More Anti Anchoring legislation - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-22-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
More Anti Anchoring legislation

HB1126 I believe is the new law enacted to extend the
"pilot" program of mooring fields in Florida.
the pilot program was set to sunset this year,but the FWC needs more time to "study" it,so three more years.
can't wait for the economics of these mooring fields is exposed as the financial loosers they are.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old 04-23-2014
ebs001's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,149
Thanks: 5
Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts
Rep Power: 9
ebs001 is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

I wouldn't be to hasty about getting rid of bill SB1126 as the result will be more restrictive anchoring not less. Here's something from the SSCA regarding the extension and an amendment to restrict the anchoring near residences. Be aware that many Florida residents and municipalities do not want any anchoring at all.

Quote:
An amendment to the state legislation to extend the FWC Anchoring/Mooring Pilot Program (Florida Senate bill SB 1126) is being considered by the Appropriations Committee THIS MORNING – the amendment would allow municipalities to regulate overnight anchoring by prohibiting anchoring of vessels within an unspecified distance from private residences! The amendment text:
"Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a municipality located within a charter county that has a population of at least 1.748 million may regulate overnight anchoring if the regulation is limited to the distance a vessel may be anchored from a private residence. This paragraph expires on October 31, 2017." (Paragraph (b) states: However, local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the anchoring outside of such mooring fields of vessels other than live-aboard vessels as defined in s. 327.02).
An urgent note from the Association Director of the Seven Seas Cruising Association about the surprise amendment:
Florida Senator Gwen Margolis, in the Florida Senate appropriations committee forum, is seeking an amendment to Florida Senate bill SB 1126 which will undermine all the good work the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission has performed to date with regard to Florida's Anchoring and Mooring pilot program (Florida Statute 327.4105).
For the past 4+ years, FWC has met with local Florida Municipalities, Florida County governments, Property owners, Marinas, boat owners, the Navy, the Coast Guard, EPA, and Boating groups and Associations like SSCA. There has been a lot of give and take among all concerned and a lot of work by the 4 or 5 Municipalities who ultimately went forward with pilot programs. The pilot program temporally ended the wild west of anchoring in Florida, and the variety of pilot programs is giving FWC and others experience on how to best manage this resource.
Because there was so little data collected from the pilot program to date, the FWC and others have not had sufficient time to develop a lasting Florida Statute to codify lessons learned from the pilot program, it was agreed by many, if not all who attended the public forums, that the best near term action would be to extend the pilot program for another three years. Florida Senate Bill SB1126 was the legislative tool to such an extension.
Florida Senator Gwen Margolis is now seeking to undermine the current and proposed statute by allowing municipalities to regulate overnight anchoring and to prohibit anchoring of vessels within some unspecified distance from private residences ( Sunset Beach should come to mind....) Your SSCA CCC Chair attended all of the public meetings associated with the implementation of this pilot program and never heard one proposal, recommendation or complaint from any of her constituent Marinas, Municipalities, or property owners.
While we can all argue for more freedoms in navigation, including anchoring, the CCC believes the current compromise recognizes most of the needs of all those involved, and the extension associated with SB 1126 is viewed positively in the efforts to establish a long term legislative solution.
SB1126 as Amended is up before the Appropriations Committee tomorrow. The SSCA Concerned Cruisers’ Committee and your Board suggest that you please write to your FL senator as well as Senator Gwen Margolis and her Legislative Aide Zorida Druckman. Their email addresses are:
margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov & druckman.zorida@flsenate.com.
If you are a resident of Sen. Margolis’ district a phone call might help also. 327.4105 as extended by SB1126 isn’t perfect, but it’s MUCH better than nothing and the proposed amendment limits its effectiveness by permitting local officials to again harass visiting cruisers.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old 04-23-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

no,it's legal double speak.
SS 327.02 is more than sufficient ,as it clearly states municipalities cannot regulate anchoring of non live aboard vessels.
HB 1126 just extends the mooring field pilot program beyond it's sunset /ending date of 2014.
The amendment to HB 1126 is what was shot down.
more unnecessary legislation in an attempt to confuse and water down SS 327.02
No further legislation is necessary to preserve anchoring rights.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old 04-23-2014
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 0
Thanked 134 Times in 118 Posts
Rep Power: 4
JonEisberg will become famous soon enough
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by joethecobbler View Post
HB1126 I believe is the new law enacted to extend the
"pilot" program of mooring fields in Florida.
the pilot program was set to sunset this year,but the FWC needs more time to "study" it,so three more years.
can't wait for the economics of these mooring fields is exposed as the financial loosers they are.
If you're so confident that the mooring fields will be shown to be losers financially, I would think you'd be pleased that the pilot program would be extended by 3 years... Passage of this bill - without the Margolis amendment that would have restricted anchoring within a certain distance of shore in Miami and Dade counties - will maintain the status quo for another 3 years, thus offering further proof in support of your contention that the mooring fields are not viable...

What, do you really think the mooring fields in places like St Augustine and Marathon would have disappeared overnight, if the pilot program had not been extended?
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old 04-23-2014
smurphny's Avatar
Over Hill Sailing Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Adirondacks NY
Posts: 2,853
Thanks: 55
Thanked 63 Times in 61 Posts
Rep Power: 6
smurphny is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

It will be interesting to hear the financial results of these mooring fields, which IMO are a GREAT idea. I stayed on a mooring at Stuart this winter. There are 60 moorings which were full 100% of the time. In fact, the actual "occupancy" of the moorings exceeds 100% because many boats leave before their time is up to take advantage of weather windows and other boats fill right in. At $300/mo. X 60 moorings, they are taking in a gross amount of at least $18,000/mo. After maintenance and initial cost is taken into consideration, they may actually be in the blue. Not only that but the sailors there all buy all their supplies in Stuart, go to restaurants, use local marinas for repairs, and generally contribute to the local economy. Many quarters go into the laundry machines and many cold beers get slid across the bar at Duffy's:-)
__________________
Alberg 35: With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old 04-23-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
If you're so confident that the mooring fields will be shown to be losers financially, I would think you'd be pleased that the pilot program would be extended by 3 years... Passage of this bill - without the Margolis amendment that would have restricted anchoring within a certain distance of shore in Miami and Dade counties - will maintain the status quo for another 3 years, thus offering further proof in support of youyir contention that the mooring fields are not viable...

What, do you really think the mooring fields in places like St Augustine and Marathon would have disappeared overnight, if the pilot program had not been extended?
I oppose any extension to the pilot program.
this opposition is not contingent on the financial viability of the mooring fields.
separate issue. though related certainly.
from the inception of the implementation of the pilot program and the massive financial costs of the mooring fields I have contended ,due to the cost of the placement of the mooring fields, they would not simply "disappear" and I believe that was the unspoken reality no one wanted to address.
So, what would /will happen to the mooring fields when /if the pilot program ends? indeed, who will maintain them?
where is/are the financial records? ?
after years of implemented operation I've not seen a single financial study. why? this info should be front and center.

but all this still does not justify altering SS 327.02
which clearly supports anchoring.
I live here and have made a point of watching the mooring fields for capacity /usage.
my observations are they are loosers,with Marathon being a possible exception.
however, Marathon existed prior to the pilot program.
so,pointing to Marathon as an example of success of the pilot program really doesn't float.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old 04-23-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurphny View Post
It will be interesting to hear the financial results of these mooring fields, which IMO are a GREAT idea. I stayed on a mooring at Stuart this winter. There are 60 moorings which were full 100% of the time. In fact, the actual "occupancy" of the moorings exceeds 100% because many boats leave before their time is up to take advantage of weather windows and other boats fill right in. At $300/mo. X 60 moorings, they are taking in a gross amount of at least $18,000/mo. After maintenance and initial cost is taken into consideration, they may actually be in the blue. Not only that but the sailors there all buy all their supplies in Stuart, go to restaurants, use local marinas for repairs, and generally contribute to the local economy. Many quarters go into the laundry machines and many cold beers get slid across the bar at Duffy's:-)
How can you speak to what "every sailor " spends?
those statements are unsupported by any fact beyond your assumption.
Stuart, like St. Augustine implemented such overreaching anchoring restrictions and broad interpretation of the mooring areas as to essentially force anyone transmitting the area to utilize the moorings or anchor far from any dingy landing and/or upland facilities.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #8  
Old 04-23-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

if in fact the moorings were profitable, business would be fighting over the rights to run and implement more of them.As opposed to forcing them on boaters.
it was largely the landlubbers that supported their implementation.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #9  
Old 04-23-2014
smurphny's Avatar
Over Hill Sailing Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Adirondacks NY
Posts: 2,853
Thanks: 55
Thanked 63 Times in 61 Posts
Rep Power: 6
smurphny is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

Seemed to me that there were quite a few boats anchored in the area as well. With the tremendous number of abandoned nuisance vessels in Florida, it seems to me that this effort to provide some kind of structure to the situation is one of the more positive things I've seen government do in recent years. No one is making a pile of money on this for sure but isn't that the point, to make available secure anchorage at a reasonable price that average boaters can afford in order to solve a very real problem? I'm no fan of municipalities taking up my old favorite anchoring spots with moorings but when the situation is out of hand, something needs to be done. There is no way the 60 boats in the Stuart mooring field would even fit on the hook, they would not have a convenient place for dinks and shore access nor clean showers and internet access. The town of Stuart should be commended for the excellent job they've done in providing access and amenities to downtown and the effort they've expended to attract sailors.

And no, not "all" the sailors buy "all" their supplies there. Got me there.
__________________
Alberg 35: With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #10  
Old 04-23-2014
cruising all I can
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,006
Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 8
joethecobbler is on a distinguished road
Re: More Anti Anchoring legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurphny View Post
Seemed to me that there were quite a few boats anchored in the area as well. With the tremendous number of abandoned nuisance vessels in Florida, it seems to me that this effort to provide some kind of structure to the situation is one of the more positive things I've seen government do in recent years. No one is making a pile of money on this for sure but isn't that the point, to make available secure anchorage at a reasonable price that average boaters can afford in order to solve a very real problem? I'm no fan of municipalities taking up my old favorite anchoring spots with moorings but when the situation is out of hand, something needs to be done. There is no way the 60 boats in the Stuart mooring field would even fit on the hook, they would not have a convenient place for dinks and shore access nor clean showers and internet access. The town of Stuart should be commended for the excellent job they've done in providing access and amenities to downtown and the effort they've expended to attract sailors.

And no, not "all" the sailors buy "all" their supplies there. Got me there.
The mooring fields have done little if anything to alleviate the "derelict " and abandoned vessel issues. here in Florida.
if anything, the mooring fields and subsequent anchoring restrictions of areas adjacent the mooring fields have only made the problem wider spread.
Now, those choosing to anchor are forced further from upland facilities, pumpout,dingy dock, and "out of view ".
just look at St.Augustine for one example. the at risk vessels and undeclared live aboard vessels now anchor north and south of the city.
It hasn't done anything to eliminate that issue, just pushed it to a different area.
which is a convenient result for those who would like to see all anchoring eliminated. thus restricting boating to those of financial means. the true end game objective.
same for Titusville,mooring field half full (or half empty) most of the year.
and plenty of anchored vessels anchored just beyond the restricted mooring area. so now the derelict vessels come ashore further from the municipal marina, a bit more out of view.
how is that helpful?
souljour2000 likes this.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anti-fouling dubon Gear & Maintenance 2 11-21-2012 08:23 AM
Pending Federal Legislation impacting Boaters rperret General Discussion (sailing related) 1 07-27-2007 01:11 AM
Senate OKs sex offender legislation (The Burlington Free Press) NewsReader News Feeds 0 04-12-2006 06:15 PM
Digital Library Of Anti-Doping Resources Available - World Anti-Doping Agency @ ISAF - Sailing.org NewsReader News Feeds 0 04-07-2006 12:15 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:03 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.