City Commissioner response to Collins Canal in Miami Beach

[sparrowhawk1]

The grapevine from maimi is that the condo owners form across the canal put pressure on the city. There's also a fat cat on sunset harbour who anchored like 20 small sailboats (without masts or motors and they're now covered in guano) so no one could anchor in front of his house. Boy do they stink and look like s*** but he has political clout.

[AD28]

every time I see one of these 'anchoring rights' debates I find myself wondering whether those who rail against their 'rights' being taken would be just fine with someone parking, and living full time, in an RV parked randomly across the street from their land dwelling. A nice, well kept RV, for that matter...

...and, admiralty rights have to do with interstate commerce and commercial shipping, not private, recreational boats...

[Davy J]

I find myself wondering whether those who rail against their 'rights' being taken would be just fine with someone parking, and living full time, in an RV parked randomly across the street from their land dwelling. A nice, well kept RV, for that matter...

Good grief.................. not the RV comparison again.....

The two have nothing to do with each other................

OP, OP, oh where art thou OP..............

[newhaul]

I hope everyone realises that the people on these councils that make the rules read these forums as well. The op just posted the one post and rather cryptic at that. For all we know he is on that council and using us to do his work for him to cause us grief in that area. Careful what you post as possible solutions to the issues.

[WindwardPrinces]

I think this is an issue that affects our community, so having an open and frank discussion about it can only be a GOOD thing.

You can be part of the solution, part of the problem, or among the spectators who scratch their heads wondering what happened, but complaining if the solution affects you.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by colemj

I'm not sure what your point is. The couple of people I referred to have a long and public history in this matter and have even had trouble with the police and corruption investigations because of their actions. It is well-documented for many years now, so you can go see for yourself.

I'm not deriding capitalism, or even painting with a broad brush. I specifically pointed out two people out of the thousands who have water front property in the area, along with a few politicians who are documented to have corruption/nepotism issues in this matter.

I guess in your Ayn Rand world view, the above causes cognitive dissonance.

Mark

Mark,
Frequently, many of us on this Forum forget that "cruisers" are a special interest group and do not necessarily represent the needs, desires and values of mainstream America. We tend to be protective of our assumed rights (as all interest groups are wont to do) and believe that if it is good for us, therefore, it must be for the common good as well. This, of course, is a non sequitur. The real issue to me is to find a fair and equitable solution whereby both homeowners, who pay dearly for their waterfront properties in initial cost and taxes, and cruisers, who desire the freedom of anchorage, have an equitable compromise that satisfies both agendas. This can only be accomplished when the homeowners do not feel threatened and/or angered by the presence of liveaboard/derelict vessels and cruisers, en route, can take advantage of a protected anchorage with access to shoreside amenities. Although I am not an advocate of government regulation, it seems that some form of regulation and enforcement is necessary to satisfy both parties concerns and needs. In regards to your initial statement "I'm not sure what your point is," perhaps my attempt at humour was misunderstood. I believe it was the great French novelist Honore de Balzac who once said, "Life without humor is a sad life, indeed," . . . but then again perhaps it was Alfred E. Neuman. Good luck and good sailing, Captain Rognvald, captive in a cornfield.

[WindwardPrinces]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Mark,
Frequently, many of us on this Forum forget that "cruisers" are a special interest group and do not necessarily represent the needs, desires and values of mainstream America. We tend to be protective of our assumed rights (as all interest groups are wont to do) and believe that if it is good for us, therefore, it must be for the common good as well. This, of course, is a non sequitur. The real issue to me is to find a fair and equitable solution whereby both homeowners, who pay dearly for their waterfront properties in initial cost and taxes, and cruisers, who desire the freedom of anchorage, have an equitable compromise that satisfies both agendas. This can only be accomplished when the homeowners do not feel threatened and/or angered by the presence of liveaboard/derelict vessels and cruisers, en route, can take advantage of a protected anchorage with access to shoreside amenities.

Seems to me that what you've described there are TWO special interest groups. Cruisers and waterfront homeowners.

The general public, for the most part, isn't aware of the issue and doesn't care about it.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

Seems to me that what you've described there are TWO special interest groups. Cruisers and waterfront homeowners.

The general public, for the most part, isn't aware of the issue and doesn't care about it.

So, recreational boating is the equivalent to home ownership in the US? Please clarify.

[WindwardPrinces]

Originally Posted by rognvald

So, recreational boating is the equivalent to home ownership in the US? Please clarify.

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said that cruisers and waterfront property owners were special interests.

But if you want to put a fine point on it, they're both organized groups, they both consist of voters, and both have rights in the United States.

Since this happens to be an issue that affects both groups, I'd expect them both to be paying attention to the issue.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rognvald

So, recreational boating is the equivalent to home ownership in the US? Please clarify.

In the US, the IRS counts our boat as a domicile. When we had a mortgage on it, we received a homeowner tax deduction. Depending on which state one lives in, people living on boats pay property taxes. People living on boats are often registered to vote in that area, pay payroll taxes if they work locally, receive tax reductions for installing residential solar, etc.

So yes, I would say that they are often legally and functionally equivalent.

Would you suggest that owning a recreational ski cabin or lake cabin is not equivalent to home ownership?

Mark

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by colemj

In the US, the IRS counts our boat as a domicile. When we had a mortgage on it, we received a homeowner tax deduction. Depending on which state one lives in, people living on boats pay property taxes. People living on boats are often registered to vote in that area, pay payroll taxes if they work locally, receive tax reductions for installing residential solar, etc.

So yes, I would say that they are often legally and functionally equivalent.

Would you suggest that owning a recreational ski cabin or lake cabin is not equivalent to home ownership?

Mark

Mark,
Do you think your experience represents the majority of people who own boats or is, perhaps, a small percentage?

[colemj]

No clue, but that wasn't the question you asked.

The reality is that boats are treated as domiciles legally and functionally. Therefore, they are equivalent to home ownership.

Would you be having a similar argument about someone's little A-frame lake cabin surrounded by a majority of million dollar castles whose owners think the A-frame is "ruining their view"? How about if the residents of that A-frame lived a different lifestyle that wasn't "appropriate" to the others (but legal)?

Mark

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by colemj

No clue, but that wasn't the question you asked.

The reality is that boats are treated as domiciles legally and functionally. Therefore, they are equivalent to home ownership.

Would you be having a similar argument about someone's little A-frame lake cabin surrounded by a majority of million dollar castles whose owners think the A-frame is "ruining their view"? How about if the residents of that A-frame lived a different lifestyle that wasn't "appropriate" to the others (but legal)?

Mark

Mark,
So, by your reasoning, the transient cruisers anchored behind the homes should have the same rights/benefits as the homeowners who pay taxes locally and contribute to the upkeep/betterment of the development/community? Unlike the A-frame owner you cited above, the cruisers do not own the water and they do not pay taxes to the locality. So, here lies the rub.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Mark,
Do you think your experience represents the majority of people who own boats or is, perhaps, a small percentage?

This might not apply to the majority of recreational boats but then again the majority of recreational boats are not cruisers. I believe this is quite a common situation for cruisers. It certainly is for us.

I think the solution for Miami Beach is pretty simple, build a dinghy dock and charge people for using it. The city has city owned parking structures where a space is available for $1 or $2 an hour depending on location. You get a price break if staying a whole day. If the city can put up a multistory parking structure and charge a small fee for it's use then a dinghy dock should not be a major issue. I don't think we should be treated any differently than any other visitor to the city. If they charge a car $2 an hour for a space, then $2 an hour for a dinghy dock is not unreasonable.

[Davy J]

So, by your reasoning, the transient cruisers anchored behind the homes should have the same rights/benefits as the homeowners who pay taxes locally and contribute to the upkeep/betterment of the development/community?

Ok, I'll take a swipe at this...........
I own a boat and am a cruiser. I also own waterfront property in Florida. So by your reasoning, since I pay property taxes, I should be able to dictate what my neighbor can and can't do behind my property on the waterway??? Am I getting this correctly?