If you live in FL please sign

[chanson1]

1ft or 200 ft what is the difference. We are still anchored on the water. I have anchored more than 200ft from shore and some fool on his balcony watches what I do with his binoculars. This was done for several minutes. I had enough of this peeping dickhead so I brought out my binoculars and returned the stare. He got very upset that I would look towards his home but he did it to me. When I anchor I check for the best anchorage for my boat and take into consideration the homes on shore. I am a Canadian and I enjoy my time in Florida waters sailin but I hate being ripped off for tying to a marina dock at $2.00 to $4.00 per foot and being told I have to also pay for electrical when I don't need it. My boat is self sufficient in all areas. This winter I went to the Bahamas for 2 months for the first time. The 2 years before that I stayed in Florida waters spending my funds in Florida. As for the member who said about being a cheapskate I would like to thank you for that comment. This passed sailing season before I even had my boat in the water I spent $14,000 for equipment and upgrades on my boat and everything was purchased in Florida. By the way there are a lot of well off people who have 80 to 150ft sail and power vessels worth millions each. Are they cheapskates also or like many of us are they people who enjoy being at anchor

[Robin3]

RELated question..

HOW would a 200ft rule affect homeowners with slips in their own yard. When we bought our current boat the then owner had it moored on a dock in the back of a home in Fort Lauderdale on a narrow canal. The previous Owner paid a hefty monthly rental to the home owner. Would this be allowed under the new regime and will the homeowners also therefore lose out??

We have a fishing dock at our condo on the ICW, fine for fishing from but not boating use as it is only inches deep at LW, We keep our boat in a marina about a mile away by water but couldn't run home in the RIB instead of the car if we wanted as even that would struggle to reach the dock. There is apparently a proposed new marina to be built soon just down from us for mainly transient use but as a commercial enterprise this will no doubt be expensive and it will also take up some (albeit not deepwater) of the current anchoring space.

If this stupid law gets in and has the predicted effects discussed here, I think we may decide to vote with our keel and move our boat to another State and commute to boat. Heck we may just uproot and move ourselves as well, Florida isn't so great that we will tolerate any old cr4p they dish out

[patn44]

Change the title of this to "If you sail in Florida"

[S/V Illusion]

Even better than changing the title would be for some to actually read the language in the Bill before commenting.

[jheldatksuedu]

I think a link to where a letter should be sent to those that do make the decision should be included in this thread. I'm at a private dock now but do spend most of my time at anchor when traveling. Much like I spend most of my time camping when traveling by car or motorcycle. I search for and enjoy the out of the way places, but I have to admit, I also enjoy not spending (wasting) my money. I have spent many years and dollars making my boat self sufficient, with generators, solar panels, led lighting, watermaker, composting toilet, etc. The waterways of this county have always been free to travel, I think they should stay that way. When you buy a property, you don't buy the rights to everything within a certain distance of the property.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Be Free

I want to start by saying that I am not trying to stir things up. I honestly want to understand where you are coming from on this.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, let's assume that the boat you saw did not belong to the person who owned the dock.

We are also in agreement that he was not breaking any laws.

We are also in agreement that, absent some type of law he could drop anchor at the seawall. You did not mention it but I think you would agree that if he were to tie up to the seawall without permission he would probably be breaking a law (trespass).

Where I'm not following you is when you imply that he was lacking common sense and/or decency by anchoring where he did or why anchoring next to (but not tied up to) the seawall would be a problem for anyone except him.

I think you are talking about the north end of Lake Boca Raton so I looked up what it says on ActiveCaptain about this area. Here's what I found:

"Good anchorage in crowded part of FL. Lots of local boats on the weekends but it is in a No Wake zone. Center of lake is a spoil area - circular channel around the outside. Deepest, least current on North East quarter. Look for CGAUX mooring buoy in this area. Sand bottom - plow or Danforth. Keep scope short during the day on weekends - crowded. Beautiful and quiet during the week."

For now I'm going to assume this is the spot you were talking about. If that is true, here's what I take from the quote above:

• You cannot anchor in the middle of the lake. It is an area where the spoil from the channel which rims the lake is dumped.
• The deepest area and area with the least current is on the NE corner of the lake.
• There is a Coast Guard Auxiliary mooring buoy somewhere in the NE corner of the lake which implies that CG auxiliary boats anchor there.
• It is crowded with locals on the weekend but a quiet place to anchor during the week.

Again, assuming we are talking about the same general area, it appears that the north end of the lake is the best spot to anchor and since A1A runs down the east side he may have even been closer to the NE if you could see him easily.

I don't have any idea how wide the rim channel or how close to the edge it is but it is very likely that the water was deeper toward the docks than it was toward the center of the lake (where the spoil was dumped) so he was probably anchored as far away from both the dock and the navigable channel as he could get. Again, I'm only going by where I think you were talking about, but if that is true, it appears that he was anchored in a very reasonable portion of a very popular anchorage.

As far as him hypothetically dropping anchor next to the seawall (or in such a way that his boat would swing close to the seawall) - I personally can't think of any good reason to choose to anchor like that but, hypothetically, if I did think it was a good idea to anchor my hypothetical boat in that location I would be very disappointed if someone had preempted my choice unnecessarily.

Look at the NAV charts. There is plenty of room to anchor and not be able to watch the guy's TV.

People with waterfront homes have a reasonable right to privacy. If that is difficult or unacceptable, then we simply don't see eye-2-eye. I'm good with that. As I am with this proposed law.

It is precipitated by those who feel they can do whatever they want since there is no law.



Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by chanson1

......... I have anchored more than 200ft from shore and some fool on his balcony watches what I do with his binoculars. ...........

You know, he might have just been admiring your boat.

[Be Free]

Originally Posted by Snore

Look at the NAV charts. There is plenty of room to anchor and not be able to watch the guy's TV.

People with waterfront homes have a reasonable right to privacy. If that is difficult or unacceptable, then we simply don't see eye-2-eye. I'm good with that. As I am with this proposed law.

It is precipitated by those who feel they can do whatever they want since there is no law.



Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Thank you for your reply.

I'll assume that the TV watching comment was rhetorical. 75 feet from the shortest dock still puts him around 150' from the closest part of any of the houses. That's not really conducive to watching TV.

Since I don't have any other knowledge of this end of Lake Boca Raton than what I've already shared and you have not said that you have any other personal knowledge of this anchorage I can't accept your assertion that he could have anchored further out under the conditions and at the time when he did drop anchor there. I don't know anything about his draft or what was anchored near him when he dropped anchor.

Ultimately details of this specific boat were not of particular interest to me. I could tell from your first post that you felt that someone anchored in this location was doing something wrong. I sincerely want to understand why you feel that way.

I'd like to hear more about the idea that, "People with waterfront homes have a reasonable right to privacy".

• If I build a house on a public waterway what does this "reasonable right to privacy" entail?
• How does the homeowners right to privacy differ from the boater's right to privacy?
• How is the homeowner's privacy invaded by a boat 150' away but it is not invaded by houses on either side that are 15' away?

Forgive me if I'm reading more into your last statement than you intended. In our system of law everything is permitted except those actions which are specifically prohibited. The alternative is to say that everything is prohibited except those actions which are specifically permitted. Under any other structure it is impossible to know what is allowed and what is prohibited. I would very much prefer to live under the first system rather than either of the last two.

I think that your frustration with this boater's actions (and I'm using him as a type) goes back to your belief that he was somehow doing something wrong or bending the law for his own benefit and I believe that idea is rooted in your belief that the privacy rights of the homeowners was being violated by his action.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by patn44

Change the title of this to "If you sail in Florida"

What about those of us who don't "sail"? Do we not also have an interest in this proposed legislation?

[pete33458]

I think there are two sides to every story, but the one fact that is undeniable here is that homeowners (at least in the US) do not own the land seaward of the the line delineated by mean high water (or some approximation thereof). This is the PUBLIC property boundary. If you built your home too close to this line, while I respect your right to privacy, I have to say that you got what you asked for. You built too close to public property. It would be the same as if you built your house next to any other public property, would you then have the right to exclude people from coming within 200 feet? In a playground, or public park?

I frequently anchor within 200 feet of private property because I want to be as far as possible out of the normal operating area of commercial and pleasure vessels. The nearer I can get to shore, the better. If the shore is entirely developed, then there may be little option but to anchor within 200 feet of a private residence. I have no interest in what they are doing, my interest is in protecting the vessel and its crew. Pete

[scuba0_1]

If you have a right to privacy over the property you bought why would you not do what you do with your neighbors put up a fence on the property you do own.
How do you know they will stop at that.
Beach property went thru this in some places can't own the beach but they passed legalisation to limit public parking to get to the beach thus the home owners still got there private beach they don't own but no one else can use.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jheldatksuedu]

If the waterway was land, the property owner would not have any say what goes on 200 feet onto the other property, say a dwelling would be built, with people and windows, what makes them think because it's water they should have a say.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by jheldatksuedu

If the waterway was land, the property owner would not have any say what goes on 200 feet onto the other property, say a dwelling would be built, with people and windows, what makes them think because it's water they should have a say.

The property owner does not have a say. The state of Florida, on the other hand, does have a say.

If you're going to argue this, you have to understand what you are arguing about.

[jheldatksuedu]

The state does have a say, but it's the land owners that are making the state say something. The state is not going to make a law that you can't build or park a vehicle within 200 feet of property line, why should it make any difference if it is on water instead of land.

[pete33458]

Originally Posted by jheldatksuedu

The state does have a say, but it's the land owners that are making the state say something. The state is not going to make a law that you can't build or park a vehicle within 200 feet of property line, why should it make any difference if it is on water instead of land.

Exactly. Not that it hasn't also been tried already...