Here we go again…a new Florida House bill would eliminate several popular anchorages

[w1651]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

"Quickly" would have been the better adverb to go with "harshly." Also, you don't seem to have an appreciation of how difficult it is to "fire" a gov't employee. Nor any idea of how empty your threat. And, I might add, little appreciation for how the world works vis-à-vis the wealthy waterfront homeowners v. the boat-anchoring unwashed.

In the words of the immortal Bard you appear to full of sound and fury. Still, new blood, energy, and especially money for lawyers is needed. Welcome to the fray. It's almost over. Where ya been?

Or I can show up at Dwight Dudleys office who is my elected representative and tell him (AGAIN) You work for me not the other way around and if you do not do what you are told come election day I WILL FIRE YOUR SORRY A$$. They work for us Blue crab we do not work for them. Maybe you should take that under consideration.

[Captain Bill]

I would also point out that anchoring restrictions in Ft. Lauderdale are particularly problematic because some moron in the Fl government put up a 56 foot bridge on the ICW between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. If the wind is blowing hard from the North then sailboats tend to get stacked up in Ft. Lauderdale waiting for weather to go out the inlet. Since the anchoring areas in Ft Lauderdale are very small and slips are often not available, where are 56ft+ mast sailboats to go to wait for safe weather if Middle River and Lake Sylvia are restricted?

[TomLewis]

Thanks for the reminder Zboss. I went on and made my donation. I don't have any reps or senators in Fl., but at least I can help fund the group that can help.

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

"Quickly" would have been the better adverb to go with "harshly." Also, you don't seem to have an appreciation of how difficult it is to "fire" a gov't employee. Nor any idea of how empty your threat. And, I might add, little appreciation for how the world works vis-à-vis the wealthy waterfront homeowners v. the boat-anchoring unwashed.

In the words of the immortal Bard you appear to full of sound and fury. Still, new blood, energy, and especially money for lawyers is needed. Welcome to the fray. It's almost over. Where ya been?

If you've been appointed the rude grammar editor now, I believe it is "swiftly" that is generally used in conjunction with "dealt with", and you used the wrong form of "to" (should have been "too") in the first sentence of your last paragraph.

This used to be a nice, polite place.




'

[Blue Crab]

Oops. I left out the word "be." You, however, missed the point. Please excuse the rudeness.

[Blue Crab]

Custom30, w1651, et al: I regret my several posts on here and my general lack of civility.

[zboss]

I say this again - who stands to make the most money by forcing boats into marinas?

[w1651]

Originally Posted by zboss

I say this again - who stands to make the most money by forcing boats into marinas?

I think that's part of it but I also think it's a control thing as well.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by w1651

I think that's part of it but I also think it's a control thing as well.

Well yes... the state, cities, and private marina development companies stand to make the most money.

Its free money...

Shut down anchorages > not enough marina slips -> complain to feds about not enough slips -> Get grants -> Give grant money to developers -> pocket money -> return to step 1

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

I would also point out that anchoring restrictions in Ft. Lauderdale are particularly problematic because some moron in the Fl government put up a 56 foot bridge on the ICW between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. If the wind is blowing hard from the North then sailboats tend to get stacked up in Ft. Lauderdale waiting for weather to go out the inlet. Since the anchoring areas in Ft Lauderdale are very small and slips are often not available, where are 56ft+ mast sailboats to go to wait for safe weather if Middle River and Lake Sylvia are restricted?

One more time for all you guys who cut class the day they taught political science. The "moron in the Fl government " who "put up a 56 foot bridge" was elected or appointed by an elected official. The bridge was put up so folks could use it to drive their cars across the bridge.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows no matter how many boats are stacked up in Ft. Lauderdale it is a small fraction of the number of cars driving across the bridge. Even the dumb pols in Tallahassee are able to figure out they will get more votes by building a bridge to ease traffic congestion than not building a bridge so a tiny number of sailboats can transit the area more easily.

This is not the first time someone has used shoddy analysis to dis Florida's existing and proposed waterway restrictions.

It makes perfect sense to a pol to build a link in the transportation network that increases the level of service in that network. The fact that a few boaters have to wait a little longer is irrelevant.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by tomfl

One more time for all you guys who cut class the day they taught political science. The "moron in the Fl government " who "put up a 56 foot bridge" was elected or appointed by an elected official. The bridge was put up so folks could use it to drive their cars across the bridge.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows no matter how many boats are stacked up in Ft. Lauderdale it is a small fraction of the number of cars driving across the bridge. Even the dumb pols in Tallahassee are able to figure out they will get more votes by building a bridge to ease traffic congestion than not building a bridge so a tiny number of sailboats can transit the area more easily.

This is not the first time someone has used shoddy analysis to dis Florida's existing and proposed waterway restrictions.

It makes perfect sense to a pol to build a link in the transportation network that increases the level of service in that network. The fact that a few boaters have to wait a little longer is irrelevant.

I assume you are referring to my analysis as shoddy. I would suggest that you have never worked in state government. If you did you would know that it is very unlikely that an elected official would get involved with a decision on the height of a bridge. Such a decision would likely be made by DOT at the staff/engineering level. Elected officials would never get involved in such a trivial detail unless a constituent complained or there was a budget issue involved. It's likely their only concern was that DOT was getting rid of that PIA draw bridge.

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by tomfl

One more time for all you guys who cut class the day they taught political science. The "moron in the Fl government " who "put up a 56 foot bridge" was elected or appointed by an elected official. The bridge was put up so folks could use it to drive their cars across the bridge.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows no matter how many boats are stacked up in Ft. Lauderdale it is a small fraction of the number of cars driving across the bridge. Even the dumb pols in Tallahassee are able to figure out they will get more votes by building a bridge to ease traffic congestion than not building a bridge so a tiny number of sailboats can transit the area more easily.

This is not the first time someone has used shoddy analysis to dis Florida's existing and proposed waterway restrictions.

It makes perfect sense to a pol to build a link in the transportation network that increases the level of service in that network. The fact that a few boaters have to wait a little longer is irrelevant.

The ICW was built and is maintained by the US Corps of Engineers as part of the National Transportation infrastructure. It was not built primarily with the seasonal or local boater in mind, but mainly to provide access and egress for Commercial concerns.

Any argument that begins "If you have a brain you'll see it my way"..........

Bridges are very expensive. As the Interstate System was built there were long sections of road leading nowhere, waiting for the funds to build the bridge to connect them. In the case of a bridge spanning the ICW, the DOT specs the design, and the Corps has to approve.

Local politicians can sway funding of a project, but have no direct say in anything. Having been involved in the engineering of DOT bridges in several states, and having worked on many USACoE projects, I can say that the rank and file are too governed by cost and safety design parameters to worry about what a State Rep thinks, regardless of his wealthy County. I have seen wealthy people try to use such influence to "expedite" so much as a permit for a State Highway driveway (business entrance). I have seen that push result in an almost 2 year approval period on more than one occasion. The people in these agencies with the final say generally are high up enough to be retired before the hearings and filings could be completed to fire them (I was literally told that by a USACoE engineer), and could care less what a State level politician has to say.

I don't claim to know anything about that particular bridge, but I'm certain my IQ is above 130 (according to several stupid tests). I don't believe that number has any bearing on my argument.

People designing bridges are more concerned with the safety of those who will use and pass under them, and also the liability (CYA) for a design that results in lawsuits later, and a final design that will fit in the budget. State DOT folks and USACoE staff do an exceptional job at the first two always, and sometimes the third.




'

[WindwardPrinces]

Seems like

[zboss]

Originally Posted by tomfl

One more time for all you guys who cut class the day they taught political science. The "moron in the Fl government " who "put up a 56 foot bridge" was elected or appointed by an elected official. The bridge was put up so folks could use it to drive their cars across the bridge.

I think he is referring to the fact that the bridge is shorter than almost all the other bridges on the ICW - not that a bridge was built. So, even ICW friendly sailboats need to anchor and the duck out and then back in rather than go under the bridge.

The bridge should have been built taller - 65 feet of clearance.

[Hereweare]

Originally Posted by Waterway Guide

A new bill introduced in the Florida State House of Representatives on Monday would ban overnight anchoring in several popular anchorages in Fort Lauderdale, Miami Beach, and Destin FL starting July 2016: New FL House bill would eliminate several popular anchorages located in General | Waterway Guide News Update.

ok so what action should we all take??