# Anchoring in Florida



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

The following may be of interest to people who intend to do some extended cruising in Florida. It's fom Sipper Bob's web site.
Anchoring in Florida

NOTE: After more than 30 years Florida has at last reversed its attitude towards cruisers. For many years communities in Florida have placed anchoring restrictions on boaters. From outright bans on anchoring in their waters to time limits. Florida House Bill 7175 signed into law and effective July 1, 2006 may change all that.

Under the provisions of this bill Florida communities may not impose anchoring restrictions on boaters other than those defined as "live aboard" or "business" except in designated mooring fields. As there are only a handful of "designated mooring fields" in Florida, this implies that cruisers may anchor pretty much wherever they want except where their doing so would impede navigation by other boats. (Don't block the channel)

The most important exception to this bill for most cruisers is "Live Aboard" boaters. This is construed to mean people that have no other residence and whose intent is to "take up permanent residence" in that area. This further enforces the idea I have advocated for many years. Never identify yourself as a "live aboard" boater. There are far too many negative connotations to that term. Rather, always identify yourself as a "fulltime cruiser" or as someone on an "extended cruise".

For the 8 ½ years we cruised full time, we maintained our legal residence in Hanover, Pennsylvania; even though we had no apartment or home there. To change your legal residence you must take up "residence" in another location. Our mail came to a Hanover address. We voted with absentee ballot from that address. We paid our state and federal taxes from that address. In the eyes of the law during that period we were legal residents of Pennsylvania even though we were cruising in the Bahamas, Florida, East Coast, Canada and even the Great Circle Route at the time. We were not "live aboard" boaters as defined by Florida since our boat was not our legal residence.

Thus, if you are approached by law enforcement officials while anchored in Florida waters because they believe you have anchored in "their" restricted waters you should take these steps. (1) Identify yourselves as "long term" or "fulltime cruisers" actively engaged in navigating Florida waters. Never use the term "live aboard". (2) Obtain the name, organization, and/or badge number of the individual requiring you to move. (3) If the law enforcement official continues to insist you move, I recommend you do so. Don't try to create a scene by objecting. Simply point out the new law. Tell him or her to have a nice day and move. (4) Regardless of the outcome of any encounter, report the matter to David Dickerson, director of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) at [email protected] or 202-737-9761.

Many Florida communities (Vero Beach comes to mind) have had restrictive anchoring laws for more than 30 years. It is going to take some time for this law to be recognized at all levels and in all communities in Florida. In the meantime it is incumbent on boaters to report those communities and law enforcement agencies that are not aware of this change in law. With time we should see a more relaxed atmosphere towards anchoring by cruisers and the introduction of additional mooring fields in Florida. (September 23, 2006)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

well the problem is that as a local goverment they can't supercede a state law but they can be more restrictive so they can still require you to move as a local law even though state law would allow it


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Catalyst27 the whole point of the legislation is so that they cannot do that. The municipalities will be breaking the law. It's important that we cruisers follow Skipper Bob's suggestion and report any violations.


----------



## LittleMissMagic (Oct 13, 2006)

This is good news but we should always remember to be good seamen so as not to give municipalities good reason to despise cruisers. For example excessive noise, unsightly boats,and heaven forbid overboard dumping of holding tanks should be avoided.Remember that your indiscretions could affect sailors coming later.


----------



## chuck5499 (Aug 31, 2003)

the problem is the State can say one thing but we have yet to hear from the rich folks that caused the problem in the first place. They probably don't even realize that the bill was passed and signed. When they find out it will be interesting to see how they will find the loop holes to get around the law or just ignore the law and say if you don't like it sue us as we have more money than you do and will out lawyer you -- 
this is not done yet -- money is the mother milk of politics and if the pols want to keep their their jobs there will be changes 
just to much money and arrogant folks down here who believe that they own the ocean and the view so be prepared for a change
chuck and soulmates


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

There is more money in Florida tourism than all the rich people combined. WE have the power.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Cool! but...*

Be careful with the badge number asking...lol.
Some areas *may* have more jurisdiction over their immediate waters than others.

St Augustine comes to mind, there may be more.

This authority I speak of for St Augustine was enacted through state legislation in 1925.


----------



## chuck5499 (Aug 31, 2003)

ebs001 ---tourism $$$s are $3-400 hotel rooms on south beach, $200 dinners on south beach, $1,000 entry to night clubs, Disney land, Space Coast -- Cruisers are p going to spend the type of $$ that will even begin to get the Pols attention - the only way it got through in the first place was NMMA and the potential of absolutely killing the marine industry in Fla - but the owners of the hot ocean front property with the big $$ could care less about the Fla marine industry - they got their and who cares about the rest -- 
One of the major issues in South Fla is the lack of housing for the tourist industry workers - yet the city of Miami spent $85million for adequate housing and not one house was built - developers took the money and one even used it to buy his own water front property (he finally got put in jail) 
in the end the $$ win out and the Pols will listen 
just my opinion


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

The government in Tallahasie thinks the Florida marine industry is important enough to rescind all local bylaws affecting transient anchoring. It's important that we as cruisers think we are important enough to justify their endorsement. If we throw up our hands and do nothing we deserve any crap we get. All I'm saying is don't take it lying down. Report any and all violations as Skipper Bob suggests.


----------



## mikeedmo (May 26, 2005)

Just a quick note to affirm the recommendation to obey the law enforcement officer. If you refuse to obey an order by the LEO you can be arrested on the spot and booked into the county jail and things don't get sorted out till they make it to the State Attorney's Office for resolution. The legislation is a major victory for us but regardless of whether we're on a boat, in a car or on a side-walk, if a cop tells you to do something do it, and if you're the only "witness" and you start demanding information from the officer you could be setting yourself up for what they call a "little street justice."


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

I agree wholeheartidly with mikeedmo and would not recommend interviewing the law enforcement officer either. They are never people to cross. As`Skipper Bob says move on and report it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

mikeedmo said:


> Just a quick note to affirm the recommendation to obey the law enforcement officer. If you refuse to obey an order by the LEO you can be arrested on the spot and booked into the county jail and things don't get sorted out till they make it to the State Attorney's Office for resolution. The legislation is a major victory for us but regardless of whether we're on a boat, in a car or on a side-walk, if a cop tells you to do something do it, and if you're the only "witness" and you start demanding information from the officer you could be setting yourself up for what they call a "little street justice."


*Exactly.*

"You can beat the rap...but you can't beat the ride." 

Also in this instance, you could have a copy of 7175 in your hand and unknowingly be 100% wrong as to where it is applicable.


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

I would suggest that the MNMA make a packet available for cruisers.You could keep a copy of the state law in writing onboard and not say a word just present the law enforcment officer with the copy...Then he knows you know the law and will be less likely to "Make his own for the rich who called him"...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Insails said:


> I would suggest that the MNMA make a packet available for cruisers.You could keep a copy of the state law in writing onboard and not say a word just present the law enforcment officer with the copy...Then he knows you know the law and will be less likely to "Make his own for the rich who called him"...


...and if they included a map of municipalities that have jurisdiction of their wetlands it would actually be useful.


----------



## chuck5499 (Aug 31, 2003)

Was at the Ft Lauderboat boat show this weekend and talked to a member of the Mfg Assoc. when i asked what i do if anchored off Miami Beach and they tell me to move she said move - i said there is a law that i don't have to and her response was yes but the cities are choosing to ignore it and enforce their own laws. SO what goes does it do to pass laws when the locals refuse to obey them - 
Remember -- IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A MILLION DOLLAR YACHT THE PEOPLE IN SOUTH FLORIDA DO NOT WANT YOU - STAY AWAY OR YOU WILL BE CHASED AWAY - IT IS THAT SIMPLE 

chuck and soulmates


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Chuck, read my orginal post. If they chase you away do as Skipper bob suggests - leave and report it to David Dickerson, director of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) at [email protected] or 202-737-9761. There is going to be a fight so it's important that our side has as much amunition as possible.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

That's right. I am a resident of South Florida. And I do not want to see any of your junky boats anchored off my view... unless it is over 2 million dollars. Come on? Someone mentioned a million dollars? Please!! That's nothing but a fancy Sea Ray!!

HAHA

In all reality, it really is a crock. Although, I will say that in some areas, the land under the water is actually owned. I CAN see how they could run you off of private property. You have to wonder how long, with 300 million people now, until anchoring is a thing of the past... versus paying for a morring ball or in a marina. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

Still, I have not had a real problem with that. But my Catalina 400 costs over 2 million dollars... if anyone asks.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CruisingDad-

You must have gotten the all titanium hardware on your Catalina... along with the platinum trimmed interior. 

Doesn't Federal law have something to say about navigation and anchoring in navigable waters?


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

Now since the cruising community is pretty tight,why dont we just report here when a complaint happens and we can all anchor there the next day)..Imagine when the complainer wakes up and see's 1000 good ole boats anchored behind his house).I bet the complainer wont complain again!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I'll take that bet. 

...and your money.


----------



## AlwaysFORSAIL (Nov 30, 2006)

Right on EBS001. I lived in ft Myers bech for the past eight years and it seemed as though quite a bit of effort was directed towards limiting cruisers access to anchorages and the shore. This a very positive move. Thanks for the info.


----------



## noagenda (Sep 21, 2008)

I hate to start a new thread, especially as a 'newbie' here, but...
I'm currently anchored in the basin just S of the Lantana bridge... MM1031, and have been directed by the local police boat to go ashore and secure a permit in order to stay any longer than the 18 hours he gave us.
This morning I went ashore, and walked the mile or so to the Police Station, where I was charged $50 for a permit to anchor here. The language of this permit is so ambiguous as to lend itself to myriad interpretations. The dates I filled in this document actually allow me to anchor here for a 96 hour period every 30 days for a year's time. At least that's how I filled out the dates. I now have a signed and dated document allowing me to do so. 
I'm sure there are other people here who have been confronted with this dilemma. Do I stay here and pay the money, or do I just leave and avoid the confrontation certain to develop. Seems that most have opted for the latter, as the office people in the Police Station here couldn't remember when another boater had filed for the permit, and had trouble finding the form itself.
Based on the 2006 legislation, it is dubious as to whether their collecting such a fee has a legal basis anyway. I have to admit, I may have just fueled the fire by paying my money, but at least I can stay here for four days without fear of harrassment.
I would like to know if there is either a support group or some collective concious relative to this problem... We here on 'No Agenda' have been on 'extended cruise' for nearly a year, and likely will find ourselves in such a quandry again.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

try this atty. she seems to be knowledgable on this topic.
Subject: Stuart anchoring victory
Cruising News: I am the attorney who prosecuted the Stuart case. I'll send the article I wrote regarding the case in a separate email when you respond to this. There are significant differences between the Stuart and Marco case. Attached are the details in the article I wrote for BoatUS magazine. I filed a federal civil rights law suit, Marco went the county court route. A federal civil rights suit is expensive for a city to defend, the judges are more knowledgeable on maritime law, and the civil rights action yields rights to attorney fees and damages for the successful plaintiff. I got fast results with this suit: filed in March, settlement in May.
Barb Cook



After two defeats, the third time was a win for local boater Vincent Sibilla, who was cited in January, 2008, by the city of Stuart, Florida, for violations of its anchoring ordinances. Sibilla ran afoul of the law by anchoring his vessel, the "Katie J", continuously for more than 10 days in the Okeechobee Waterway within city limits. The Stuart ordinance, enacted in 2003, provided that "it shall be unlawful for any person to anchor or leave at anchor in the navigable waters of the city a nonliveaboard vessel that is no longer exercising the rights of navigation." The ordinance further provides that a vessel "continuously anchored for more than ten consecutive days is presumptively no longer exercising the rights of navigation." Violation of the ordinance is classified as a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500 or imprisonment up to 60 days or both, with each day of violation constituting a separate offense.
In his previous unsuccessful run-ins with the city over its anchoring ordinances, Mr. Sibilla was represented by public defenders unfamiliar with maritime law. This time Mr. Sibilla hooked up with Stuart law firm Guy Yudin & Foster, LLP, with the litigation led by long-time cruiser and maritime attorney Barbara Cook. Ms. Cook agreed to represent Sibilla pro bono. According to Ms. Cook, "This ordinance clearly violated federal and state law, not only with respect to the definition of a vessel "in navigation", but also with respect to prohibited local government regulation of the Okeechobee Waterway, with respect to imposition of prohibited criminal and excessive sanctions for violation, and with respect to city procedures to adjudicate violations."
Mr. Sibilla may not have much money, but he had a nice recreational boat which he anchored in the Okeechobee Waterway within the city limits, not interfering with navigation, outside the city’s mooring field, for more than 10 days at a time. He was cited with a criminal misdemeanor, ordered to appear before a city magistrate, faced jail time and excessive fines, all of which violate state law.
Florida Statute section 327.60, amended for clarification in 2006, specifies in its two sections what is impermissible boating regulation on a local level. The first section provides that local governments may not adopt any ordinance or local law relating to operation and equipment of vessels applicable to the Florida Intracoastal Waterway1 and only when not in conflict with other sections of Chapter 327. The second section prohibits local governmental authorities from regulating anchoring outside of mooring fields of non-live-aboard vessels in navigation. Another applicable section of Chapter 327 is section 327.73(2)(k), which specifies that violations relating to restricted areas and speed limits established by local governmental authorities pursuant to section 327.60 are noncriminal infractions and states "Any person cited for a violation of any such provision shall be deemed to be charged with a noncriminal infraction, shall be cited for such an infraction, and shall be cited to appear before the county court. The civil penalty for any such infraction is $50, except as otherwise provided in this section. ... Any person charged with a noncriminal infraction under this section may pay the civil penalty, either by mail or in person, within 30 days of the date of receiving the citation ... " In accordance with section 327.74, regarding uniform boating citations, " the (Fish and Wildlife Conservation) commission shall prepare, and supply to every law enforcement agency in this state which enforces the laws of this state regulating the operation of vessels, an appropriate form boating citation containing a notice to appear (which shall be issued in prenumbered books with citations in quintuplicate) and meeting the requirements of this chapter or any laws of this state regulating boating, which form shall be consistent with the state's county court rules and the procedures established by the commission."
Regarding what constitutes a vessel "in navigation", the U.S. Supreme court in a 2005 decision, Stewart v. Dutra2, clearly stated that a vessel, once launched and placed in navigation, remains "in navigation" as long as it is "used, or capable of being used for maritime transportation on water...." The Supreme court stated that "... "in navigation" ... is an element of the vessel status of a water craft. It is relevant to whether the craft is "used, or capable of being used" for maritime transportation. A ship long lodged in a drydock or shipyard can again be put to sea, no less than one permanently moored to shore or the ocean floor can be cut loose and made to sail. The question remains in all cases whether the watercraft's use ‘as a means of transportation on water’ is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one." Ms. Cook said that all of the firm’s lawyers united to develop a litigation strategy which would make the city swiftly recognize the seriousness of its errors. As a result, Ms. Cook filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging violation of Mr. Sibilla’s federal substantive and procedural due process rights, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution, and sought an immediate injunction and declaration by the district court for the Southern District of Florida as to Sibilla’s civil rights. The civil rights violations and other allegations, if proven, merit award of attorney fees and damages for Sibilla. If an immediate injunction was not obtained, Sibilla faced a city trial and potential incarceration well before the federal court could rule on the allegations in the federal suit. "When the city attorneys and commissioners received my emailed complaint and motion for injunction, they quickly realized that defending the federal suit would be costly for the city and initiated settlement discussions. Although it took awhile to educate the city as to the law, we prevailed and settled the suit on May 16. In the settlement, the city agreed to suspend enforcement of the ordinance until revised to comport with state and federal maritime law, including the definition of "in navigation" and the extent of the Okeechobee Waterway, to provide adequate in-service training to its law enforcement personnel regarding applicable law and procedures, and to apologize to Mr. Sibilla. The city also paid a token amount of attorney fees and damages to Sibilla to settle the suit. In their letter of apology, the city thanked Sibilla and our law firm for our time and any inconvenience and in helping insure that boating activities can be enjoyed in Stuart."

In conclusion, non-liveaboard3 cruising boats can now anchor in Stuart municipal waters as long as they anchor outside the mooring field. 

1 Florida Administrative Code 68D-23.103(k)(2) defines the Florida Intracoastal Waterway as including "all waters from shoreline to shoreline within the Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart to Fort Myers"

2 Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005)

3 Florida Statute 327.02(17) "Live-aboard vessel" means: (a) Any vessel used solely as a residence; or (b) Any vessel represented as a place of business, a professional or other commercial enterprise, or a legal residence.

Barbara Cook, Esq., Board Certified Admiralty and Maritime Law
GUY, YUDIN, & FOSTER, LLP
STUART, FLORIDA


----------



## noagenda (Sep 21, 2008)

Joe... Thanks for the relevant information about the anchoring issue. 
I plan to scan the agreement into my files and forward a copy to Barb Cook just to see if there is a 'polite' way to help the Town of Lantana get up to speed with the State Law.
I'm not interested in getting my money back, it's just the principle of having to pay every municipality along the way just for the priveledge of anchoring near their 'resources', for lack of a better word. We need to point out that we do indeed participate in the local economy when we stop. 
But, before I become too long winded (sail pun) on the subject, I'll see if there is some form or printable packet to present to the local authorities when being confronted. Maybe Barb Cook can help with that.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I hope it works for you. 
Here in the Daytona,Fl. area (Specifically South Daytona) there seems to be a bit of drama being played out .there are a growing number of boats (sail as well as power) appearing at the local achoring spots (the numbes doubled in just the last year) I anchor here and sail as often as weather and time allow. I make an effort to "lurk" and "Stalk" the Halifax River area from land as well as the water on an almost daily schedule observing the transients as well as the local "extended Cruisers" anchored and anchoring often availing myself to assist in local general knowledge as well as the occasional lift to get fuel,provisions ,etc. for cruisers.
In the course of my encounters I have made a point to become familiar with most of the local Marine Patrol and FWC,sherriff,local police authority and observe the dealings and listen to the complaints and concerns of the landlubbers as well as the Boaters. 
I try to keep all perspectives in , well .... perspective. 
Although I have to say that the news, print as well as TV. seem to often portray the Boaters in a less than favorable light and offer no opportunity for rebuttal. Recently the S. Daytona Police chief attempted to wright a local ordinance restricting anchoring and it was almost comical , I like to think I played a small part in helping to STOP this ordinance by making the Maritime ATTY. Barbara Cook from Stuart aware of the proposed ordinance as she informed them it wasn't going to fly.
So, I continue to observe and objectively listen to both sides of the issue.
When I speak w/ law enforcement I ask what the problems are and often hear - waste disposal, derelict/unregistered vessel, anchor lighting ,noise, and eyesore view. 
My feelings are ALL those issues are already regulated by existing laws and more restrictions are not needed. Just an implimentation of the current laws will address all of the issues raised.
I'm afraid the issue will continue to "fester" and,If broad reaching changes ARE made to florida anchoring allowing local ordinance and restrictions it will effectively force many to leave florida or leave boating, as the cost of a slip is beyond the financial means of many whom enjoy boating, sailing ,and anchoring responsibly.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

One other thing, the day before yesterday one of the "extended Cruisers" came ashore in S. Daytona to Veterans Park and boat ramp, secured his dingy at approx. 9-10am and walked to west marine for whatever etc. upon returning to the launch/park (approx, 1-2pm) to find his dingy gone ! ( the local police came and called the city workers and instructed them to take it away) I had operatives (spies) at the park whom informed me as it was taking place and I spoke w/ the owner of the dingy and urged him to call the police and ask whats up ! He did and as of yesterday I was told that the dingy was going to be returned w/out issue. I have not yet confirmed the return as of this morning ( I'll have to call my fellow water-lurkers for an update).
It seems to be a battle of wills. 
who needs daytime TV w/ all this going on !
Seriously though , it is an issue for everyone boating,cruising, as well as those living on the waterfront. 
If this is of interest to any of the sailnet comunity I would be happy to start a thread or even a blog where people can go to to post comments and or photos._ Or, if not we can all jut stand idle and let other influences determine the fate of anchoring freely and responsibly, after all, those most removed from boating are probably better equiped to make decisions for us !_ (note; sarcasm added by poster)


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

joecob

thanks for your efforts.
I think a blog would be a great idea, keeping a running record of what's going on


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Current Legislative session may allow Municipalities to restrict anchoring legally*

I am a member of a new non-profit group - Florida Open Water Society (FOWS). We have volunteers in Tallahassee now proposing amendments to the current proposition - Bill 1423 which would allow municipalities to ban anchoring once they have installed mooring fields (most look as if they would be for-profit). Check out floridaopenwatersociety.org for more information on contacting state representatives. Make your first call to the bill's sponsor - Representative Troutman 850 488 9465. The League of Cities are looking to amend the proposition to remove oversight by FWC (Florida Wildlife Conservation) so don't limit your contact to FWC. Calling as many representatives as possible (phone calls are harder to ignore than emails), will keep the bill from reincarnating as an "amendment" in another committee.


----------



## whroeder (Aug 20, 2007)

noagenda said:


> I plan to scan the agreement into my files and forward a copy to Barb Cook just to see if there is a 'polite' way to help the Town of Lantana get up to speed with the State Law.


If you don't, I suggest sueing to get that permit fee back.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Troutman Concedes 1423 Needs Further Refining*

03/18/2009

Check in at floridaopenwatersociety.org for how Tallahassee is responding to Boaters insistence that anchoring rights be preserved. Do a few follow-up calls to propose changes - allowance for mooring permits - Harbour Masters in larger anchorages who could (among other things) assist with removal of derelict vessels. Revisions are planned for next Tuesday so get some imput in !


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Florida Open Water Society / Seven Seas Cruising Association Joint Position*

Progress is taking shape largely due to boaters contacting Florida Representatives and Senators. Please continue to call and indicate your support for the FOWS / SSCA joint position for 5 mooring field test sites around the state.

Attached below is an update from the SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee Chairman Wayne Marshall

Re: Urgent, your help needed now to limit anchoring restrictions

Postby soswayne on Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:20 pm
Report on Status of Florida Mooring Field Issue

Wayne Marshall, Chairman
SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee

On Thursday, March 19, 2009, I attended a workshop with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission employees and other concerned stakeholders. Representatives from Boat US, Nat'l Marine Manufacturers Association, Florida League of Cities, FL Dept of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Industries Council and several others. Also in attendance was John Smith, VP of the Florida Open Water Society (FOWS). Several organizations were represented by their lobbyists.

The meeting was to deal with the House Bill # 1423 and the fact the author of the bill, Representative Troutman, recognized the need to clarify and quantify the proposed FWC Mooring Field test sites concept. Present and representing FWC were Lt Col Jim Brown, Lt Col Bruce Buckson, Mayor Paul Ouellette Captain Alan Richards, FWC Legal Counsel and Michael Yaun, FWC Deputy General Counsel.

The short version of the outcome is that we are now comfortable that this matter is proceeding in a manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the SSCA. We must remain vigilant to insure that House Bill # 1423 remains as clean and clear as it will be presented after modification by Rep Troutman. The companion Senate Bill # 2638 is somewhat identical. We have established an excellent basis for a positive and productive working relationship between the SSCA and FOWS. We also recognize the contribution that the FOWS representatives have brought to this fracas.

The FOWS and SSCA organizations are very similar in their perspectives and issues. We have a few minor differences in opinion, but largely agree on all fronts. It is important to realize that all that is on the table with this issue are the proposed Mooring Field test Sites and the implementation of the same. No other regulations or proposals are even on the table, as everything else has been tabled until after the test sites package has run its course. Still up for debate is whether the test sites will end in 2012 or 2014. Also important is that EACH SITE will be implemented independently, with ample opportunity for public comment public workshops and a site specific management plan. There are 7 criteria for the approval of a site and the final approval will rest with the FWC Council.

Also contained within the proposed regulation is language specifically informing cities and municipal governments that they do not have the right to create their own local ordinances affecting anchoring or mooring fields. Further, any such ordinances must be presented to the FWC for public comment and input before the ordinance can be approved. This does not relate to such routine matters as signage to control speed in fuel dock areas or in the proximity of bridges etc. There are sufficient ordnances on the books to provide for those types of needs.
The US District Court ruling in the case of Stuart, Florida that determined that the city Manager, Council members and the individual police officers are each jointly and separately accountable if their actions violate existing Federal or State Law. This ruling has essentially served notice to the various local government entities that they do not have any right to enact their own local ordinances in a vacuum, and that they will be held accountable for their actions. FWC has pledged to enforce these requirements to keep a uniform set of regulations for visitors and residents of Florida.

The next steps are the development of amendments to clarify this House Bill so that Rep. Troutman can modify his bill to make it acceptable. A sub group of the workshop will meet on Monday, March 23rd to develop these recommendations for Rep. Troutman... The SSCA has allowed our role in these matters to be represented by VP Smith of the FOWS. He is already in Tallahassee for an extended timeframe, we are very comfortable that he understands and agrees with our position in the main, and I will be unable to attend the committee meetings on Monday and Tuesday next week...

In addition, there is some minor tweaking to be done to insure that the House and Senate Bills are essentially identical so that passage of the bills can proceed. These are more housekeeping items than anything else. However, we are recommending that all emails and phone calls simply go on record as supporting the FOWS/SSCA position in this matter. Do not stop contacting your Senators and Representatives, just clarify that we are comfortable with the position jointly shared between the SSCA and the Florida Open Water Society. Another sample letter will be posted to the SSCA website a little later today. And, in addition, we will also post the email addressees and phone numbers of the Senate contacts to add to the representatives list that have previously been posted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if any further clarification is necessary.

Wayne Marshall, Chairman
SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee

soswayne

Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:58 am

Top
Previous Display posts from previous: Sort by
Post a reply
21 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2

Return to Underway
Jump to:
Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

* Board index
* The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Seven Seas Cruising Association
Powered


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Progress On Hb1423 And Companion Senate Bill Still Needs Input*

THE POST BELOW IS FROM CRUISERS NET AND REPRESENTS A SHIFT FROM "KILL THE BILL" TO KEEP AMENDING THE BILL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Latest (3/23/09) From SSCA On Florida Anchoring Bill Print E-mail
Wednesday, 25 March 2009

The release below is from the Seven Seas Cruising Assocation. The Cruisers' Net presents the text in full. Be advised that we have not yet been able to verify any of this independently.

Update on
Report on Status of Florida Mooring Field Issue
March 23, 2009

Wayne Marshall, Chairman
SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee

Wow! Do I have some good news for a change! It appears that boaters have prevailed and successfully convinced our legislators that we have a decent plan!

IMPORTANT NOTE! SSCA NO LONGER FEELS that our best course of action is to kill this bill. In fact, we fully support its passage. The committee work today between the Florida Open Water Society, (Also representing the SSCA) Nat'l Marine Manufacturers Association, The Florida Leagues of Cities and Counties, and FWC personnel has resulted in a very acceptable group of amendments to further clarify this issue for the benefit of boaters! Among the many subtle but very significant changes is that the definition of live-aboard has been re-written to EXCLUDE cruisers in transit in any way, shape or form. That alone is a tremendous improvement of the status of cruisers, and recognition of the derelict boats as the major part of the problem.

This is a significantly positive change in the position of the League of Cities and also a complete change of position for the SSCA. We were originally taking the position that the Bill was incomplete and did not represent boater's interests at all. Now, after a tremendous amount of behind the scenes work, reinforcing the SSCAs interests, Boaters have won the battle it appears&#8230;

So, please don't stop your phone and email contacts to Tallahassee, but please change your message!

* We want this House Bill #1423 to pass, with a couple of minor points.
* The Senate companion Bill # 2536 needs to have draft version 7 of the proposed regulations attached to it.
* The amendments prepared for Representative Troutman for the House Bill should be the same amendments for the Senate Bill
* The implementation of the test sites will be the choice of FWC, and each site will have ample opportunity for public input. That is one of the reasons that the FWC concept allows for the test project to go until 2014. That amount of time will be necessary to allow for public comment and workshops on each site individually.
* The cities and municipalities will be ordered to cease and desist with all these local ordinances, and the bill has some teeth in it to reinforce that requirement
* Status Quo will be maintained elsewhere throughout the State, so no new regulations will be passed at the local level

We have been assured by the managers of the FWC that all the above points are viable. I believe them, and trust them, and I think you should to!

Wayne Marshall, Chairman
SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Florida Open Water Society's Current Position*

Legislation

Floridaopenwatersociety.org

A FLUID PROCESS

The FOWS executive and many senior members are encouraged by the recent work in Tallahassee. Our members and supporters efforts this winter and spring have had a significant impact on Bills 1423 and 2536 (currently being aligned between House and Senate). Improvements to liveaboard language that better accommodates cruisers and better defines derelict hulks are promising. All who seek details should view the many anchoring rights posts under any of the Florida tabs on Cruisers Net your best source for up to date information on the Waterway - Home. Several points of view are discussed including Wayne Marshall's of SSCA, who has been very dialed into the latest language. BoatUS, NMMA, SSCA and the Cruiser's Net are reporting that they are pleased with the progress made in conjunction with Legislators, FWC and League of Cities representatives.

FOWS for the time being will remain neutral (neither advocating scrapping or passage of the bill), our understanding is that the language has been left subtle and vague by design so that each "Test Area" won't have constraints - allowing trial cases to be tailored to each region and evolve separately to see what works well in different areas. A variety of test site methods will also inform all parties as to the merits of different approaches and what BOATERS in these areas consider fair and in keeping with the traditions of their regions. So we are "ON APPROACH" with a still rudder and an idling engine - to see how the currents and winds will effect the process and obstacles to come. We ask our members and supporters to standby, be ready to steer and apply power in the development of these 5 pilot projects. We see the precedents formed during the development of these coming mooring test sites as more important than the bill's language (where moorings and anchoring are concerned).

Our membership has been expanding around (and beyond) the state and FOWS is evaluating the best options for our organization's continuing growth - we will be particularly interested in forming chapters in each of the test site areas...stay tuned. We should also state that while our infrastructure has been struggling to keep up with new members and coordinating with folks from different regions, any input  and assistance for our networking abilities would be greatly appreciated. A very big thank you to Southwinds Magazine for assisting our efforts. Welcome to our new members, thanks your support.... we will be engaging you more as the organization develops.


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald (Apr 3, 2005)

New info re.: Florida Anchoring: (As of July 28, 2009) 
BoatUS.com: Government Affairs

Also, as they say in the article, some local officials choose to remain ignorant of the state laws and you should carry a copy of this on board:

http://www.boatus.com/gov/GA005FLAnchoring.pdf


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Excellent link...thanks Larry/Sue!


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

NO real change actually, the former state statues 327.6 and 327.2 have been in effect since 2006. the issue was no-one took the time to enforce or defend them until the stewart ,fl case. If you follow this board you'll also see just a couple weeks ago I was given a "courtesy Notice" to move my vessel from the Daytona Beach city waters. After which I did a little research contacted the police Dept. spoke w/ the Sgt. in charge of the marine patrol and discussed the local ordinance, the state Statue and he assured me he would inform his officers of the specifics and also said that the Daytona PD is not in the bussiness of "parking Patrol" on the water and that he did not have issue w/ anchored vessels properly licenced, meeting all safety requirements. 
I am happy with the response from him and thanked him for his time/help. 
I believe most all reasonable people will see the merit in this approach, for those that choose not to on either side of the issue their is/are legal remedies available to pursue. 
Fortunately , for myself and other who appreciate the maritime tradition and right of anchorage it appears things are going more our way, Huray !

So, no more excuses- cast off the docklines and come to florida !
See you on the water.


----------



## vhrs401 (May 3, 2011)

*Protect your rights*

I know my legal rights, so politely asking for a badge number/name should be a no brainer. Personally, I would have a digital recorder in my pocket to record the event and would sue the town in a second for violating my civil rights and making a false arrest; could use the financial award to update my boat! Of course, don't argue with the official and be polite, but get information such as name, the official's boat registration number, date, time, description of the official, etc. all on the recorder. Have several copies of the current state law aboard and politely offer the official a copy. Contact the local town hall/harbor master and speak someone in charge to review their understanding of the law and your circumstances. Report to federal and state officials those communities not following the law, and get their names and title also. Go ahead and arrest me! I look forward to winning the punitive damages that follow such matters. Having said all this, don't be a jerk and usually an arrest will not happen - you can do all this and still obey the official! Remember, knowledge is real power and it can be wielded respectfully and politely. Make sure you know the state laws! If arrested, do not speak until you get into court to address the matter, and if not satisfied with the outcome, file a lawsuit (some may not have the time, but I would make a point of it because I despise bullies). Do not argue or get angry - use your knowledge of state law to win, and the next time you get harassed in that community, give the official a copy of your judgement. Again, knowledge is power!


----------

