[SVAuspicious]

Let me first make clear that I'm not a decision maker here. I am active in SSCA and I am spending my own time at my own expense doing research and writing position papers for the chair of the SSCA Concerned Cruisers' Committee (CCC - our version of Government Affairs).

There is a lot of grunt work to do and more volunteers would be gratefully put to work.

The following responses are my personal opinions. While my opinions tend to align with SSCA proposals my term on the Board of Directors and as SSCA President are over.

I always anchor far enough way from nearby docks to protect my own interests (swinging into it, dragging anchor, etc) that also gives those owners room to come and go as they please.

My concern is in narrow bodies of water, trying to keep you swinging circle atleast 150' from both sides of the shore, ends of docks would really limit those areas.

Good. That is as it should be. Whatever the number is, can't we understand why a homeowner with a boat on their dock would want something in law or regulation?

Not sure where the 150 foot number is now coming from, previously talk of a 300' setback has been bandied about. Below are the maps Dave was referring to, which clearly indicate anchoring would be all but eliminated in much of Broward County, and a spot like Lake Sylvia might only accommodate 2 or 3 boats dead center...

Let your voice be heard! Potential Florida anchoring restrictions | General | Waterwayguide.com News Updates

Thank you Jon for dredging (ha!) those up, and to the good folks at the Waterway Guide for generating them.

I'm not sure where the 150' number came from either. Personally I think even that is a bit much. Here in Annapolis we have a 75' stand-off requirement from docks, piers, and ramps. We have a 150' stand-off from installed moorings. When I kept my boat in a slip on Back Creek there were times when boats anchored well inside 75' and I couldn't get out of the fairway and into the Creek (I like to think I'm a pretty good boathandler, so they were really close). At nearby Mears Marina there was a move to increase the stand-off distance because some slipholders fell they didn't have adequate clearance to get into and out of their slips. We (SSCA and I personally) did a lot of work to beat that back.

What about if there isn't a house there, but it's still private land. Is it a privacy issue drifting 149' to an empty swamp that part of a larger estate with a house on it somewhere?

Again, I am not a decision-maker. My own position is that a stand-off from marine infrastructure (docks, piers, ramps, and such) is reasonable. The number for that offset is subject to discussion. I personally would not object to codifying civility to prevent running lines, or landing dinghies (particularly for walking pets) above the high tide line on personal property. You could probably talk me into limitations on public property (like parks); if you can't legally drive up with a car to walk your dog you shouldn't be able to dinghy in to walk your dog. I wouldn't object to existing ordinances against littering to apply to leaving trash on private docks and piers. Fair is fair. I wouldn't object to existing ordinances against trespass being applied by people who help themselves to water (and even electricity!) on private docks.

I very strongly agree that the self-entitled that think they bought their view with their homes should be disabused of that notion. On the other hand, trespass and damage to personal property should not be allowed. The ability to use personal property (docks, piers, ramps, etc) should be protected.

 

[capta]

Some years back, the Marco Island home owner's association took offense at a 70' shrimp boat I purchased from a customs auction.
They forced the boat from my marina and after a bit of research, I found a loophole. The ICW is a federal waterway, not coming under town or state regulations. If you anchor within the federal jurisdiction, but outside the navigable waterway, the local and state leo's are powerless to bother you, legally. Mind you I was extremely courteous when the city police, county sheriff and finally the FMP came by to hassle me, but all accepted that they were powerless to make me move.
Oddly enough, my shrimper was such an eyesore for the Marco Island home owner's association, that they found me a slip close by, but out of sight, AND paid the first 6 month's rent, just to get me to move.

 

[Yorksailor]

I have sailed many times between Fenandino Beach, Key West and many points in between but except for Biscayne Bay I have never traveled longitudinally on the ICW in Florida even when I was on a ICW friendly boat.

How big is the problem? Are there hundreds or thousands of boat anchoring each night within a boat's length of private docks in Florida?

Will a 150 ft setback force these boats to use marinas or sail at night on the outside?

Phil, a Florida resident who can and does vote!

 

[Don L]

I took the survey, but wonder if the first part of putting in my zip code means that it really just goes into a "who cares what he thinks" folder.

 

[Minnewaska]

Tough lobbying issue. In all likelihood, both sides will over argue their case, hoping a settlement would be more like what they could live with. Unfortunately, the system is designed that way.

If I were a benevolent dictator, I would impose the following. A setback is fine, it's just a matter of distance. While I would have no sympathy for a land owner that simply wanted to remove boats from their waterfront any more than remove parked cars from the street, a reasonable setback is just good seamanship. Let's face it, there are a-hole boaters who will drop a hook anywhere, just like there are a-hole landowners who are unreasonable. 75', 100', 150', I would welcome reactions to the specific, but something should be reasonable. Seriously, sleeping 75' from a hard object in a stiff wind would ruin my night anyway. This shouldn't be a big deal.

As for an unattended anchored boat? I have little sympathy. To leave a boat unattended, at anchor, near any personal property it could reasonably drag into is not acceptable. Again, very poor seamanship. That property could as easily be another boat. 60 days? I would say 3 days. Sorry, flame on, if you must. You can't abandon your car on the street either.

While I'm sure there are land owners that are being unreasonable, I suspect this is driven by examples of some real derelict year round floating turds. I don't mean unattractive, I mean derelict. Perhaps some that are not seaworthy or even mobile and the authorities have no law that allows them to deal with it. We had an abandon boat at anchor in Newport harbor for over a year before authorities could take possession and eventually sell it at auction. I could also live with a rule that said you must be capable of making way, if you are in navigable waters, with an exception for temporary repair.

In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels.

I will take the survey and side with the no restriction folks, assuming some middle ground is what will actually be reached.

 

[Multihullgirl]

In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels

well, there's a jackwagon down my street that has turned his house into a powerboat repair shop, and is parking his crappy 'flip' boats on the street for storage. So I guess you could say, you can park your BOAT on the street...

 

[SVAuspicious]

In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels.

Not a good analogy. There are jurisdictions where overnight street parking is explicitly forbidden; Garden City NY comes to mind. There are many more where resident permits are required.

 

[wfish11]

I think the real problem with all of this is that it will just become another law that is enforced only for the rich and famous. If you're just a normal waterfront home owner you'll just be run through the merry go round of police agencies. If you're a judge or other important person they'll be right there, unless the owner of the boat is a judge or VIP. Letting each local agency create it's own rules is ridiculous, it infringes on our rights as tax payers who own the water and only gives the town the right to write tickets to pay for enforcement.

If those people really want to control the water they need to purchase that right. In Fl you can lease the submerged lands, the marinas all have to do this. At least then these people would have to pay for that view.

There are already laws on the books in FL that address abandoned or derelict boats. The agencies don't enforce the laws. Why? the state doesn't give them any money to do so. The gas tax and registration fees all go to other projects. Solving that problem is a no brainer. If you abandon your boat or sell it without properly transferring the title, you are still responsible for it as the last documented owner and you will get the bill from the state for recycling it.

 

[SENCMac26x]

My own position is that a stand-off from marine infrastructure (docks, piers, ramps, and such) is reasonable. The number for that offset is subject to discussion.

It seems we agree, though the statute should be cleared on those types of structure and not use a catch all like "Residential Propertly"

Also thinking about this last night...just because I and a majority of other boaters leave space for nearby dock owners; sadly doesn't mean the world isn't full of A$$h0l3$ who won't.

So it probably does need to be codified into something reasonable.

 

[capta]

The rich and famous ain't that smart. A number of years back, the Palm Beach City council passed a no liveaboard law for their waters. Unthinkingly, it covered their yachts behind the mansions and in the marina, so when we brought the yacht home, the owners had to rent the yacht crews hotel rooms, rather than have us aboard the yachts.
I don't think that law lasted but a season or two. Dumb.

 

[masterofnone]

There are already laws on the books in FL that address abandoned or derelict boats. The agencies don't enforce the laws. Why? the state doesn't give them any money to do so. The gas tax and registration fees all go to other projects. Solving that problem is a no brainer. If you abandon your boat or sell it without properly transferring the title, you are still responsible for it as the last documented owner and you will get the bill from the state for recycling it.

I second this. An orange tag is placed on the hull that gives the owner 30 days to come into compliance. If you havent been to your boat to check on it in 30 days your negligent and your boat is derelict in my opinion. Its quite expensive if your boat is removed, I think it starts around 5k. No need to enact new laws, just enforce the ones that are already in place.

 

[DavyJ]

Solving that problem is a no brainer

The problem is that they are not trying to solve that problem, (derelicts). They are just using that tactic to eliminate anchoring behind wealthy waterfront homeowners property.

I attended the pilot program workshops back in '07 or '08. I also attended the recent workshop on anchoring in Bradenton.

At these meetings hundreds of people got up and spoke and voiced their opposition to the regulations, mooring field prohibitions, time limits and set backs. The government officials and the FWC are not listening.

They are intent on eliminating anchoring in certain locations. They conveniently have derelicts and abandoned boats to use as their excuse.

 

[Multihullgirl]

The problem is that they are not trying to solve that problem, (derelicts). They are just using that tactic to eliminate anchoring behind wealthy waterfront homeowners property.

(snip) They are intent on eliminating anchoring in certain locations. They conveniently have derelicts and abandoned boats to use as their excuse.

I always am the bad guy, but I see these discussions and I wonder why transients/boaters/pass-thru people should believe their opinions and views should trump those who have a stake/are permanent residents? Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs

 

[DavyJ]

Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs

You may have missed it.........
I own waterfront property in Florida. I also like to travel around this state in my boat.

I do not own the water behind my home. I am not allowed to restrict navigation on the water behind my home.

Why should someone else, who may have paid more for their waterfront property, be able to do so?

 

[SVAuspicious]

It seems we agree, though the statute should be cleared on those types of structure and not use a catch all like "Residential Propertly"

Agreed. Too bad the two of us can't just dictate the rules. *grin*

 

[Minnewaska]

Not a good analogy. There are jurisdictions where overnight street parking is explicitly forbidden; Garden City NY comes to mind. There are many more where resident permits are required.

You responded to my literal example, but thereby acknowledged the bigger point. On land, there are restrictions over when and how long you can park your car. Seems having them in the water isn't much of a departure.

I'm sure there is a selfish rich property owner only looking out for their view. However, I'm sure there are a-hole boaters ruining this for the rest of us too. Some of these proposals aren't any more restrictive than one should self impose.

 

[travlin-easy]

Many years ago, in the Florida Keys, particularly Stock Island at the Jetty of Boog Powell's Marina, the DEA was stacking captured, contraband boats on top of each other till they were 4 deep. Some were sailboats, but most were go fast boats used to smuggle drugs into south Florida. The confiscated boats were eventually hauled out to the gulf side of Key West near the west end of the Northwest Channel, and scuttled into a huge pile. It became an artificial reef, that in just a few years was completely covered with various forms of marine growth. I dove the site about 5 years after it was put in place and the amount of growth was such that it was difficult to determine if there was a boat on the bottom at all. The grouper, snapper, grunt and many other species thrived over that artificial reef. I wonder why Florida no longer does this - the cost was minimal at best, and from what I recall, they had lots of volunteers that helped offset the cost of cleaning up the boats prior to being scuttled.

Gary

 

[Minnewaska]

I'm guessing there are expedited seizure laws for drug running. Taking title to an abandon boat from someone who has not broken another law is probably much more time consuming and costly in the courts. Not that it has to be, I just suspect it is.

 

[JimMcGee]

well, there's a jackwagon down my street that has turned his house into a powerboat repair shop, and is parking his crappy 'flip' boats on the street for storage. So I guess you could say, you can park your BOAT on the street...

That one *should* be easy to solve. You live in a residential neighborhood and he's running a business. That's only allowed on property zoned commercial.

Contact the town building inspector and ask them to do their job.

 

[JimMcGee]

If those people really want to control the water they need to purchase that right. In Fl you can lease the submerged lands, the marinas all have to do this. At least then these people would have to pay for that view.

I can see that being a nightmare for boaters. How do you know if a given bit of canal bottom is or isn't owned by the homeowner?