to FL to be the FT lobbyist. Also, do you have a crystal ball? Because as far as I know, these bills have been authored by someone different every year and we will also need to know which legislators will be on which committees in the house and senate the bills will go through.

Again if you watch the videos, at least on the senate bill, the senators tactic in the hearings was clear. Put-off, postpone and then try to cram the bill in, in the last five minutes. If a hundred more boaters were there, they would not have been able to pull it off in the allotted time.

Believe me, I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think our side will get any type of compromise in our favor. The thing that is most troubling is having to debate things like RVs and other ridiculous analogies , _on a sailing forum_, instead of having intelligent conversation about what can be done.


----------



## SVAuspicious

SSCA had has many as eight people at the various hearings in Florida. SSCA engaged a lobbying firm for the back channel access necessary to success. We reached out to AGLCA and BoatUS and MTOA to get their support. We had to embarrass NMMA into helping. We won that battle.

With SSCA leadership and support from AGLCA and MTOA we have established a PAC to further influence Florida legislators.

There are a number of people working very hard to protect anchoring rights in Florida. You can help. Join SSCA. Contribute to the PAC. Contribute to the lobbying fund raiser. If you vote in Florida (including 411 Walnut St) write to your legislators. If you cruise in Florida pay attention to the schedule for hearings and show, coordinating the message with the SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee.


----------



## paperbird

And that's why it's a good thing to join SSCA - not for what you can get from them, but what you can do to help them as they work to help the cruising community.


----------



## denverd0n

DavyJ said:


> Well I guess having hearings must be a waste of time then.


Yes, mostly they are. They are done so that legislators can have their photo opportunities, and can have their moment on video. Despite the pretense, they are almost never done so that legislators can gather information--99% of the time the legislators in attendance have already made up their minds. Hearings are a show for the benefit of the public, and almost never anything more than that.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how wrong that is, and I agree with you completely. Nonetheless, the plain fact of the matter is that this is how politics in America works nowadays.

If you want to be heard, and you want to make a difference, it is not going to happen just by showing up at a hearing. You have to get a legislators ear first, long before the hearing. Then he or she can make sure that you are given time in front of the cameras during the hearing.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> Well I guess having hearings must be a waste of time then. Please let us know when you will be coming down to FL to be the FT lobbyist.


I have more experience with lobbying elected officials than I care to reveal for privacy purposes. I can tell you that an angry, snide attitude will get you no where. Easily dismissed as irrational by the reps.



> The thing that is most troubling is having to debate things like RVs and other ridiculous analogies , _on a sailing forum_, instead of having intelligent conversation about what can be done.


Smell the coffee, man. The RV analogy has sympathy from some sailors, as you point out! That means it's an easy sell to land dwellers. Dismiss it at your peril, but I suggest one try to form a better counter.


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> ...SSCA engaged a lobbying firm for the back channel access necessary to success.


That's good to hear. Only way it will work. Hearings are not where policy is made, it's where the committees get attention.



> We reached out to AGLCA and BoatUS and MTOA to get their support. We had to embarrass NMMA into helping. We won that battle.


I find this most interesting of all. The most likely advocates, just don't seem to be engaging. I would expect BoatUS to lead this one. Has to be a reason. Could be they don't have the resources. The only other reasons I know of are policy related. Either they have greater priorities, have traded this issue to win another, or they just disagree it's a problem.


----------



## DavyJ

> Hearings are not where policy is made, it's where the committees get attention.


Well then, I guess I won't waste my time driving 4 hours up to Tallahassee again this year................



> I have more experience with lobbying elected officials than I care to reveal for privacy purposes. I can tell you that an angry, snide attitude will get you no where. Easily dismissed as irrational by the reps.


So we won't be able to count on you to defend anchoring in Florida then? I'm glad I spent all those hours attending anchoring workshops, senate hearings and trying to spread the word. I guess all of us who aren't lobbyists should just give up.


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> I'm glad I spent all those hours attending anchoring workshops, senate hearings and trying to spread the word. I guess all of us who aren't lobbyists should just give up.


IMHO, you need to think like a lobbyist and shed light on a rational position for consideration by lawmakers. There has been too much ranting and raving about arrogance and the "rich" and too little light shed on the logic of the boaters' position--at least in this thread. Your best chance to score points would be in the working sessions, before a regulation is drafted


----------



## Don L

DavyJ said:


> I guess all of us who aren't lobbyists should just give up.


It's not that at all (at least to me). It's just that fighting and arguing this on internet forums seem a waste of time. The only people that the State of Florida's representatives are going to listen to are Florida residents., not a bunch of out of staters that they don't answer to.

Heck I filled out that questionnaire last year. I could tell right off the bat what pile my answers were going into just from the opening questions.

So I asked earlier what Florida boaters think as a group and what they are doing to fight back. But I don't recall seeing a real answer.


----------



## DavyJ

> It's just that fighting and arguing this on internet forums seem a waste of time.


Unfortunately, I never thought there would be fighting and arguing about anchoring restrictions in a sailing forum.



> So I asked earlier what Florida boaters think as a group and what they are doing to fight back. But I don't recall seeing a real answer.


I responded, and so did SVAuspicious. But the real answer is not much at all. Most boat owners in Florida haven't even heard about these attempts to restrict anchoring. Most power boat owners don't care at all. You would think in a state that has almost 900,000 boats registered, that at least a few hundred might show up in opposition. One of the problems is that the hearings are held in Tallahassee on weekdays and mostly in the morning. Most of the boaters are in SW Florida and SE Florida.

I really wish BoatUS would send notices to their FL members about this, but they haven't. They sure do send quite a bit of mail about insurance though.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> Well then, I guess I won't waste my time driving 4 hours up to Tallahassee again this year................
> 
> So we won't be able to count on you to defend anchoring in Florida then? I'm glad I spent all those hours attending anchoring workshops, senate hearings and trying to spread the word. I guess all of us who aren't lobbyists should just give up.


You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder, when you're getting feedback that is solely intended to help the cause.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnewaska said:


> I find this most interesting of all /that BoatUS and NMMA were hard to engage/. The most likely advocates, just don't seem to be engaging. I would expect BoatUS to lead this one. Has to be a reason. Could be they don't have the resources. The only other reasons I know of are policy related. Either they have greater priorities, have traded this issue to win another, or they just disagree it's a problem.


BoatUS and NMMA constituencies are hugely dominated by small trailer boats. It is really that simple. It isn't a resource issue (BoatUS has a full time government affairs office in Florida, their only one outside headquarters).


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> BoatUS and NMMA constituencies are hugely dominated by small trailer boats. It is really that simple. It isn't a resource issue (BoatUS has a full time government affairs office in Florida, their only one outside headquarters).


That makes sense, if those constituencies don't have any interest in anchoring. Therefore, being outnumbered is an even greater problem.

Worse, if the same industry is perceived to have two different perspectives, elected officials then have the freedom to do whatever they like.

Tough battle. I hope you find a strategy to put a stake in the heart of this one. Bumping it off year after year is a battle of attrition, which are painful.


----------



## DavyJ

> You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder, when you're getting feedback that is solely intended to help the cause.


Well the only problem is folks that want compare anchoring to parking an RV, and those that want defend this stance. However, I won't debate that with you any longer and we can agree to disagree about it.

And to your assertion that nothing happens in these hearings you should watch the hearing on HB 7123:

House Video Player: State Affairs Committee - April 14, 2015

An attempt was made to add an amendment to the derelict boat bill that would have added the 200' set-back. There was enough opposition in attendance that the rep withdrew the amendment. Do you think if all those folks hadn't attended he would have still withdrawn it...........


----------



## chrisncate

When I made the rv comparison, I did it to illustrate the fact that 0% of those here whining about not being able to anchor within 200' of someone's home would never accept an rv setting up shop on the street in front of their house.

Not to compare the legal differences of the matter, just the simple common sense aspect that you'd never accept rv's salting up your own homes views that you paid for. You'd flip out over it, yet substitute boat for rv and turn the tables and lo and behold, all of a sudden attitudes reverse.


----------



## paperbird

ChrisnCate,

Sorry - but that makes no sense. When you saying "not to compare the legal differences of the matter" you render moot everything else you say. Sorta like saying that stealing a TV and buying a TV aren't really all that different, if you don't consider the legal differences. 

Those legal differences matter. And to continue to introduce the RV analogy just helps distract people from the real, legal issues involved.

My 0.02


----------



## chrisncate

paperbird said:


> ChrisnCate,
> 
> Sorry - but that makes no sense. When you saying "not to compare the legal differences of the matter" you render moot everything else you say. Sorta like saying that stealing a TV and buying a TV aren't really all that different, if you don't consider the legal differences.
> 
> Those legal differences matter. And to continue to introduce the RV analogy just helps distract people from the real, legal issues involved.
> 
> My 0.02


It makes complete sense. I'm not saying lets discuss the difference in legality between the two, clearly there are differences legally and that is beside the point.

That point being, from a normal human perspective, no one wants anyone setting up shop 200' from their home in anything mobile, boat, RV or otherwise. Forget the law and your "sailing rights" arguments for a moment, and just think about someone parking in front of your front window in a traveling conveyance of any type. You wouldn't want it any more than anyone else does. 200' feet is not a long distance, it's right there.

As if there are just _no_ places to anchor or travel by sailboat in or near FL, and sailboaters just _have_ to be less than 200' from peoples homes (or else your entire world will just come crashing down). The sailors argument does not look like you think it does to those on the outside of this issue, you just sound like every whiney entitled group out there these days.

Most people simply won't care about enshrining your right to practice leisure and vacation less than 200' from peoples homes. Regardless of the fact that it'll cut off a few anchorages due to the fact that some areas are less the 400' across (or whatever).

Seriously. You sail. You have a sailboat. It's designed to.. sail. The earth's surface is 71% water... know what I mean?


----------



## DavyJ

> It makes complete sense. I'm not saying lets discuss the difference in legality between the two, clearly there are differences legally *and that is besides the point.*


The problem is *that is exactly the point.* There is a legal difference between the two and people that don't know what that difference is, take that bit of mis-information and run with it&#8230;&#8230;..
It muddies the conversation and deflects from the facts.

I have made some analogies to your RV argument before, but I'll try again&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..
If you buy a house on a golf course, you can expect to see golfers. If you decide that you no longer like to see golfers, you shouldn't expect that they'll close the golf course.

Of course that really* is *beside the point&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

There is a legal difference between the two and continuing to hang on to the RV reference defers from the task at hand.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> Well the only problem is folks that want compare anchoring to parking an RV, and those that want defend this stance. However, I won't debate that with you any longer and we can agree to disagree about it.
> 
> And to your assertion that nothing happens in these hearings you should watch the hearing on HB 7123:
> 
> House Video Player: State Affairs Committee - April 14, 2015
> 
> An attempt was made to add an amendment to the derelict boat bill that would have added the 200' set-back. There was enough opposition in attendance that the rep withdrew the amendment. Do you think if all those folks hadn't attended he would have still withdrawn it...........


Davy, I never said not to go. You decided to reply with a snippy comment about that. Do you swing at everyone around you?

I said that the policy compromise/win won't be negotiated in open hearings. And it won't.

Further, your insistence that no one use the RV analogy would make you an awful lobbyist. Most of those that are going to decide your fate are going to sympathize with that point. Get a better defense or position than relying on a man-made legal distinction, written in recent human history. There are absolutely no man-made laws that can't be changed, including the constitution (ie amendments).

First, you need to be persuasive that they shouldn't be changed, not just insist on technical grounds. Changing the technical grounds is the point of the opposition. Then, you need a strategy to put this to bed, which I say is a compromise that allows for anchoring and gives the reps cover that they did something.


----------



## albrazzi

DavyJ said:


> Unfortunately, I never thought there would be fighting and arguing about anchoring restrictions in a sailing forum.
> 
> I responded, and so did SVAuspicious. But the real answer is not much at all. Most boat owners in Florida haven't even heard about these attempts to restrict anchoring. Most power boat owners don't care at all. You would think in a state that has almost 900,000 boats registered, that at least a few hundred might show up in opposition. One of the problems is that the hearings are held in Tallahassee on weekdays and mostly in the morning. Most of the boaters are in SW Florida and SE Florida.
> 
> I really wish BoatUS would send notices to their FL members about this, but they haven't. They sure do send quite a bit of mail about insurance though.


Could it be that the power guys (and sailors as well) you refer to have their own docks and have both sides of the argument figured out already. I'm for open anchoring just as much as the next guy but it seems the deck is stacked against the transients in this case. Sorry for the simplistic view but maybe it really is that simple.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Am I the only one who does not mind seeing sailboats anchored 200' from shore? I love it, I think anchorages generally look fanatastic from shore.

Sure, if there is a rotted derelict I expect the authorities to tow it away. And I think that is the problem, the expense of removing derelicts and enforcing existing laws. Florida would rather pit one group against another. 

Boaters should be united that owners of derelict and abandoned boats cannot be allowed to scoff law.


----------



## caberg

The most interesting question to me is why has SN made this controversial topic a sticky for almost a year when it involves a small fraction of SN members and, as far as I can tell, there isn't any pending legislation at this time.

Personally, if I find myself caring about whether I can anchor within 200 feet of a tacky McMansion _in Florida_ of all places, well, my sailing goals will have come in way below expectation.


----------



## VallelyJ

> Forget the law and your "sailing rights" arguments for a moment, and just think about someone parking in front of your front window in a traveling conveyance of any type. You wouldn't want it any more than anyone else does.


The RV/boat analogy is extremely weak and I can see your wanting to talk around it. Falling back to "because we don't like it" is sounds a little like you're the ones whining, but at least it's honest.
Parking restrictions presume safe parking alternatives. Anchoring regs presume no safe alternatives--due to depth, channels, bottom, weather conditions, etc. 
Parking laws regulate the use of the road. Anchoring laws regulate the use of open water. They aren't analogous. The infrastructure planned and built to safely accommodate vehicles has no logical parallel with sea water. "We want to the government to make our water view the way we like it." may be reasonable where RV's have safe man-made alternatives. But it would override all the considerations that normally govern anchoring. It would be like saying planes can land at an airport but they can't park overnight because you don't like to look at them. Water isn't the same as dry land and boats aren't the same as RVs. Air is actually a much better analogy than roads.
The only genuine argument I've seen so far is yours: "We don't want to see (those other peoples') boats when we look out at the water". Not to sound unkind, but too bad. I can understand the motivation, but you knew what you were getting when you bought the place. The boat owners who live a block back from the water have rights, too.
PS--You sure you want to start throwing the words "whiny and entitled" around?


----------



## SVAuspicious

caberg said:


> The most interesting question to me is why has SN made this controversial topic a sticky for almost a year when it involves a small fraction of SN members and, as far as I can tell, there isn't any pending legislation at this time.


I am the OP. I asked SN to make the thread sticky when there was a lot going on. I agree with you that the status is not relevant now. I fully expect it will be again when the Florida legislative session ramps back up.

I will ask that it be made un-sticky.


----------



## DavyJ

> I will ask that it be made un-sticky


You have jumped the gun.

HB 7025 "At risk vessels" .........introduced 12/2/2015:

Florida House of Representatives - HB 7025 - At-risk Vessels

Bill text:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h7025__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=7025&Session=2016

A Senate version is soon to follow.


----------



## VallelyJ

> HB 7025 "At risk vessels" .........introduced 12/2/2015:


I wouldn't think anyone would object to that, given those definitions of "at risk of becoming derelict".
If they added a good noise and littering ordinances, I'm not sure what other restrictions reasonable people would feel entitled to.
JV


----------



## DavyJ

Yes HB 7025 would be a good bill if it passes as written. It is basically the same bill as HB 7123 from last year.

However, it needs to be closely monitored because last year, a rep tried to add an amendment to include the 200' set-back.

It will also need a senate companion bill that doesn't add any other BS.

If it were to pass in it's current form, it might remove many of the derelicts that have been the smoke screen for anchoring restrictions all along.


----------



## SVAuspicious

DavyJ said:


> If it were to pass in it's current form, it might remove many of the derelicts that have been the smoke screen for anchoring restrictions all along.


The two main problems remain the same.

1. Florida legislators do not want to do the hard work to fund enforcement of existing law to deal with the derelict boat problem.

2. There are people like the infamous Mr. Karlton who continue to believe they own their views and won't rest until anchoring is prohibited.


----------



## DavyJ

> The two main problems remain the same.


You are absolutely correct.

I expect that a senate bill will be more Karlton friendly....


----------



## chrisncate

DavyJ said:


> The problem is *that is exactly the point.* There is a legal difference between the two and people that don't know what that difference is, take that bit of mis-information and run with it&#8230;&#8230;..


::sigh::

Again, I acknowledged the legal differences. I simply made a plea for you and others to think about this in human terms rather than technical legal terms for just a moment. The human terms being that if you put aside your own selfish demands for leisure and recreation for a minute, and just consider the fact that no one (sailors included) really want anyone in a traveling conveyance of any sort setting up shop in their backyard, you might at least see the argument has more than just your side and pov that might be considered legitimate.

I understand that for some of you, it's simply impossible to consider any counter argument to your demands as you feel entitled to your "right" to park on top of people who have actually invested in an area and call it there home. "Why, it's my right!! Screw those stupid McMansion dwelling jerks!"

Frankly, you sound just like them. Welcome to America, land of the entitled, where no one gives a crap to consider others I guess. Meh.



VallelyJ said:


> The RV/boat analogy is extremely weak and I can see your wanting to talk around it. Falling back to "because we don't like it" is sounds a little like you're the ones whining, but at least it's honest.
> Parking restrictions presume safe parking alternatives. Anchoring regs presume no safe alternatives--due to depth, channels, bottom, weather conditions, etc.
> Parking laws regulate the use of the road. Anchoring laws regulate the use of open water. They aren't analogous. The infrastructure planned and built to safely accommodate vehicles has no logical parallel with sea water. "We want to the government to make our water view the way we like it." may be reasonable where RV's have safe man-made alternatives. But it would override all the considerations that normally govern anchoring. It would be like saying planes can land at an airport but they can't park overnight because you don't like to look at them. Water isn't the same as dry land and boats aren't the same as RVs. Air is actually a much better analogy than roads.
> The only genuine argument I've seen so far is yours: "We don't want to see (those other peoples') boats when we look out at the water". Not to sound unkind, but too bad. I can understand the motivation, but you knew what you were getting when you bought the place. The boat owners who live a block back from the water have rights, too.
> PS--You sure you want to start throwing the words "whiny and entitled" around?


Yup, always a clever move to turn the tables and accuse those you disagree with with what they actually said to you first. Well played, lol..

Anyway, like I said in prior posts - I see nothing wrong with homeowners expectations of quiet enjoyment of their property and homes. 200' is more than reasonable imo.

When Captain Onions and Admiral Peppers pull up in their pos 70's era 27 footer and set up shop "living the dream" (which often seems to consist of stinky cooking, booze, smokes, and the early morning/late afternoon hilarity of dropping/pulling anchor as Captain Onions berates poor Peppers as she tries her best to deal with his freaking out over the process), I can see why no one would want them around. Get a job and buy your own million dollar views, or at the very least keep your desperate attempts at obtaining paradise on a Burger King budget down the waterway a piece (200' sounds like a decent start..).

Before you get your oxygen bottles in a knot over that last paragraph, let me add this emoticon  so you see there is a bit of jest interspersed in the reality I just wrote. Happy Pappy?


----------



## VallelyJ

> originally regulated 200 years ago, will be refuted with witch burning and slavery. Laws change.


Yep, witch-burning, slavery, property rights, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, juries of peers, illegal search and siezure, presumption of innocence (I won't even mention Second Amendment rights)...those things all can change when they get old and cobwebby. Have I got that right? Or when a tiny but financially well-endowed group finds them incompatible with their notions of feng shui.
Boats' and their occupants' requirements for safe anchoring and movement underway haven't changed. Ask the Navy.


----------



## VallelyJ

> Get a job and buy your own million dollar views, or at the very least keep your desperate attempts at obtaining paradise on a Burger King budget down the waterway a piece (200' sounds like a decent start..).


My million-dollar waterfront view is probably better than your million-dollar waterfront view, Skippy, and Mommy and Daddy didn't buy if for me, either.
You don't have a better argument than to whine that people are enjoying their rights to anchor contrary to your needs for backyard gazing pleasure. Point made. They're being inconsiderate by not boating as decorously as you do. I'm sure none of your neighbors have ever smelled your cooking or heard you squabble with your partner.
You bought--or otherwise acquired--something that most people with or without boats will never be able to own. The view is yours. The things you view aren't. You chose to live adjacent to a public anchorage. Grow up and stop your entitled whining, or sell and move.


----------



## DavyJ

> The human terms being that if you put aside your own selfish demands for leisure and recreation for a minute,


I'll only address this part. Then, if this forum has an ignore button, you are at the top of my list..............

Anchoring, while cruising, is not for my leisure and recreation. Rather it is for my safety and security. I use my boat to travel from place to place, as you might in your car. Would you stop your vehicle in a dangerous place because you were told you couldn't stop in a safe place. I think not.............

And with that, well, bye.............


----------



## chrisncate

VallelyJ said:


> My million-dollar waterfront view is probably better than your million-dollar waterfront view, Skippy, and Mommy and Daddy didn't buy if for me, either.
> You don't have a better argument than to whine that people are enjoying their rights to anchor contrary to your needs for backyard gazing pleasure. Point made. They're being inconsiderate by not boating as decorously as you do. I'm sure none of your neighbors have ever smelled your cooking or heard you squabble with your partner.
> You bought--or otherwise acquired--something that most people with or without boats will never be able to own. The view is yours. The things you view aren't. You chose to live adjacent to a public anchorage. Grow up and stop your entitled whining, or sell and move.


Captain Onions?



DavyJ said:


> if this forum has an ignore button, you are at the top of my list
> 
> And with that, well, bye.............


Does this mean you're not going to ask me to the Sadie Hawkins dance?


----------



## jimrafford

Trol alert!
Move along. Nothing happening here.


----------



## chrisncate

jimrafford said:


> Trol alert!
> Move along. Nothing happening here.


I don't think either one of those posters are trolling, even though I disagree with their opinions (and personal insults), I believe they are sincere.


----------



## SVAuspicious

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## SVAuspicious

The 2016 session of the Florida legislature starts in a few weeks. There is already a bill in work behind the scenes to limit anchoring. *sigh* SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee is collecting information and I will report here as more is known.


----------



## DavyJ

More incoming BS:

HB 1051:

Florida House of Representatives - HB 1051 - Recreational Boating Zones

Bill Text:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1051__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1051&Session=2016

And some people thought it was just about derelicts.............:hammer


----------



## fallard

DavyJ said:


> More incoming BS:
> 
> HB 1051:
> 
> Florida House of Representatives - HB 1051 - Recreational Boating Zones
> 
> Bill Text:
> 
> http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1051__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1051&Session=2016
> 
> And some people thought it was just about derelicts.............:hammer


Checked out the areas affected and have to wonder why the "BS" reference.

With the exception of East Pass/Crab Island, these are TINY areas in close proximity to residences, where an anchored boat (allowing for swinging room) either could not or would be hard pressed to stay more than 200' from a residential shore. Changing the buffer to 150', say, would not significantly open these areas.

East Pass would be a different situation where safe navigability of the pass may be impacted. Not familiar enough with that area to have an opinion, though.

I'm all for minimal restrictions on anchoring, but the proposed House Bill does not seem an unreasonable compromise for the East coast areas affected.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> .....And some people thought it was just about derelicts.............:hammer


If this is the way you poke your most sympathetic audience in the eye, at the slightest disagreement, you must be the cause's biggest nightmare. Bad attitudes never get anything constructive done. They fight to the death, until they die. The government system can't be killed.

They've come up with an interesting new approach. Not a set back, just an overnight prohibition, as opposed to a total prohibition, in defined waters. I'm curious how they'll argue the merits of it. I don't need to be lectured on what's really going on, this battle is about how the system works.

Boaters need to be more clever than the opposition and I'm not seeing it.


----------



## DavyJ

> these are TINY areas in close proximity to residences


Yes some of them are small, but again, these areas are included to appease the property owners mentioned in this thread numerous times. However, you may have missed the reference to the Middle River. According to Google, that section is over two miles long and in some areas over 700' wide.



> If this is the way you poke your most sympathetic audience in the eye, at the slightest disagreement, you must be the cause's biggest nightmare.


Don't take this personally, my intention is to get people hopping mad, pissed off and hopefully *riled up enough to actually show up and do something.*

So to that end, we both may be helping the cause....:devil


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> .....in some areas over 700' wide.


That's awfully narrow. The middle must be for navigation, which no one can anchor in anyway. That can't leave much room for even the closest anchor to shore.



> Don't take this personally, my intention is to get people hopping mad, pissed off and hopefully *riled up enough to actually show up and do something.*
> 
> So to that end, we both may be helping the cause....:devil


You've received lots of good advice and feedback intended to help the cause. You just don't seem to want to hear or follow much of it.

Getting fighting mad is not a strategy. I certainly don't object to recruiting for the cause. Although, showing up is useless, unless by a Florida resident.

You definitely need numbers to be heard, but then you need something clever, not just angry and stubborn, to listen to.


----------



## DavyJ

> You've received lots of good advice and feedback intended to help the cause. You just don't seem to want to hear or follow much of it.


Unfortunately, I don't really view allowing anchoring restrictions, _when there are none currently in place_, to be good advice. How should we compromise on this bill? Anchor for only half the night?

I've tried to point out many times, there is an agenda here, why should boaters compromise on this? You will say, that is the way to get things done. I say, I'd rather not make a deal with the devil.


----------



## Minnewaska

DavyJ said:


> .....I've tried to point out many times, there is an agenda here, why should boaters compromise on this? You will say, that is the way to get things done. I say, I'd rather not make a deal with the devil.


Have it your way. All or nothing. If you end up with nothing (and you could), I think you'll understand.

I bet, however, there are some rational minds behind the scenes that get how this has to work.


----------



## travlin-easy

Minnewaska said:


> I bet, however, there are some rational minds behind the scenes that get how this has to work.


Having spent a lot of time as a reporter and watching those behind the scenes in action, I wouldn't bet the farm on rational minds. I would follow the money trail, which is the driving force behind most of the legislation I've covered in the past.

Good luck,

Gary :2 boat:


----------



## Minnewaska

travlineasy said:


> Having spent a lot of time as a reporter and watching those behind the scenes in action, I wouldn't bet the farm on rational minds. I would follow the money trail, which is the driving force behind most of the legislation I've covered in the past....


I meant rational minds on the boaters side, trying to determine a good strategy to get out of this attack alive. To your point, the landlubbers have money, but they also have someone being rational and proposing new ways to get around the law or get the law changed. I'm hoping BoatUS, SSCA, etc, are trying to be as equally clever.


----------



## dennismenace111

chrisncate said:


> I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.
> 
> What's the difference exactly? Why are RV's supposed to go to designated RVing areas (and certainly not in front your homes throughout the RV season), while cruisers on boats should be able to park wherever they please? As a non cruiser, I can certainly see the homeowners perspective that they paid a very high premium to live in the area, while cruisers didn't. As a former wannabe cruiser I can definitely see why you'd want to be able to anchor freely, but it makes less sense to me nowadays without viewing it through boaters eyes.
> 
> Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?


I believe according to the Laws of the State of Florida, the property owners are limited to the land above the mean high water mark... not beyond... They are using fear tactics to convince the State of Florida that their rights have been violated. We already have laws governing derelict vessels. We already have laws governing discharge of waste.. ..yet they continue to use those as arguing points..

A clear case of the wealthy property owners throwing their political weight around along with their $$.


----------



## Minnewaska

dennismenace111 said:


> I believe according to the Laws of the State of Florida, the property owners are limited to the land above the mean high water mark... not beyond... They are using fear tactics to convince the State of Florida that their rights have been violated. We already have laws governing derelict vessels. We already have laws governing discharge of waste.. ..yet they continue to use those as arguing points..
> 
> A clear case of the wealthy property owners throwing their political weight around along with their $$.


This is exactly correct and how just about every law was ever written. The wealthiest folks wrote the Constitution and, indeed, there was opposition. Did you know that's why the Bill of Rights came later? Those provisions had to be negotiated and they wanted to get what they could agree to down on paper. No doubt wealthy yachtsman and sea merchants funded all the laws one would want to use to defend the boater from this assault too.

Bitching about it will not win. One needs to get on the playing board and be just as clever, influential and strategic as they. These "wealthy property owners" are willing to take a few losses (read as... money) to get the big win they want. Boaters will have to take a loss or two as well, in the battle, to win the war.


----------



## Woodvet

If they get a shoe in the door. They can increase the ban. Bureaucrats pander to the money. 
Seeing people say "useless" informs me we've let too many people into the country who don't realize we are essentially run by the people. 
They're like someone in Vegas who roots for the house. 
Long may we sail free....
Oceans aren't for ownership.


----------



## Minnewaska

Woodvet said:


> ...
> Oceans aren't for ownership.


Exactly the way many felt about the land too. Don't rest on ideals.


----------



## SVAuspicious

I hope this helps:



> The Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA) Concerned Cruisers Committee (CCC) is a group of SSCA members who actively represent the global cruising community's interests. We work on issues that impact our cruising experience from anchoring limits in the US to visa time limits in Europe. SSCA has joined together with other regional and national boater's rights organizations to represent cruisers' concerns before the Florida legislature. The SSCA CCC has established itself as a source of marine expertise, knowledge and a voice of reason with the Florida legislature. Of greatest importance for the SSCA CCC is a bill that will finally resolve the ongoing issues regarding anchoring in Florida.
> 
> In order for SSCA and its partners to succeed we need your financial help right now to support our team's expenses, advisors and costs that were ever so critical to our success last year. We do not have much time as the legislative session starts on January 12, 2016. So please join the effort to defend cruisers' rights by making contributions to one or all of our campaigns today. Also please share this with your friends and those you know in the marine industry.
> 
> If you do nothing else, join SSCA: http://ssca.org
> 
> Contribute to SSCA legislative efforts: https://www.gofundme.com/Right2Anchor . This money pays for the expenses of our efforts.
> 
> Contribute to the Maritime Heritage Freedom Political Action Committee:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=KUAECXWUYWYFS . This money gives our advisors the tools to effectively gain the support of legislators.
> 
> Volunteer your time and energy to SSCA and the SSCA CCC. Contact [email protected] or [email protected].


Florida HB 1051 is just a framework. We can expect it to change and grow as the legislative session progresses.

Any of us can complain and rant. If you want to do more than that and be an effective part of the solution then join SSCA and contribute what you can to the fight.

I will report back as I can.


----------



## DavyJ

HB 1051 now has a companion bill in the senate, SB 1260.

SB 1260 is authored by Simpson, on the EP committee.

HB 1051 authored by Caldwell is on the State Affairs Committee.

Those bills first stops will most likely be those committees. Here are the lists for those committees:

Florida House of Representatives - State Affairs Committee

https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/EP/?Tab=Meetings


----------



## RL24er

So what is the problem? These pending bills only deal with three specific areas of eastern Fl., including parts of the inter coastal waterway, in which it already is unlawful to anchor, correct? It's good to know what is being proposed, but does it actually concern or relate to 99.99% of boaters? I looked up Crab Island at East pass, this appears to be a very small area of the Pensacola Bay. Worthy of objection to anchor in a small pass? Let's hear your opinion. Here is the relevant proposal:
(1) A person may not anchor or moor a vessel at any time
15 between the hours from one-half hour after sunset to one-half
16 hour before sunrise in the following recreational boating zones:
17 (a) The section of Middle River lying between Northeast
18 21st Court and the Intracoastal Waterway in Broward County.
19 (b) Sunset Lake in Miami-Dade County.
20 (c) The sections of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County lying
21 between:
22 1. Rivo Alto Island and Di Lido Island.
23 2. San Marino Island and San Marco Island.
24 3. San Marco Island and Biscayne Island.
25 (d) Crab Island in Choctawhatchee Bay at the East Pass in
26 Okaloosa County.


----------



## SVAuspicious

RL24er said:


> So what is the problem?


This is a framework bill. The legislative session has not even started yet. You can expect a steady flow of additional areas. We've been through this sort of thing before.


----------



## DavyJ

> So what is the problem? These pending bills only deal with three specific areas of eastern Fl., including parts of the inter coastal waterway, in which it already is unlawful to anchor, correct?


There are probably navigational rules for anchoring in a channel, but I'm not aware of any Florida laws that prohibit anchoring along the ICW.

If these bills pass, what will happen is that every other city could use any ridiculous reason to restrict anchoring in their part of the waterway. I'm fairly certain that no one is water skiing in Sunset Lake, and even less after sundown.


----------



## SVAuspicious

SSCA President Steve Kauffmann has released an update on the latest round of proposed legislation in Florida.

If you want to help the best thing you can do is become an SSCA member. Already a member? Make a donation to the legislative support fund and/or to the PAC that provides resources to defend anchoring rights. See http://ssca.org for more information.

Steve's statement:



> Anchoring Update --We've been watching the FL legislature all week.and don't support current developments. Here is a release...please spread this far and wide:
> 
> Your right to anchor in five Florida anchorages will be gone if HB1051 Recreational Boating Zones and its companion SB1260 pass. All overnight anchoring would be prohibited in Middle River in Broward County; Sunset Lake and the areas between Rivo Alto Island and Di Lido Island, San Marino Island and San Marco Island, San Marco Island and Biscayne Island all in Miami-Dade County; and Crab Island in Choctawhatchee Bay. More prohibitions will come if this law passes.
> 
> SSCA, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and BoatUS, with support from the Marine Trawler Owner's Association and the American Great Loop Cruisers Association are opposing these bills as written. HB1051 is scheduled to be heard in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Tuesday January 26 at Noon. We need your help now.
> 
> Please call or email the members of the Subcommittee. Here is a link to the committee with the names of the members.
> 
> Florida House of Representatives - Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee
> 
> If you click on the member's names you can get their Tallahassee office telephone numbers and email addresses. Please email them this weekend and call their offices on Monday. Your email can contain the following:
> 
> "I am a cruiser and Florida voter and am writing to express my opposition to HB1051 Recreational Boating Zones. This bill will restrict overnight anchoring in five areas that have historically been used by Florida cruisers and visitors from out of state.
> 
> The bills interfere with our maritime rights to navigation which include anchoring. Anchoring restrictions impact many Florida recreational boaters who regularly cruise the waters and rivers of the state by limiting places to safely stop for the night, reprovision and get out of severe weather. Four of the proposed areas are in Southeast Florida where thousands of boaters transit yearly. Many marinas in Florida do not allow transient docking or in many cases are full and unable to accept additional boats. I urge to you vote against this bill."


----------



## RTB

I've been anchored at South Beach for the past week. It is sad to see all these piece of crap boats anchored here. Pretty seedy looking characters on some, and in dinghies running up Collins Canal. Signs prohibiting tying up to shore in most areas. The exception being the Publix dock. Yesterday, there was a junk boat tied up to the wall there, inches from sinking.

Man, I don't know what the answer to the problem is, but there is a definite problem here!

Ralph


----------



## Bilge Rat

Law enforcement already has laws to clean up crap boats and I've watched them several times over last 50 years. Take a look at the requirements you have to meet in order to have your boat legal. That's just to put it in the water not to use your boat own the rivers, lakes and oceans of the USA. Do you think those crap boats meet those laws? It cost money for the state to enforce laws. If the state can't find out who owns the boat then the state has to pay for the removal. If a crap boats drags into a sandbar in front of major hotel and sinks it's red tagged then removed. Strange how that state budget works.


----------



## RL24er

How about we ask Division of Wildlife here in Florida for more enforcement of boating laws, i.e. having an operational head, night lights, safety equip. etc. Would this enforcement weed out some of the "crap boats" since if they aren't putting money in their boats for upkeep and maintenance, then the state could quarentine the boat (or jail the owner until fines are paid?)? Of course, such actions would include all of us, is it worth being harassed by the law in the hope some bad boats will be brought up to standards--or sold to another owner if confiscated by gov't from the negligent owner?


----------



## SVAuspicious

RTB said:


> I've been anchored at South Beach for the past week. It is sad to see all these piece of crap boats anchored here. Pretty seedy looking characters on some, and in dinghies running up Collins Canal. Signs prohibiting tying up to shore in most areas. The exception being the Publix dock. Yesterday, there was a junk boat tied up to the wall there, inches from sinking.


You are on point Ralph.

There is no question about the problem of derelict boats. The cruising community representation in Florida led by SSCA including BoatUS, AGLCA, MTOA, and NMMA agree that there is a problem. We suggest, as others have noted, that existing regulation is sufficient. Where additional regulation is needed restricting anchoring is an ineffective component. The big problem is that politicians find it easier to pass new laws than to adequately fund enforcement of existing laws.

The second issue is that there are some homeowners who feel that they purchased their view with their land. They use a number of points of leverage, derelict boats being one, to push for "solutions" that achieve the ends they actually desire: anchoring restrictions.

On the latter point I have seen some rants about "wealthy landowners." It is my experience that wealth does not equate with being *ahem* a nasty person associated with a bodily orifice. However those with wealth who happen to be such people can make a pretty big fuss. That is a good bit of what we see in Florida.


----------



## Don L

While there are some that are pushing the anti-anchor thing as a view thing, I think the main issue is money. In that there isn't money to deal with the current problem of boat clean up, so the answer is just to try to prevent it.


----------



## dennismenace111

This is what happens when one political party has indefinite control over both state houses and the executive branch. Gerrymandering has made it impossible for fair representation in Florida. It will be this way for decades to come.


----------



## Bilge Rat

Look at the positive side. Florida ranked number 1 in corrupt government until this year. We've moved to number 3 in 2015. At least the state is improving in government. Decades is probably a reasonable goal. By that time people will be talking about the good old days when you could anchor for the night and fish.


----------



## Foxy Roxy

DavyJ said:


> There are probably navigational rules for anchoring in a channel, but I'm not aware of any Florida laws that prohibit anchoring along the ICW.
> 
> If these bills pass, what will happen is that every other city could use any ridiculous reason to restrict anchoring in their part of the waterway. I'm fairly certain that no one is water skiing in Sunset Lake, and even less after sundown.


THere is a 95%sunken motor boat in the anchorage area in front of our home condo, just north of Seabreeze Bridge, Daytona Beach. I called the local CG on 10th december but they were not really interested, just sent a boat out to look several hours later but they made no attempt to move it whilst it was still just afloat and probably towable. There are two others anchored, one motor and one sail. The sailboat is in the channel and although it has both bow and stern anchors deployed, sits broadside across the channel at some states of tide flow. Neither are lit at night nor is the sunken one. I guess nobody wants to get involved as it might cost them departmental money? I won't bother calling the CG again, being patronised by silly questions like I was a dumb tourist or visitor, once is quite enough thanks. There was one sailboat a year or so back that was found to be a floating Meth Lab, the police moved that one to shore, probably for forensics so maybe next time I will call the police not the CG.


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm not familiar with all the local FL laws, but I'm a bit familiar with the laws on abandon boats in RI. It can be very difficult and time consuming to manage. I once considered buying an abandon boat off the marina to put on the lake near my home, but they first needed to clear title. It had been years. I passed.

I wonder if this factors into the CG's or other law enforcement decisions to tow. Once they take it, they probably assume some responsibility for it.


----------



## Don L

Minnewaska said:


> I wonder if this factors into the CG's or other law enforcement decisions to tow. Once they take it, they probably assume some responsibility for it.


I bet that has a lot to do with the problem. In my home port in MA a boat showed up on a mooring 1.5 years ago. It is attached to a marina owned mooring by a chain and lock. It has no mast and the hatch has been open and the companionway boards out all this time. Somehow it hasn't sunk because someone must be pumping it out, but it still sits on the mooring and even the marina doesn't move it off their mooring.


----------



## Yamsailor

Here is my 2-cent opinion (which is worth:2 boat: less than 2 cents).

DON'T CRUISE IN FLORIDA ANYMORE! I have been reading about Florida cruising issues for years. I do not know how much money cruisers brings to the economy nor do I care. The cruising grounds in the Caribbean are so much better and the governments there are more cruiser friendly. SKIP FLORIDA, LEAVE FLORIDA, DON'T EVEN SHOW UP THERE. Cuba will soon be open to us all. Got to Cuba, Jamaica or any of the myriad places in the Caribbean. VOTE WITH YOUR BOAT---LEAVE FLORIDA--IT IS NOT WORTH IT!


OK--I am off my soap box.


----------



## RTB

Yamsailor said:


> Here is my 2-cent opinion (which is worth:2 boat: less than 2 cents).
> 
> DON'T CRUISE IN FLORIDA ANYMORE! I have been reading about Florida cruising issues for years. I do not know how much money cruisers brings to the economy nor do I care. The cruising grounds in the Caribbean are so much better and the governments there are more cruiser friendly. SKIP FLORIDA, LEAVE FLORIDA, DON'T EVEN SHOW UP THERE. Cuba will soon be open to us all. Got to Cuba, Jamaica or any of the myriad places in the Caribbean. VOTE WITH YOUR BOAT---LEAVE FLORIDA--IT IS NOT WORTH IT!
> 
> OK--I am off my soap box.


You really don't address the problem.....just offer another destination. For many of us, Florida is the logical place to jump to the Bahamas. And where would you leave from to get to say the DR, PR, and Virgins. Not everyone cares for long crossings of weeks. Coming from Texas to go up to the NE coast, it's pretty hard to avoid Florida. Here, at anchor currently at No Name Harbor are boats from the USA, Canada, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, IA (?), Arizona......probably most heading to the Bahamas. Surely some are bound for the Keys too, but bottom line is that Florida is a state that many travel through to get where they are going. Most cruisers prefer to anchor for free, rather than spend a large chunk of their cruising budget on transient marina fees (which are super expensive here).

I find it hard to believe that many of those rich home-owners with a view would be all upset looking at well kept active cruising boats - Lagoons, Leopards, IP's, Hunter, Catalina, HR's, etc...but once a junk Sea Ray with and outboard attached (which doesn't run), a barnacle bucket sailboat sans mast, or any kind of boat with a ton of junk lying about the deck anchored in a nice area, someone is going to see red! I can't blame them either. Unfortunately, then every boat becomes an eyesore in a way to that individual. At least that's the way I see it in my head.

The LEO's need to get their act together and earn their money. I sincerely doubt that actively cruising folk, with money to do so, are the problem. The people I see on derelict boats usually show no means of support. Besides, someone that looks that way could not possibly be employed! I met one kid (he was pretty young) here in South Beach that claims to own 11 boats, and wanted to know if there was anything I needed to buy for my boat. He sells the parts off of those boats. Then I guess they just sit there on some cheap Danforth anchor until it drags ashore or sinks.

Again, there is a big problem here, but no one really seems to be doing anything about it. And, those of us that are honestly, actively cruising have a good chance of dealing with some nasty rules sooner or later.

For those representing the cruising community, and doing a fine job...thank you for your efforts and time. I do certainly appreciate it, since I have no voting rights not being a Florida resident. I hope you keep fighting for us!

Ralph


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## albrazzi

There are Marine salvagers everywhere I have considered it myself, not a easy as it would seem to do it right and clean up properly. Perhaps if the state or local officials could come up with some easier processes for abandoned Boat liens more of this could be done. I realize nobody, especially the local authorities wants to deal with the legal aspects of this. Making someone clean up something they "legally" own is tricky in so many ways. I still think some common sense clean up along with responsible anchoring practices (good luck with that) would make things better for everyone.
Try getting someone with one of the "denial" fixer uppers to cooperate with a clean up push. I have had too many neighbors at the marina who would equate this to taking their guns away.
Who remembers houseboat row in KW, they finally cleaned that up but it was kinda cool back in the early days of my exploration.


----------



## stpabr

Wasn't ther a hearing yesterday? Anyone have an update?


----------



## SVAuspicious

RTB said:


> For many of us, Florida is the logical place to jump to the Bahamas. And where would you leave from to get to say the DR, PR, and Virgins.


It is easy to get to the Bahamas or the Caribbean from Norfolk VA or Beaufort NC. Much less than a week from the Bahamas and two weeks to BVI. Compare that to the time and cost to get down the ICW to Florida before heading out.



RTB said:


> I find it hard to believe that many of those rich home-owners with a view would be all upset looking at well kept active cruising boats - Lagoons, Leopards, IP's, Hunter, Catalina, HR's, etc...


Then you haven't dealt with some of the self-entitled on Florida shores.



RTB said:


> The LEO's need to get their act together and earn their money.


The problem is not the LEOs. The problem is the legislature funding enforcement of existing law. It is cheaper and easier to pass restrictive laws than it is to fund dealing with the derelict boat problem.


----------



## caberg

SVAuspicious said:


> The problem is the legislature funding enforcement of existing law. It is cheaper and easier to pass restrictive laws than it is to fund dealing with the derelict boat problem.


That is true, but it is also true well beyond the activity of boating/cruising. There are many restrictions about what you can and can't do on public lands, for example. You typically cannot just camp anywhere you please, but must camp in designated sites. It is cheaper and easier to enforce restrictions for where one can camp, than to enforce rules about how to properly camp across millions of acres of public lands. It's a balancing act between allowing access to public resources and maintaining those resources for the enjoyment of all.


----------



## Bilge Rat

I wonder why FWC spent all the time, money own meetings, mooring fields, surveys, anchoring distance from landowners and who knows what else. This was done after a judge ruled that local governments did not have the right to do so. Then the legislature had a bill to do the same thing but it was put off probably because of the number of people objecting to the law. Now this issue is being decided in agriculture which seems like a back door move. If I didn't have a little history own anchoring restrictions I would think that farmers are anchoring boats full of oranges behind people's houses. Thats something to think about. Water front property in Florida usually has high property taxes. If you have agriculture boats anchored near your property you may be able to reclassify your property as agriculture land and pay almost no property tax. I wouldn't be surprised if the offshore oil drilling committee is having a vote own where a farmer can park his tractor.


----------



## Seaduction

The complaints stem from those sailors/cruisers/liveaboards that have poorly maintained boats (think of non-gleaming hull, tattered biminis and dodgers and sailcovers) that want to stay put and come ashore regularly with dogs and garbage. Those undesirables that use Sunset Lake for a permanent winter anchorage have enraged some of the homeowners by their "squatting."


----------



## Bilge Rat

I understand the land owners problem but the state of Florida is trying to pass a law that will allow law enforcement to issue fines own any boat that anchors. A right that is as old as the country. There are vagrant laws that can be enforced. This problem didn't just start in Florida it's been going own all my life. Those boats that the landowners complain about are the same boats that boaters complain about. I've wanted to drop the anchor at dark and leave early the next morning but had to keep going because the anchorage looked to dangerous with abandoned boats. One time I asked a Florida Marine Patrol Officer why they didn't do something about the abandoned boats. His response was it takes to much paperwork time and it was a county issue not a state issue. Boats come under transportation not homesteading.


----------



## Sea&Stars

Here's a recent account of the application of these prohibitive ordinances in Miami, sad really. Miami Beach Tows Away Two Dozen Dinghies | New Times Broward-Palm Beach


----------



## DavyJ

Anyone that has a relationship with SeaTow should really rethink that choice.

I haven't been in that area specifically, but isn't there a public boat ramp right around the corner here:

1802 Purdy Avenue:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/1802+Purdy+Avenue,+Miami+Beach,+FL/@25.7925152,-80.1463886,17z/data=!3m1!4b1?hl=en
Just pull up, drag it out of the water and lock it to the bike rack......

Plus, some enterprising young fella could make a living offering a ferry service, you know, like uber or lyft............


----------



## chrisncate

Sea&Stars said:


> Here's a recent account of the application of these prohibitive ordinances in Miami, sad really. Miami Beach Tows Away Two Dozen Dinghies | New Times Broward-Palm Beach


I like the one guy quoted as saying "They put my life at risk! I had to go back to my boat in three foot waves!".

Guy, you're on a cruising sailboat. Isn't assumed you might see some risk along the way? For cripes sakes, reading that article was like reading a Sailnet thread, what with the dramatics and all.

I get that they are upset, but why does it always need to devolve into hysterics and a near death experience?


----------



## JimMcGee

DavyJ said:


> Anyone that has a relationship with SeaTow should really rethink that choice.


+1

A company that serves the boating community treating boaters this way? I'll never do business with them.


----------



## TakeFive

Is SeaTow corporately owned, or are they local franchisees? If the latter, it might be hard to control the actions of a franchisee. Maybe someone should ask their local SeaTow person what he knows about this. It would be a shame for franchisees all over the country were losing business thanks to one bad apple.


----------



## Minnewaska

SeaTow are local franchises. 

I think this does come down to the individual operator.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> SeaTow are local franchises.
> 
> I think this does come down to the individual operator.


It's gotta hurt all of them to see their brand name associated with confiscation of property and hostility toward cruisers.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> It's gotta hurt all of them to see their brand name associated with confiscation of property and hostility toward cruisers.


Probably so.


----------



## Don L

TakeFive said:


> It's gotta hurt all of them to see their brand name associated with confiscation of property and hostility toward cruisers.


You know I'm going to take the other position. If you park where it's posted no parking you have no right to complain about the tow company.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnewaska said:


> Probably so.


Probably not. Not enough people care.


----------



## TakeFive

Don0190 said:


> You know I'm going to take the other position. If you park where it's posted no parking you have no right to complain about the tow company.


First amendment guarantees the right to complain about anything.

We're not talking about the offenders complaining in this case. It's those who say they will not use any SeaTow services because one of their franchisees is working under contract with a local governmental authority that his grown increasingly hostile toward cruisers. Some people here have posted their intention to go to the competition for their towing needs, and that is their right and perfectly understandable in this case.

It is people's right to "vote with their wallets" especially if their voices are not heard by the Florida legislators. What is a shame is that other SeaTow franchisees who do not engage in this may be hurt as well.


----------



## miatapaul

Sea&Stars said:


> Here's a recent account of the application of these prohibitive ordinances in Miami, sad really. Miami Beach Tows Away Two Dozen Dinghies | New Times Broward-Palm Beach


Seems to me 20 minute limit is really odd. This is going to effect the local economy, if you are staying for a few days in the area it would be common to go shopping and perhaps eat out. 20 minutes does not even give you time to get carry out from a McDonald's. And I understand the cruiser's impact on the local economy is really much smaller than we tend to state, but this eliminates any chance of there being any.


----------



## uncle stinky bob

Seems they have spoken, boats not welcome. unreal! This is the Florida surrounded by water on three side, right? Strange indeed!


----------



## smurphny

Sea Tow probably won't win over many boaters by being the instrument of bad decisions on the part of LE. On the other hand, I can't believe the SIZE of dinghies nowadays. I have a small 8' dink which can get in almost anywhere but am amazed by the huge, Cadillac-sized dinks that hog up dock space. Why in H does anyone need a second center console cruiser disguised as a dink???


----------



## travlin-easy

Smurf, when I was in the Florida keys a couple years ago, 13-foot Boston Whalers were quite common as dinks, especially for those that had very young children and big dogs onboard. I would hate to tow a 13-foot Boston Whaler behind me, though - much too heavy for davits.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Don L

TakeFive said:


> First amendment guarantees the right to complain about anything.
> 
> We're not talking about the offenders complaining in this case. It's those who say they will not use any SeaTow services because one of their franchisees is working under contract with a local governmental authority that his grown increasingly hostile toward cruisers. Some people here have posted their intention to go to the competition for their towing needs, and that is their right and perfectly understandable in this case.
> 
> It is people's right to "vote with their wallets" especially if their voices are not heard by the Florida legislators. What is a shame is that other SeaTow franchisees who do not engage in this may be hurt as well.


Yes people have the right to complain and they surely use it.

But saying it is Sea Tow's fault instead of the people who just feel they have the right to do whatever they what is just BS.


----------



## sharkbait

Come to the Bahamas and leave florida behind.


----------



## TakeFive

Don0190 said:


> ...But saying it is Sea Tow's fault instead of the people who just feel they have the right to do whatever they what is just BS.


That would be BS if someone actually said it. But nobody said that....except for YOU. So I guess you're the one who's slinging it around.

I did say that some cruisers may exercise their right to take their business elsewhere. Not necessarily those who've had their dinks confiscated, but also cruisers who just don't like the "vibe" that SeaTow is giving of with their business choices. You'll have to ask those people who they blame. Don't AssUMe.


----------



## Don L

whatever


----------



## miatapaul

TakeFive said:


> That would be BS if someone actually said it. But nobody said that....except for YOU. So I guess you're the one who's slinging it around.
> 
> I did say that some cruisers may exercise their right to take their business elsewhere. Not necessarily those who've had their dinks confiscated, but also cruisers who just don't like the "vibe" that SeaTow is giving of with their business choices. You'll have to ask those people who they blame. Don't AssUMe.


This is so true, in today's world companies are not often held accountable for there actions. If they had half a brain they would understand that participating in such activities will tarnish there image. By taking the business they are saying the policy is good and valid. They could have taken the high road and said, no thanks we think we very well may loose business over the long term if we are seen towing dinghies of our potential customers. But instead they went for the easy money. Unfortunately where I am Sea Tow is your only option as the nearest boat US facility is about 75 miles from me and there is a Sea Tow operator in both my winter marina and summer one. So if I want towing service have to use Sea Tow. But they are different operators, not that I have any idea if my locals would do anything different.


----------



## TakeFive

miatapaul said:


> ...Unfortunately where I am Sea Tow is your only option as the nearest boat US facility is about 75 miles from me and there is a Sea Tow operator in both my winter marina and summer one. So if I want towing service have to use Sea Tow. But they are different operators, not that I have any idea if my locals would do anything different.


Maybe you should talk to the guy and suggest that it's time that he paint his yellow boat red. :wink Losing franchisees would likely get the attention of the SeaTow's parent company.


----------



## Minnewaska

I think we all have to admit this. Any place that one could tie a dingy to, that is not physically attended to, will have a gaggle of rafts, regardless of signage. At best, I'll blame it on the stinkpotters. But, if we're being full honest, a show of hands from those that have never tied up in conflict with signage.


----------



## RTB

miatapaul said:


> Seems to me 20 minute limit is really odd. This is going to effect the local economy, if you are staying for a few days in the area it would be common to go shopping and perhaps eat out. 20 minutes does not even give you time to get carry out from a McDonald's. And I understand the cruiser's impact on the local economy is really much smaller than we tend to state, but this eliminates any chance of there being any.


The 20 minute limit is unique to that particular dock. There is a boat launch there, so clearly, the dock gets pretty crowded at times.

The great thing is that you can get water there. A hose is already there, and no need to even get out of the dink to fill your jugs. I go there regularly these days, since we've been anchored here for the last two months. I can't imagine why someone would leave their dink there for hours, since the 20 minute sign is very visible.....and it is a POLICE dock after all. The police station is right there on shore.

The dock at Publix is really the only option right now, and there are no hassles if you tie up there. Why buck the situation here? It's not a bad place to hang out.

Ralph


----------



## BlaZespinnaker

the solution is more marinas. if government is going to push this, they need to faciliate more marinas being made so people have a place to tie up.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BlaZespinnaker said:


> the solution is more marinas. if government is going to push this, they need to faciliate more marinas being made so people have a place to tie up.


Florida government doesn't NEED to do anything. Did you see the vote? They don't want us, and we don't spend enough money for them to care.

Note that Florida government isn't "pushing" anything. They did it.


----------



## travlin-easy

Ironically, you would think that a state like Florida, one that has a huge boating community, would have some FREE municipal marinas available. In Maryland, which is also a huge boating state, there are several such marinas, one of which is just a few hundred yards away from where I keep my boat in Perryville, MD. The municipal marina has about 10 large slips, they're in deep water, and there is no charge for tying up and spending the night there.

There used to be a similar municipal marina in Oxford many years ago, but it went away after it was storm damaged. 

Many waterside restaurants have their own slips where you can tie up and enjoy a meal, and if it's late in the evening, they will allow you to spend the night instead of groping around in the dark to find an anchorage.

There are some free docks along the ICW, and at least two that hand out free doughnuts and coffee to boaters that stop there. Maybe Florida should take note about what goes on in the rest of the nation when it comes to being boater friendly.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## Ajax_MD

That's the point that Dave is trying to make-

Florida does not *want* to be boat friendly. They know exactly what they're doing. There's a new, wealthy class of people living there now. They've bought and paid for their local and state legislators and practically outlawed recreational cruising and living aboard. They actually do "own the view" now.

Boycott? Go ahead, Florida would be glad to have cruisers self-deport. They won't miss your money.





However... I do believe this will come back to bite the state in the ass sometime in the future. It might be years, or decades but it will probably happen.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Ajax_MD said:


> Boycott? Go ahead, Florida would be glad to have cruisers self-deport. They won't miss your money.
> 
> However... I do believe this will come back to bite the state in the ass sometime in the future. It might be years, or decades but it will probably happen.


I agree with Rich, who appears to agree with me.

Cruisers and other boaters who avoid Florida will not hurt Florida's economy in the short term. We simply don't spend enough money. We don't matter. What does matter is a slowly growing number of people who decide not to go to Florida because they don't feel welcome. The reputation will spread. Others will eventually notice (probably) and the RVers and other snowbirds will take note. Their own grievances will (eventually) become more apparent. Georgia, and Louisiana will start looking more attractive.

Florida used to be a destination. While some cruisers still go to Florida to go to Florida, many more just pass through on their way to the Bahamas and in increasing numbers to Cuba.

My suggestion is to spread the word that Florida only cares about visitors with money. We are an example. So are the Florida WalMarts that no longer accept RVs. The new Florida motto is "We don't want you, just send your money."

We should keep working on the legislative front but it is clear from fundraising that cruisers like to complain but not open their wallets. Accordingly it will take years if not decades for Florida to realize what they have driven away.

In the meantime in my opinion there is no good reason to go to Florida unless someone pays you.


----------



## Ajax_MD

I totally agree that "those nasty RV'ers" will be the next to be targeted (actually, they already are to a certain extent).
Eventually, the rich may find a new playground and they might abandon Florida...and the legislators might wonder why none of the filthy commoners never come to visit anymore, and who's going to prop up the economy?

Florida doesn't even make the "top 10" places to retire anymore.
10 Best States For Retirement | Bankrate.com


----------



## TakeFive

I suspect that the lack of southern hospitality that we see in Florida corresponds to the influx of rich, angry, bossy New Jerseians and New Yorkers into the state. (My apologies to the NY and NJ sailors here, but I lived in NJ for 10 years and it's definitely an angry place.) The longtime middle-class Florida residents are probably fed up with this also.


----------



## Don L

I don't really understand all the uproar over a few anchoring spots. To my thinking Florida is way more anchor friendly than other States where the local govt has long had the ability to limit anchoring in their waters.


----------



## travlin-easy

Ajax, obviously the person that compiled that list of states to retire must really love freezing cold weather, loads of snow, and blazing hot summers. I would not even consider any of those states for retirement, and as much as I dislike Maryland's winters, they are much shorter, and milder than nearly all of the states listed.

Florida offers some great retirement opportunities, and anyone that has gone beyond their sailboats and marinas knows this is truly a great place to spend your final years. The only state listed that had decent winter weather was Virginia, and the weather there is just marginal at best during January through March.

Yes, parts of Florida are very expensive to live in, while other locations are relatively inexpensive. Taxes are far less than many states to the north, and the recreational opportunities are limitless. Some of the best golf courses in the nation are located in Florida. The absolute best recreational fishing in the nation is also in Florida. If you are physically able, there is no better place in the nation for snorkeling and SCUBA diving than the lower Florida Keys. I took dozens of day sails out of Marathon Key and you could not ask for better sailing opportunities. 

As for slip rents, well they are high in the keys, but not nearly as high as some places in Chesapeake Bay and New England. I paid $750 a month, including electricity and water to stay in Marathon City Marina. I cost me just over half as much to keep the boat at the mouth of the Susquehanna River during the summer months, plus another $600 for the winter storage. 

Groceries and booze cost the same in the Florida Keys as they do in Maryland. And, the number of liveaboard marinas in Florida is about the same as most other states. Not many marinas allow liveaboards in any state I've visited, and I have visited most states along the east coast extensively. 

Would Florida miss our money - you betcha! Keep in mind that the number of transients living aboard that visit Marathon each year is nearly 1,000 boaters, all of which spend about the same amount of money as any resident. They purchase groceries, get hair cuts, visit doctors and clinics, and buy copious amounts of booze. Additionally, cruisers tend to spend lots of money eating out in restaurants, V/S cooking and eating aboard their boats. When April rolls around the exodus from the keys is unreal. It takes two weeks for all the cars and boats to get out of the keys, and by the end of April, the keys resemble ghost towns. Many restaurants close for the summer months because there is not enough business to remain open. If the cruising contingency were to avoid Florida, those places would go out of business, Florida would not get the tax revenues and a lot of nice people, including many that reside in those McMansions, would be financially impacted. Keep in mind that tourism is Florida's number one industry. Loosing a substantial segment of the tourist population would have a huge impact on Florida's overall economy.

I've really never had any bad experiences in more than a half century of traveling to Florida, other than some unanticipated weather conditions. I've been warmly welcomed by nearly every marina, never had a problem with the marine police, and never been told I couldn't anchor for night anywhere I traveled. I guess others have had some bad experiences, but for the most part, every cruiser I encountered had nothing but positive comments about their time spent in Florida.

If my health allows, I'll be sailing back to the keys and Dry Tortugas this fall. If not, I guess I'll be stuck in The People's Republic Of Maryland for another, cold, endless, brutal winter. 

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## fallard

Maybe this thread needs a sanity check.

1. It is unfair to enforce dinghy time restrictions by an active boat ramp?
2. SeaTow is a bad actor by removing illegally parked dinghies under police contract?
3. Florida is "unfriendly" for attempting to impose some kind of balance between "rich" land owners and libertarian boat owners who would anchor within 100ft of someone's home?

The dinghy flap, IMHO, is a red herring and vilifying SeaTow is off the mark--not to say we aren't all entitled to our opinions. If anything, the dinghy flap is an indictment of bad behavior on the part of boaters--not SeaTow. Calling for a SeaTow boycott over this flap is silly.

I'm staying with SeaTow, which has provided me exemplary service over the years.


----------



## ad28

According to this press release, 62 MILLION people visited Orlando in 2014. Orlando, not all of Florida... just Orlando.

Orlando Press & Media | Visit Orlando News & Information

Yeah, Florida on the whole won't even notice if nary a cruiser appeared. You might see some local effects but development is fast changing the "isolation" of the Keys.

sorry, folks


----------



## midwesterner

With some of the daily slip fees the marinas around Miami Beach charge per night, $4 to $7 per foot, it's clear that they don't want budget-minded sailors anchoring for free in the ICW. They want the wealthy yachting set. 

I imagine the economy cruising set buys groceries and fuel but the wealthy yachting set comes ashore, stays a week in a luxury hotel, rents a car and spends a lot of money dining and shopping.


----------



## Melrna

I am going to try and get some of the rhetoric out of the way. Most of the SN community has not sailed in Florida for an entire season. I have been living and cruising here in Florida since 2004 and living on my boat since 2008. First and foremost, this bill stinks. In my opinion, it is illegal and the politicians should be hanged and quartered. Now, having said that, what is the reality? As some here have said, the impact is minuscule to the economies of the surrounding areas from West Palm to Miami-Dade County where the current restrictions are set to go in affect. This is about 68 miles of the east Florida coastline, a one day trip for most sailboats. Keep this in mind later. Communities, politicians and business owners only care about economic impact. One also has to remember that there are the motorboats, in particular trawlers, which cruise here as well. I would guess trawlers and/or motor boats make up almost 40% of the cruising community down here now. 
There are about 3 types of cruisers that visit the South Florida coastline. The “snowbirds” that come down just for the winter; they live in marinas, mooring balls and private docks. A few anchor out (maybe 5%) with the biggest group I believe in Key West area. This group makes up for well over 90% of the roughly 2,500 cruisers here all winter long. They spend money! Lots of it!! The restrictions don’t affect them at all. The next cruiser I call, the “vacation cruisers", who visit Florida, the Florida Keys and Dry Tortuga's. Sometimes they anchor; sometimes they get a slip for a day to a week. They visit for a while then leave. They spend some money. The last group of cruisers is what I call, "traveling through cruisers". They come from the great white north on their way to somewhere besides Florida. They usually go to the Bahamas, Cuba (now), Caribbean, and lastly to the Mexico and/or beyond. These cruisers spend very little overall. The impact for each county is minimal except maybe down in the Florida Keys. Anchoring restrictions are few, north and south of the regulation zone. 
Marathon is overcrowded. It is a nice place and the community reaches out to the cruisers. Key West is nice but expensive. North of the restriction zone, Jupiter to St Augustine loves us for the most part. I spent this winter in Stuart due to a major boat break down. This cruising crowd from Vero Beach to Jupiter is huge (think a 1000 or so). The communities cater to us and love us. There are just minor pockets of discontented land owners here. 
Now let’s chat about the impact of the new regulations and who it is going to hurt the most, the “traveling through cruisers” and liveaboards. I will start with the liveaboards who live on their boats and rarely move them. The regulations are the toughest on this group. I don't have an answer to this. These are folks who run the gamut of the economic scale, that believe in the beauty, independence and freedom of living on the water. Then there is the derelict boat problem. It is a county problem that politicians and sheriffs have turned a blind eye to for far too long. Last month the state legislature passed a bill to fund to the counties to take care of the derelict boat problem. We will see if the counties use these funds. The transient cruisers are another matter. There are figures of around 1-2 thousand a year (I once saw a figure of 3 thousand) of these wonderful folks who fit this profile. Imagine for a second of the RV’ers coming to your neighborhood and hanging out and then leaving during the winter season. How would you feel about that? Just saying! Look at it from another point of view is all I am saying here. In your opinion they create a nuisance and then don’t even spend money except at the grocery store. Oh, and you are rich in most people’s eyes. While the restrictions in these areas are great anchorages to jump out on the rose compass, they are just that, jumping off points (rest areas for the RV comparison). 
So what is the bottom line here? At most a few thousand folks the State of Florida is looking at inconveniencing for a night or two. That is how they see it, with no economic impact to the state or communities. Not a big deal in all three counties where the population is in the millions. For the liveaboards, I would venture to guess maybe 60 people at the most that live in the restricted areas. Can the counties accommodate them in other areas of the waterway county? You bet they can. Will they? Probably not. NOT IN MY BACKYARD (NIMBA) mentality that is not only in the waterway communities but land base as well. One cannot just pull up an RV in any community street corner and camp out. How would you like if an RV camped out in front of your house? This is the view of communities that are impacting landowners and politicians. It is not my opinion, because I believe in the rights of boats navigating the waterway. 
So what is the compromise solution to all this? First, I would avoid Southern Florida. I would jump out at Ft Pierce or West Palm Beach inlet (class A inlet) to the Bahamas or down to Biscayne Bay inlet about 68 miles on the outside. It is doable to all boaters in one day. But having watched the cruising community for over a decade now, I would venture to guess 98% of the cruisers going to the South Florida, Bahamas, and beyond do not do overnights and if they do, only one day at most. Avoiding Georgia’s ICW comes to mind. I would further say 60-75% don’t travel outside the ICW on their way south. There are a few areas where they might venture out like Ft Lauderdale to Miami. Alarming statistics to most I would imagine. This is one reason there is a huge outcry from our community. Those that do go outside regularly, do so only because they have a keel depth problem, mast height bridge problem or are salty sailors. Most sailors talk the talk but don’t do the walk down here. Second, support your favorite boating PAC: Boat US, Seven Seas Cruising Association, and other boating associations that you feel kin too. Write letters to the Florida legislature and governments, grassroots efforts sometimes do work. Thirdly, avoid all boating commercial activities like boat shows. If no one goes to Strictly Sail Miami or the West Palm Beach or Ft Lauderdale shows, the boat manufacture’s PAC will hopefully listen to the crickets at the cash register. Also, don’t buy a boat here, buy it somewhere else. If there is a boat you love and have to buy it, have the owner/broker take it to another state for sale. This is a hard one, I know. Thirdly, the communities themselves look at anchoring havens that are protected and available to the boating community. 
These are just the observations of a crazy woman boat owner. Your mileage will vary. 
:2 boat:


----------



## Kristtaney

How are the transient cruisers that spent the winter in the Keys and Bahamas managing on their return to the north. It would be nice to hear some of the experiences, I'm heading for the Bahamas in the fall, 
so interested to see what is happening.


----------



## Melrna

Kristtaney said:


> How are the transient cruisers that spent the winter in the Keys and Bahamas managing on their return to the north. It would be nice to hear some of the experiences, I'm heading for the Bahamas in the fall,
> so interested to see what is happening.


It doesn't affect them. Law goes into effect July 1, 2016. The migration has already began.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Mel knows I love her and generally agree with her. I'm still going to rant a bit from my own perspective.

It is worth noting that Florida used to be a destination. More and more people are treating it as a transit point because we simply don't feel welcome in Florida. People (not everyone) go to Florida because they want to go to the Bahamas (or Cuba) not because they want to go to Florida. Sure there are exceptions but the majority are just passing through BECAUSE FLORIDA IS NOT SO MUCH FUN TO STAY IN ANYMORE.



Melrna said:


> As some here have said, the impact is minuscule to the economies of the surrounding areas from West Palm to Miami-Dade County where the current restrictions are set to go in affect.


I don't agree here. The legislature overwhelmingly voted in support of the bill. We KNOW that many localities are working on legislation to piggy back on the passed law and add more no anchoring zones. We KNOW that our (cruisers') support in FWC has deteriorated and the Pilot Program report is likely (not definitely but likely) to recommend mooring fields and anchoring restrictions AND LOCAL CONTROL.

Mel makes the point that the people who are most offended by anchoring restrictions are spending the least money. I agree. WE DON'T COUNT. Florida doesn't want you. "Send money, stay home; if you can only do one, stay home."



Melrna said:


> I will start with the liveaboards who live on their boats and rarely move them. The regulations are the toughest on this group. I don't have an answer to this. These are folks who run the gamut of the economic scale, that believe in the beauty, independence and freedom of living on the water.


Liveaboards are challenge for the cruising and sailing community. We have cruisers who spend a year or two somewhere to refill their kitty. Are those people different than people who moved out from under a bridge? Where do we (big we) draw the line between liveaboards and derelicts? Florida's new "at risk" definition may well be a step in the right direction. I don't know. Anything that separates cruisers from eyesores and environmental risks is probably good.



Melrna said:


> Last month the state legislature passed a bill to fund to the counties to take care of the derelict boat problem. We will see if the counties use these funds.


This is a major step in the right direction. For many years politicians (read legislators) have taken the easy out of passing new law instead of funding existing legislation. Regulation, policy, and procedure remain to be instantiated to move funding to the action agencies. If ten-year-old law had been funded from the beginning we probably would not be where we are now - we would be a lot better off.



Melrna said:


> So what is the bottom line here? At most a few thousand folks the State of Florida is looking at inconveniencing for a night or two.


Mel hit the nail on the head. WE DON'T MATTER. We don't spend enough money to matter. Any sentence or argument that includes in any way our economic impact just doesn't understand the reality.



Melrna said:


> So what is the compromise solution to all this? First, I would avoid Southern Florida. I would jump out at Ft Pierce or West Palm Beach inlet (class A inlet) to the Bahamas or down to Biscayne Bay inlet about 68 miles on the outside. It is doable to all boaters in one day. But having watched the cruising community for over a decade now, I would venture to guess 98% of the cruisers going to the South Florida, Bahamas, and beyond do not do overnights and if they do, only one day at most. Avoiding Georgia's ICW comes to mind. I would further say 60-75% don't travel outside the ICW on their way south. There are a few areas where they might venture out like Ft Lauderdale to Miami. Alarming statistics to most I would imagine. This is one reason there is a huge outcry from our community.


Mel is spot on here also. Lots of cruisers accumulate in anchorages in South Florida waiting for a weather window. *sigh* I can't tell the number of times I've trundled (<- great word) down the dock with six dock carts among three crew and some salty dude asks if I'm getting ready to go.

Dave: "Yep"
Salty Dude: "But the winds tomorrow are going to be 8 kts from the NE"
Dave: "Yep"
Salty Dude: "You're gonna die!"
Dave: "Nope. Do this all the time."
Salty Dude: "What!?!"
Dave: "Cold front coming. Winds SSW then NNW. We'll stay in the stream and get a boost for a couple days at least. We'll go East if it gets bumpy."
Salty Dude: "Can we follow you?"
Dave: "Only if you can keep up."

I crack myself up.

I won't bother you repeating the discussions with people who think Fort-La-De-Dah to Bimini is "offshore." *sigh*


----------



## miatapaul

SVAuspicious said:


> Liveaboards are challenge for the cruising and sailing community. We have cruisers who spend a year or two somewhere to refill their kitty. Are those people different than people who moved out from under a bridge? Where do we (big we) draw the line between liveaboards and derelicts? Florida's new "at risk" definition may well be a step in the right direction. I don't know. Anything that separates cruisers from eyesores and environmental risks is probably good.
> 
> This is a major step in the right direction. For many years politicians (read legislators) have taken the easy out of passing new law instead of funding existing legislation. Regulation, policy, and procedure remain to be instantiated to move funding to the action agencies. If ten-year-old law had been funded from the beginning we probably would not be where we are now - we would be a lot better off.


This seems to be the easy part, "can your boat under it's own power (engine or sail) travel 5 miles?" If not then you are cited and given 90 days to make repairs, if still cannot not make way on it's own then it gets hulled away, and you are given another 90 days in a yard at your own expense, and if repairs are not made it gets sold or destroyed. If the boat is taking on water on the first visit it should be hulled and a 90 day timer gets started. That gives you half a year to make repairs, if you can't do it in that time, then you are likely a derelict. Seems a nice business could be made of buying and scraping the boats.

They do this for cars, if you don't pass safety inspection you are given time to fix and if not then your registration is revoked. It does not seem it should be to onerous on the authorities to do the follow up. What bothers me is all the boats with years old expired registrations an nothing done about it. Imagine driving a car with 5 - 10 year old plates?

Seems so much of this is caused by derelicts and there are already laws that would eliminate most of them, but the locals would rather get rid of everyone, rather than the bad actors.


----------



## Bruce3966

Not that I would ever live in Florida but not all waterfront homeowners agree with this law. My father owns a waterfront home on Marco Island and LOVES when sailboats moor just outside his home. Our entire family does. Sailboats are very peaceful and gorgeous. Just too many stuck up rich waterfront homeowners down there and too many politicians as usual. My father bought the lot in 1968 and built a home and things were so nice down there then. Not any more!


----------



## Minnewaska

Come to RI. All boaters welcome. Everywhere. Tons of anchorages, both remote as well as right in the middle of Newport Harbor. 

Our registration fees were raised slightly (~5%) a few years back. I hadn't registered anything new in a while. I just bought a new dinghy and realized, when reading the forms, that the fee increase was designed to create a fund to remove derelict boats. Makes sense to me. I know FL issues are beyond derelicts. I suspect the only solution is federal, if one could imagine that circus focusing on anything productive.


----------



## albrazzi

Bruce3966 said:


> Not that I would ever live in Florida but not all waterfront homeowners agree with this law. My father owns a waterfront home on Marco Island and LOVES when sailboats moor just outside his home. Our entire family does. Sailboats are very peaceful and gorgeous. Just too many stuck up rich waterfront homeowners down there and too many politicians as usual. My father bought the lot in 1968 and built a home and things were so nice down there then. Not any more!


That was my first thought too. I'm a full time sailor and I dream of doing what the "Pilgrims" as I call them do, as they pass up and down the coast and pause in our area. Fl has unfortunately so much of every kind of Boater they at least think what they are doing is necessary. Unfortunately abandoned and derelict/Illegal boats are on the rise.


----------



## ad28

I would add to Auspicious' remarks:

Another rather tired argument is in regards the 'making money off hauling and selling derelict boats, same as is done with cars.'

Yeah, that's not the way that works.

Hauling a derelict, especially if it's sunken, is quite expensive - we aren't talking about hooking a wrecker up to the boat and driving off. Craft for towing are specialized boats in and of themselves (have a look at a SeaTow boat sometime), and a sunken boat will need a barge and crane and probably a diver, someone's gotta pay for that.

If the owner isn't caring for the boat, he or she isn't about to pay yard fees. They'll just walk away. So then you have a POS taking up valuable boatyard space, so the yards are wanting their fees or else the boat outta there so they can put a paying customer's boat in the space. 

There is NO market for POS boats, so the POS boat will just end up cut up and landfilled, further costing money.

So there it is: the derelict laws aren't enforced largely because it is far more expensive to enforce them than to leave the boats derelict. The authorities just hope that nobody complains 'cause they don't want to spend that kind of money to solve the problems...


----------



## aa3jy

ad28 said:


> Another rather tired argument is in regards the 'making money off hauling and selling derelict boats, same as is done with cars.'
> 
> Yeah, that's not the way that works.
> 
> Hauling a derelict, especially if it's sunken, is quite expensive - we aren't talking about hooking a wrecker up to the boat and driving off. Craft for towing are specialized boats in and of themselves (have a look at a SeaTow boat sometime), and a sunken boat will need a barge and crane and probably a diver, someone's gotta pay for that.
> 
> If the owner isn't caring for the boat, he or she isn't about to pay yard fees. They'll just walk away. So then you have a POS taking up valuable boatyard space, so the yards are wanting their fees or else the boat outta there so they can put a paying customer's boat in the space.
> 
> There is NO market for POS boats, so the POS boat will just end up cut up and landfilled, further costing money.
> 
> So there it is: the derelict laws aren't enforced largely because it is far more expensive to enforce them than to leave the boats derelict. The authorities just hope that nobody complains 'cause they don't want to spend that kind of money to solve the problems...


Then we'll see more of these...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipwreck_Men


----------



## travlin-easy

Actually, at one time, Florida had a derelict boat removal program, which was the result of drug runners bringing in drugs, then just dumping the boat, kinda like the cost of doing business. When the drug runners were caught, those confiscated boats ended up as derelicts as well. Back about 30 years ago, Florida was stripping the engines and fuel tanks from these boats, loading them on barges and using them for their artificial reef program. You'll find a huge pile of them on the bottom on the Gulf of Mexico at the west end of the Northwest Channel out of Key West. There are several other similar locations in the deeper waters off Hawk Channel as well. When funds ran out for the reef program, the derelicts were no longer gathered and sunk. 

I really doubt that a federal law or program is the answer - the feds seem to have a lousy record with most of the things they become involved in, especially in the natural world. If I had to pay another buck for my boat license to have the derelict boats turned into artificial reefs, I would gladly pay it. I would gladly pay another $5, which amounts to just $2.50 a year because we only register every two years in Maryland.

Most of the derelict boats in Maryland are usually at marinas and boat yards, sitting there rotting away and becoming eyesores. The boat yards and marinas usually got them because the owner(s) passed away and either the owner(s) had no living relatives, or the families just didn't want the boat. The facilities usually place a lien on the boat(s), then go through an arduous task of obtaining the titles and finally trying to get rid of them by holding an auction and selling them to the highest bidder. The boats that do not sell become a huge liability to the marina or boat yard. They usually end up stripping the hardware off the boat, then cutting them up with a chain saw and have the pieces hauled to a landfill in a dump truck. This is a very expensive proposition for the boat yard or marina, averaging more than $4,000 per boat just to get rid of something that is taking up valuable marina space.

Many years ago, I wrote a magazine article for Ira Black's Noreaster Magazine pertaining to this very subject. In researching the article I discovered that in Maryland alone there was an estimated 10,000 derelict boats. San Francisco Bay had a similar problem, but in their case, people would merely grind off all the serial numbers, then anchor the boat out in the bay and leave it. Some filled with rainwater and sunk, while others just became covered with bird droppings and eventually broke free of their moorings and drifted down the bay as navigation hazards or ran aground somewhere. One of the photos I submitted with the article showed more than 500 derelict sailboats and powerboats anchored at a single location near the SF Bay Bridge alone. Authorities there said the cost to get rid of each boat averaged more than $1,000, and they just removed the engines and put the boats through a crusher.

Unfortunately, we, in the USA, live in a throwaway, disposable world, one that insanely trashes our natural resources and our environment at every opportunity. Each day, as I drive along Route 222 from Conowingo Dam to my boat in Perryville, I'm constantly amazed at how individuals treat our planet. Every foot along both sides of the roadway is littered with plastic bottles, beer cans, plastic bags, fast food wrappers, old mattresses, old toilets, old tires, etc... I ask myself, why on earth would people do something like this to the world they live in and raise their children in? Then, as I cross Conowingo Dam, I see 20 acres of debris, which often includes 55-gallon plastic drums, pieces of floating dock, thousands of plastic bottles, and huge quantities of driftwood. Much of it will flow over the spillways of the dam and end up in the Chesapeake Bay. The water itself is a nasty color of greenish brown from a foul mixture of untreated, raw sewage and runoff from agricultural and developments from as far away as upstate New York. Ironically, people withdraw their drinking water from the Susquehanna River every day, treat it heavily with Chlorine and other chemicals to make it safe to drink, then return it to the river in the form of treated sewage. Just a few miles downriver, another municipality will withdraw the river's water and recycle it for their municipal purposes. Just think, if the good folks at Harrisburg didn't flush their toilets, Port Deposit, Havre de Grace and Perryville would not have any drinking water. Gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it.

No one should be surprised that Florida is doing what they are doing when it comes to boating. Unfortunately, the boating community has brought this on themselves - no one else can be blamed for the problem. Derelict boats come from derelict boaters - it's that simple.

Gary


----------



## Don L

travlineasy said:


> No one should be surprised that Florida is doing what they are doing when it comes to boating. Unfortunately, the boating community has brought this on themselves - no one else can be blamed for the problem. Derelict boats come from derelict boaters - it's that simple.
> 
> Gary


That's the truth. The real mystery is why the State took away the local municipalities ability to govern the waters in their towns to start with.


----------



## albrazzi

aa3jy said:


> Then we'll see more of these...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipwreck_Men


Just like Pawn stars, subsidizing the business with a new Hollywood production.


----------



## dwedeking

So MD has 10,000 derelict boats @ $4k to remove each, that's $40k. In .gov budgets that's a rounding error. If FL's problem was 10x that, it's not insurmountable at all. Remove one state trooper for 5 years from the budget and his salary would cover removal of 100,000 derelict boats.


----------



## twoshoes

So does MD have only 10 derelict boats, or does it only cost $4.00 to remove each one, or does a state trooper make $80 million a year?:smile


----------



## dwedeking

lol in pre-coffee math yes. 

But even at 10x that, it's not an insurmountable issue.


----------



## Minnewaska

dwedeking said:


> lol in pre-coffee math yes.
> 
> But even at 10x that, it's not an insurmountable issue.


I think you still need another cup. Your math was off by 1000x. 

$40 million would be the cost in your example.


----------



## Don L

What does derelict boats have to do with the recent FL law? Far as I can tell nothing. Even in the older threads I don't really see how anchoring restrictions really have much to do with derelict boats. People abandoning their boats on anchor or a home made mooring probably care little about old laws let alone new ones.

The way I look at it FL has made it very hard for local towns to restrict anchoring. I feel they are PRO anchoring and boating and I don't understand how people talk about any new FL action as some evil govt out to screw boaters.


----------



## dennismenace111

SVAuspicious said:


> The RV analogy is raised periodically. There are several differences. First and foremost is the history, captured in Federal law, of freedom of navigation. There is the precedent of free anchoring going back to the formation of our country. Just look at the issues of where property rights end (generally MHHW or the high-water mark).
> 
> There are many parts of the country where there is little choice. In my own stomping grounds Spa Creek and Back Creek in Annapolis are not wide enough to swing 200' clear from docks and shores. Similarly the upper reaches of the Magothy River, Granary Creek and Dividing Creek off the Wye, common anchorages along the tributaries to the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, and much more.
> 
> In Florida the proposed restrictions would turn almost all of Southwest Florida into a no-anchoring zone. The shape of canals, lakes, and ponds really limits anchoring space.
> 
> Many other portions of the US and anchorages across the globe require being pretty close to shore, including the use of shore lines.


As it stands right now, the restrictions are limited to some predetermined areas where cruisers frequently anchor...sometimes for very long periods... but tis a matter of time before these areas start to grow..

Right now in Ft. Lauderdale there really is only one place you can anchor and only for limited periods...and that too will change Im sure..

After that, its the city run mooring field at $35 a day and limited moorings.

Or go to Miami and anchor in the middle of Biscayne Bay.


----------



## dennismenace111

No...its really just the "GOLDEN RULE"....The Guy with the most Gold Makes the Rule... thats what this really is about...


----------

