If you live in FL please sign

[rwidman]

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.

The landowners aren't making the state say anything. Elected representatives of the citizens have proposed a law that will alleviate the concerns of some of the citizens. The entire legislature will decide if these concerns are valid and if this proposed law will alleviate the problem. This was covered in high school civics class.

Unless you are a registered voter or property owner in Florida, you have no say in the matter just as I have no say in the matter.

BTW: The state can and does regulate vehicle parking.

[Be Free]

According to the analysis for the Senate Bill (the house version does not address anchoring), the purpose of the bill is to address the following:

"Local governments are prohibited from regulating the anchoring of vessels, other than live-aboard vessels, outside or permitted mooring fields. However, unregulated anchoring and mooring can contribute to various problems, including:
Unattended vessels;

· Anchored vessels that are dragging anchor or not showing proper lighting;
· Vessels that are not maintained properly;
· Vessels that become derelict; and
· Locations where anchored vessels accumulate."

This is the stated goal of the proposed law and it has a footnote pointing to the FWC Findings and Recommendations Report from the Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program.If you did not actually follow the reference it would appear that the FWC had determined that all of these things were a potential result of unregulated anchoring.In fact, the actual portion of the report that contained a version of the list was the justification for the creation of the Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program (below).



"The anchoring and mooring of vessels has created conflicts related to the use and enjoyment of our State’s vast waterways for many years. These issues include, but are not limited to:

• the locations where anchored vessels accumulate,
• unattended vessels,
• anchored vessels which are dragging anchor or not showing proper lighting,
• vessels which are not maintained properly,
• vessels which become derelict,
• interpretation of State laws leading to inconsistent regulation of anchoring on State waters and confusion among the boating community, and
• questions about local government authority to regulate anchoring."

The actual recommendations from the referenced report are as follows:
"The FWC Commission’s recommendation of a three year extension of the pilot program includes the following provisions:



· To ensure that the time provided by an extension is used to more fully evaluate the program areas already in place, it is recommended that the program continue to be limited to the current locations. Adding more sites or eliminating any of the current sites would restrict the ability to perform the assessments needed to complete the evaluation.
· During this extension, staff and participants would continue collecting vessel data and public input. This would include, but not be limited to, conducting additional public surveys to allow FWC to gauge changes in public perception, identify seasonal variations, and to more fully assess local and overall effectiveness of the pilot program.The recent public survey would serve as a baseline for future analyses.
· Staff will engage key stakeholders to explore possible legislative solutions and identify points of consensus. During the public meeting in October 2013, it was suggested to staff that the creation of a “model ordinance” or some other formal system whereby local government entities may regulate anchoring within prescribed limitations may be an appropriate legislative action.
· FWC would provide a report of findings and recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by January 1, 2017."

Anyway, back to what the law purports to address.
Point by point :



Unattended vessels.Not covered at all.



Anchored vessels that are dragging anchor or not showing proper lighting.What the law actually says is that " An owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel may not anchor or moor a vessel if any of the following conditions exist: ... The vessel has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from its anchor or mooring.So, as written, you may not anchor or moor your vessel if it has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from its anchor or mooring.Yes, the law is that poorly written.



Lack of proper lighting is not mentioned but it does not need to be since it is already covered by existing law (so it should not have been used as a justification for this one).



Vessels that are not maintained properly.Not mentioned at all.



Vessels that become derelict.Not mentioned at all but also not needed.The current law defines a vessel that has become derelict and empowers virtually every law enforcement officer in the state to have the vessel removed.If you have a gun and can arrest someone, you can remove a derelict vessel.



Locations where anchored vessels accumulate.That is the only portion of the stated purpose of this law that it actually addresses and that brings us back to the 200' buffer area around waterfront property.

[jheldatksuedu]

Elected representatives of the citizens have proposed a law that will alleviate the concerns of some of the citizens.

======
That's exactly what I said, it's because land owners want it. Plain and simple, even you understand it. Don't bother quoting high school, civics, I taught college for 30 years. I know how government works, and also how we wished it would.

[mikeod]

All waters are federal waters to be used by all regardless of where you live. All US residents have a stake in this. It has already spread up here. Newport RI will only let you anchor in the federally marked anchorage for 14 days then you have to leave for 4 days. If you pay a private company $1200 a month to rent a mooring in our public water you can stay forever. That sounds fair.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by mikeod

All waters are federal waters to be used by all regardless of where you live. All US residents have a stake in this. It has already spread up here. Newport RI will only let you anchor in the federally marked anchorage for 14 days then you have to leave for 4 days. If you pay a private company $1200 a month to rent a mooring in our public water you can stay forever. That sounds fair.

Yo nailed it. Deep down it's not about waterfront property owners. It's not about derelict vessels or hazards to navigation. It's all about privitizing what used to be a publicly held resource - our navigable waterways. Now you'll have to pay twice. Once when you pay your taxes to Uncle Sam and second or third or fourth time when you pay either some municipality/state agency to get a mooring permit and than some private entity to install that mooring (as most self installations are frowned upon by the state or the local harbormasters steering you sometime not so gently toward a private installation). Or pay for rent/use, etc. of the moorings, docks or an anchorage fee.

Someone metioned parking meters. No, I don't think we shoould charge anyone twice for using the public streets for parking. May be a time limit at most just to have the turnover necessary to keep local buisnesses in business. But if you already charging me annual excise tax for my vehicle which supposedly is used "to maintain the roads" (or a similar tax on a boat) you should not be charging me to keep it on public streets or waterways. Somehow we have allowed the gov't to keep biting the apple until there is nothing left for the owner of that apple.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by rwidman

The landowners aren't making the state say anything. Elected representatives of the citizens have proposed a law that will alleviate the concerns of some of the citizens. The entire legislature will decide if these concerns are valid and if this proposed law will alleviate the problem. This was covered in high school civics class.

Unless you are a registered voter or property owner in Florida, you have no say in the matter just as I have no say in the matter.

BTW: The state can and does regulate vehicle parking.

This is patently and utterly false. If a state is proposing to rub the general public of what was traditionally and legally a common resource and federally protected to boot, such as the navigable waterways, EVERYONE affected by such robbery attempt can and should have the say in the matter. This is an attempted theft on the grandest scale and to say that those upon whom the theft is being perpetrated cannot or should not resist it is so absurd as to not even merit any further discussion.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

This is patently and utterly false. If a state is proposing to rub the general public of what was traditionally and legally a common resource and federally protected to boot, such as the navigable waterways, EVERYONE affected by such robbery attempt can and should have the say in the matter. This is an attempted theft on the grandest scale and to say that those upon whom the theft is being perpetrated cannot or should not resist it is so absurd as to not even merit any further discussion.

"attempted theft on the grandest scale"

You can wish all you want and you can twist words around but it changes nothing. Don't vote in FL, no say. You can rant on web forums though.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by rwidman

"attempted theft on the grandest scale"

You can wish all you want and you can twist words around but it changes nothing. Don't vote in FL, no say. You can rant on web forums though.

I'll have to just rant then because although I live and pay taxes in Florida, as a Brit I have no right to vote, my wife does however so I will twist her arm (again)

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Robin3

I'll have to just rant then because although I live and pay taxes in Florida, as a Brit I have no right to vote, my wife does however so I will twist her arm (again)

Ask your wife to contact her elected legislators and express your position. They are the ones with the power.

I am not in favor of restrictions on anchoring, I am just trying to be realistic. I think some people here are having a problem understanding this.

[dixiepixiew32]

It's a tough subject to be sure. My knee jerk reaction is to fight any regulations the government hive comes up with, that being said, the population has skyrocketed in my lifetime and it seems as though they all bought boats and headed to fla (can't blame 'em, i love it here). It seem with an increase in population, "common" decency wanes causing, in some cases, the need for regulation.

At the end of the day, two things strike me on the subject, one; not much listening is happening, most subjects have now adopted the "your on my team or your the enemy" methodology of discussion. two; we have stopped seeing these issues as members of a community on the water as well as a community of boaters, more and more boaters seem to feel very justified that whatever they are doing, its right and needs no more input from their peers.

I am going to sign the petition but it will be with conflict in my mind as i know some regulation is or will be needed, it would just be nice if it comes from thoughtful boaters not elected mimes.

(humorous note, left this to re read later and headed for an evening sail, guy in a cat is anchored across the end of my canal. Nicely let him know i can't get out as he in in the deep area we use to get to the channel. He told me to go f myself and that i don't own the water and he can anchor where he wants. I laughed since it was already on my mind, first time its ever happened and i feel like that doesn't help the cause. as always, most laws deal with a sliver of the population.