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
#2 ·
I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.

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

Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?
 
#4 ·
I understand completely from a cruisers perspective why they'd want to fight rules like this. What I don't understand is why the same cruisers would undoubtedly be appalled and fight it with all means available if random people traveling in RV's decided to frequently overnight on the street right in front of the cruisers land home.

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

Can anyone explain the difference to me between people randomly parking RV's in front of your home on your street, and cruisers randomly anchoring in front of peoples homes? Isn't it basically the same thing, one being expected as a right, the other obviously being unacceptable as they have designated areas and no one wants a bunch of random RV's in front of their homes all summer/winter?
Some communities ban overnight parking on the streets within their jurisdiction. The community members either pay the taxes to INSTALL and maintain the street, or pay directly to install and maintain the street, and it's supporting infrastructure.

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

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

This comes down to a property rights issue, and delineating where property ends. The native americans had no concept of PRIVATE property, and why they relinquished the right to Manhattan for $24, and some beads...
 
#3 ·
The cruising community needs to unite to come anywhere near balancing the voice of the landowners, who greatly outnumber the boaters. However, there also needs to be a compromise here, as there are two valid sides of the story.

Personally, I have a hard time sleeping, when anchored less than 200 feet from anything hard. As we all know, that looks a lot closer than it is.
 
#8 ·
I'm not very clever. Does the SSCA have a "pro-forma" letter that I can use, to write my Federal rep? I understand the problem, but I'm not sure I could articulate it in an effective manner.
I'll get one up here today.
 
#11 ·
Yes, but are there Federal limitations that supersede the states' ability to legislate over this? NJ shore towns' ability to ban non-residents from their beaches was overturned overturned in the Federal courts. Does similar issues apply here?
 
#20 ·
200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.

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

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

I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens. I also do believe sincerely that if RV's suddenly started landing less than 200' from your home, blocking your views that you don't own, you'd probably be up in arms and have the problem dealt with in short order.
 
#21 ·
200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.

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

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

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

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

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

But the fact is, the vast majority of cruisers are good stewards of the water, and leave no footprint. And the few that aren't can be dealt with without a total ban, using laws that are usually on the books already.
...I'll never understand why cruisers often hold the locals of tropical foreign lands in the utmost regard, and totally respect their culture and customs, but at home often show none of this courtesy to their fellow citizens.
Back up this statement with facts. Give examples where cruisers "often show none of this courtesy..." Hi shoulder, here's chip. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MastUndSchotbruch
#23 ·
"200' doesn't seem unreasonable to me"

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

This whole thing is similar to what happened to our local airport. A developer came in and bought property right next to the airport and built more than 100 new homes, sold them. A year later the new residents were all in an uproar over noise and claimed the airport was not safe being that close to their homes. They spent several years tiring to have the airport closed. Fortunately the local pilots won the court battle this time. Many small airports have not won. I see the same thing happening to boaters rights. Then it will be a rich mans hobby because the little guy will not be able to afford it.
 
#25 ·
It would seem that if you called the 200' distance a "setback" that you could then call it unreasonable unless there is a zoning requirement for that in a community. Saying that a 20' setback for houses is OK, but 200' is required for a boat to land is required may be a good way to challenge this whole thing.
 
#26 ·
CnC,

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

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

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

Unconstitutional laws, and civil and state laws which conflict with Federal law get passed all the time, and sometimes stay on the books for years. That doesn't mean that these laws are correct or just. Justice is exposing these bad laws before the courts and getting them overturned. Then, the local authorities can attempt to craft new laws that don't run afoul of our rights, and higher laws.
 
#58 ·
Justice is exposing these bad laws before the courts and getting them overturned. Then, the local authorities can attempt to craft new laws that don't run afoul of our rights, and higher laws.
All true, and all expensive.

Honestly I am not advocating for the evil rich people or even a setback. I just expressed that 200' doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Frankly speaking I don't actually care one way or the other, but I will enjoy watching it play out.
It seems from this statement and some inconsistencies in your previous posts that you are just here to stir the pot, which is unfortunate. As you say you don't care about the issue. You seem to be enjoying winding people up. That's an odd hobby.

One thing that just occurred to me regarding the right to navigation argument: Is there anything in that that states navigation includes stopping and overnighting? The word Navigation seems to imply navigating, ie; the passage of ships as defined. Just a thought.. anyone know?
Yes. Navigation includes anchoring. My understanding is that anchoring rights within the US are protected as part of interstate commerce. This is a broader definition than the international one under UNCLOS.

The lobbying game is played by asking for more than you are willing to accept. No other way. However, I think a reasonable compromise is logical here. If not 200ft, then what? 100? 75?
Part of the discussion will include what upland property setbacks apply to at all. If property rights end at the high water mark (as they do in Florida, different than MHHW in many jurisdictions since there is so much non-tidal water) why should any setback apply at all? I'm all for access to private, commercial, and public docks and boat ramps at some reasonable level (which again requires judgment and negotiation).
 
#29 ·
200' doesn't seem at all unreasonable if you think about it, 200' is not very far. If you can't anchor, move along until you find a place where you're at least 200' from a persons home. I don't see the big deal here.
I'm always amazed that there is one of these guys in every anchoring thread on a sailboat forum.

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

An unintended consequence of the bill is that anchorages that can support multiple boats from the set back will become more filled with boats, thus making the anchorage less safe. And some people will end up anchoring in less sheltered places making those vessels and others less safe as well.
 
#30 ·
Waterfront property owners bought the land, not the water. With that in mind I'm having a hard time understanding the validity in these owners dictating what can and can not be in the publicly held waters they paid to live next to and share, not own.

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

All things considered, when the polar ice caps melt my property increases exponentially and this subject will become moot ;)
 
#33 ·
A number of years ago I bought a house on a lake. One of the reasons I loved the house so much was that it was private. Although there were neighbors on both sides, I could not see their houses from my property because of the trees and bushes.

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

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

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

I do agree that minimum stand off distances that have a real purpose, such as to ensure a waterfront owner's dock is not blocked is reasonable. In Annapolis, I think the distance is 75 feet. Something along those lines seems reasonable. But passing a law primarily to grant additional aesthetic view rights to homeowners seems wrong.
 
#37 ·
What's my point? Just that the waterfront homeowners own their land, but not the view and not the water. If they do not want to see boats anchored in front, they can plant trees. That will block the view of the water too...but that's their choice.
One of the more amusing ironies of this pending bill - that one has to wonder whether supporters of its passage have even bothered to read it closely enough to have noticed - is that anchoring within 200 feet of a developed shoreline is only prohibited "...between the times of one hour past sunset, and one hour before sunrise..."

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

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

:)

 
#34 ·
If I may chime in with a landlocked anecdote…

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

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

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

Fortunately in Minnesota the state prevailed and the trails remain open. I wish Florida the same luck.
 
#36 ·
Well, there have been a lot of responses so I'll try to discuss them all in general instead of a bunch of specific quote boxes.

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

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

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

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

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

Mooring fields, designated areas and setbacks measured in feet don't seem unreasonable, and it also doesn't seem unreasonable to come to grips with the fact that areas change and the places you could once anchor are getting developed and/or too crowded to continue to support the fairly vast space requirements a sailboat needs to anchor out. I think if you take off the sailors goggles and see this from a typical persons perspective, none of what said is out of line with common sense.
 
#39 ·
Well, there have been a lot of responses so I'll try to discuss them all in general instead of a bunch of specific quote boxes.

{snip}

The boaters rights argument -

There really aren't "boaters rights". There are the rights to free and unfettered use of public, navigable waterways. These rights have existed nearly since our nation was founded. I simply cannot understand why homeowner's rights should suddenly extend far beyond the mean high tide waterline. I cannot wrap my brain around why an entire long-standing community should alter their behavior to accommodate a single, new, disruptive element that has entered that community. (other than the fact that the disruptive element exerts undue influence via finances.)

{snip}

The it's a life style argument.

You can "stand by it" all you like, it's still your opinion masquerading as fact.
I have a cruiser/liveaboard friend who makes his living working at marinas, doing canvas, composites and engine work. He lives alone, aboard an immaculate Albin Vega. He works hard, and is hardly "sun-ing and fun-ing" his way through life. He's not retired by any stretch.

Basically what you're saying, is that people have no right to decide to live and work on/from a boat instead of a ground based dwelling. They are deviants who have no rights, and it's perfectly ok to suddenly revoke rights which have existed nearly since this nation was founded, to satisfy a handful of people who don't want to look at them.

{snip}

You keep using the term "reasonable" with regards to terms like "setback" and "200 feet" without ever having visited the area, or really having done any research into the issue. It just "sounds reasonable" to you.

You also keep insisting that home ownership is the only valid basis of contribution to the tax base of a community, without any real numbers to back up what the cruising community contributes in total tax and sales revenue vs a handful of McMansion powerful owners. Sure, they may pay more in total taxes, but they also have a much larger "footprint" and a larger demand for community services than cruisers. You may be right, but you don't really have any facts to support that statement.
At one point, you were poised to enter this lifestyle. I wonder what your tune would be, if you actually had, and were attempting to cruise down in this area. Since you're not cruising, it all seems perfectly reasonable to you, I guess.
 
#40 ·
Chris,
I'm not sure if you really feel this way or are simply feeling contrarian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim
 
#41 ·
Chris, as you know, I'm a history buff, and I can assure you that much of the land in Florida that is now developed was not owned, or inhabited by native Americans. In fact, much of the land where those McMansions are situated were nothing more than tidal marshlands and uninhabitable by anything other than gators, fish and birds. And, don't forget about the Chinese that were frequently in the area long before those native Americans - whoops! The land where those McMansions arose was frequently filled in my developers, allowed to settle and compact for a couple years, then those homes were constructed. I know several folks that live in them and they are mostly retirees from up north, people who hoped their children and grand children would either move down to Florida, or at least spend lots of time with grandma and grandpa during their retirement years. Ironically, the kids didn't do this very often and the homeowners continued to rattle around in their mega-mansions looking for things to do.

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

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

All the best,

Gary :cool:
 
#45 ·
Chris, as you know, I'm a history buff, and I can assure you that much of the land in Florida that is now developed was not owned, or inhabited by native Americans. In fact, much of the land where those McMansions are situated were nothing more than tidal marshlands and uninhabitable by anything other than gators, fish and birds. And, don't forget about the Chinese that were frequently in the area long before those native Americans - whoops! The land where those McMansions arose was frequently filled in my developers, allowed to settle and compact for a couple years, then those homes were constructed.
Good post Gary, and one better directed at the poster I was responding too (since I was also disagreeing with the notion of "but, it's always been...").

Hopefully that poster sees your post.

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

What's happening here is like you buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise.
Actually, I must have missed the 5000 other threads on that. A link or two might have been nice, but ok.

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

If you have to say you don't have a chip or a grudge, you may well have such... just saying.
Or, looked at another way - in a post peppered with multiple accusations towards me personally, taking one measly line to apologize and mention that I don't actually feel that way towards cruisers might actually not mean confirmation of.. "Witch! Burn the heretic!"

I also think no one's quoting him because they realize that he's just being a troll and trying to stir up crap and no one's biting.
Care to expound on why a differing opinion than yours automatically means troll? Is it really so difficult to accept that others who like boats might not tow the party line so to speak? I haven't attacked anyone personally (while being attacked personally), and I have made every attempt to present a thoughtful and detailed set of posts regarding my thoughts on this topic.

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

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

Flame suit's on, have at it gents. I have said all I wanted to say unless someone says something interesting.
 
#42 ·
Again the RV argument (no one seems to quote or discuss this particular one I notice), how long would you put up with an influx of RV's on your street less than 200' from your front door?
The reason no one is quoting this or discussing it, is that it has been beat to death about 5000 times in other threads. Navigable waters are not private property, navigable waters in Florida can not be regulated by municipalities. Anchoring is part of navigation.

What's happening here is like you buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise.
 
#47 ·
Chris, you have to understand that while most people look out on the water and see random transients coming and going, they do in fact belong to a community that is hundreds of years old, outdating any N.American nation even. This community has been active with every subsequent generation and have seen coastlines filled in with houses. A homeowner may buy land on the waterfront, but most likely the sailors who share the water with him/her has been using those anchorages for decades longer than the homeowner has lived there. The reason people are getting upset is because they've been traversing these waterways for many years just to have newcomers bulldoze the natural environment, chase away the wildlife, and then demand these vessels stay far away from these anchorages because... Why?

I have to ask Chris, what is the motivation behind your viewpoint? Why must vessels remain 200' away from these properties? What threat are we posing exactly to justify such legislation? Your neighbors live closer to you than the anchored boats so I don't understand. In addition to what DavyJ said about buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise; it's like forcing your neighbors out too because they only live there seasonally (albeit for the past 30 yrs). That's why the push back to this legislation is so spirited.
 
#49 ·
Chris, you have to understand that while most people look out on the water and see random transients coming and going, they do in fact belong to a community that is hundreds of years old, outdating any N.American nation even. This community has been active with every subsequent generation and have seen coastlines filled in with houses. A homeowner may buy land on the waterfront, but most likely the sailors who share the water with him/her has been using those anchorages for decades longer than the homeowner has lived there. The reason people are getting upset is because they've been traversing these waterways for many years just to have newcomers bulldoze the natural environment, chase away the wildlife, and then demand these vessels stay far away from these anchorages because... Why?
I get this viewpoint, and agree in a lot of ways with it. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint however, I also get that waterfront property has value and people pay a premium to invest for their long term in it. I'd understand it better if we were talking about pristine wild lands that all of a sudden were developed and all boating was outlawed, but we're actually talking about long developed land where new regs are being proposed that don't outlaw boating, just setbacks for anchoring out near homes.

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

I have to ask Chris, what is the motivation behind your viewpoint? Why must vessels remain 200' away from these properties? What threat are we posing exactly to justify such legislation? Your neighbors live closer to you than the anchored boats so I don't understand. In addition to what DavyJ said about buying a piece of property next to the freeway, and then trying to block traffic because you don't like the noise; it's like forcing your neighbors out too because they only live there seasonally (albeit for the past 30 yrs). That's why the push back to this legislation is so spirited.
My motivation? Well, I still like boats and some boat topics, and sometimes a thread piques my interest like this one did. No big motive or mystery. Honestly since getting out of the bubble, I am often fascinated by the cruising dream and sailing scene as advertised and marketed vs the reality and truth of what my and others personal experiences and observations have been about the entire scene, and certainly what I often read right here on Sailnet. A simple scroll back at some of the comments made in this thread towards my posts show what I am talking about. It's kind of like "NO ONE puts baby in a corner!" when you dare go against sailing doctrine of any variety. Hell, you can't even mention that "marine" grey butyl is nothing but a scam and is identical to RV grey butyl without being burned at the stake around here. It's funny.

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

You are making a lot of assumptions. People give and take all through life, it's not fair, it never will be fair.
I don't think I am making any more or less assumptions than many here are about the evil "rich people".

That guy/gal anchored out living his retirement/vacation dream for a few years until he can't may just have cured something. You don't know jackshit about his or her story. You have NO idea how much in taxes, fees and whatnot they pay or have paid over their lifetime.
Do I have to know jackshit about anyone's personal history? We're talking about policy here, which applies across the board and doesn't take emotional stuff like this into account. I do have an idea that if said cruiser never lived in such and area but anchors there, he hasn't really "invested" in the area, he's just using it.

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

Don't like people enjoying life and nature? Don't buy a house in front of an anchorage or a campground.
Well, the same argument could be made that "Don't like anchoring restrictions? Sail somewhere there are none. It's a big ocean out there".

Don't buy a house and then try to start changing laws because you don't like what you bought into. It is EXACTLY like buying a house on a freeway and then trying to enact laws to stop the traffic.
This is such a false argument, it assumes the world stops and freezes at where it currently sits. Times and things change, and what was once a place you could express your freedom in might not be in the future due to a myriad of factors like population growth/shift, economics etc. Life changes, what are you gonna do.
 
#57 ·
The local municipality may or may not have the legal right to restrict usage of their waterfront. But, what's the argument, if this was done on a federal level? They do, in fact, own the waterfront.

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

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

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

I also see a reasonable point to only allow a certain number of days in one location, at least in a location that is so tight that these setbacks are an issue at all. By definition, one would be blocking another user, in those spots, if you stayed perpetually.
 
#59 ·
I would like a set back for anyone anchoring near my boat. :)

We're talking about distances I worry people will drag into me. Being that close to shore must often be impractical, due to depth. Unless in a dredged channel. Whoever dredged it, probably feels like they should have some say over who now has access to it.
 
#60 ·
I understand your viewpoint Chris so let me try to explain my situation so you can fully understand mine. Take into consideration how many full-time cruisers there are out there sailing from one location to the next; probably doesn't break 6 digits worldwide. With that in mind, only a couple will be in any one location at a time which means the majority of people using these anchorages are locals. Take me for example; I pay taxes in Hillsborough county, I sail in Hillsborough county. I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, heritage citizen of the USA (seeing as how I didn't colonize the continent 200+ years ago) and my money supports the ecosystem I sail in. Did taxpayer dollars build the waterways I traverse and the anchorages that shelter me? No. They existed as far back as the Eocene epoch 56 million years ago. With that said, my taxes and the other citizen's taxes equally pay for the management of our SHARED and PUBLIC resource so why am I to be treated like a second class citizen just because I don't pay property taxes on a property I don't own? It's not like property is mandatory, especially waterfront which is purely a luxury that comes at a premium price. My money supports the waterways just as much as any homeowner, besides which their property taxes end at the high tide line so what gives? It's not like I'm infringing upon their rights on the land they pay for and live on. This legislation on the other hand does so to me despite the taxes I equally pay.

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

These anchorages aren't free vacation spots, they're an integral part of boating life providing shelter from the weather. A house has the luxury of being in a single stable place, wind and water currents control our lives and these anchorages are the only respite we have from the elements.
 
#61 ·
Chris is deliberately skirting the topic he cannot address -- specifically that waterways are considered public access and therefore cannot be restricted.

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

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

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

.
 
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