SailNet Community banner

261 - 280 of 471 Posts

·
al brazzi
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
This has some parallel with the gun rights debate. "All my guns are protection guns so don't bother me with the issues with the bad guys" For me there's nothing more representative of the freedom of life than a sailboat, but anchor a crap pile broken down Junker in my view for a couple of weeks and my view will change. What I'm saying is as Boat owners we have a responsibility to observe and help police the derelicts in the mix. IMHO free navigation wins but what would a listening man hear in this argument.
If this is not part of the issue forgive me, but anyone who travelled to KW 30 years ago and enjoyed Houseboat row understands however unique and interesting it was it had to go.
I understand air Boats are being banned on personnel level from the Glades, I think excluding commercial air Boating. I would assume they are reacting to a problem as they see it.
200' seems pretty close to anchor to anything especially someone's house. At least when Miami is underwater we will still be floating.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
What I'm saying is as Boat owners we have a responsibility to observe and help police the derelicts in the mix. IMHO free navigation wins but what would a listening man hear in this argument.
They don't care about derelicts, they just don't want any boat behind their house. If you watch the recent hearing, you will see both Miami Beach residents argue that NO Boat should be able to anchor overnight. And one of those residents even tells the panel that some of the yachts are very nice, some over a million dollars. They don't care about that, they just don't want anyone behind their house. By the way, they don't care about your house, just theirs. That is why the 200' keeps getting brought up. If the 200' set-back gets adopted, it will eliminate anchoring in Sunset Lake. That is all those residents want.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Group9

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,797 Posts
......If the 200' set-back gets adopted, it will eliminate anchoring in Sunset Lake. That is all those residents want.......
Understood and that's not acceptable. However, I find the argument that one should be able to anchor anywhere, for however long they like, because the ocean is the last bastion of freedom, to be equally manipulative.

A reasonable setback makes sense. A reasonable number of nights for a transient makes sense. The debate should be over what they should be.

Here's a scenario. You drop anchor off a waterfront home and notice a bunch of tents and chairs in the lawn, but no activity. After shutting down, the owner says that his daughter is getting married the next morning on their lawn and politely asks if you wouldn't mind moving, as you're currently 50 ft from his yard (ie closer than most guests will be). Yes, a regular voice conversation could be had at that distance.

I would move in a heartbeat. If you wouldn't, we see this very differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sal Paradise

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
I would move in a heartbeat. If you wouldn't, we see this very differently.
Personally, I wouldn't anchor in Sunset Lake. I have never anchored within 200' of any structure. The canal I live on is about 175' wide. And I wouldn't want to be that close to a sea wall. However, if these guys get their way, what's next?? 500', 1000', 2000'. Once the battle is over in Sunset Lake, they will march right over to the next larger cove and demand anchoring restrictions there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,797 Posts
Personally, I wouldn't anchor in Sunset Lake. I have never anchored within 200' of any structure. The canal I live on is about 175' wide. And I wouldn't want to be that close to a sea wall. However, if these guys get their way, what's next?? 500', 1000', 2000'. Once the battle is over in Sunset Lake, they will march right over to the next larger cove and demand anchoring restrictions there.
Got it. The concern is politics, not practicality.

You may be right, but your argument is the same for gun control. Most don't really minds tighter restrictions, they fear what might be next.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
they fear what might be next.
Well, we don't even have to wait until the battle in Sunset Lake is over. Once again, if you watch the video of the hearing, you will see that Rep. George Moraitis is proposing an entire ban on anchoring in the Middle River. The Middle River is about 775' wide.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,111 Posts
This really doesn't have any weight. The waterway I live on was also man-made. I cannot choose what water activities are able to occur there.

Let's say I decide I don't like jet skiers.... Would you think it correct for me to contribute to some politician to attempt to enact a law to restrict jet ski use behind my house??
I'm not saying that such an argument necessarily "carries any weight"... I was simply pointing out many of the anchorages being threatened in places like Dade and Broward counties are not really 'natural waterways', nor were they being frequented by boats before the existence of houses on the waterfront - a point the poster I was responding to apparently does believe "carries some weight"...
 

·
Captain Obvious
Joined
·
2,329 Posts
I have been reading about this, trying to educate myself on this issue. This bog has some information and comment on the issue that I think is worth reading - one thing I agree with in general is the view that politicians are being legally bribed and that this generally has a negative impact on both the public and public resources. I dont think any campaign contribution over $100 should be allowed ever, by anyone and none by corporations. Anyway his commentary below and on the link


"I’m completely fed up with these ongoing attempts to eliminate the rights of the general public in favor of a few wealthy homeowners."

"...you bought the land to your property line, and not one inch beyond that. The rest of it belongs to the public."

"To limit the rights of the general public with any sort of anchoring legislation would be in essence a conveyance of those rights to the hands of those benefiting from said conveyance - the waterfront landowners. After all, it is they who are driving this process of endless fighting over this issue, not the boaters, not the guy living inland or the casual tourist visiting the state. It’s a few wealthy homeowners who are the force behind this fight."

LiveBloggin' the ICW: Florida is doing it AGAIN!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,404 Posts
Understood and that's not acceptable. However, I find the argument that one should be able to anchor anywhere, for however long they like, because the ocean is the last bastion of freedom, to be equally manipulative.
Of course. Reasonable people should be able to come to a reasonable compromise that protects the rights off all.

That's the problem, though. That word "reasonable." There are just way too many people--let's be honest, on both sides of this issue--who refuse to be reasonable. So it is going to come down to whoever can muster the political clout to get what they want.

It is unfortunate that it has to come to that, but that seems to be the way most such things get resolved these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,797 Posts
Every candidate should be given a fixed budget from which to campaign. Public access television, standard debates, etc. Level playing field.

Ban political parties. Both parties fund virtually their entire primary, with the resource of the wealthiest members of their clan. Once you achieve the nomination, it's already too late. You sold out to get it.

You won't see reform in our grandchildren's lifetime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Got it. The concern is politics, not practicality.

You may be right, but your argument is the same for gun control. Most don't really minds tighter restrictions, they fear what might be next.
Much easier to slowly boil a frog to death than to throw him into a pot of boiling water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
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.
Well, that's certainly the view of the guys pushing this. What's the point of being rich if you can't buy everything you want?
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
What's the point of being rich if you can't buy everything you want?
Finally, someone who gets it.

Before someone pops an oxygen bottle hose and keels over, I am kidding. On a serious note though, perhaps one of the villains the cruiser set might want to set their sights on is Captain Onions and his derelict 27' 1978 Hunter who in the process of "getting away from society and being, like free man!", takes up residence in front of some contributing member of societies multi million dollar waterfront home ruining it for the rest of you.

Scratch that, Captain Onions is alright. Just misunderstood and a little stinky. Perhaps it was simply one too many noisy wind gens that finally galvanized the 1% to fight for legislation. Who can really tell.. point is there is more than one side to this debate...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Finally, someone who gets it.

Before someone pops an oxygen bottle hose and keels over, I am kidding. On a serious note though, perhaps one of the villains the cruiser set might want to set their sights on is Captain Onions and his derelict 27' 1978 Hunter who in the process of "getting away from society and being, like free man!", takes up residence in front of some contributing member of societies multi million dollar waterfront home ruining it for the rest of you.

Scratch that, Captain Onions is alright. Just misunderstood and a little stinky. Perhaps it was simply one too many noisy wind gens that finally galvanized the 1% to fight for legislation. Who can really tell.. point is there is more than one side to this debate...
No doubt, homeless people, low life's, and bums are unpleasant to look at where ever the are found, but restricting the rights of transient cruisers in the name of stomping out this problem is like restricting commuters from stopping at rest stops because someone saw a homeless person living in their car.

It reminds me of the sixties when all of our public pools had to be closed right after intergration was ordered because they all suddenly had severe maintainence problems and were too expensive to fix. It kept the blacks out of those neighborhoods for sure, but I sure missed having a pool to go swim in. But, it was never about discrimination, you see. The pools all simply broke at once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minnesail

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,797 Posts
I've read the argument that a 200ft setback would effectively close miles of the ICW and one isn't permitted to transit the ICW in the dark. While I don't subscribe to providing anchorages, as I can count may places that never had any for miles to begin with, I also can't see a measure that effectively closes long stretches of the ICW to anyone that can move fast enough between anchorages. We also don't want to open it up to night travel, or the consequences and cost could be greater. In a sense, we've already created the problem.

There must be a compromise in there somewhere. Does 100ft allow for anchorages close enough that they can be transited during daylight? Could the regulation exclude anchoring in some places between 1hr after sunrise and 1 hr before sunset, rather than excluded it entirely by the setback, just to allow transiting?

I'm not saying these are good ideas, only that we all need to get along and come up with something. There are a-holes in all walks of life, ashore and afloat.

The slow boiling water analogy is a damnation against democracy. I should decide all these matters, rationally. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,797 Posts
That is incorrect. You can transit 24/7. Tugs do it all the time.
No kidding. Where did I get that, I wonder? Are there restricted sections or vessel types. Could have sworn this was an issue.

Fair enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts

·
Schooner Captain
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
No kidding. Where did I get that, I wonder? Are there restricted sections or vessel types. Could have sworn this was an issue.

Fair enough.
Not many cruisers do it. There is floatsum to worry about, unmarked shoals, ect. Must tugs and commercial boats have been there before, have a saved track, or know the waters.
I have done the ICW at night myself, its not much fun.
 
261 - 280 of 471 Posts
Top