SailNet Community banner

41 - 60 of 471 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,661 Posts
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:
 

·
2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,243 Posts
...in a post peppered with multiple accusations towards me personally...
Oh GIVE ME A BREAK. Multiple accusations toward you personally? All i said was you come across as having a chip on your shoulder. Chippy is as chippy does. Let's have some violin music! :laugher
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.
OK, I'm feeling feisty tonight so I'll feed the troll.

Which of these paintings would anyone, anywhere, be more likely to hang on his wall?



...or...


I rest my case.

:laugher:laugher:laugher
 

·
Tremendous Slouch
Joined
·
35 Posts
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.
 

·
HANUMAN
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
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.
You are making a lot of assumptions. People give and take all through life, it's not fair, it never will be fair.

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.

He might be a decorated veteran, AND a bum. Maybe a retired school teacher who spent his years making less than in the corporate world teaching thankless little brats how to do long division on MY DIME. My dime because I don't have kids, yet I pay through the nose because I don't have them. People in my income bracket pay THOUSANDS less every year in all kinds of ways because someone chose not to pull out. It's not fair, but I live with it and I'm happy to pay. Happy until someone comes along and starts telling me what's fair and isn't, then I tend to get a bit pissy and go on a rant.

Don't like people enjoying life and nature? Don't buy a house in front of an anchorage or a campground.

There is plenty of waterfront property on this planet not fit for boats to anchor, places where it's already against regulations, go buy a house 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.
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
HANUMAN
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
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.




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...



I don't think I am making any more or less assumptions than many here are about the evil "rich people".



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).




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".



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.

No one ever said the world stops and freezes, things change. Most things anyway. What happens below the tide mark is one of those things that currently may not be decided by the landowner, and I hope it stays that way.

I live aboard, part time, sometimes for days at a time, at anchor, sometimes on my mooring. I pay taxes in more than one municipality on the waterfront I sometimes reside in. I have a say in what goes on, as do you. Just so happens that in this particular disagreement you are wrong and I am correct :)
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
Just so happens that in this particular disagreement you are wrong and I am correct :)
Lol, spoken like a true Sailnetter.

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.
 

·
HANUMAN
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Lol, spoken like a true Sailnetter.

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's unreasonable because they do not own it. It is public property and, lest you are unaware, most local municipalities already impose restrictions on things like:
How long one can anchor.
Enforcing mandatory registration of the vessel.
Enforcing payment of other mandatory fees and/or taxes.
Mandatory safety equipment.
The right of law enforcement to inspect at any time.
The right of law enforcement to board at any time.

I have an idea, let them try to enact legislation that says they have to maintain and pay taxes on that extra land under the water that they want to control. I maintain that the tune will change rather quickly.
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
It's unreasonable because they do not own it. It is public property...

....I have an idea, let them try to enact legislation that says they have to maintain and pay taxes on that extra land under the water that they want to control. I maintain that the tune will change rather quickly.
I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.

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?
 

·
HANUMAN
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.

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?
Anchoring is generally restricted in navigable, known or marked, channels. My argument is that we are not talking about navigable channels or it would all be moot.

The general reason people anchor in these areas is that they are out of Navigable channels.

We have open oceans, navigable channels, private marinas/mooring, etc.

Then we have the places we are discussing; for recreation, anchoring, shell fishing, light fishing, small boat sailing, tubing, water skiing, general relaxation on the water etc, etc.

Once the stage is set to regulate what you want to see, then you get to move on to other things. After all, it's the landowners view and they should be able to choose what they look out at. Maybe they don't like 12 year old kids on floating by on a tube. Maybe they don't like skiffs fishing for snapper blues. Maybe they just don't like you and your long haired hippy friends drinking beer from a can and playing that rock and roll. After all, you are in their view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,243 Posts
I would submit that they pay a lot more taxes that go towards their own backyard than the average cruisers passing through does.
I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. Are you suggesting that those who pay more taxes should have privileges that others don't? Because IMO that's exactly the sort of attitude that is destroying the middle class in this country.
 

·
You really are funny!!
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
I am not sure why you keep bringing this up. Are you suggesting that those who pay more taxes should have privileges that others don't? Because IMO that's exactly the sort of attitude that is destroying the middle class in this country.
I do think that those who live and pay taxes locally should have more of a say on local issues, yes. I don't see how that idea is destroying the middle class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,585 Posts
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.
 

·
Mermaid Hunter
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,585 Posts
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.
 

·
Tremendous Slouch
Joined
·
35 Posts
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.
 
41 - 60 of 471 Posts
Top