SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Florida is at it again

64K views 470 replies 81 participants last post by  dennismenace111 
#1 ·
As most of us are aware there is legislation pending in the Florida Legislature that would ban overnight anchoring anywhere within 200 feet of any waterfront homes, whether they have boats or even docks or not. This provision could have significant adverse effects on the freedoms of cruisers and boaters cruising Florida waters. The Seven Seas Crusing Association (SSCA) have engaged to strongly oppose this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information about SSCA see Welcome to the Seven Seas Cruising Association ; for member benefits see The Seven Seas Cruising Association - IX - Member Benefits .
 
See less See more
#303 · (Edited)
And no one across the canal complains that their same or opposite side neighbor has a sailboat docked 24/7.

It's what Florida is all about. Keep in mind that the waterways are both legally and for all practical purposes distinct from neighborhood streets
There are lots of streets on which it's perfectly legal to park an RV overnight. Maybe just not the ones some waterfront owners have spent much time on.
I've seen the RV/boat analogy before. But I've yet to see a valid analogy between using the infrastructure of roads, side-street, highways, on- and off-street parking places, etc that's available to motor vehicles, and using our federally-controlled open water on which boats keep their occupants safe by staying afloat and intact.
And can you tell me why an anchorage and a parking lot aren't analogous? Can people who live across from a business's lot say, "No parking across the street from my house"? You can buy property on a shoreline where anchoring isn't feasible if you're that troubled by anchoring.
I'd also like to know the difference between a boat operator's right to move through water and his/her right to anchor in it. IOW, if stationary boats trouble you, what will happen when you decide that moving boats do also? What about stopping but not anchoring, like lobster boats here in Maine do all the time? How long is it OK to stop for?
You can point to instances of anchored boats causing problems with noise, pollution, dereliction, etc. and I think anyone would be sympathetic to aggressive ordinances tailored to those problems. But it's unreasonable, and pretty arrogant, to say, "I own the shoreline, it's expensive to own because of my water view, therefore I get to control the water view."
 
#305 ·
I'd also like to know the difference between a boat operator's right to move through water and his/her right to anchor in it. IOW, if stationary boats trouble you, what will happen when you decide that moving boats do also?
You can point to instances of anchored boats causing problems with noise, pollution, dereliction, etc. and I think anyone would be sympathetic to aggressive ordinances tailored to those problems. But it's unreasonable, and pretty arrogant, to say, "I own the shoreline, it's expensive to own because of my water view, therefore I get to control the water view."
Let's get the last point out of the way. It is arrogant for a shoreline owner to expect to control the water view. That said, it is also arrogant for the transient cruiser to expect to control that same water space. That's what public agencies, like harbor commissions, are for: to sort out conflicts and come up with solutions in the public interest. Yes, I know that there are some public agencies that don't get it right, but so, too, are boaters who expect no limits.

So back to the first part of the quote. There are neighborhoods where parking on public streets is reserved for residents as a result of abuse by the public. One example is Newport, RI, where certain neighborhoods have been repeatedly overrun by tourists and boaters arriving by land in the downtown harbor district. The city subsequently established "Resident parking only" areas so the locals could find a place to park within walking distance from their homes. We have a situation in New London, CT, where employees from a commercial operation were saturating the nearlby neighborhood parking. The city is now instituting the "residential parking only" restriction. These areas are typically enforced with the help of stickers for residents who have registered with the city.

Now, I'm not saying that boaters are generally abusing the waterfront, but there are enough troublemakers to generate resentment of uncontrolled transients. In our harbor alone, there have been at least 3 problemmatic boats that required town legal and police action to resolve. Do you think that the waterfront owners' property taxes might have paid for that enforcement?

If you haven't dealt with the issue of irresponsible boaters from the perspective of public agencies, you have no idea of the public burden resulting from attempts at enforcement. Aggressive regulations don't enforce themselves. If you need an example, check out the saga leading up the the destruction of a sailboat that was run aground in Niantic, CT, this year.
 
#304 ·
Well, your neighbors next door or across the canal have a vested interest in the neighborhood, whereas transients don't.
Define "the neighborhood".
My property is adjacent to land that is controlled by the government (a small state park). The state may or may not have considered the impact that permitted use of the park has on me. But I don't have the right to tell the state who can use the park and for what purpose. The park is in my "neighborhood", it affects my property use in ways both positive and negative, but I have no more right to dictate it's use than anyone else who lives in my state, and therefore owns a stake in the park.
Proximity to your home doesn't give you more rights over publicly-owned/controlled space than the general public has. If by 'neighborhood' you mean proximity, you take the good with the bad. Or move.
 
#306 · (Edited)
That said, it is also arrogant for the transient cruiser to expect to control that same water space.
Transient cruisers don't expect to control the water space. They do expect to be free to use it. Someone anchors too close and won't move, we can't call the cops or sue them. So that point's not out of the way at all.
The city subsequently established "Resident parking only" areas so the locals could find a place to park within walking distance from their homes. We have a situation in New London, CT, where employees from a commercial operation were saturating the nearlby neighborhood parking. The city is now instituting the "residential parking only" restriction.
So you want to eliminate anchoring in an anchorage because you want to anchor there? I don't think so. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
3 problemmatic boats that required town legal and police action to resolve. Do you think that the waterfront owners' property taxes might have paid for that enforcement?
Three problematic boats? Out of how many? Four? Six? A thousand? And you want to abolish anchoring altogether? And waterfront property owners' taxes aren't the only ones paying for it. Your neighbors a couple blocks back from shore, who may want a place to anchor, are also paying taxes. Federal tax money goes towards enforcing local ordinances, too. We all pay those.
Aggressive regulations don't enforce themselves.
Of course they don't. Neither do speed limits (in our neighborhoods) or drunk-driving laws. But somehow municipalities manage without banning all use of the roads. And do you think enforcing a law restricting everyone is going to be cheaper than enforcing one that's targeted at a few?
Waterfront owners derive great advantages from their locations. They have some occasional disadvantages. The rest of us don't owe them a fix at our common expense.
 
#309 ·
Transient cruisers don't expect to control the water space. They do expect to be free to use it. Someone anchors too close and won't move, we can't call the cops or sue them. So that point's not out of the way at all.

So you want to eliminate anchoring in an anchorage because you want to anchor there? I don't think so. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Three problematic boats? Out of how many? Four? Six? A thousand? And you want to abolish anchoring altogether? And waterfront property owners' taxes aren't the only ones paying for it. Your neighbors a couple blocks back from shore, who may want a place to anchor, are also paying taxes. Federal tax money goes towards enforcing local ordinances, too. We all pay those.

Of course they don't. Neither do speed limits (in our neighborhoods) or drunk-driving laws. But somehow municipalities manage without banning all use of the roads. And do you think enforcing a law restricting everyone is going to be cheaper than enforcing one that's targeted at a few?
Waterfront owners derive great advantages from their locations. They have some occasional disadvantages. The rest of us don't owe them a fix at our common expense.
You are totally missing the points in my post. I didn't advocate "eliminating anchoring", nor did I advocate laws that "target" anyone. Neither did I advocate "fixing" problems for waterfront owners. Rather, I would insist that highly taxed waterfront owners have paid a lot more than most for the privilege of advocating in their own interest.

That said, waterfront owners do not control public water space, but they can have legitimate concerns that should be considered by the public agencies that manage water space. Sometimes these concerns involve egregious behavior by boaters. Analogies to land side management of public space may not be perfect, but public agencies have ample precedent to restrict public use of waterways, just as they do on land, by balancing competing interests. In some cases, it is appropriate to consider the interests of adjacent property owners in setting public policy, just as in the case of residential parking restrictions.
 
#307 ·
RV's have laws and cannot be parked on public streets and that is because they are not subject to currents, drift, tide and so on. Boats can't be pulled over, they have limited choices. This does not address the difficulty w/ shipping lanes and shoals. People who compare RVs to boats at sea should not be allowed to voice an opinion because the comparison is just that lame.
At 62 I've seen a lot. People are like junkyard dogs. The lay idle, they are more likely to complain about anything....

The country keeps importing people so "rich developers" can squeeze tax payers to build them housing. Many of there developers and others who benefit from it, made a fortune overpopulating our country. Yet hate it when subject to the same grief we are.
Selfish people bent on giving us the crime and expense of dealing with their capitalization on our neighborhoods but then whining when that population bleeds over into their gated communities.
I don't know where it stops. Most can live in these places without locking their doors and I have enjoyed that myself but where the line is, is we need to slow the piling in of other countries or see this even more. It's not that I lack a heart. It's that my heart is in my home first.
You can see it in our rich leaders who are wealthy but figure out ways to give away our homes through eminent domain.
The boat escapes many of these problems and it infuriates them that such freedom exist. I can't really speak to all situations. Some people who are rich deserve a rest, I am all for it.
 
#308 ·
Though I understand both sides I don't think 200 ft is that bad of a compromise... I would not want to be moored to close to someone's back yard and I'm sure they would not like to have a backyard right on top of a mooring field. I live in Florida, and have a dock on the intracoastal. The laws here though often litigated seem to always kind of meet in the middle. At least from my experience..
 
#311 ·
The waterways belong to all of us, not just the few who are wealthy enough to have a waterfront home. There are not that many places to anchor as it is on the Atlantic ICW between Cape Canaveral and Miami. Prohibit anchoring 200 feet from a waterfront home and you essentially make the eastern part of Florida impossible to transit without using marinas.
 
#313 ·
The waterways belong to all of us....
So did the dirt, until people created a system of legal ownership of land. In fact, the government gave land away, that arguable belonged to all of us, in order to settle it.

Arguing the history of laws and regulations has some finite applicability in history. There is no inalienable human right here, it's simply what people created as law, which dates back only a puny amount of time we've occupied this planet. People can and do change them.

Compromise.
 
#315 ·
The only reason for the 200' setback is get rid of boaters. Otherwise it would not be acceptable for $10M houses to be 20' feet apart. But having been in Fort Lauderdale last week and taking a "cruise" on the Jungle Queen that goes down the river and back talking on a loud speaker behind $20M+ houses it just seems like so much BS
 
#316 ·
There will require a compromise here. 100ft? 150ft? Some areas with 100, others with 200?
There will be no compromise under 200'..................

Why? Because the main character involved in these attempts to restrict anchoring needs 200' to eliminate anchoring in his canal.

That is the situation plain and simple.

There are a lot of ridiculous arguments in this thread about RV's, taxes and property rights. The truth is this, another attempt will be made to restrict anchoring in the upcoming legislative session. If cruisers and boaters do not show up in opposition to these attempts we will get restrictions....................
 
#317 ·
There will be no compromise under 200'..................

Why? Because the main character involved in these attempts to restrict anchoring needs 200' to eliminate anchoring in his canal.

That is the situation plain and simple.
I think everyone understands that. However, it's an easy argument for that "character" to make to all the land dwelling voters. Think about it. Only 200 ft would restrict all anchoring. Has to be a very, very, very tight place to anchor in the first place. Easy to make a safety issue out of it.

I think everyone also understands that this particular situation will translate to all of FL, therefore, there may need to be a compromise to keep the non-boating public from just handing such an easy to understand (from the non-boater) win to this character.

Finally, I also understand that lobbying for anything requires an extreme view and ugly fighting. Unfortunate, but true. I'm just afraid that ultimately we'll lose this one and we should try to salvage as much as we can. All or nothing, could seriously end up with nothing. Negotiate a 100ft setback and the legislature is unlikely to ever take it up again, it would be settled at that point. The "character" essentially loses, because there are still some boats, but we have to compromise to a reasonable separation. One which I would never encroach upon anyway.
 
#321 ·
What will prove asinine, would be losing this fight, because landowners, who grossly outnumber recreational boaters, change the law, while boaters just insist the law was always meant to read like it presently does. Laws are man made.

Yes, this guy is not right. Neither is everyone equally stubborn about it from the other direction. Exhibit A...... declaring a counter argument to be asinine, then posting a video that doesn't even address the RV analogy. To the non-boating public, I'm afraid we look like the stubborn ones. And they outnumber us.
 
#322 ·
#323 ·
The RV argument is an analogy, not a direct argument. More to the point, land dwellers changed laws at one time to restrict living on public roads and nothing says that can't do it again for inland waterways. They just need enough votes.

I don't want to see it happen, but its one of those classic battles that are held off, then held off again, and again, until one miss and it's lost forever. Compromise now and that will stick for a long, long time.
 
#324 ·
nothing says that can't do it again for inland waterways.
You know how I know you didn't read the link??

The Florida Public Trust Doctrine say's just that............. That they cannot make laws to restrict the use of the waterways, period.
 
#325 ·
Other than BoatUS, what action/effort is being taken by Florida boaters to restriction prevent bills from getting passed?
 
#327 ·
Other than BoatUS, what action/effort is being taken by Florida boaters to restriction prevent bills from getting passed?
Unfortunately, not much. I attended the Senate Hearing last year. There were only about three or four other individuals there. BoatUS, SSCA, NMMA had representatives and of course Mr. Karlton was there.

I was hoping threads like this would be more about how FL boaters could come together to defeat bills like these and not about discussing RVs, taxes and BS.
 
#328 ·
It would seem that the battle really needs to be fought by Florida boaters and a very small percentage of them are on forums. Most of course are in marinas, but since marinas don't stand to lost anything here they aren't going to do any battles. The only other places than would care are businesses that get traffic from people anchoring and coming in, but this would seem to be a very small percentage.

Maybe the only real hope is that the Florida legislatures are boaters so they would care.
 
#330 ·
Minnewaska is right on in his position that compromise is the path to a reasonable resolution of the conflicts here.
I've already pointed out that anything less than a 200' set-back will not be compromised by Karlton. Maybe you guys are not paying attention..........
 
#332 ·
Do really think that Charles Dean Sr., who represents district 5, that bastion of anchoring and boating in FL, who also authored SB1548 pulled 200' out of thin air. Who also refused to remove or alter the set back in the senate hearings............

When they reintroduce the new bill, I can guarantee the set-back will be no less than 200'.
 
#333 ·
So, the new boating regulations would be the result of a democratic process? If you've made your best argument during the work-up, that's as much as you are entitled to.

Lawmakers, by the way, are empowered to make judgement calls which are arguably not pulled out of thin air, except in the eye of the disappointed beholder.
 
#334 ·
You really need to watch the videos of the senate hearings. I was there and posted the videos here. I think they are back around page 13. They were determined to not let anyone in opposition of the bill speak.
 
#336 ·
You get legislators who are on your side to actively do something that has the political cover of being a compromise (ie 100ft or something else)
If you can't even get the legislators to listen to you how do you suppose to get a compromise? Once again here are the videos of the senate hearings on SB 1548:

https://www.flsenate.gov/media/VideoPlayer?EventID=2443575804_2015031526

https://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2015041158

I doubt you'll watch the videos. However, in both cases, they let very few people speak, and then only allowed those to waive in favor or opposition. In both cases there were more in opposition, yet the bill passed both committees anyway.

How will we get compromise like this ???????????????
 
#337 ·
One doesn't negotiate compromise in open hearings. That's not what they are for. You need lobbyists with access privately, where I know first hand that elected officials will listen. These firms are for hire. Done every day of the week. Not all will listen, but many, and they are remarkably more honest when the cameras aren't rolling too. I can tell you're frustrated, but it doesn't sound to me like there is a professional approach to this challenge, just a lot of anger.
 
#338 ·
That said, waterfront owners do not control public water space, but they can have legitimate concerns that should be considered by the public agencies that manage water space. Sometimes these concerns involve egregious behavior by boaters.
I think I understand your point clearly.
I agree with your statement quoted above. But making public space off-limits for legitimate public use, as in banning anchoring in anchorages, as has been proposed, disregards the legitimate interests of other members of the public. It's drastic overreach that's ostensibly aimed at a real but very circumscribed problem.
The high taxes you and I pay on waterfront property certainly entitles us to "advocate for our interests". But they don't entitle us to manage our views by assuming control of something that doesn't belong exclusively to us. High tax burdens don't grant us exceptional rights. Simply using a safe anchorage, in itself, is apparently an egregious behavior to some who'd prefer not to have boats cluttering their own personal scenery. If you have a complaint about specific problem behaviors by some transients, I'm in complete sympathy with regs tailored to target those behaviors--behaviors that you yourself seem to have said was not typical of all anchoring cruisers. You want to live by the water, you take the bad with the good. It's everybody's ocean.
 
#339 ·
"Everybody's ocean" is exactly the point. That includes the vast number of citizens that live on land. Disputes like this are settled by democracy and the boaters are greatly outnumbered. This isn't just about the waterfront homeowner, other land dwellers, and their representatives, will also have a say.

The waterway is already highly regulated, from commerce to navigation to required safety equipment, etc. It would not be that difficult for someone to contrive a new regulation that would not necessarily prohibit anchoring, but would make it all but impossible. Maybe anchor tests, or anchoring registration for safety contacts, etc, etc. Even the navigable channel might be widened to eliminate the anchorage.

So again, I'm on the side of the boater. I just don't want to see this go down forever. Who exactly even wants to anchor within 100ft of land anyway? Setbacks are legal and highly common, both on the water and on land. Don't lose this one by being stubborn.
 
#340 ·
One doesn't negotiate compromise in open hearings. That's not what they are for. You need lobbyists with access privately, where I know first hand that elected officials will listen.
Well I guess having hearings must be a waste of time then. Please let us know when you will be coming down to FL to be the FT lobbyist. Also, do you have a crystal ball? Because as far as I know, these bills have been authored by someone different every year and we will also need to know which legislators will be on which committees in the house and senate the bills will go through.

Again if you watch the videos, at least on the senate bill, the senators tactic in the hearings was clear. Put-off, postpone and then try to cram the bill in, in the last five minutes. If a hundred more boaters were there, they would not have been able to pull it off in the allotted time.

Believe me, I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think our side will get any type of compromise in our favor. The thing that is most troubling is having to debate things like RVs and other ridiculous analogies , on a sailing forum, instead of having intelligent conversation about what can be done.
 
#343 ·
Well I guess having hearings must be a waste of time then.
Yes, mostly they are. They are done so that legislators can have their photo opportunities, and can have their moment on video. Despite the pretense, they are almost never done so that legislators can gather information--99% of the time the legislators in attendance have already made up their minds. Hearings are a show for the benefit of the public, and almost never anything more than that.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about how wrong that is, and I agree with you completely. Nonetheless, the plain fact of the matter is that this is how politics in America works nowadays.

If you want to be heard, and you want to make a difference, it is not going to happen just by showing up at a hearing. You have to get a legislators ear first, long before the hearing. Then he or she can make sure that you are given time in front of the cameras during the hearing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top