What a dump marina

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by bill352

Sssh! That's actually been done.

I know. A few years back we had a controversy in what used to be a semi-rural part of the state but which by then became outer suburbia. Some developer bought a large track of formerly agricultural land and the seller retained his pig farm next door. Well what do you know, no sooner than the inked dried on the deed than developer sued the farmer claiming the stink from the pig farm was devaluing his proposed townhouses. File it under "only in America"

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by scuba0_1

nothing but the states not going to waste their money to do it.

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

But the state has no issue with wasting taxpayers money on a death row inmate's appeals etc. which in aggregate cost several times more than simply jailing him for life. And your point is?

[scuba0_1]

Originally Posted by ViribusUnitis

So how is this law any different? Someone has to pay for enforcement.

Because the boats there are actually going to go after are living on them there not just going to leave them there. Most junkie looking boats didn't start that way someone put them there to live there then they moved off them and left them the rich home owners are hoping just to keep all boats out.

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

[onestepcsy37]

Some rich guy around here built a house near a small airport and then complained about the noise. Unfortunately he decided to voice his complaint by renting a billboard on I95 (yes, Interstate 95!) and present his version of the facts, which were so obviously wrong that even the anti-airport people avoided him.

[ViribusUnitis]

Originally Posted by scuba0_1

Because the boats there are actually going to go after are living on them there not just going to leave them there. Most junkie looking boats didn't start that way someone put them there to live there then they moved off them and left them the rich home owners are hoping just to keep all boats out.

They don't enforce their current laws, why is this one going to be any different?

You say the state is not willing to spend money enforcing the current laws, why would this law be any different?

[scuba0_1]

Because to enforce the derelict boat laws the state loses money this one they give fines to people who can actually pay them because they're on their boat and they have to move their boat ie cruisers

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

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by ViribusUnitis

So how is this law any different? Someone has to pay for enforcement.

This law is different in that a few select people are actually interested in creating fines for infractions in their localities, and then picking up the phone if they see a boat anchored near their house.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

What you are proposing is still a government based solution. And will result in political cronies getting their hands on the program and steering the funds to their own or muscling out the little guy.

IMO the more workable solution would be a huge tax on new boats and a huge tax break on refurbing/selling and using old ones. And old economic maxim states - "We want to tax what we want to have less of and we don't want to tax what we want to have more of". Sure the glossy baot magazines and new boat dealers would hate it but the environment and the next few generations will thank us for that.

Or require that all new construction be made with X% of recyclable old fiberglass. This technology is here already but is being killed by cheap Chinese mat and resin which is heavily subsidized in China by artificially cheap labor and their total disregard for the environment.

Islandtime...so you just realized you knocked a Big Government Solution and then proposed one yourself? You might as well propose Cash for Clunkers for boats...ha ha ah

[BeaMewesed]

Ok, so I get lost here. When is an abandoned boat left at anchor funky or charming? IMHO it's trash and should be cleared. This has made the California Delta and Clipper Cove an accessible cruising destination again.

As I understand the new Florida proposal, it is not addressed at cleaning out left behind junk but rather will limit the sites available to anchor.

Not that I plan leaving the Pacific..

The other thing is this "better than you" attitude here. What's up with that? Sure, my vessel looks out of place in Paradise Village, but there are plenty of interesting boaters there.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Islandtime...so you just realized you knocked a Big Government Solution and then proposed one yourself? You might as well propose Cash for Clunkers for boats...ha ha ah

I guess you avoid the interstates as you don't trust the Big Government to solve that situation. Or do you pick and chose which Big Government projects to accept and which to reject, as do most thoughtful people?

And yes some things are too unwieldy when left to individuals or the states. Pollution is one of them. So are the roads. And some other LIMITED issues which are not manageable on state or individual level. Right now the way most industries operate is to privatize the profit but make any significant costs a public burden. Unless of course they are forced to chip in with the clean up.

You can't have a free market competition if one of the parties to the transaction has a set up where profits are theirs but the costs are society's. That is not free market, that is theft of the public resources.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by rwidman

If all people did was anchor a decent looking boat for a couple of days and then move on, there wouldn't be any anchoring controversy in Florida or anywhere else.

I'm not so sure about that. For one, I think a driving force for this legislation for many homeowners isn't the normal day to day appearance of sail boats behind theirs houses; IMO it becomes a problem during resale. If you are trying to sell your house and the people walk out the back only to see a half dozen boats anchored out back that could have an impact on the sale of the property.

Second, all sailboats look the same to dirt dwellers right? They don't care if you moved or not because as soon as you move, another boat fills in the slot.

All I know is that I am entitled, yes, entitled, to my Obamaboat. I want my Obamaboat now!

[Badsanta]

Whats an Obamaboat?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by zboss

I'm not so sure about that. For one, I think a driving force for this legislation for many homeowners isn't the normal day to day appearance of sail boats behind theirs houses; IMO it becomes a problem during resale. If you are trying to sell your house and the people walk out the back only to see a half dozen boats anchored out back that could have an impact on the sale of the property.

The rules are the same as when they moved in, so no difference on the sale value of the property, unless the value is increased with the passing of laws that give them more rights.

Generally speaking, Florida doesn't owe them more rights.

[brookiesailor]

Here in Dubai there are very few places you can anchor. The developer owns the rights to the water around his property and has patrols to shoo you away if you even think of dropping the hook without permission!


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Winf]

I'm not in Florida or America for that matter so don't have a dog in this fight. I did work for Local Government on a remote island though and abandoned vehicles were always a problem for us. Basically any vehicle that came to the island would die there and as our dump fees were high, most people just left them on the side of the road, rusting away in the back yard or in the bush. They were not only unsightly but a hazard regards breeding ground for vermin and mosquitoes.

There were ample powers under various legislative authorities to confiscate and remove derelict vehicles (and to recover any cost in doing so) but they were time consuming and frankly a bear to manage once the numbers got high. Most government authorities (in my experience) have these powers but it is no small thing to just take someone's property without them giving permission. The process can be long and it has to be followed to the letter of the law.

The scheme I came up with was to offer an amnesty and have people willingly sign the vehicles over to us for disposal. Because the volumes were high, we got a really good price from a local contractor to pick them up, drain out the fluids and dispose of them at our dump. Sure it was a cost but it solved the problem.

We did this twice and it cleaned up the streets. Then, the existing laws could be more easily enforced and we did so applying fines and recovering full costs without exception or favour. And we reduced dump fees to the bare minimum to cover costs. The message soon got out and as soon as our ranger was slapping vehicles with a derelict notice, people would come and see us to sort out what they needed to do.

I know boats and cars are not the same but what it took more than anything was the will to solve the problem.

Winf