New Anchoring Regs In FL Keys Up For Public Comment.

[Kettlewell]

BoatUS seems to disagree that you can't sign away your rights, and I believe they are the biggest marine insurance writer in the USA. Sure, you can always hire a lawyer and take everybody to court, but how much would that cost in time, money, and aggravation, assuming you won?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

BoatUS seems to disagree that you can't sign away your rights, and I believe they are the biggest marine insurance writer in the USA. Sure, you can always hire a lawyer and take everybody to court, but how much would that cost in time, money, and aggravation, assuming you won?

Hmm, makes one wonder why did they close 70 mooring balls when they had 40-50 boats waiting? That's $1000/day in revenue.

[Kettlewell]

Here is a 2012 article by BoatUS on the subrogation problem.

The point is not that moorings are bad. It is just that some of us prefer to anchor for a variety of reasons: insurance, safety (I know and trust my gear), more privacy, more choice of where to be, independence, whatever. Just because you are anchoring shouldn't mean you are doing something wrong. The laws being enacted are punitive towards people who prefer to anchor. Sure, encourage mooring use if that's what your town or harbor wants, but don't do it by trying to discourage people from anchoring.

Marathon's staff are good people and I believe they stopped the use of those 70+ moorings because they discovered deficiencies in them due to wear, tear, corrosion, etc. They didn't want to put anybody at risk. I believe they are now repaired, thanks to an infusion of cash from the county. These towns putting in moorings think they have a gold mine there in the harbor, but very quickly they will discover that it is not easy to make a go of it. If Marathon can't make the numbers add up, it is hard to imagine how places like St. Pete will, unless the taxpayers are willing to keep underwriting the losses.

[ParidiseParrot]

Financially the St. Pete moorings are a disaster. Zero income most months so far i think.
no one is going to pay $400 a month in this economy. Marina's which used to have 4 year waiting lists for permanent slips now have empty spaces. St. Pete doesn't care at present. The Moorings are needed to uphold the laws they passed. No mooring then no pilot program so no law. If you offered the marina 100 a month for the mooring they might take it just to show some use. Frankly downtown St.Pete is not that interesting a place. I like Kitsy waterfronts not a dozen struggling fancy eateries. They got rid of the bumboat problems but didn't add to boater value added.

Personally if a boat can be moved in some fashion to the pumpout once a month and is occupied and well tackled I really don't care if they anchor for long periods but "free" storage in busy usable anchorages does a disservice to everyone.

The laws to remove these bunboats and derelicts were not the issue. Laws existed prior to deal with it. THE MONEY WAS NOT ALLOCATED. The states and towns have no gear for this. Salvage companies want to get paid actual Money. 1.5 million has been allocated and i doubt they will actually get to all 2500 boats before the money runs out.

Some local non profits are "salvaging" some of these boats on the QT to keep there areas clean.

[Boatguy30]

The "reasonable" Sarasota buffer zone is my exact point on all this. The area "leased"/stolen by the city is HUGE! They plan to put moorings only in the first 1/3 of the area in the next few years. You will not be able to anchor in the area w/o moorings, you have to go outside the entire area. I believe some cities put a 12 hour stipulation on the buffer zones which is nice for someone overnighting then moving on.

They have also recalled the permits for the Sailing Club which is a great spot with well maintained boats. I guess that guarantees the city a certain amount of business, but the city field is on the other side of the bay.

The idea of getting underway to the fuel dock on a regular basis is a great idea. In St Augustine you are supposed to do it twice a year and haul your anchors when you go "if practical" In practice this makes it that much less likely any of the anchored boat will every go anywhere as you're not supposed to bouy your anchors when using the boat.

It's really unfortunate that no FL cities I'm aware of license private individuals to set there own permanent mooring. There actually are maybe 2-3 private mooring in Salt Run that the owners claim to have permits for. In that case, I believe the "permit" is the $500,000 +++ home they own across the street from the mooring. They do not own the land the boat is moored on.

[Boatguy30]

Probably the same shareholders and same re-insurers for the cities and Boat US. If you have full coverage, you'll get yours. If you only have liability, you'll get screwed by the city if their mooring breaks.

[ParidiseParrot]

In Florida if there is no Harbormaster for the harbour then you see the CG for a mooring permit. I only read this I have no idea what the practice is. Frankly one could sink a mooring outside a regulated zone and say you bought it. As long as there is a boat name/# and phone number I doubt anyone would even bother you. The issue really becomes How do you deal with Shore. If you dock a Dinghy under a brigde then how do u secure it....etc etc. Private Moorings near Public use Facilities is not going to fly. For the real cruiser it is all just conversation as there are plenty of places to enjoy the state both on a temporary and semi-permanent basis. Living aboard AND anchoring while working etc is what they want to stop. The state will spend a million to stop one free lunch. I mean if u beat the system how can they control you? Anarchy will follow.

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

There actually are maybe 2-3 private mooring in Salt Run that the owners claim to have permits for. In that case, I believe the "permit" is the $500,000 +++ home they own across the street from the mooring. They do not own the land the boat is moored on.

St. Augustine is pretty unique, I think. The city owns the bottom between the 312 bridge and the Vilano Beach bridge due to ancient Spanish land grants. But they don't own the water column. The Feds own that. The Salt Run private mooring 'permits' are probably a wink wink at the mayor's cocktail party.

So you've got a 'perceived' derelict boat problem. If you can get a pile of money from the State and the Feds to build mooring fields, why not. Derelict boat problem moved out of the City to South of the 312 bridge where derelict boats are a County problem.

I am firmly convinced that St. Augustine's mooring fields are about new revenue sources for the city. There were some derelict boats within the city's jurisdiction but the folks at the city marina claim that it was too hard, too costly, too time consuming, too yadda yadda, to deal with those boats using existing laws and regulations.

The St. Augustine fields were complete in November 2010 if I recall correctly. I spent the Summer of 2011 on a mooring ball in St. Augustine. Occupancy of the field South and North of the Lions bridge was probably 10%. A lot of those boats were stored local boats at a good discount. More stored boats in Salt Run where the price for a local is very reasonable.

This Summer I spent two weeks on a ball. There were more boats there this year than last. Many came South for the Winter and stayed in St. Augustine rather than go further South. It was a mild Winter. Occupancy might have been 40% but I think that's a high estimate.

The fields there are still fairly new. Time will tell if there is sufficient mooring field/marina revenue to maintain the moorings. The city of St. Augustine is running a deficit budget. Fortunately they saved when times were good and they are using that money to make up the difference. When those savings are gone and the marina needs new chain, we'll see.

John Capo
A St. Augustine Minorcan

[micah719]

Just a minor curiosity:

What proportion of boats in these contested moorings are powerboats/sailboats?

A little while ago I festered on a powerboat forum to see how the other half live...astounding, pretty much the same conversations, only this time it's the snooty and stinky yachties bludging facilities and making up their own colregs and various lubberly behaviour. They did curse a lot more, though.

Thing is, I wonder if the hatred of the boatless is for all boaties, or biased against sailboats/powerboats? If it's impartial hate for all boaties, perhaps envy might play a role? Along the lones of, if they can afford a boat then they can afford to pay well for moorings/berths/everything.

Personally, I don't hate anyone based on what they have, I prefer to hate them based on what they are, individually, which is what determines what they do with their stuff. Or other's stuff. I hate myself most of all, so relax...

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

The "reasonable" Sarasota buffer zone is my exact point on all this. The area "leased"/stolen by the city is HUGE! They plan to put moorings only in the first 1/3 of the area in the next few years. You will not be able to anchor in the area w/o moorings, you have to go outside the entire area. I believe some cities put a 12 hour stipulation on the buffer zones which is nice for someone overnighting then moving on.

They have also recalled the permits for the Sailing Club which is a great spot with well maintained boats. I guess that guarantees the city a certain amount of business, but the city field is on the other side of the bay.

The idea of getting underway to the fuel dock on a regular basis is a great idea. In St Augustine you are supposed to do it twice a year and haul your anchors when you go "if practical" In practice this makes it that much less likely any of the anchored boat will every go anywhere as you're not supposed to bouy your anchors when using the boat.

It's really unfortunate that no FL cities I'm aware of license private individuals to set there own permanent mooring. There actually are maybe 2-3 private mooring in Salt Run that the owners claim to have permits for. In that case, I believe the "permit" is the $500,000 +++ home they own across the street from the mooring. They do not own the land the boat is moored on.

I could be wrong, but the way I read the Sarasota ordinance is the 150' buffer around the mooring field has a 12 hour anchor limit, but outside the 150' buffer, the anchoring limit is 90 days. After 90 days, you leave the city limits for 72 hours and the 90 day clock starts again. The 90 day limit disappears completely if the mooring field is full. So, you want to stay more than 90 days, get a mooring ball or move out of town for 72 hours and come back. I am surprised the FWC approved all of the area within the city limits, but I don't know how that lines up with the other (4) Pilot areas.

http://myfwc.com/media/2202446/13SarasotaOrdinance.pdf

[Boatguy30]

Its not the entire city, but at the same time the city was making the field the club was losing its battle to get new permits.

The point is the field are a is much larger than they need or will use in the near future. You will be anchored well into the bay to be outside the field and buffer.

[ParidiseParrot]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Its not the entire city, but at the same time the city was making the field the club was losing its battle to get new permits.

The point is the field are a is much larger than they need or will use in the near future. You will be anchored well into the bay to be outside the field and buffer.

Which gives you an excellent reason to use the mooring and pay for the field.

[Just a Tinch]

[QUOTE=Rakuflames;991104]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

PS what I just posted has been agreed to by the Florida State Supreme Court. It IS what Florida law says. People on shore who complain but don't know the rules might as well complain that you breathe too much air. One of the big gripes of the "anti-live aboards" is that live-aboards don't pay any taxes to help support the state. Well, they don't have to like that, but live-aboard laws in Florida are very clear.

As a liveaboard and cruiser....in Florida, with a slip... I can tell you that I fo pay taxes. When I lease a slip....I pay my slip's portion of the property taxes that the owner then forwards to the state. Presently I hold a lease on a privately owned slip in a "dockominium"....and I pay both the "maintenance fee and property taxes" of the owner of the slip. They merely write the check to the DOA and the County/State...transferring my money to those entities.

People who state that we do not pay "taxes" are misguided fools. I also maintain a car...just renewed the plate....more money to the state. We pay sales taxes on the goods and services that we consume and use....

People who allege that they "payed thousands for the view"...are merely proof that Forrest Gump was correct...because for their lack of due dilligence...they failed to investigate the limits of their "purchased domain". In the case of salt water wherein the state owns and controls the bottom and waters are patrolled also by the USCG...the land owners right to demand a view ceases legally at the seawall, or 100 year flood mark which constitutes their property line...as per Florida Law.

Carpetbaggers need some "edumacation", and proper advice on how to properly "cogitate" and arrive at sensible and legal answers....not their egotistical bs....

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by ParidiseParrot

Which gives you an excellent reason to use the mooring and pay for the field.

this area had been open and free to the public. Now it won't be. that is the issue. The city is not going to be making any revenue or improvements to the local area. It is just a large fee to move out those without what the city considers to be adequate means

[capn_billl]

Why would I want to pay $400.oo a month for a buoy to tie up to, when I can rent a month at a dock for about the same price?...and get electricity, and water, and pump out?

Dropping an anchor, and park for free, or pay $400.00 a month for some one else to have dropped the anchor for me.

I just don't see it. The derelic's are always tossed up as for why we need this, yet the new rules don't affect them. A law that states a boat must have a working means of propulsion, and move in a 6 month period, or face salvage would take care of derelics without effecting cruisers, or even liveaboards.

A mooring field in an area with limited or poor anchorage would make sense, and cause no outcry if optional.

If it is priced right for the market you don't need a law to bring in customers, people would line up to use them.

The very fact that you need a law to force people to use them tells me someone is getting SCR^&^ed.