[SVAuspicious]

Again, just to be clear, I'm not IN FAVOR of a mandated 150' standoff... I'm simply arguing that if it comes to that eventually, I just don't see it being all that onerous a restriction throughout Florida - at least in the waters of the East coast with which I'm most familiar...

Understood Jon. My point was that in a lot of places 300' says no anchoring and 150' says a lot less anchoring. A lot depends on what we are measuring from: marine infrastructure or just any private property?

 

[DavyJ]

I'm saying that it ought to be the marine professionals, the Coast Guard, not the "for sale to the highest bidder" local politicians, making those decisions. If for nothing else, for some uniformity and certainty

And this brings us back to right where we need to start from.

Currently, no local government can regulate anchoring, except those that are participating in the Pilot Program.

The FWC Is conducting "workshops" and online questionnaires that would give local government the right to regulate, based on the responses to the survey.

Please be careful how you respond to the "concepts". They are worded, so that they are stacked against anchoring.

Again, while we debate the minutia, the FWC has an agenda to restrict anchoring in areas where "someone" doesn't want you.

 

[Group9]

And this brings us back to right where we need to start from.

Currently, no local government can regulate anchoring, except those that are participating in the Pilot Program.

The FWC Is conducting "workshops" and online questionnaires that would give local government the right to regulate, based on the responses to the survey.

Please be careful how you respond to the "concepts". They are worded, so that they are stacked against anchoring.

Again, while we debate the minutia, the FWC has an agenda to restrict anchoring in areas where "someone" doesn't want you.

If the people wanting these anchorage restrictions could get them by following existing federal laws and protocols, they would have done it already. They know they can't so they are trying the FWC/state route.

It is a constitutional authority issue (commerce clause), but the people trying to pull this off have lots of money to spend. Losing the Marco Island case didn't slow them down, and neither will anything else.

 

[eherlihy]

Bill Bishop, a Florida resident, has also weighed in on this topic in his blog; The Marine Installer's Rant: Anchoring? No aweigh

FWIW - I believe that the waterways are a public resource, and authority to limit anchorages currently lies with the state. Under no circumstances should this authority be transferred to the local community, or homeowner. A reasonable setback from an existing marine structure is 75 feet, and homeowners/builders should require state and local approval to build any such structures.

Full disclosure; my wife owns Florida property.

 

[smurphny]

Localities are progressively filling old, free anchorage areas with mooring balls. Some of these work out tremendously well and allow safe anchorages and MUCH more available numbers of boats to anchor due to the short scope required vs an anchor. BUT there are places where the municipal moorings are underused and poorly maintained. These spots do no one any good and lessen the safety factor by forcing people to anchor in less safe spots or on the questionable mooring.
I don't think there is a good argument against a well maintained mooring field even if there is a reasonable cost to the boats using those moorings but it takes a lot of planning and money for a municipality to do this in an ongoing operation. Governments are usually not all that good at operating things over the long term.

 

[travlin-easy]

Ironically, there are a few places along the ICW where some municipalities offer a free mooring ball to transients after 5 p.m.. I thought that was a nice touch.

Gary

 

[Group9]

Bill Bishop, a Florida resident, has also weighed in on this topic in his blog; The Marine Installer's Rant: Anchoring? No aweigh

FWIW - I believe that the waterways are a public resource, and authority to limit anchorages currently lies with the state. Under no circumstances should this authority be transferred to the local community, or homeowner. A reasonable setback from an existing marine structure is 75 feet, and homeowners/builders should require state and local approval to build any such structures.

Full disclosure; my wife owns Florida property.

One problem, is people like Bishop, writing articles about laws, that he clearly doesn't understand very well. He has somehow combined underwater lands with navigable waters into a hodge podge of what I like to refer to as "internet search law" that is not really that accurate in either context (and, like many amateur lawyers, he has failed to provide cites or references as to his source for his interpretation of "the law").

And, he seems to genuinely believe there is no federal interest here. It makes me wonder if really thinks the State of Florida is the governmental body maintaining and dredging, and servicing the buoyage, of the navigable waters of Florida.

About as useful as your typical letter to the editor on any subject.

 

[eherlihy]

It is a blog post, not a brief to the court, so don't get too excited. Bill is simply stating his observations, forecasting what he believes will happen, and venting.

You may agree, or disagree with his view, but he always writes well, and gives you something to think about.

I think he is spot on.

 

[Group9]

It is a blog post, not a brief to the court, so don't get too excited. Bill is simply stating his observations, forecasting what he believes will happen, and venting.

You may agree, or disagree with his view, but he always writes well, and gives you something to think about.

I think he is spot on.

I agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he says. But if someone like Bill, who seems to have a genuine interest in the issue, is nevertheless very content to form opinions, and write about them, from a very incomplete, as well as erroneous, knowledge base, what does that say about the odds of getting people, including legislators and Congressmen, who are less interested in the issue other than what campaign contribution is attached to what position, to make any kind of effort to educate themselves on the issue before making decisions on this issue?

 

[UnionPacific]

I did this survey a few weeks back. It does not matter what the survey says, they will do what they want.

 

[Minnewaska]

I did this survey a few weeks back. It does not matter what the survey says, they will do what they want.

That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.

It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.

 

[UnionPacific]

That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.

It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.

I have never liked the two party system myself. I also like direct democracy. I would love to enact a balanced budget law. The lawmakers would never do that, but we would I believe.

 

[Group9]

That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.

It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.

One of the things George Washington warned us against in his fare well address, were political parties. Even then, smart people knew what was coming.

 

[RTB]

Sorry if I missed it, but when is this whole anchoring thing supposed to be resolved? I'm heading back through Florida again next spring or fall (from Texas). Hopefully I will actually understand what is legal and not legal when I drop the hook there.

Ralph

 

[SVAuspicious]

Sorry if I missed it, but when is this whole anchoring thing supposed to be resolved? I'm heading back through Florida again next spring or fall (from Texas). Hopefully I will actually understand what is legal and not legal when I drop the hook there.

It will be a long time before anything is resolved. Data analysis will take a while. There will likely be draft legislation hammered out with "help" from a lot of stakeholders including SSCA, Boat/US, NMMA, various Chambers of Commerce, municipal government representatives, and legal counsel for homeowners, individually and in small groups. Legislation will go to the Florida House and Senate where the lobbying will start all over again. It's possible things will end up in court.

It's going to be messy and drawn out.

 

[Hush34]

The derelict vessel issue is the key to the entire issue. I don't think too many people mind seeing a cruising sailor stop for the night or a couple of days as they travel. The rub occurs when some decide to stop indefinitely. The bigger rub occurs when the boat is left to rot.

The sixty day rule should not stop and restart...you should have 60 days then its time to move on and the move should be at least 25 miles.

Derelict vessels no problem. If it cannot be moved for 90 days, it derelict.

Pisses me off when I travel and cannot find a spot to get some rest for the night. The days of responsible ownership are gone.

 

[UnionPacific]

The days of responsible ownership are gone.

Yes, because instead of people having old boat shredded, they give them away.
And no, If I want to stay in a town for 6 or 10 months, This should be my right, I should not have to move 25 miles because you say I must.

 

[Group9]

Making it against the law for normal, taxpaying, boaters to anchor, under the guise of getting rid of the homeless living on boats, is akin to the notion that they way to prevent the homeless from sleeping in their cars, is to ban all parking.

Derelict boats are ugly, and a problem, I admit. And, that's why they are the perfect smokescreen for wealthy and politically influential landowners and real estate brokers to use to fix the real problem: boaters having the nerve to park and disturb their view of the world out of their window.

I have no problem with:
1. Ticketing derelict boats that don't meet existing safety regulations.
2. Seizing them and towing them (just like a car under those circumstances) when they do not fix the safety issues.

What makes these anchoring restriction people think that:
a) the homeless are going to honor these new anchoring laws, or
b) that the authorities who won't use existing laws to deal with the problem now, will enforce the new laws?

The only people that will follow these laws, will be the law abiding citizens who are maintaining their boats now. A homeless person doesn't fear getting arrested. It happens to them a lot. They will immediately re-engage in the exact same behavior that got them arrested, including anchoring their old POS boat, where ever they fell like it. Without a seizure and forfeiture component to these regulations, which none of them have that I have seen, nothing will change in regard to derelict boats (I agree, it annoys me to be cruising and come up on a good place to anchor, and have it filled with boats that look like they haven't had anyone on them for five years, but let's deal with that problem instead of the problem that only exists in the minds of waterfront owners and developers).

Of course, none of that really matters. Because, if these regulations are passed, the condo commandos will have achieved what they set out to do, to get cruisers engaged in lawful transit, out of their sight, because we will follow the laws.

The funny thing is, these people trying to get these laws passed (For the environment, of course) are the same ones I saw cut down protected mangroves in Florida, time and time again, and then just ask the responding DEQ man, who they needed to write the check for the fine to.

 

[Minnewaska]

Yes, because instead of people having old boat shredded, they give them away.
And no, If I want to stay in a town for 6 or 10 months, This should be my right, I should not have to move 25 miles because you say I must.

We can have an adult debate over whether it should be your right, but it isn't today. You can not move permanently into a public parking space or a pitch a tent in a public park or just pull over and stay on the side of the road. I don't see why an inland waterway is so different.

I'm not taking the side of the landlubber, I'm just suggesting there is a reasonable compromise to be had.

 

[Group9]

I don't see why an inland waterway is so different.

Two hundred plus years of admiralty law. That's what's different.