New Florida Anchoring Amendment!

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

One of the principles behind our political system is that folks who live in Florida are supposed to be best able to decide what happens politically in Florida.

As long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights, I go along with that.

So if something comes up in Washington, and you live in Florida, I hope you'll have the courtesy to keep your emails, phone calls and opinions about our politics to yourself.

In return, I fear I won't be able to participate in your campaign, because to do so would conflict with the beliefs derived from my education about our political system.

If this were a national matter, it would be different. But a state law is not a national matter except under specific circumstances that this doesn't meet.

The internet does not change that, except by making it easier to interfere with the rights of citizens in other states.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Pirate999]

Just a point of interest. A few years ago, well, actually in the late 90's, a study was conducted that showed there were three states that tended to influence laws nationally. When a law was passed in that state it tended to become a national law or issue. And those three states... Kalifornia, Kolorado, and drum roll.... Florida.

[a64pilot]

I admit to not knowing much, but as a former land owner of beach front property in the State of Fl, it was common knowledge that we land owners only owned down to the mean high tide line, and I think unless mistaken that these waters we anchor in are US and not state waters?
I often see the land part being abused by Hotels that put their chairs on the beach and claim it to be a private beach, and although I don't think they have the right to exclude the public, they do.
Is the State asserting it's dominance when it has no right to do so?
I apologize if this has already been beaten to death, just trying to understand

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I often see the land part being abused by Hotels that put their chairs on the beach and claim it to be a private beach, and although I don't think they have the right to exclude the public, they do.

I can't comment on the water bit, but the "private beach" thing is obnoxious in some cases.

In Florida, property ownership includes any adjacent beach down to the mean high tide location. Some people fence off this land and put up obnoxious signs to "keep off trespassers", which means people who visit the beach in front of their property then have to be in the water at high tide...

I think if people block access to the beach in front of their house, then the state should tax them for the full value of the beach adjacent to their land.

The problem is that the people who own that kind of property, including beach front hotels, band together and have quite a bit of influence.

[Boatguy30]

There is a very wealthy politically connected fellow in Miami beach. He has anchored about 12 small plastic boats off his property to effectively block anchoring. This has been written about extensively in Southwinds. He is no doubt the "citizens" pushing the political process with the maim rep.

This is not democracy, it is one guy with lots of cash buying the legislature.

[Scott Berg]

Two comments:
1) it is written to apply to Dade and Broward Counties only
2) opposing the entire bill won't help. The bill itself is what give us protection from city and county anchoring restrictions (outside of mooring fields). We don't have the option of dumping the mooring fields and keeping the statute that limits anchoring regulation so the best choice cruisers have is to support the unamended SB1126 that will continue the pilot program AND continue the limits on cities and counties regulating anchoring.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The problem is that the people who own that kind of property, including beach front hotels, band together and have quite a bit of influence.

As a newbie, that's my concern here.

I have a 36' RV and have done a little travelling in it, In RVing you can't just pull off of the highway out of traffic when you get tired and set-up camp, you have to find a campground and pay for it, or you will get a visit from some kind of law enforcement officer telling you to move, and likely some kind of ticket you will have to pay.

In cruising, apparently you can pull off the side of the "road" so to speak and anchor. To me it's a pretty neat concept, not having to go in and pay for a slip each and every time you want to stop for awhile, and is what to a great deal attracts me to cruising.
What would it be like if anytime you wanted to stop, you had to do it in widely spaced authorized areas, always a crowd and had to pay for the privilege?

[Boatguy30]

Scott

You happen to be wrong on the bill. There is already a state law signed by Charlie Christ that prohibits local interference with anchoring. It prohibits any regulation outside the boundaries of mooring fields.

the pilot program modifies that law and was intended to allow local cities to "experiment" with what laws might be good/ what they could get alway with.

you're a knowledgable guy, but it pathetic the lack of basic knowledge on this issue. I further can units and the BS publicity of praising the FWC, but in reality what florida cruiser consider the FWC and a friend?

If this whole bill went away we would be better off. That's why NMMA and Boat US sponsored the original law!!! I love all this small govenment types in FL passing as many laws that they can think of!

[CarlF]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

One of the principles behind our political system is that folks who live in Florida are supposed to be best able to decide what happens politically in Florida.

The Constitution (which I assume you support) enumerates a list of things that "the folks who live in Florida" are not best able to decide. What happens on "navigable waters" is one of those things.

.

[Scott Berg]

The bill you reference scheduled to sunset this year. SSCA, NMMA, and BoatUS among others are pushing for a clean bill continuing FL 327.4105 which was SB1126. We are opposing the Margolis amendment clearly aimed at Sunset Lake and a few other areas. Once they start gutting the limits on cities and counties we will be back to the old days...

That is what is being marked up this morning in the appropriations committee. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Scott

You happen to be wrong on the bill. There is already a state law signed by Charlie Christ that prohibits local interference with anchoring. It prohibits any regulation outside the boundaries of mooring fields.

Wow, I never thought of him like that!

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

the pilot program modifies that law and was intended to allow local cities to "experiment" with what laws might be good/ what they could get alway with.

you're a knowledgable guy, but it pathetic the lack of basic knowledge on this issue. I further can units and the BS publicity of praising the FWC, but in reality what florida cruiser consider the FWC and a friend?

If this whole bill went away we would be better off. That's why NMMA and Boat US sponsored the original law!!! I love all this small govenment types in FL passing as many laws that they can think of!

Boatguy, we've discussed this before and disagreed then, it's obvious we still disagree. You seem to believe that by abolishing the pilot mooring program the underlying state statute that disallows local municipalities from restricting anchoring will remain untouched. I disagree, as evidenced every few years when various legislators take a run at changing it. I don't believe cruisers have enough political clout to uphold the "nana, nana, nana, we're protected by a state law and you munis can't do anything about me anchoring here!" In fact, I believe the munis have more political clout than cruisers and without a resolution like the mooring program, the law would be changed within a couple of years. Hence, FWC championing the pilot program is a friend of the cruisers, admittedly, it may very well be a love/hate relationship.

But that's just IMO.....

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The Constitution (which I assume you support) enumerates a list of things that "the folks who live in Florida" are not best able to decide. What happens on "navigable waters" is one of those things.

.

Be careful. The good people of Florida do have some right to regulate the use of it's waterways, as do the citizens of every other state.

It is stated at 65C.J.S. 63, Navigable Waters, § 10: "Unlike the federal government, a state in the regulation of its navigable waters is not limited to regulation for the purpose of navigation and commerce but may regulate and control navigable waters for any purpose within the scope of its sovereign governmental and police powers."

[Neeltje]

As a resident of Saint Augustine, I'm naturally a proponent of the mooring fields. They keep the waterfront nice and tidy, and at the user's expense to boot.

On the other hand, I'll all for "travelling free", so why don't we start by asking that the fine State of New Jersey eliminate the exorbitant toll fees on the Jersey Turnpike, and let the locals foot its maintenance costs themselves?

Anybody from Jersey care to pipe in?

[CarlF]

The states do have limited rights, as do individual communities. In Massachusetts, some towns regulate moorings and docks under bylaws that go back to the early 18th century before Massachusetts government existed.

But to the earlier post-- there is simply not a principle that the people of Florida are best able to decide what happens in Florida's navigable waterways. The rights of the federal government over navigable waters in the Constitution is very broad and has been affirmed by the courts many times.

Of course, the question of constitutionality can only be raised after Florida passes a law. And the process to strike a law down can take years.

[CarlF]

Toll roads were more common when the Constitution was written than they are today so the framers could have included something in the Constitution like they did for Navigable Waters.

Unlike roads, they wrote the Constitution to give the Federal Government unique "control" over all navigable waters for the purpose of commerce (and "commerce" is not limited to "commercial" use). "For this purpose they (Navigable Waters) are the public property of the nation" (United States v. Rands)