FL is voting to ban anchoring today

[cruisersfarm]

Originally Posted by zeehag

why the f does anyone wanna be in floriduuuhhh

Some of us are not retired, independently wealthy or otherwise free.

I need to remain in the usa to work and this is the only place you don't need heat in January/February.

That's why I'm in Floriduh. And I've had nothing but positive experiences in South Florida.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

I agree. I think it's more this. Though it's pretty clear the biggest force behind this is probably someone who never wants to see a stranger's boat behind his house.

It's similar to letting people camp in a national forest. You want to allow it, but you don't want people setting up a permanent hobo village in a national park and ruining the experience for everyone else.

But instead of doing this, the approach is to just ban anchoring outside of limited or controlled areas. Seems to me that it's the wrong policy/precedent.

Right.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

First one, I agree.

Second? That is the most confounding and contradictory sentence I have ever read. Interesting concept??? Sure, but whatzit mean? Could you explain corporate socialism please?

Every economic activity has its general positive and negative effects on the society as a whole. In an ideal free market situation where the gov't is not involved either way and not taking sides, the effects will balance themselves out (theoretically at least). So for example if a producer pollutes an area the customers in a theoretical free market can patronize a non-polluting competitor and drive the polluter out of business.

Now the gov't comes in and says to the polluter - "don't you worry about a thing, we will make sure our laws are such that you really don't get bothered by the peons who happen to suffer from your pollution and moreover we will pick up the tab for remedying any pollution you generate so your production costs will not reflect the expense of remedying that pollution you generate". Or something to that effect. So now the polluter has no incentive to curtail his pollution. Since the beginning of Industrial Age this scenario basically happened to every industry and has allowed for greater profitability as well as greater pollution.

Take a case of fiberglass hulls. They are basically nondecomposing and this fact was known from practically the beginning of the industry in the early 50s. Now, 60+ years later we still operate on the model that the producer will churn out as many hulls as he can sell without worrying about the pollution aftermath of his activity - i.e. filling up landfills with hulls which will outlast us all. What IMO is the best solution to this dilemma is to implement a cost roughly equivalent to the cost of the disposal of bare hull and require that either the producer or the 1st purchaser of such polluting product to pay that cost. Which will incidentally have positive effect on the development of recycling technologies which are already here but not yet competitive enough nor popular enough with the buying public. Technologically speaking every hull can be recycled into new plastic item it's just that the machinery and tooling for this is still very expensive.

As an economic libertarian I don't see any reason to subsidize either the producer or the consumer but see every reason for the general public not using the polluting product not to get stuck with subsidizing somebody else's profits while absorbing a good portion of their costs of production and life cycle costs of their product. These should be apportioned between the producer and those who consume their products however they see fit.

[leftbrainstuff]

We're planning to bypass Florida on our way up the east coast in a few years.

The panhandle is great but the tourist heavy parts of Florida have never held much appeal.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[UNCIVILIZED]

Anyone ever here of Civil Disobedience?
Such as if 101 "Craig's List Special" boats, Krylone'd black (for stealth) were to happen to be anchored there one morning, after the (relative) darkness of a New Moon...

Just a hypothetical mind you.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Every economic activity has its general positive and negative effects on the society as a whole. In an ideal free market situation where the gov't is not involved either way and not taking sides, the effects will balance themselves out (theoretically at least). So for example if a producer pollutes an area the customers in a theoretical free market can patronize a non-polluting competitor and drive the polluter out of business.

Now the gov't comes in and says to the polluter - "don't you worry about a thing, we will make sure our laws are such that you really don't get bothered by the peons who happen to suffer from your pollution and moreover we will pick up the tab for remedying any pollution you generate so your production costs will not reflect the expense of remedying that pollution you generate". Or something to that effect. So now the polluter has no incentive to curtail his pollution. Since the beginning of Industrial Age this scenario basically happened to every industry and has allowed for greater profitability as well as greater pollution.

Take a case of fiberglass hulls. They are basically nondecomposing and this fact was known from practically the beginning of the industry in the early 50s. Now, 60+ years later we still operate on the model that the producer will churn out as many hulls as he can sell without worrying about the pollution aftermath of his activity - i.e. filling up landfills with hulls which will outlast us all. What IMO is the best solution to this dilemma is to implement a cost roughly equivalent to the cost of the disposal of bare hull and require that either the producer or the 1st purchaser of such polluting product to pay that cost. Which will incidentally have positive effect on the development of recycling technologies which are already here but not yet competitive enough nor popular enough with the buying public. Technologically speaking every hull can be recycled into new plastic item it's just that the machinery and tooling for this is still very expensive.

As an economic libertarian I don't see any reason to subsidize either the producer or the consumer but see every reason for the general public not using the polluting product not to get stuck with subsidizing somebody else's profits while absorbing a good portion of their costs of production and life cycle costs of their product. These should be apportioned between the producer and those who consume their products however they see fit.

How does this differ than anything else made from plastic, or any other material that doesn't rot...??? Do you think the bottled water industry pays for recycling the empties?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by DotDun

How does this differ than anything else made from plastic, or any other material that doesn't rot...??? Do you think the bottled water industry pays for recycling the empties?

I think Island Times post covers those guys (and every other polluter).

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by cruisersfarm

Every island mentioned in the bill is on the Venetian Causeway. No one wants to anchor between those islands anyway. A lousy spot to anchor, far from shore side services and way too residential. The home owners could see right in your boat from there.

.

I find this somewhat funny since the Islands of Venetian Causeway were dredged up from the bottom of the bay and all those bast*rds are living on land stolen from the waters that we use. Now they're telling us we cant use the remaining water either.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Money talks. If you want to stop the waterfront land owners then tax them on the additional imputed value of the exclusivity of their new ocean bottom property.

Undoubtedly, that's included in the purchase price/property value. Apparently, however, the revenue from the extra value isn't used to rid of derelict/abandoned boats.

[Ribbit]

Given the strange ways things go, I wouldn't be surprised if the following scenario plays out.

The next crash happens, and it's a doozy. Worse than 1929 (well, fundamentals are over twice as bad, and a Property Developer relative already lost her Florida mega millions shirt in the first downturn). Landowners lose their lawnmowers as well as their lawns (as is usually the case), and buy derelict boats to live on.

Then they can't find anywhere to anchor.

I have seen things like this turn around and bite instigators of unnecessary change HARD in the derriere, much more frequently than I would have expected.

"What goes around comes around" and "Careful what you wish for, you just might get it" certainly have their places in life, and Fate definitely loves being tempted.

[RKsailsolo]

Originally Posted by cruisersfarm

Some of us are not retired, independently wealthy or otherwise free.

I need to remain in the usa to work and this is the only place you don't need heat in January/February.

That's why I'm in Floriduh. And I've had nothing but positive experiences in South Florida.

Amen my brother.

Too much FL coastline with three different oceans to explore. And jump off points to more exotic locales. Sure, places like Ft Laud, Miami are crowded but with so much coast you make your own choices. Whenever you go in FL, your not more than 100 miles from an ocean. You can even be a damned Yankee along the FL panhandle where the locals still don't completely get the equation of tourists bringing in resources they would otherwise not have and creating jobs that would not occur.

[Dr. Sea]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

It's similar to letting people camp in a national forest. You want to allow it, but you don't want people setting up a permanent hobo village in a national park and ruining the experience for everyone else.

Perfect analogy!

Have any organizations like Boat US been involved in representing boaters' point of view in the legislative debate?

[Jason Flare]

This law is the equivalent of not allowing me to stay one night in a National Park because I could become a hobo.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Undoubtedly, that's included in the purchase price/property value. Apparently, however, the revenue from the extra value isn't used to rid of derelict/abandoned boats.

Ah... As you are evidently unaware of it, that is already a policy in most of Florida and the basis of the argument made by the homeowners to begin with. There is anchoring and there is mooring and, unfortunately, a lot of what passes for anchoring is, in fact, mooring and not so handsome boats. The streets are public as well. That said, would you want someone pulling up and parking in front of your house in a run-down school bus converted to a "mobile home" and staying there for days, or weeks, at a time?

Unfortunately, the nautical equivalent does happen in Florida. So that there is no confusion, I too, am opposed to the legislation but because of the "Precedent Effect" (i.e. that because something was done once before somewhere, it should be doable again, elsewhere.).

FWIW...

[hellosailor]

a64-
You should be aware that there's a difference between a "Yankee" and a "Damned Yankee". Ever since the Civil War and carpetbaggers, a "Damned Yankee" has been defined as one that marries your daughter, or perhaps not, AND THEN TAKES HER AWAY BACK UP NORTH.
Otherwise, we're just Yankees, damned or otherwise.


We do things like drain swamps in order to stop mosquito-borne diseases. That's how the Panama Canal finally got dug, among other things. But in Florida, they have this quaint idea that they can perpetuate the swamp (which if left to itself would fill in anyway, they always do) and still somehow use voodoo science to repel the Zika carriers.


Yankees? Hell, we'd drain it, add ten feet of topsoil to raise the ground level (as they did in Chicago and Seattle and Chattanooga to solve plague problems) and put the drainage "canals" in nice concrete linings called "sewers". Like the Romans did.


There's a reason Floridians don't like Yankees. If they'd just stop selling overpriced land and taking Yankee dollars...they could live in peace.