# Florida is at it again



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Boat/US and SSCA are getting the word out as fast as we can. We really need your HELP RIGHT NOW! Late Wednesday in Tallahassee an amendment to the anchoring pilot program legislation was introduced that if passed would allow most Florida counties to restrict anchoring.

You can read the amendment HERE

We NEED YOUR HELP AGAIN RIGHT NOW because this anti-boating amendment will be debated on the Senate floor on Thursday May 1.

Please CLICK HERE to send an email and urge all senators to vote NO to any amendment offered to Senate Bill 1126 or House Bill 955 - the FL Fish and Wildlife Commission bill.

Or CLICK HERE to find the phone number for your Senator, and leave them a voice mail message if needed.

We need to raise our voices LOUDLY in Tallahassee RIGHT NOW.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

You do realize, it's not a question of if, but when. Within 10 years I would wager there'll be no anchoring from Lake Worth to Miami. It's like gentrification of the waterfront.

Not that I won't join the battle, it's just that I don't think we can win the war.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

We fight as hard as we can as long as we can.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Boat/US and SSCA are getting the word out as fast as we can. We really need your HELP RIGHT NOW! Late Wednesday in Tallahassee an amendment to the anchoring pilot program legislation was introduced that if passed would allow most Florida counties to restrict anchoring.
> 
> You can read the amendment HERE
> 
> ...


Dave, just followed your link but was excluded because I am not a Florida resident. My boat is. How can non residents who keep their boats in Florida have a voice in this issue? We spend a lot of money in Florida every year and are the targets of exclusionary laws.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

PBzeer said:


> You do realize, it's not a question of if, but when. Within 10 years I would wager there'll be no anchoring from Lake Worth to Miami. It's like gentrification of the waterfront.
> 
> Not that I won't join the battle, it's just that I don't think we can win the war.


But, take heart. This is just happening in south Florida, which only has about a 5 per cent native born population, where the 95 per cent who came in, don't really like boats, but do like condos with unobstructed views. I lived in south Florida. It is transplants from New York and New Jersey that are almost always the "condo commandos" and the driving forced behind this kind of thing.

Once you get to the panhandle, you never hear any of this silliness. Mostly, I believe, because once you get to the panhandle, the ration goes up to about 80 per cent native born Floridians, who grew up liking and owning boats.

The good thing for me, is that Florida on my boating schedule, once I get past Carrabelle, quits being a destination, and becomes just stops on the way to the Bahamas. I just skip over the places, that don't want visiting boaters (and, I guess if there is a saving grace, it is that most of the regulations are being enacted in places where they have just about destroyed all of the natural beauty that used to make their areas a good destination in the first place). I mean, who wants to anchor in an area surrounded by twenty story condos?

So' I'm enjoying the Bahamas. And, thank God for hurricanes there, or they would be next on the list of places the same people would want to move to and destroy.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

Wasn't this defeated last a couple of weeks ago?


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

night0wl said:


> Wasn't this defeated last a couple of weeks ago?


Yeah, but the problem with any kind of legislation like this is that it can be introduced over and over and over again until it passes. They won't stop. Every time they lose, they identify why they lost, and work on that problem for the next time.

I hate to say it, but it's like marijuana legalization. Look how many times the marijuana groups were defeated, in any state, before they win. Why? Because, they don't care how many times they lose. They just tweak the bill, and get someone to introduce it again. Once a group decides they want a law passed, and has the money to lobby for it over and over again, sooner or later, they will get it passed.

It's like playing a basketball game against someone with no time limit, where all they have to do is score one basket to win. You know that no matter how much better you are than them, sooner or later, they will win.

And, the people behind these anchoring regulations, have been successful in passing a lot worse legislation than this. Look what did to the property tax rates, and highest and best use tax rate schemes, to force people to sell their homesteads for condo development and you can see how much damage they can do when they really put their minds to it.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The only real and lasting solution for this continued anchoring miasma is to get this issue to the Supreme Court of the US. 
The US Constitution and its subsequent issue of 'admiralty law' with respect to regulation of 'navigable water' is quite clear ... and should be 'redefined' and made even more clear, .... including recovery of all legal costs to successfully bring and adjudicate such action against all these ILLEGAL AND INVALID transgressions by 'local' governments upon 'the people' who happen to be 'boaters'. 
The applicable 'articles':
Article I, Section 8
Article IV, Section 1
Article IV, Section 2 & 3
Article VI
Article IX
Article X
Article XIV

Its really beyond time for the SCOTUS to stop the rabid assumption of and perversion of US admiralty law by 'landholders' to illegally control by invalid local laws upon **PUBLIC WATERS** as defined by well established federal laws. 
What's next ... local laws that determine how long one can be present on public highways and byways? how long one can occupy a certain portion of a sidewalk? The abandonment of the right of especially 'foreign' vessels as defined by US federal/international law to travel/anchor in such navigable / public waters? Toll booths on waterways?


----------



## Cap-Couillon (Jan 2, 2013)

Problem being, once the laws are in place, it requires someone (you?) to file suit challenging the validity of said law. See Capt MacDougall Case in St Augustine. Much time and money involved in overturning an existing law. In the MacDougall case, the city declined to fine MacDougall for failure to move his vessel thus removing the "damages" required for him to bring lawsuit against the city and it's officials (Tricky these lawyers).

In the words of Barney Fife... "Nip it... Nip it in the bud!"


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm a native-born, Floridian from the SW part of the state. I am very disappointed that my home has become such a laughing-stock, and so unwisely strangling the geese that lay the golden eggs.

I'm not just talking about cruisers, but tourists in general. Florida was not built on industry or technology. Florida's prosperity depends on agriculture and tourism, and they're just crapping all over it.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The 11th hour amendment imposing restrictive anchoring statugiste has been defeated in the FL legislature
Anti-Boating Legislation Defeated in Florida House: BoatUS Urges Caution in Anchoring Fight : BoatUS Press Room


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

RichH said:


> The 11th hour amendment imposing restrictive anchoring statugiste has been defeated in the FL legislature
> Anti-Boating Legislation Defeated in Florida House: BoatUS Urges Caution in Anchoring Fight : BoatUS Press Room


Defeated* this* time.


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

Group9 said:


> Look what did to the property tax rates, and *highest and best use tax rate schemes*, to force people to sell their homesteads for condo development and you can see how much damage they can do when they really put their minds to it.


A couple guys I work with are from Florida and mentioned the tax schemes and other things about FL that if I were to sail long term or around the Gulf, I may as well skip FL and keep going.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

RichH said:


> The 11th hour amendment imposing restrictive anchoring statugiste has been defeated in the FL legislature
> Anti-Boating Legislation Defeated in Florida House: BoatUS Urges Caution in Anchoring Fight : BoatUS Press Room


that was LAST week's Margolis amendment that was brought up before the House Appropriations committee, which applied only to Miami-Dade counties...

The amendment being debated now in the Senate, is a different one from Senator Christopher Smith of Broward County, which is much more far reaching. It would allow _any community in Florida not currently participating in the pilot program_ to determine the minimum distance one may be permitted to anchor from a private residence...

A much scarier proposition, especially given that it does not only apply to Broward/Dade, and as such might actually find wider support among legislators...


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

PBzeer said:


> Not that I won't join the battle, it's just that I don't think we can win the war.


You may be right, but I'm not going to go down quietly.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

Rhapsody-NS27 said:


> A couple guys I work with are from Florida and mentioned the tax schemes and other things about FL that if I were to sail long term or around the Gulf, I may as well skip FL and keep going.


If you were to sail the gulf, Florida is the only place worth going. I hope you guys get the bills defeated, but I like the analogy of the basketball game. If all they have to do is keep trying, I think eventually they will succeed.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Rhapsody-NS27 said:


> A couple guys I work with are from Florida and mentioned the tax schemes and other things about FL that if I were to sail long term or around the Gulf, I may as well skip FL and keep going.


If I didn't live here already I would skip it. It sucks.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Everything about it is bad. Anybody who isn't already in Florida, believe me, you don't want to come here. Just stay away.

Yeah. Yeah.

(Doing my best Jon Lovitz impersonation. )


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

denverd0n said:


> If I didn't live here already I would skip it. It sucks.
> 
> Yeah. That's the ticket.
> 
> ...


There are some nice things about Florida, and I'm heading down there in a couple of weeks, but I sure don't miss living in south Florida. My brother has lived there for 30 years, and his wife is a Florida native, with all of her family living there, and they talk about leaving every time I see them. She says it doesn't resemble the place she grew up in. Florida is changing, and not necessarily for the good. And, I don't think there is anything anybody who is against it, can do about it.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

joethecobbler said:


> "......it's painfully obvious the Yankees that have taken over don't want "us" here and they bought the government"


I was born in Florida. My parents were born in Florida. 3 of my 4 grandparents were born in Florida.

I remember as a little kid my mom told us kids that if we ate our vegetables, always told the truth, and said our prayers every night that when we die we will go to a place where there are no damn Yankees.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

The problem might not be with yankees in general.

The problem might be with the sort of yankee that would want to move to Florida...


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> The problem might not be with yankees in general.
> 
> The problem might be with the sort of yankee that would want to move to Florida...


It's not even Yankees in general. It's people from New York and New Jersey from what I saw when living there. I would not be surprised to find out there are more people from New Jersey living in Florida than in New Jersey.

For some reason, they don't know how to compromise, and they will never stop arguing until they get their way.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Minnesail said:


> The problem might not be with yankees in general.
> 
> The problem might be with the sort of yankee that would want to move to Florida...


Agreed....I was being a smartass.

The real problem, in my opinion, is two-fold: some people tend to be control freaks and need to regulate things to the extreme , and some people tend to be nasty, lazy, foul, and disgusting and ruin things for everyone else.

I also believe these two groups represent a relatively small minority of the overall population, but because they are at the extremes they tend to be the ones that get all of the attention.......while the rest of us just try to get along with each other.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

At 4pm the proposed amendment by FL state senator Smith was defeated. 

There are very active and well-financed elements in Florida that simply don't want to see boats anchored in their "paid for" view. 

As a representative of SSCA I will continue to work to bring forces to bear against those elements. 

As an individual I avoid Florida as much as I can. As a small businessman I am happy to support owner-aboard/training deliveries from Norfolk or Beaufort NC to the Bahamas, avoiding the ICW and especially Florida.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention and for your efforts to help keep the waterways open for everyone, Dave.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Group9 said:


> It's not even Yankees in general. It's people from New York and New Jersey from what I saw when living there. I would not be surprised to find out there are more people from New Jersey living in Florida than in New Jersey.
> 
> For some reason, they don't know how to compromise, and they will never stop arguing until they get their way.


And yet Fredric Karlton, the most notorious waterfront homeowner in regards to this issue, is a Florida native - born and raised, and a graduate of UF... Go figure... 

Florida feuding: Don?t drop the hook in my backyard

www.passagemaker.com/articles/trawl...inions-will-it-overcome-its-reputation-video/


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> And yet Fredric Karlton, the most notorious waterfront homeowner in regards to this issue, is a Florida native - born and raised, and a graduate of UF... Go figure...


Actually, I don't think he is. I think he moved to Florida in 1969 at the age of seven or so with his father John S. Karlton, from ......... wait for it.......

New York.

John Karlton | J.S. Karlton Co. | ZoomInfo.com


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Group9 said:


> Actually, I don't think he is. I think he moved to Florida in 1969 at the age of seven or so with his father John S. Karlton, from ......... wait for it.......
> 
> New York.
> 
> John Karlton | J.S. Karlton Co. | ZoomInfo.com


LOL! Well, they teach them young in NY, I suppose... 

Should have figured that would be the case, with only 1 in 3 Floridians today having been born in the state...


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

```
And yet Fredric Karlton, the most notorious waterfront homeowner in regards to this issue, is a Florida native - born and raised, and a graduate of UF... Go figure... :-)
```
My wife who is a Near Native ( she' was actually born in North Carolina but grew up here) graduated from UF and most of her classmates were from....
wait for it.......... New Yuk. The fact that this guy who might be called a near native just proves that even the University of Florida ( go gators ) can produce a real dipstick... his diploma should be revoked and he should be anathema for any self respecting gator. Unfortunantly the the fact of the matter is that once you go south of Gainsville you actually start going north again. It has always been that way, Flagler didn't start development for the poor southerners or Florida Crackers, no it was for the wealthy northerners.
By the way, if you are a northerner and not a *****, love boats and the water then you get a pass on bein Yankee. The real problem as always is the bought out Viper politicians that are so pervasive in this country.
This is a great thread.... thanks for starting it and hopefully continuing it along with the fight.


----------



## Shortnsalty (Jun 8, 2010)

The northeast is full of great coastal/boating towns. Are there many problems with laws being passed in those towns to keep boats from anchoring? If the people leading this charge for a horrible law were from Kentucky or Colorado for that matter you would be bashing them instead. It is more than obvious that Florida has become a haven for NYers, Jersey folk and also full of people from Illinois, Canada, Michigan etc. Maybe the Floridians got too greedy way back when by begging for tourist dollars and selling all their land to the first bidder that came along. Nobody wants to see giant condos going up all over the beaches and waterways either. I know I would rather have a view of palm trees when i'm out on my boat however the Floridians that care so much for the views are too busy selling all the land for condos and strip malls. It's just part of life. I don't think it's fair to blame an entire region for the actions of few. Maybe someone should hire some guys from NY or NJ to help these people who are trying to pass this law change their mind


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

You NY bashers, in case you were not aware, NY consists of the more generally obnoxious NYC/LI area and the 95% of NY that is much more like VT, NH, ME and Canada. Please don't ever confuse the two, we who live upstate don't!


----------



## shank32095 (Mar 22, 2014)

what's the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee?

answer; twenty years in florida


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

shank32095 said:


> what's the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee?
> 
> answer; twenty years in florida


Actually, the full definition is:

Yankees come south to visit.

Damn Yankees stay.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

More and more I can't come up w/ a reason to even visit FLA. 
Would seriously consider becoming a "resident" via St. Brendans but don't even want to give the state any business.

As an aside...
Heard a story on the radio today about a survey of states and IF you wanted to move and could, would you move out of your state.
Top three answers were MD, CT, and IL. Gee, all tax hungry states.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

JonEisberg said:


> And yet Fredric Karlton, the most notorious waterfront homeowner in regards to this issue, is a Florida native - born and raised, and a graduate of UF... Go figure...
> 
> Florida feuding: Don?t drop the hook in my backyard
> 
> Florida: The Most Cruiser Unfriendly State? (VIDEO) | PassageMaker


A real POS! I'm surprised that nobody called the police to complain about the loud music he was playing. I would think that more objectionable then a freaking boat quietly anchored. Wonder how he would feel if folks started picketing his office.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> You NY bashers, in case you were not aware, NY consists of the more generally obnoxious NYC/LI area and the 95% of NY that is much more like VT, NH, ME and Canada. Please don't ever confuse the two, we who live upstate don't!


I know that's true. My next door neighbor was from Albany and he hated the NYC area and he was a great guy (and he was a boater, too). And, really, parts of NJ are the same way.

But, upstate New Yorkers aren't miserable people, so they aren't looking to move like the NYC/LI/northern NJ ones are.

But, my wife and her family were all from New Jersey, right outside the city limits of NYC and they were the biggest bunch of a-holes I ever saw in my life (and guess where they all moved to?).


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

sailordave said:


> A real POS! I'm surprised that nobody called the police to complain about the loud music he was playing. I would think that more objectionable then a freaking boat quietly anchored. Wonder how he would feel if folks started picketing his office.


It's money, plain and simple. Money buys everything in Florida and there are people there with so much of it they don't know what to do but try and get their way in every single thing.

I could tell endless stories of the grossly excess I saw there on a daily basis.

In my marina, there was a guy, in his 30's who had a beautiful 84 foot yacht tied up at our marina. In the three years I was there, he came by twice and spent a weekend on it both times. I think he just bought one because he was rich, and in Florida and thought he was supposed to have one.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

sailordave said:


> Heard a story on the radio today about a survey of states and IF you wanted to move and could, would you move out of your state.
> Top three answers were MD, CT, and IL. Gee, all tax hungry states.


Saw the same story. The interesting thing to me was that Montana had the lowest percentage of people who would like to leave, and it was still 23%. That seems awfully high to me, for the lowest state.


----------



## flandria (Jul 31, 2012)

Not long ago I heard about reports concerning new rules that affected drivers licences in Florida. If I recall correctly, it was about drivers' licences having to be in English - possibly with or without an official translation (e.g. additional cost). It did not take long for a small-scale revolt to bring about some modification: all those Quebecers herding south in the fall represent enough business for those affected to realize their bread and butter was at stake.

Since anchoring = no marina fees, it follows that the marine industry may well be conflicted about these new rules and not as anxious to lend its weight to combating anchoring restrictions.

I also read an article in Cruising World about the need for a Florida licence for a recreational vessel - somehow to be linked with Florida residency. The article was not entirely clear, but fines were being issued to vessels transiting from offshore to other destinations in the U.S.(Furthermore, this rule had started out as an offense that would attract *criminal*penalties! Go figure!)[

All of this suggests to me that the legislative assembly of Florida will eventually come up with a doozy that will send a huge shock through the tourism business/retirement industry and do long-lasting damage to its image (and revenues).

Before that, as so many here have already commented, many of us, myself included, are limiting our visits to Florida - in my case for transit to other destinations. After all, the only vote I have in Florida is my money.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

sailordave said:


> Heard a story on the radio today about a survey of states and IF you wanted to move and could, would you move out of your state.
> Top three answers were MD, CT, and IL. Gee, all tax hungry states.





denverd0n said:


> Saw the same story. The interesting thing to me was that Montana had the lowest percentage of people who would like to leave, and it was still 23%. That seems awfully high to me, for the lowest state.


This is off-topic, but....
Half in Illinois and Connecticut Want to Move Elsewhere
I'm not sure you can draw any correlation between taxes and that survey. Also included on the list of states people most want to leave are low-tax states Nevada, Louisiana, and Mississippi. On the list of states people *least* want to leave is my own Minnesota, only 2% above the winner Montana. In addition to having winters as brutal as Montana, we have taxes as brutal as New York.

Anyway to keep it on topic, Florida polled that 31% would like to move and 67% would like to stay.


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

bigdogandy said:


> Actually, the full definition is:
> 
> Yankees come south to visit.
> 
> Damn Yankees stay.


While living in NC I heard this to many times, so my reply was and after 5 yrs we were called boss.


----------



## scratchee (Mar 2, 2012)

contrarian said:


> Unfortunantly the the fact of the matter is that once you go south of Gainsville you actually start going north again.


Well said. I spent my high school years in Orlando, and I used to tell people, "Deep south is north of here."


----------



## shank32095 (Mar 22, 2014)

MarioG said:


> While living in NC I heard this to many times, so my reply was and after 5 yrs we were called boss.


No,actually in your mind after five minutes you were the boss. Well the boss screwed up the place to the point that only global warming is the only solution. I had to escape to a little town in south Georgia called Tallahassee. MarioG, do you not understand that arrogant attitude has not only got folks like you despised in Florida but pretty much all gringoes worldwide unwelcomed.


----------



## TerryBradley (Feb 28, 2006)

Here's a thought; why don't all the people who were opposed to the aforementioned law that didn't pass, start a campaign to unseat State Senator Smith who introduced the law? Now you know that ain't gonna happen!:laugher


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

TerryBradley said:


> Here's a thought; why don't all the people who were opposed to the aforementioned law that didn't pass, start a campaign to unseat State Senator Smith who introduced the law? Now you know that ain't gonna happen!:laugher


I suspect that most of the people who live within her district are happy with what she is doing. Were I one of her constituents, at the very least, I would be donating to her opposition at the next election (not to mention voting against her). May do that anyway... Donate to her opposition, I mean, since I don't get to vote for or against her.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting concept, that: people who live in a place dictating what happens in that place...


----------



## Cap-Couillon (Jan 2, 2013)

When my ancestors left Canada in 1755 during "Le Grand Dérangement" even we dumb Cajuns had the sense to bypass Florida for Louisiana... 'Course the dumber ones kept going, and now we call them Texans.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> Interesting concept, that: people who live in a place dictating what happens in that place...


Or, people leave place because no one wants to live there, find place everyone does want to live in, and immediately start trying to make it like place they left that no one wants to live in.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The reason, according to the latest poll, that 47 percent of the people that live in Maryland want to move out is oppressive taxation, which we definitely have. 44 new taxes in the past 8 years of the O'Mally administration. The second reason was long, cold, wet, nasty winters - which we obviously had this past year for sure.

I would have bailed out of here 35 years ago, but my loving spouse says NO! So, I'm kinda stuck, but just kinda. Next fall, it's off to the Florida Keys again, and they welcome live-aboards in Marathon's Boot Key Harbor. In fact, if you wish to stay in the Mooring Field, you MUST BE a liveaboard. Same holds true for the city marina.

$300 a month will get a mooring ball for you in Marathon, while there is a free anchorage area I'm not sure how long that will be around. However, if you anchor there you must pay for a weekly pumpout, which is only fair. $5 bucks a week ain't gonna kill any cruiser I know of.

My wife might come down to visit me on this next trip, but only if my daughter or son goes with her. It would be nice to have her aboard, but I know she won't stay for long, despite the beauty of the region and fantastic sailing. That's OK, though. I've made lots of great friends down there last year and many are still there.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Shinook (Jul 13, 2012)

travlineasy said:


> Next fall, it's off to the Florida Keys again, and they welcome live-aboards in Marathon's Boot Key Harbor.


The recent night time "boardings" of liveaboards in the marina, by FWC and local LEOs, indicates otherwise.


----------



## Shortnsalty (Jun 8, 2010)

Sshhhhhhhh..your going to make more people want to move to Florida. Keep the secrets safe. There are only so many spots ^_^


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> Next fall, it's off to the Florida Keys again, and they welcome live-aboards in Marathon's Boot Key Harbor. In fact, if you wish to stay in the Mooring Field, you MUST BE a liveaboard. Same holds true for the city marina.
> 
> $300 a month will get a mooring ball for you in Marathon, while there is a free anchorage area I'm not sure how long that will be around. However, if you anchor there you must pay for a weekly pumpout, which is only fair. $5 bucks a week ain't gonna kill any cruiser I know of.
> 
> ...


I know Marathon is a godsend for certain people, but I spent a month in Marathon in my boat, and to me, the Marathon mooring field was as close as you can come to a floating mobile home trailer park.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> We fight as hard as we can as long as we can.


Looks like the fight was lost in Annapolis years ago. I used to anchor a 16 foot day sailor up in Back Creek, then the city let a local marina extend their docks to nearly the channel.- No mo free achoring. Now it looks like the city decided to turn the anchor field into a mooring field.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

don't forget about the 75' stand off in Annapolis. nice,welcome to Annapolis, will that be cash or credit?
A few of the old watermen I've met tell of a time when they were welcomed in Annapolis.
Now, they're not allowed.
That's the champ.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Here's a link to a story in today's Sun Sentinel about anchoring concerns in Fort Lauderdale.....great to see that the State has overruled the local officials that wanted to impose restrictions on length of stay.

Fort Lauderdale river becoming parking lot for boats - Sun Sentinel


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

casey1999 said:


> Looks like the fight was lost in Annapolis years ago. I used to anchor a 16 foot day sailor up in Back Creek, then the city let a local marina extend their docks to nearly the channel.- No mo free achoring. Now it looks like the city decided to turn the anchor field into a mooring field.


There is plenty of free anchoring in Back Creek.

What anchor field are you talking about? I haven't seen any indication that the South Anchorage is to be a mooring field. If you have credible information to that effect I'll certainly respond locally.



joethecobbler said:


> don't forget about the 75' stand off in Annapolis. nice,welcome to Annapolis, will that be cash or credit?


So your fellow boaters don't deserve a little room to get in and out of their slips? Nice.

I don't understand the "cash or credit" comment. What other city has free dinghy dockage at the end of every public street? Where else is there a free bus? Where else can you get pizza delivery to a dinghy dock?



joethecobbler said:


> A few of the old watermen I've met tell of a time when they were welcomed in Annapolis.
> Now, they're not allowed.
> That's the champ.


Not true. Waterman have chosen to move elsewhere as prices have risen. There are still a number on Back Creek and the upper reaches of Spa Creek. For many years waterman got huge discounts at City Dock - the expiration of those discounts doesn't mean they aren't welcome, just that the City couldn't afford subsidies any longer.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Group9 said:


> I know Marathon is a godsend for certain people, but I spent a month in Marathon in my boat, and to me, *the Marathon mooring field was as close as you can come to a floating mobile home trailer park.*


And just what does that mean? Is it just a snob statement or is there something else you are trying to point out?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I guess you know more about how Annapolis treated the watermen than the multiple generations of watermen that have been on the bay since the 1700's
I heard a different story from those that lived it.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> And just what does that mean? Is it just a snob statement or is there something else you are trying to point out?


No it's the difference between a trailer park, and people who buy RVs to see the world. It's not bad or good, it just is.

The RVer in a trailer park and the sailor at semi-permanent mooring field like Marathon, have a lot more in common with each other,than either does with sailors who cruise and anchor out, or RVers who travel.

That's not what I bought a boat for and why I don't like mooring fields. But, I hate the herding instinct some people have in general, and I guess some boaters have in particular.

If that kind of anchoring makes you happy, well good for you; it seems to be increasing so you will be fine.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Group9

tell me the difference between a busy anchorage and a mooring field, with respect to your 'herding instinct' assertion, please?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Multihullgirl said:


> Group9
> 
> tell me the difference between a busy anchorage and a mooring field, with respect to your 'herding instinct' assertion, please?


Could it refer to how many fingers they wave with? :laugher


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

how many more years before sailing is turned into another " instant " vacation option for anyone with a credit card?
I met a couple in Waterford,NY heading south on a new cat,they were new to traveling by sail, afraid to anchor and heading to the Bahamas,with a $50000 budget for the trip.
We saw them all along the coast as we made south. They at the marina dock every night, us going in and outside and anchoring.
A year later they had a website and were giving lectures on "how to cruise by sail "for $100 dollars a seat.
Based on their "experience " yea,ok.
I quit trying to introduce new people to sailing, too many unintended consequences.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Last year when I was in Annapolis I was quite impressed by how well the harbor is organized and how they've arranged the moorings and dockage to accommodate sailors. It was quite crowded and a bit touristy on land but that's a different issue. The streets in these tourist harbors are almost identical with their trinket shops and bars. 

It's a common theme that fishermen and working people are forced out of places like this. It happened in Port Jefferson on LI. Back 30 years ago when we came in after working all day, wet and muddy from digging clams or hauling traps, the local restaurants were glad to take our $100 bills. It was a great time that I wouldn't trade for anything. But that world slowly came to an end as the tourist industry and the trinket shops took over and property values went through the roof. PJ became just another tourist trap.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

how many more years before sailing is turned into another " instant " vacation option for anyone with a credit card?
I met a couple in Waterford,NY heading south on a new cat,they were new to traveling by sail, afraid to anchor and heading to the Bahamas,with a $50000 budget for the trip.
We saw them all along the coast as we made south. They at the marina dock every night, us going in and outside and anchoring.
A year later they had a website and were giving lectures on "how to cruise by sail "for $100 dollars a seat.
Based on their "experience " yea,ok.
I quit trying to introduce new people to sailing, too many unintended consequences.
at present rate, sailing will be so commercialized and accessible that anyone with a credit card can participate. at that time it will be so restricted and regulated that it will be like RVing as apposed to tent camping.
everyone will be afraid to sail to and from the dock, you'll need a license and insurance and you'll only be allowed to pay for a dock or mooring ball,as anchoring will be outlawed for your safety and environment concerns.
Oh,wait it's already happening.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> Group9
> 
> tell me the difference between a busy anchorage and a mooring field, with respect to your 'herding instinct' assertion, please?


Why does there have to be a difference?


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Group9 said:


> Why does there have to be a difference?


If there is no difference, then who cares if a municipality legislates a nearby anchoring area into a mooring field? Is it a bad thing to a: fit more boats into a given area; b: if maintained, the ground tackle is probably better secured than a lot of the hack-job anchoring; c: have some modicum of control over derelicts; d:ensure pumpouts. There are other considerations, I offer these examples.


----------



## lowtide (Mar 23, 2008)

Multihullgirl said:


> If there is no difference, then who cares if a municipality legislates a nearby anchoring area into a mooring field? Is it a bad thing to a: fit more boats into a given area; b: if maintained, the ground tackle is probably better secured than a lot of the hack-job anchoring; c: have some modicum of control over derelicts; d:ensure pumpouts. There are other considerations, I offer these examples.


Anchoring is free. Pretty simple.

If they want to put in free moorings in the spirit of fitting more boats, that'd be different.

But they are never free. The contract at Boot Key is many times longer than my home marina contract.

Many places offer free pumpouts for anchor outs.

"Control", now you're in the ballpark.

'


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> If there is no difference, then who cares if a municipality legislates a nearby anchoring area into a mooring field? Is it a bad thing to a: fit more boats into a given area; b: if maintained, the ground tackle is probably better secured than a lot of the hack-job anchoring; c: have some modicum of control over derelicts; d:ensure pumpouts. There are other considerations, I offer these examples.


Because, it's opening the door. And, I don't see it stopping after that. I don't want to have to anchor in a mooring field, lined up like cars in a parking lot. That's not what makes me happy.

How do you make changes that are too big to be successfully made at once? Incrementally. Look at the history of gambling in my state.
1) First, it was only on boats that left the territorial United States. How could anyone argue with that? We don't want legalized land gambling and anyone who says we do is lying.
2) Then, it was boats that went three miles off shore, but not past 12 miles (for safety you see). Really, what does that hurt? It's not like we want to leave them tied up to the dock while we gamble.
3)Then, it was boats, that never left the dock when the weather was bad.(because, at this point, what does it hurt? That's all we want, no more.)
4) You know, there is really no reason to leave the docks at al. What's the difference? They are still boats. It's not like they are on land.
5) Then, it's silly to have real boats. What would it hurt to just have barges and pretend they are boats. Hurricanes? No, a hurricane won't destroy them, that's just stupid to even say.
6) Oh, my God. A hurricane just destroyed all of the barges. We need to put the casinos on land now, or you can kiss all those jobs and taxes good bye.

So now, we have land based gambling, something that wouldn't have come within a gnat's ass of passing if it had been presented as the ultimate goal in the first place. See how that works? I'm not saying I care that we have casinos, I'm saying it was dishonest the way they were put here.

Seeing stuff like that makes me a little cynical about people's motives, and baby steps, I guess. 

And, no, I don't believe any of this has one damn thing to do with derelict boats. The worst thing about the job I held for most of my life, was learning just how large a segment of the population can lie, as easily as they breathe.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

So you all who say that anyone should be able to anchor for free, anywhere, are also ok with people parking their RV/campers/tents for free, anywhere, right?


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> So you all who say that anyone should be able to anchor for free, anywhere, are also ok with people parking their RV/campers/tents for free, anywhere, right?


I'm not familiar with how Admiralty law works with RV's and campers.

And, that's the issue here. You have a bunch of landowners and real estate brokers, who are trying to figure out how to circumvent hundreds of years old Admiralty Law, and they have a s**tload of money to do it with.

And, in the end, they will probably win, because when it comes to politics, the big money always does.

That doesn't mean we have to like it (and besides, I guess there is always the Bahamas and Caribbean and sailing past Florida like we do Cuba and Haiti now).


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> don't forget about the 75' stand off in Annapolis. nice,welcome to Annapolis, will that be cash or credit?
> A few of the old watermen I've met tell of a time when they were welcomed in Annapolis.
> Now, they're not allowed.
> That's the champ.


Yes, I remember the oyster boats docked in the winter in the mid 1980's, it was nice to walk the docks and see them. I would prefer to look at the oyster boats and crabbers than a lot of the trash docked there now.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Admiralty law is meant for temporary anchorage, and it is a very overused excuse for squatting by water. I quote an interesting court finding (Canada):
"There is a common law right to navigation which includes the incidental right to anchor. This is not a right to anchor or moor permanently but it must be exercised reasonably as determined by the circumstances at the time of anchoring such as the weather, loading or unloading of the vessel, or the need for repairs to the vessel. The right to anchor therefore contemplates the right to do so for a reasonable time, for a reasonable purpose. Both the right to navigation and the right to anchor must not be exercised so as to interfere with the equal rights of others."


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> There is plenty of free anchoring in Back Creek.
> 
> What anchor field are you talking about? I haven't seen any indication that the South Anchorage is to be a mooring field. If you have credible information to that effect I'll certainly respond locally.
> 
> ...


I am not sure where the free anchoring is a back creek you refer. If you look at google maps sat view the entire creek is filled with boat docks. City of Annapolis allowed the marinas to extend there docks to the channel edge in order to generate more tax revenue. Not saying good or bad, just that the city wants money and the well to do in DC, VA, PA and MD can afford the slips and afford to have there boat just sit their never to be used.

The city has expanded significantly their mooring field since the early 1980's.

The prices of dockiing has only risen because the well to do boaters can price the working class watermen out of the Harbor. Where the heck are these yachties going to get their oyster if there are no waterman becasue thery are getting priced out of a dock?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

casey1999 said:


> I am not sure where the free anchoring is a back creek you refer. If you look at google maps sat view the entire creek is filled with boat docks. City of Annapolis allowed the marinas to extend there docks to the channel edge in order to generate more tax revenue. Not saying good or bad, just that the city wants money and the well to do in DC, VA, PA and MD can afford the slips and afford to have there boat just sit their never to be used.
> 
> The city has expanded significantly their mooring field since the early 1980's.
> 
> The prices of dockiing has only risen because the well to do boaters can price the working class watermen out of the Harbor. Where the heck are these yachties going to get their oyster if there are no waterman becasue thery are getting priced out of a dock?


I've never been one to stand up for the one percenters, but your post just wreaks of jealousy and class warfare, and shows an ignorance of how economics works.

The price of docking is not a conspiracy against working class waterman. Prices go up when demand exceeds supply. The only way to bring prices down is to increase supply, which is why marinas want to expand their docks.

While I'm not surprised that "the city wants money," if that was their only motive they could raise revinues by increasing taxes instead. Increasing the supply of docks to meet the demand might just stop the price increases so an average guy can afford it.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I've never been one to stand up for the one percenters, but your post just wreaks of jealousy and class warfare, and shows an ignorance of how economics works.
> 
> The price of docking is not a conspiracy against working class waterman. Prices go up when demand exceeds supply. The only way to bring prices down is to increase supply, which is why marinas want to expand their docks.
> 
> While I'm not surprised that "the city wants money," if that was their only motive they could raise revinues by increasing taxes instead. Increasing the supply of docks to meet the demand might just stop the price increases so an average guy can afford it.


Well I used to have a nice little Chesapeake Bay water front shack on the beach in Annapolis (Bembe Beach). Yea the city decided they needed more money so they increased property tax from $1,000 per year to $6,000 per year. Yea the property value went up but why should the city need 6X more revenue for providing the same services when the cost of those services did not go up 6X? My salary did not go up 6X so why does the city think I can pay their increased property tax? It is the same natioin wide- just easier to raise taxes and fees instead of tyring to figure out how to do things more efficently.

The city wants more dock space as they can collect both a property tax, as well as a boaters tax. And all those boats will contribute to the boating industry and well as eat in all the high priced fine resturants Annapolis has to offer- which all spells out to even more tax revenue. But at the cost of what Annapolis used to be- a nice little liveable town.

Annapolis City could surely allow the watermen whom built the city and kept it going during its economic hard times of the 1950's to continue to keep their working boats at the docks. But no, the city would prefer some "yachts" that can contribute more money.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I've never been one to stand up for the one percenters, but your post just wreaks of jealousy and class warfare, and shows an ignorance of how economics works.


Where the heck does this come from? I am not jealous of any boat docked in annapolis, and I know quite a lot about economics. The one percenters do not really impress me all that much. What net worth do you need to be considered a 1% er, 8 mill?

Now people that can afford somthing like this impress me:


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Isn't it more or less universally true that people flock to unspoiled places only to turn them into exactly the places they were trying to get away from?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

smurphny said:


> Isn't it more or less universally true that people flock to unspoiled places only to turn them into exactly the places they were trying to get away from?


You are right. We are all the problem. I lived in Annapolis between 1984 and 2001. Had some good times and good sailing. By the mid 1990's the place was going down hill fast. Got out of town and moved to Hawaii. In the last 5 years Hawaii is going down hill fast too. Time to get out of town.


----------



## Shortnsalty (Jun 8, 2010)

There is a term for all this madness. It's called evolution.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I thought the term was prostitution,of elected officials.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

joethecobbler said:


> ...I met a couple in Waterford,NY heading south on a new cat,they were new to traveling by sail, afraid to anchor and heading to the Bahamas,with a $50000 budget for the trip.
> We saw them all along the coast as we made south. They at the marina dock every night, us going in and outside and anchoring.


I just can't get my arms around these statements that you're making.

Most people are complaining about how sailing is dying because there are so few new people coming into the sport, but when a couple of newbs buy a new boat (which in 10-20 years will become the used boat that one of us will buy at a reasonable price), you ridicule them. You make it sound like you want to be the only one on the water, and intentionally discourage others from sailing. Sort of like the old guy sitting in front of his house yelling "stay off my lawn."


joethecobbler said:


> ...A year later they had a website and were giving lectures on "how to cruise by sail "for $100 dollars a seat...


That's their right, unless you want the government to stop them through regulation. I wouldn't plunk down $100 of my money for that, but if others want to, so be it.


joethecobbler said:


> how many more years before sailing is turned into another " instant " vacation option for anyone with a credit card?
> at present rate, sailing will be so commercialized and accessible that anyone with a credit card can participate.


It's already like that, and has been for a long time. Is there really anything wrong with it? Or are you saying that you think government should step in and stop it through regulation?


joethecobbler said:


> ...at that time it will be so restricted and regulated that it will be like RVing as apposed to tent camping.


What does this mean? And what's wrong with either RV or tent camping?

And what is your position about regulations? You seem to distrust the commercialism and market expansion that comes with an unregulated free market, and ridicule the supposedly unqualified people that accessibility of the sports affords, yet you also distrust the government that might regulate things to make them a little less accessible and thus safer. You really can't have it both ways.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

lowtide said:


> Anchoring is free. Pretty simple.
> 
> If they want to put in free moorings in the spirit of fitting more boats, that'd be different.
> 
> ...Many places offer free pumpouts for anchor outs...


Here's the problem with your logic. Nothing is free. If someplace offers pumpouts at no charge to you, it's because someone else is footing the bill for you. Usually, it is the local taxpayers.

So all you guys who want free moorings and free pumpouts, I just think you want someone else to foot the bill for you.

When I comment about the multiple people here who don't seem to understand how the economy works, I am referring to the conspiracy theories that marinas in Annapolis are expanding so the government can make more money. That's delusional. The marinas are expanding because they are part of the private sector, and demand is high enough that they can increase their profits by expanding. You complain that the government "allowed them to do it" - yet less government intrusion is what you claim to want. The only way to stop the marinas from expanding would have been for government to be MORE intrusive, not less.

It's for these reasons that it gets a little tiring to see this extreme skepticism over "corruption" and alleged "prostitution" of government. You seem to want it both ways - you want government to stay out of your life, but interfere with everyone else's.

Did it ever occur to you that Annapolis expanded their mooring fields because the moorings all fill up during times of peak demand? That was my experience last time I was in Annapolis. Maybe, believe it or not, they are responding to the wishes of those who would actually like to pay for a mooring, and take advantage of the shower facilities and other benefits that come along with a paid mooring.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I don't dislike the folks for being new to sailing, I was mocking the fact that after 6-10 months they were offering advice on cruising.
It is their right, and others choice to pay for their "experience " ,I found that funny that anyone would.
As for the old man analogy, that might be somewhat accurate, more so as time goes on.Except it's not MY yard.
Which leads to,It's not yours either! it's everyones.but it is a finite resource and I don't care for the way it is being restricted due in large part to the increased demand for it.Nor do I care for some of the people sailing, more specifically living aboard traveling, has attracted.
I believe these things have combined to "ruin it" to some degree.
I hope cruising becomes unpopular and most people loose interest in it and give up to persue a different hobby.
I would be fine with that.
Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings, just my perspective.
As an aside, I used to enjoy riding motorcycles, specifically Harley's.But it became popular and "cool" and attracted a demographic that ruined it for me.
I long for the old days,but doubt there coming back.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I don't want or need a damn thing free or paid.
The water and wind is all I use for "free " and God put them here. all the rest is for the land lubbers, by the landlubbers and of the landlubbers.
you're absolutely correct it is demand driven,more demand more expense.
When states started requiring registration fees it was sold ad necessary to maintain "services for boaters " well who mismanaged that money? now, due to increased demand more money is "needed " and more for moorings due to increased demand, and dockage due to demand, and water cops,and regulations and,more and more.
I'm saying I would be happier if and when it becomes unpopular and I am rethinking the approach to attracting others to it.
I'm not promoting sailing any longer.
when people ask me about cruising and sailing I'm going to start telling them it sucks.
when they ask me if it's dangerous I'm going to recall harrowing accounts,and when they ask what I do aboard all day while sailing I'm telling them it's boring.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

joethecobbler said:


> I guess you know more about how Annapolis treated the watermen than the multiple generations of watermen that have been on the bay since the 1700's
> I heard a different story from those that lived it.


I'm simply saying that waterman, like everyone else, is allowed at City Dock just as they have always been. Perhaps some interpret the loss of subsidies and discounts as "not being allowed." The winter rate at City Dock has gone up from a couple hundred dollars for the winter to a few hundred per month over the winter because the docks are still full at the higher rate, and to pay for the new bulkhead that keeps the parking lot from ending up in Spa Creek.



Multihullgirl said:


> If there is no difference, then who cares if a municipality legislates a nearby anchoring area into a mooring field? Is it a bad thing to a: fit more boats into a given area; b: if maintained, the ground tackle is probably better secured than a lot of the hack-job anchoring; c: have some modicum of control over derelicts; d:ensure pumpouts.


How do mooring fields ensure pump-outs any better than an anchorage?



casey1999 said:


> I am not sure where the free anchoring is a back creek you refer.


From R8 to the head of Back Creek there is lots of room to anchor. There are five (5) City moorings in one corner. I've worked my way through anchored boats when I had a slip on Back Creek and last year I anchored out in Back Creek most of the summer.

By the way, there is a good-sized cluster of waterman at the mouth of Back Creek.



casey1999 said:


> And all those boats will contribute to the boating industry and well as eat in all the high priced fine resturants Annapolis has to offer- which all spells out to even more tax revenue.


We're talking about different cities. Annapolis is a culinary wasteland. There are expensive restaurants but nothing "fine." *grin*


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

travlineasy said:


> The reason, according to the latest poll, that 47 percent of the people that live in Maryland want to move out is oppressive taxation, which we definitely have. 44 new taxes in the past 8 years of the O'Mally administration. The second reason was long, cold, wet, nasty winters - which we obviously had this past year for sure.
> 
> I would have bailed out of here 35 years ago, but my loving spouse says NO! So, I'm kinda stuck, but just kinda. Next fall, it's off to the Florida Keys again, and they welcome live-aboards in Marathon's Boot Key Harbor. In fact, if you wish to stay in the Mooring Field, you MUST BE a liveaboard. Same holds true for the city marina.
> 
> ...


Gary,

You are an inspiration to learn to play an instrument and cruise while performing enough to build-up the boat kitty.

I hope to one day hear you play. Are you going to the SN get-together in the upper Chessapeak next month?

Regards,
Brad


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> And what is your position about regulations? You seem to distrust the commercialism and market expansion that comes with an unregulated free market, and ridicule the supposedly unqualified people that accessibility of the sports affords, yet you also distrust the government that might regulate things to make them a little less accessible and thus safer. You really can't have it both ways.


Yup, many of the hapless efforts to reconcile some of these Libertarian-style ideals with the realities of free-market capitalism - setting 'reasonable' dockage rates in places like Annapolis or Lauderdale, determining what the cost of a Panama Canal transit 'should be' for small yachts, and so on - would seem to provide an endless source of amusement, these days


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> Admiralty law is meant for temporary anchorage, and it is a very overused excuse for squatting by water. I quote an interesting court finding (Canada):
> "There is a common law right to navigation which includes the incidental right to anchor. This is not a right to anchor or moor permanently but it must be exercised reasonably as determined by the circumstances at the time of anchoring such as the weather, loading or unloading of the vessel, or the need for repairs to the vessel. The right to anchor therefore contemplates the right to do so for a reasonable time, for a reasonable purpose. Both the right to navigation and the right to anchor must not be exercised so as to interfere with the equal rights of others."


See, again, you are buying into the argument that this is all about derelict boats. I'm not.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Group9 said:


> See, again, you are buying into the argument that this is all about derelict boats. I'm not.


Her post, which you quoted, said NOTHING about derelict boats. This is not about derelict boats. It is about derelict owners who drop anchor and overstay their welcome. The court finding that she quoted allows anchoring for a reasonable time while passing through, but not setting up residence like in a trailer park.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Bene505 said:


> Gary,
> 
> You are an inspiration to learn to play an instrument and cruise while performing enough to build-up the boat kitty.
> 
> ...


I hope he's going, since he's hosting it!

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/chesapeake-bay/122490-2014-sailnet-chesapeake-bay-rendezvous.html


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

TakeFive said:


> Here's the problem with your logic. Nothing is free. [QOUTE
> 
> Air is free,
> water you sail in is free.
> ...


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> Her post, which you quoted, said NOTHING about derelict boats. This is not about derelict boats. It is about derelict owners who drop anchor and overstay their welcome. The court finding that she quoted allows anchoring for a reasonable time while passing through, but not setting up residence like in a trailer park.


I counter post, that you are the one who doesn't get it (and, yes, I realize that you don't get that).

Obviously, our different life experiences, have caused your bulls**t meter to be less sensitive than mine.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Here's one for you group9:
Do you think that without derelict boats, the developers would have as much traction as they do in getting support for barring 'free' anchoring?


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> Here's one for you group9:
> Do you think that without derelict boats, the developers would have as much traction as they do in getting support for barring 'free' anchoring?


I think they could say it was because boats were disrupting the air flow to the mainland, and causing people to sweat more, and get just as far, as long as it had a campaign contribution check attached to it.

But, like I said, that's because my life experience, especially with people like the ones who are financing and introducing this legislation, has made me think that (I guess I've been retired long enough to say that I used to be an FBI agent, and assigned to a state public corruption investigation unit before that, so I'm not talking about stuff I read in a newspaper).

Maybe it's because my brother-in-law is a lobbyist and one of my best friends used to be one, both for a major industries. Both of them have told me they have had nightmares about walking out of some legislator's office one day after dropping a check off, and finding the FBI waiting in the hall for them. And, both of them have told me the magic words they are told to use, not "this would help us out a lot", but "this would help your constituents out a lot" that they think will keep them out of jail.

Like I said, I had a bad job when it came to learning what people will do, while lying in your face about why they are doing it. If it's any consolation, some days, I wish I could I could go back to where you are.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> TakeFive said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the problem with your logic. Nothing is free.
> ...


Think again...

You used "the water" of much of the ICW on your trip south, no? Passing thru a lock and numerous opening bridges, on a waterway largely created and maintained by government, and funded by taxpayers? Likely navigating with the aid of GPS, a system created and maintained by same? "The water" on which you sail may not necessarily be as "free" as you seem to think it is...

Sailnet is "free", huh? Not at all reliant upon that little thing called The Internet, which has existed since time immemorial, along with all those fish, waterfowl, and blue crabs, right?

I seem to recall you whining about the state of MD not dredging at Smith Island. Yeah, reliance upon "government" and its services is bad...

..._Sometimes_...



joethecobbler said:


> there are alot more free things,
> Some of the best things in life are free.
> I can tell by your pompous, know better attitude that seeing someone enjoy themselves for little or no money really Burns you up.
> I'm sure you will respond in a vitriol manner and attempt to play the morality card, but the deck is stacked against you.


Hyper-sensitivity coupled with a lack of reading comprehension can be a toxic brew  I doubt I'm the only one who sees Take Five's rational and measured disagreement as anything but "pompous", or "vitriolic"...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The biggest downside to a democracy is being in the minority. For most of our largest political divides, such as Presidential elections, the US is about as close to 50/50 as you can get. Therefore, you never really feel like you are defeated, when you lose. However, in the landlubber v. anchoring vote, we boaters are going to be outnumbered about 100 to 1. 

Some laws and rights have been written to protect distinct minorities in society from these overwhelming odds. However, leveraging waterway and navigation freedoms are not going to be persuasive when the landlubbers are truly trying to keep derelict boats away. How about boats that make noise that would not be acceptable from a land neighbor: generators, music, etc?

In the end, there will need to be compromise or we'll lose it all.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Group9 said:


> Like I said, I had a bad job when it came to learning what people will do, while lying in your face about why they are doing it. If it's any consolation, some days, I wish I could I could go back to where you are.


Please don't put words in my mouth, k? From the tone of your response I can tell you that either I am not making myself clear or you are reading something into my statements which I am not saying.

Here's my point: I agree with you that the developers/corporate machine are the enemy. But I assert we boaters give them lots of ammunition with which to work. I also posit that regulation is inevitable given population expansion. More people = less freedom for same. The US is learning the lesson that Europe did hundreds of years ago: you crowd people into an area, you end up with violence and regulation, or else learn to be exceptionally decent.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Think again...
> 
> You used "the water" of much of the ICW on your trip south, no? Passing thru a lock and numerous opening bridges, on a waterway largely created and maintained by government, and funded by taxpayers? Likely navigating with the aid of GPS, a system created and maintained by same? "The water" on which you sail may not necessarily be as "free" as you seem to think it is...
> 
> ...


So,you went back and read everything I ever posted online,took what served your argument out of context. then tried to assasinate my perspective on this thread to bolster your argument.
Well, I'm sure there are many, like you, who feel the same as you do. I feel sorry for you.
I guess if you stretch your assumptions far enough you can convince like minded people.
I'm sure you'll cut,paste, and quote snippets.
Because that's your style, your convinced your way and perspective is right and you'll be right no matter what anyone else feels.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

joethecobbler said:


> ...Because that's your style, your convinced your way and perspective is right and you'll be right no matter what anyone else feels.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> So,you went back and read everything I ever posted online,took what served your argument out of context. then tried to assasinate my perspective on this thread to bolster your argument.
> Well, I'm sure there are many, like you, who feel the same as you do. I feel sorry for you.
> I guess if you stretch your assumptions far enough you can convince like minded people.
> I'm sure you'll cut,paste, and quote snippets.
> Because that's your style, your convinced your way and perspective is right and you'll be right no matter what anyone else feels.


Perhaps your young daughter can assist you with that whole Reading Comprehension thing...


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth, k? From the tone of your response I can tell you that either I am not making myself clear or you are reading something into my statements which I am not saying.
> 
> Here's my point: I agree with you that the developers/corporate machine are the enemy. But I assert we boaters give them lots of ammunition with which to work. I also posit that regulation is inevitable given population expansion. More people = less freedom for same. The US is learning the lesson that Europe did hundreds of years ago: you crowd people into an area, you end up with violence and regulation, or else learn to be exceptionally decent.


Well, here is the bad news. There is nothing we can do about any of it, anyway.

Ray Charles can see which way boating is heading in Florida (it reminds me of the old ladies at our yacht club, who are sure, that if they could just get rid of all of the people who own boats, that it would be a much nicer club).


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Wow. Could this thread get any more petty? No, I don't think it could.

Word of advice to those of you on BOTH sides of this: You have reached the point where each new post makes you look more and more like this...


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

denverd0n said:


> Wow. Could this thread get any more petty? No, I don't think it could.
> 
> Word of advice to those of you on BOTH sides of this: You have reached the point where each new post makes you look more and more like this...


New York or New Jersey?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

When I first started traveling longer distance by sail,I had preconceived ideas of what it would be like. What the places would be,and the people.
It wasn't.
The places and people were often nothing like I read about or thought they would be.Neither was sailing.
At first I was excited about the new experience of traveling by sail and wanted to share that excitement with others so they could experience that joy also.
Now, after a few Years traveling up and down the east coast USA I've got the knowledge of my own experiences.
I found that the experience is not what is represented in magazines or cruising guides . Unless you have a pile of cash to unload at each of the places advertised. And if you don't, the welcome at the more affluent locations,isn't.
While I did encounter genuine, friendly people. I found many pariah who seemed to take pleasure in the fleecing of those passing through who were novice. I could recount numerous occasion where I witnessed or was subject to this type of people.
So, now my perspective and attitude has changed.
I no longer yearn to share my joyful experiences,or special places I've found. I'm less interested in helping others by sharing my experiences due to unpleasant unforeseen consequence.
Better to pass along unnoticed than announce my intended course or destination.
It seems many, for whatever reasons, take issue with others methods and manner of traveling.
It really depresses me to see and experience the attitude and treatment many display towards those choosing a different approach to sail travel and life in general.
I feel I made a big mistake sharing my experience and travel ,it didn't have the results I thought it would of helping others achieve their ambitions. and might have added to some of my fee unpleasant experiences.
As,I cannot undo what has been said or done. I can only try to avoid further mistakes of foreclosure by not sharing my joyful experience. and keep more to myself.
seems some don't like it if they see others enjoying themselves if their not puking cash .


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

denverd0n said:


> Wow. Could this thread get any more petty? No, I don't think it could.
> 
> Word of advice to those of you on BOTH sides of this: You have reached the point where each new post makes you look more and more like this...


yea,sadly you're probably right.

but keep in mind, it is the internet.
you can choose to participate or disregard without anyone's permission aside your own.
on any topic.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

JonEisberg said:


> Perhaps your young daughter can assist you with that whole Reading Comprehension thing...


Oh,I'm sure she could. For each you and I !
She has her own unique perspective derived from the perspective of her experiences and interests.
And when asked, is more than happy to oblige.
Fortunately, she shares her mother's kindness towards people and animals and less bitterness of life's dissapointments and harshness.
She's a happy child, for that I'm thankful.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't want to pull quotes and respond to specific people. Just a couple notes:

I just might "get it" a little more than some of you think. I am deeply concerned by these mega-millionaires in Florida buying up waterfront property, who suddenly think that they now own the water that their property overlooks. I hate that attitude that just because you have lots of money and can buy unreasonable influence among local (and national) politicians, and think you can always get your way. Citizens United and McCutcheon are only making this worse.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to restrict the rights of true cruisers from quietly anchoring in an area, so long as they don't crap up the place by damaging coral reefs, dumping holding tanks, making noise with generators and loud music, spilling jerry cans, taking their boats apart for months at a time doing unsightly rebuilds, or just leaving the boat there and never coming back. But that kind of stuff does happen with a small minority of boats, and even the most libertarian cruisers need to admit it.

It would be nice to live in a world with no regulations, but when population density increases enough that people are on top of each other, some regulation is unavoidable. The challenge is how to craft the regulations in a way that allows the bulk of those who "leave no trace" to continue doing so, and weed out the derelicts who spoil the fun for everyone (and, if left unregulated, could fill up anchorages with unsightly wrecks that cost millions to remove after they sink). And in the end, how to pay for all of that.

So you can wish all you want for this to go away. You might find paradise somewhere with nobody around to bother you, but sooner or later a few (or a few thousand) others will come along and the whole process will repeat itself. (Hence the evolution comment.)

One thing is for sure - the East Coast of the US has an awful lot of people crowding into limited space, so regulations will have to be a way of life. Let's hope that there are at least a few ethical politicians left who can see through the special interests and strike a reasonable balance.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

yup.


----------



## Andrew65 (Dec 21, 2009)

Florida isnt the only place where shoreside people try to get rid of liveaboards. Oslo, Norway has their share of dirtdwellers who dont like it too and cant do a thing about it...fortunetly.


----------



## Gaspee (Jun 20, 2014)

At this point I know so little about sailing that I'm not sure where to even start asking questions, but I won't deal with that or my plans here. What I would like to know is what are we talking about with these anchoring laws? Part of what I have seen makes sense, namely proving that a long term anchored boat is truly seaworthy and able to sail. However, what about things like boats passing through looking for anchorage for a day, or two?


----------



## maisis00 (Aug 17, 2010)

RichH said:


> how long one can occupy a certain portion of a sidewalk?


 To late, they call that vagrancy.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Regardless of any laws, for or against, it's always been problematic to try and live in, or visit, a place where the people in that place, don't want you, or people like you, around.

Examples abound.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Latest discussion topics as presented by the FWC at the recent 'meeting' at Vero Beach: http://myfwc.com/media/2847550/anchoring-public-meeting.pdf

Personally, when traveling to the Bahamas and 'south', Im pretty much now committed to leave FL from Ft Pierce .... and simply bypass all of SE Florida and the Keys. Its been too much hassle by 'homeowners', local water cops, the over-aggressive potty-gestapo of Volusia Country, the FWC (especially in Marathon/Boot Key etc.) that I really dont need. I say: to hell with visiting and spending any time (and money) in Florida, ... only 'touching' the state as absolutely as minimally as possible. 
Id also include the signing any petition for the FORMAL reduction of any US Govt. funding/spending for any maintenance/dredging of tidal / navigable US waters in Florida. Why should our federal tax money be used to 'improve' the navigable waters for specific local (only) enhancement, and where long distance travelers of such navigable waterways are obviously impeded, restrained and prevented free access/use?

I just wonder when all the rest of the 49 states and their local municipal entities 'reciprocate' and begin to aggressively 'single out', specifically target, and to treat visitors/transients from Florida to their states as 'the extremely unwanted' ... as they seemingly are now to be proposing in Florida?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RichH said:


> Personally, when traveling to the Bahamas and 'south', Im pretty much now committed to leave FL from Ft Pierce


Why not Norfolk VA or Beaufort NC?


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Simply because I really appreciate and thoroughly enjoy the neighborliness/friendliness of the 'low country' & ICW of the Carolinas, Georgia and North Florida ... and the 'Old Time' and Bluegrass parking lot 'music jams' there. When our 'instruments' are out, the only thing in the low country that causes us to move along is cold weather. One misses that 'culture' entirely when offshore and in an infernal hurry. ;-)


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

RichH said:


> Latest discussion topics as presented by the FWC at the recent 'meeting' at Vero Beach: http://myfwc.com/media/2847550/anchoring-public-meeting.pdf


To be honest, the only thing I take issue with is the 300ft part of the proposal. Too far. 100ft might be more reasonable.

My neighbours house is 20ft from mine. Does this mean I can have it moved?


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

joethecobbler said:


> TakeFive said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the problem with your logic. Nothing is free. [QOUTE
> ...


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RichH said:


> Simply because I really appreciate and thoroughly enjoy the neighborliness/friendliness of the 'low country' & ICW of the Carolinas, Georgia and North Florida ... and the 'Old Time' and Bluegrass parking lot 'music jams' there. When our 'instruments' are out, the only thing in the low country that causes us to move along is cold weather. One misses that 'culture' entirely when offshore and in an infernal hurry. ;-)


Best answer I have ever heard for using the ICW. Kudos.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

MarkSF said:


> To be honest, the only thing I take issue with is the 300ft part of the proposal. Too far. 100ft might be more reasonable.
> 
> My neighbours house is 20ft from mine. Does this mean I can have it moved?


If you have enough money to give the appropriate campaign contributions, yes.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't boat in FL and it certainly sounds tough down there. I'm guessing, due to the year round climate, that permanent crappy stuff is more common than up here. However, landlubbers can be territorial and far outnumber boaters in our democratic system. Feels like a huge uphill battle.

That said, I find we have to be reasonable to co-exist. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable being less than 300 ft off a waterfront homes lawn, just for running aground, if not privacy. As we all know, that feels much much closer than that. 150 ft off a mooring field doesn't sound too tough to me, but I'm sure I've been closer in a pinch. 

Of course, I do not have a personal appreciation of what is left to anchor in, after restrictions like these. Hope it all settles down.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> That said, I find we have to be reasonable to co-exist. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable being less than 300 ft off a waterfront homes lawn, just for running aground, if not privacy. As we all know, that feels much much closer than that. 150 ft off a mooring field doesn't sound too tough to me, but I'm sure I've been closer in a pinch.


Mike Ahart at Waterway Guide did a rendering of the waterways around Ft Lauderdale commonly used by cruisers for anchoring with the 300' offset superimposed. That offset would essentially make Ft Lauderdale a no anchoring zone. See Anchoring Battles Reach a New Level in Florida | Sail Magazine .

I think 1.5 x the LOA of docked boats as a courtesy to local boat owners trying to get on and off their own docks is quite reasonable. That is similar to the similar offset requirement in the City of Annapolis.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Mike Ahart at Waterway Guide did a rendering of the waterways around Ft Lauderdale commonly used by cruisers for anchoring with the 300' offset superimposed. That offset would essentially make Ft Lauderdale a no anchoring zone. See Anchoring Battles Reach a New Level in Florida | Sail Magazine .
> 
> I think 1.5 x the LOA of docked boats as a courtesy to local boat owners trying to get on and off their own docks is quite reasonable. That is similar to the similar offset requirement in the City of Annapolis.


I'm wondering whether the proposed 300' offset would apply to mooring fields, as well? If so, virtually all of the mooring field at Las Olas in Lauderdale would have to disappear, and the size of the 'Cruiser's Assisted Living Facility' in Boot Key would probably be reduced significantly...

I'm gonna guess the answer to that would probably be a "No"?

For, as everyone knows, boats lying neatly to revenue-generating moorings lined up like rows of corn are _FAR_ less unsightly, objectionable, or intrusive than those randomly placed at anchor...


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> I'm wondering whether the proposed 300' offset would apply to mooring fields, as well? If so, virtually all of the mooring field at Las Olas in Lauderdale would have to disappear, and the size of the 'Cruiser's Assisted Living Facility' in Boot Key would probably be reduced significantly...


Good question. I'll pass it along.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm fuzzy on the issue of state vs. federal "navigable waterway".
I thought that if a waterway was designated as "navigable", that it fell under federal jurisdiction. (Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies)

Ergo, a state cannot legally deny access to a "navigable waterway". Obviously my understanding of this situation is flawed.

I hate to say this, but I suspect that the amount of tourism income and taxes generated by cruisers is a very small percentage of Florida's overall revenue, and that state and local governments are more concerned with the amount of taxes that wealthy waterfront landowners contribute to the pot. 

Cruiser income is considered not worth the hassle when you think about the clean up costs of derelict vessels and the "floating homeless".

It seems to me that this problem is a combination of wealthy landowners throwing their influence around AND some boaters being bad neighbors.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Anybody here, think for one second, that any Florida legislator or politician, would have any thoughts whatsoever, about boats and anchoring, one way or the other, without some deep pocket campaign contributor calling them up and telling them what thoughts to have?

Me, either.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

BubbleheadMd said:


> I hate to say this, but I suspect that the amount of tourism income and taxes generated by cruisers is a very small percentage of Florida's overall revenue, and that state and local governments are more concerned with the amount of taxes that wealthy waterfront landowners contribute to the pot.
> 
> Cruiser income is considered not worth the hassle when you think about the clean up costs of derelict vessels and the "floating homeless".


Yup, I always get a chuckle from how grossly many folkss seem to overestimate the economic contribution the typical Mom & Pop cruisers might 'pour' into the state's revenue stream... Taken as a whole over the course of a single Snowbird Season, it's probably on a par with what Steven Spielberg's yacht spends while simply tied to the dock at Pier 66... 












BubbleheadMd said:


> It seems to me that this problem is a combination of wealthy landowners throwing their influence around AND some boaters being bad neighbors.


That's exactly right... I have to admit, if I owned one of those beautiful homes lining the periphery of Lake Sylvia, and some cruising boat parked himself right in front of my place and ran his crappy construction site generator from Harbor Freight on deck all day long and into the night, for days on end, well... you can bet I'd be exploring ways to have him 'evicted', as well...

As is so often the case, all it takes is a few bad apples... Of course, he was a bother to the other cruisers anchored there, as well... Several approached him and tried to reason with him, but to no avail, he claimed he absolutely, positively needed to be running that noisy piece of crap whenever he was awake...

I swear, in some of these situations, one can't help but thinking of resorting to a bit of 'Vigilante Justice'...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

BubbleheadMd said:


> I hate to say this, but I suspect that the amount of tourism income and taxes generated by cruisers is a very small percentage of Florida's overall revenue, and that state and local governments are more concerned with the amount of taxes that wealthy waterfront landowners contribute to the pot.
> 
> Cruiser income is considered not worth the hassle when you think about the clean up costs of derelict vessels and the "floating homeless".


Yup, I always get a chuckle from how grossly many folks seem to overestimate the economic contribution the typical Mom & Pop cruisers might 'pour' into the state's revenue stream... Taken as a whole over the course of a single Snowbird Season, it's probably on a par with what Steven Spielberg's 268-footer spends while simply tied to the dock at Pier 66... 












BubbleheadMd said:


> It seems to me that this problem is a combination of wealthy landowners throwing their influence around AND some boaters being bad neighbors.


That's exactly right... I have to admit, if I owned one of those beautiful homes lining the periphery of Lake Sylvia, and some cruising boat parked himself right in front of my place and ran his crappy construction site generator from Harbor Freight on deck all day long and into the night, for days on end, well... you can bet I'd be exploring ways to have him 'evicted', as well...

As is so often the case, all it takes is a few bad apples... Of course, he was a bother to the other cruisers anchored there, as well... Several approached him and tried to reason with him, but to no avail, he claimed he absolutely, positively needed to be running that noisy piece of crap whenever he was awake...

I swear, in some of these situations, one can't help but thinking of resorting to a bit of 'Vigilante Justice'...


----------



## inshallamiami (Jan 2, 2004)

Jon Eisberg......"cruisers assisted living facility" that is FUNNY! you should see the one down here in Rio Dulce, Guatemala!

interestingly, its problematic to anchor down here due to the risk of crime; boarding, attacking, theft. Maybe Floridian locals could try these methods and decrease anchoring the Central American way


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

inshallamiami said:


> Jon Eisberg......"cruisers assisted living facility" that is FUNNY! you should see the one down here in Rio Dulce, Guatemala!
> 
> interestingly, its problematic to anchor down here due to the risk of crime; boarding, attacking, theft. Maybe Floridian locals could try these methods and decrease anchoring the Central American way


Harder to do that in Florida. Everybody packs.


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> I swear, in some of these situations, one can't help but thinking of resorting to a bit of 'Vigilante Justice'...


I like your logic. Maybe we need a separate "Vigilante Justice" forum. How about it, Sailnet?
I look at some of the posts here, northerners blaming southerners, southerners blaming Yankees, and the problem is just a few ****bags--whether 1%-er homeowners or boat trash--whose states of origin don't figure into it. 
JV


----------

