SailNet Community banner

361 - 380 of 471 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
The most interesting question to me is why has SN made this controversial topic a sticky for almost a year when it involves a small fraction of SN members and, as far as I can tell, there isn't any pending legislation at this time.

Personally, if I find myself caring about whether I can anchor within 200 feet of a tacky McMansion in Florida of all places, well, my sailing goals will have come in way below expectation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Forget the law and your "sailing rights" arguments for a moment, and just think about someone parking in front of your front window in a traveling conveyance of any type. You wouldn't want it any more than anyone else does.
The RV/boat analogy is extremely weak and I can see your wanting to talk around it. Falling back to "because we don't like it" is sounds a little like you're the ones whining, but at least it's honest.
Parking restrictions presume safe parking alternatives. Anchoring regs presume no safe alternatives--due to depth, channels, bottom, weather conditions, etc.
Parking laws regulate the use of the road. Anchoring laws regulate the use of open water. They aren't analogous. The infrastructure planned and built to safely accommodate vehicles has no logical parallel with sea water. "We want to the government to make our water view the way we like it." may be reasonable where RV's have safe man-made alternatives. But it would override all the considerations that normally govern anchoring. It would be like saying planes can land at an airport but they can't park overnight because you don't like to look at them. Water isn't the same as dry land and boats aren't the same as RVs. Air is actually a much better analogy than roads.
The only genuine argument I've seen so far is yours: "We don't want to see (those other peoples') boats when we look out at the water". Not to sound unkind, but too bad. I can understand the motivation, but you knew what you were getting when you bought the place. The boat owners who live a block back from the water have rights, too.
PS--You sure you want to start throwing the words "whiny and entitled" around?
 

·
Mermaid Hunter
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #363
The most interesting question to me is why has SN made this controversial topic a sticky for almost a year when it involves a small fraction of SN members and, as far as I can tell, there isn't any pending legislation at this time.
I am the OP. I asked SN to make the thread sticky when there was a lot going on. I agree with you that the status is not relevant now. I fully expect it will be again when the Florida legislative session ramps back up.

I will ask that it be made un-sticky.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
HB 7025 "At risk vessels" .........introduced 12/2/2015:
I wouldn't think anyone would object to that, given those definitions of "at risk of becoming derelict".
If they added a good noise and littering ordinances, I'm not sure what other restrictions reasonable people would feel entitled to.
JV
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Yes HB 7025 would be a good bill if it passes as written. It is basically the same bill as HB 7123 from last year.

However, it needs to be closely monitored because last year, a rep tried to add an amendment to include the 200' set-back.

It will also need a senate companion bill that doesn't add any other BS.

If it were to pass in it's current form, it might remove many of the derelicts that have been the smoke screen for anchoring restrictions all along.
 

·
Mermaid Hunter
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #367
If it were to pass in it's current form, it might remove many of the derelicts that have been the smoke screen for anchoring restrictions all along.
The two main problems remain the same.

1. Florida legislators do not want to do the hard work to fund enforcement of existing law to deal with the derelict boat problem.

2. There are people like the infamous Mr. Karlton who continue to believe they own their views and won't rest until anchoring is prohibited.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
The two main problems remain the same.
You are absolutely correct.

I expect that a senate bill will be more Karlton friendly....:mad:
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
The problem is that is exactly the point. There is a legal difference between the two and people that don’t know what that difference is, take that bit of mis-information and run with it……..
::sigh::

Again, I acknowledged the legal differences. I simply made a plea for you and others to think about this in human terms rather than technical legal terms for just a moment. The human terms being that if you put aside your own selfish demands for leisure and recreation for a minute, and just consider the fact that no one (sailors included) really want anyone in a traveling conveyance of any sort setting up shop in their backyard, you might at least see the argument has more than just your side and pov that might be considered legitimate.

I understand that for some of you, it's simply impossible to consider any counter argument to your demands as you feel entitled to your "right" to park on top of people who have actually invested in an area and call it there home. "Why, it's my right!! Screw those stupid McMansion dwelling jerks!"

Frankly, you sound just like them. Welcome to America, land of the entitled, where no one gives a crap to consider others I guess. Meh.


The RV/boat analogy is extremely weak and I can see your wanting to talk around it. Falling back to "because we don't like it" is sounds a little like you're the ones whining, but at least it's honest.
Parking restrictions presume safe parking alternatives. Anchoring regs presume no safe alternatives--due to depth, channels, bottom, weather conditions, etc.
Parking laws regulate the use of the road. Anchoring laws regulate the use of open water. They aren't analogous. The infrastructure planned and built to safely accommodate vehicles has no logical parallel with sea water. "We want to the government to make our water view the way we like it." may be reasonable where RV's have safe man-made alternatives. But it would override all the considerations that normally govern anchoring. It would be like saying planes can land at an airport but they can't park overnight because you don't like to look at them. Water isn't the same as dry land and boats aren't the same as RVs. Air is actually a much better analogy than roads.
The only genuine argument I've seen so far is yours: "We don't want to see (those other peoples') boats when we look out at the water". Not to sound unkind, but too bad. I can understand the motivation, but you knew what you were getting when you bought the place. The boat owners who live a block back from the water have rights, too.
PS--You sure you want to start throwing the words "whiny and entitled" around?
Yup, always a clever move to turn the tables and accuse those you disagree with with what they actually said to you first. Well played, lol..

Anyway, like I said in prior posts - I see nothing wrong with homeowners expectations of quiet enjoyment of their property and homes. 200' is more than reasonable imo.

When Captain Onions and Admiral Peppers pull up in their pos 70's era 27 footer and set up shop "living the dream" (which often seems to consist of stinky cooking, booze, smokes, and the early morning/late afternoon hilarity of dropping/pulling anchor as Captain Onions berates poor Peppers as she tries her best to deal with his freaking out over the process), I can see why no one would want them around. Get a job and buy your own million dollar views, or at the very least keep your desperate attempts at obtaining paradise on a Burger King budget down the waterway a piece (200' sounds like a decent start..).

Before you get your oxygen bottles in a knot over that last paragraph, let me add this emoticon :D so you see there is a bit of jest interspersed in the reality I just wrote. Happy Pappy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
originally regulated 200 years ago, will be refuted with witch burning and slavery. Laws change.
Yep, witch-burning, slavery, property rights, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, juries of peers, illegal search and siezure, presumption of innocence (I won't even mention Second Amendment rights)...those things all can change when they get old and cobwebby. Have I got that right? Or when a tiny but financially well-endowed group finds them incompatible with their notions of feng shui.
Boats' and their occupants' requirements for safe anchoring and movement underway haven't changed. Ask the Navy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Get a job and buy your own million dollar views, or at the very least keep your desperate attempts at obtaining paradise on a Burger King budget down the waterway a piece (200' sounds like a decent start..).
My million-dollar waterfront view is probably better than your million-dollar waterfront view, Skippy, and Mommy and Daddy didn't buy if for me, either.
You don't have a better argument than to whine that people are enjoying their rights to anchor contrary to your needs for backyard gazing pleasure. Point made. They're being inconsiderate by not boating as decorously as you do. I'm sure none of your neighbors have ever smelled your cooking or heard you squabble with your partner.
You bought--or otherwise acquired--something that most people with or without boats will never be able to own. The view is yours. The things you view aren't. You chose to live adjacent to a public anchorage. Grow up and stop your entitled whining, or sell and move.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
The human terms being that if you put aside your own selfish demands for leisure and recreation for a minute,
I'll only address this part. Then, if this forum has an ignore button, you are at the top of my list..............

Anchoring, while cruising, is not for my leisure and recreation. Rather it is for my safety and security. I use my boat to travel from place to place, as you might in your car. Would you stop your vehicle in a dangerous place because you were told you couldn't stop in a safe place. I think not.............

And with that, well, bye.............
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
My million-dollar waterfront view is probably better than your million-dollar waterfront view, Skippy, and Mommy and Daddy didn't buy if for me, either.
You don't have a better argument than to whine that people are enjoying their rights to anchor contrary to your needs for backyard gazing pleasure. Point made. They're being inconsiderate by not boating as decorously as you do. I'm sure none of your neighbors have ever smelled your cooking or heard you squabble with your partner.
You bought--or otherwise acquired--something that most people with or without boats will never be able to own. The view is yours. The things you view aren't. You chose to live adjacent to a public anchorage. Grow up and stop your entitled whining, or sell and move.
Captain Onions?

if this forum has an ignore button, you are at the top of my list

And with that, well, bye.............
Does this mean you're not going to ask me to the Sadie Hawkins dance? :confused:
 

·
Mermaid Hunter
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #377
The 2016 session of the Florida legislature starts in a few weeks. There is already a bill in work behind the scenes to limit anchoring. *sigh* SSCA Concerned Cruisers Committee is collecting information and I will report here as more is known.
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
Checked out the areas affected and have to wonder why the "BS" reference.

With the exception of East Pass/Crab Island, these are TINY areas in close proximity to residences, where an anchored boat (allowing for swinging room) either could not or would be hard pressed to stay more than 200' from a residential shore. Changing the buffer to 150', say, would not significantly open these areas.

East Pass would be a different situation where safe navigability of the pass may be impacted. Not familiar enough with that area to have an opinion, though.

I'm all for minimal restrictions on anchoring, but the proposed House Bill does not seem an unreasonable compromise for the East coast areas affected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,594 Posts
.....And some people thought it was just about derelicts.............:hammer
If this is the way you poke your most sympathetic audience in the eye, at the slightest disagreement, you must be the cause's biggest nightmare. Bad attitudes never get anything constructive done. They fight to the death, until they die. The government system can't be killed.

They've come up with an interesting new approach. Not a set back, just an overnight prohibition, as opposed to a total prohibition, in defined waters. I'm curious how they'll argue the merits of it. I don't need to be lectured on what's really going on, this battle is about how the system works.

Boaters need to be more clever than the opposition and I'm not seeing it.
 
361 - 380 of 471 Posts
Top