Florida Mooring and Anchoring Pilot Program Survey

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

I too thought it was a poorly written survey; certainly written by the mooring field side.

I managed to convey my daily thought about communities finding it easier to legislate anew than to enforce existing ordinances. Hopefully, the final decision will include the costs/income from these MFs ... mooring fields. A place like Marathon will always have good occupancy due to cruisers needing to work. Other little spots, not so much.

Edit: a happy thought: "Either pay for a mooring ball, or go enjoy the remaining 1180 miles of no-rules/free anchoring in Florida. " Thanks.

I thought it was a poor survey as well and it was not possible to answer a lot of the questions accurately because of the way they were posed or worded. What valid conclusion anyone could possibly get out of the results of that survey are beyond me.

[Boatguy30]

The point is they want to change the existing state law that allows free anchoring and the"pilot program" is literally the slippery slope they are using to achieve that. they'll say "hey that pilot program was great; let's adopt it statewide"

also, you get a bit different survey if you answer yes to being a waterfront property owner. My property is on a canal where you can't anchor, but there are several derelict vessel anchored near the entrance to the canals. These vessels were likely anchored in the town proper until the morning field and pilot program were enacted. Now they are far from pumpouts and apparently too far from the owners to visit and maintain them. In fact, one sank recent hand will now be on us property owners bill via county taxes to dispose of.

This problem sucks, but I really think mandatory insurance would go along way to riding the waterways of the offending vessels.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

I now avoid S Florida for this reason, and go to the Bahamas offshore instead.

News flash: There are places you can anchor in S Florida.


Nobody is forcing you to use a mooring ball. Yes, I'm sympathetic with your complaint, I've encountered damage from a mooring ball. But to make it sound like one can't cruise S Florida and anchor is a little over the top.

[ohdrinkboy]

My 8th grader could write a more objective survey

[capttman]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

The point is they want to change the existing state law that allows free anchoring and the"pilot program" is literally the slippery slope they are using to achieve that. they'll say "hey that pilot program was great; let's adopt it statewide" also, you get a bit different survey if you answer yes to being a waterfront property owner. My property is on a canal where you can't anchor, but there are several derelict vessel anchored near the entrance to the canals. These vessels were likely anchored in the town proper until the morning field and pilot program were enacted. Now they are far from pumpouts and apparently too far from the owners to visit and maintain them. In fact, one sank recent hand will now be on us property owners bill via county taxes to dispose of. This problem sucks, but I really think mandatory insurance would go along way to riding the waterways of the offending vessels.

Do you really think the problem boaters will get insurance???

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

The point is they want to change the existing state law that allows free anchoring and the"pilot program" is literally the slippery slope they are using to achieve that. they'll say "hey that pilot program was great; let's adopt it statewide"

...

This problem sucks, but I really think mandatory insurance would go along way to riding the waterways of the offending vessels.

I doubt it as well. It's mandatory now to poop properly and keep a boat currently registered.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

This problem sucks, but I really think mandatory insurance would go along way to riding the waterways of the offending vessels.

I doubt many responsible boat owners would have a problem with mandatory insurance. The problem is, that still doesn't get those boats with insurance out of the condo dweller's views.

The mooring program does that, and it's hard to see it having any other real purpose but the Florida legislature and city governments catering to the condo commandos and their associated lobbyists, the real estate brokers.

[Boatguy30]

Well if insurance is required, you would have to get it or leave the state or have your boat impounded.

In St augustine, the most expensive homes in town look directly at the mooring field. This used to be the centuries old anchorage area. Now that the boats are nice enough for the owners to have insurance AND pay the $300 a month the view has improved and people seem to be mostly OK with them there.

My contention is that if just insurance was required, it would force the bum boats off the water. anyway you want to put it, this is the goal.

Again, I'm not thrilled about having to get insurance, but would prefer that to a super restrictive anchoring law.

the current govenor and legislature hate "big govenment" but seem to be pasing more and more laws. Can't buy bongs in FL now, convicts can't look at pornography, fellons have AGAIN lost the right to vote.

Stripping anchoring rights would not even get a second thought by these guys.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Group9

I doubt many responsible boat owners would have a problem with mandatory insurance. The problem is, that still doesn't get those boats with insurance out of the condo dweller's views.

The mooring program does that, and it's hard to see it having any other real purpose but the Florida legislature and city governments catering to the condo commandos and their associated lobbyists, the real estate brokers.

Not true at all. The law doesn't pander to the condo commandos. The law is a 'give something to the boaters and in return you can exercise a limited amount of control'. With the exception of Boca Chica Basin in Key West, nowhere does the program ban all boats.

The pilot program allowed municipalities to establish a mooring field and associated no-anchor zone around the mooring field. Unfortunately, Monroe found a loophole in the law and was able to declare all of Monroe county as part of the pilot. But nothing I've seen in Monroe has been unreasonable.

As mentioned above, IIRC, there is only one area in the pilot program that banned boats, Boca Chica Basin at Key West. I don't have experience at Boca Chica, but on the charts it looks way too shallow for my boat. They used the environmentally sensitive bottom excuse, which very well could be the case.

Removing Boca Chica from the total anchorage available in Key West, there is still 98+% of the original anchoring space available.

Oh gee, now I have to prove I've been pumped out every 10 days, what a burden!

[CaptTom]

I don't have a horse in this race - yet. Some day I plan to spend some time in FL. Anchoring, mooring and renting overnight slip space.

The problem I see up in NE is that moorings take over all the good anchorages. I guess I'd pay a few bucks for a decent transient mooring, but when they're all private moorings and there's no place left to anchor, I get irritated. Especially if they're all unused moorings just wasting the space others could be anchoring in.

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Well if insurance is required, you would have to get it or leave the state or have your boat impounded.

In St augustine, the most expensive homes in town look directly at the mooring field. This used to be the centuries old anchorage area. Now that the boats are nice enough for the owners to have insurance AND pay the $300 a month the view has improved and people seem to be mostly OK with them there.

My contention is that if just insurance was required, it would force the bum boats off the water. anyway you want to put it, this is the goal.

Again, I'm not thrilled about having to get insurance, but would prefer that to a super restrictive anchoring law.

the current govenor and legislature hate "big govenment" but seem to be pasing more and more laws. Can't buy bongs in FL now, convicts can't look at pornography, fellons have AGAIN lost the right to vote.

Stripping anchoring rights would not even get a second thought by these guys.

1. Florida cannot (and has not in the last 40 years) kept it's automobiles insured, stats were quoted in an earlier post.
2. The extra manpower and costs both in enforcement and administration would be far higher than the disposal of derelict boats.
3. No one can tell a boat seeking safe haven from dangerous conditions they cannot anchor without assuming liability for that action. The strategy is to displace anchorages with mooring fields, so there is no place to anchor at all.
4. As for essentially taxing cruisers (yes, a fee to use what was free is a tax when enacted by government, a "use tax") in order to preserve the view of some condo snobs, that is ludicrous. They should have bought something where the entire view is controlled by zoning laws, like in a historic district. I have never known of a Walmart in Florida being stopped because it ruined the view.
5. If you want the view in the window to never change, it's called a painting, hang one over the window.
6. All boats, especially those that are used for real cruising, can't remain as pretty as those owned by the dock commandos that think paying to be somewhere is ok. I have been places where a towel on the lifeline is considered unsightly. Eventually the law would allow only postcard schooners in bristol condition to enter the view.
7. In my dirt base state, the party claiming to be against big government took complete control of state government three years ago, after the other party had controlled it for 150+ years. The only difference in that time is that you can now purchase a 32 oz beer. Believing that any politician is against big government is like believing a dog catcher thinks dogs should roam free. Historically the opposite is nearly always true, when given a small foothold, laws grow and blossom into covering more and more.
8. The survey is an exercise in question begging, hard to answer if you are a cruiser, and designed to generate only one outcome. It is not poorly designed, in fact, the opposite is true. They will have their mandate, by design. Government of the affluent, by the affluent, for the affluent, under a thin cloak of democracy.
9. There is an ugly word for he who wishes to control all that is within his view. No level of control can ever be enough.

As someone who anchors, and wishes to continue to do so, the survey was offensive. It is a survey only a waterfront owner could love, with little to disguise it.


I am fully insured, and have a slip (in fla) paid to the end of the year, should I need it, that is not the issue for me.




In times when men were men, we would respond by having an "anchor-in", and thousands of cruisers would descend upon St. Pete, and anchor. That would be an answer to the survey. We would arrive with the wind (like locusts). The revolution would be weather permitting, of course.


'

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I don't have a horse in this race - yet. Some day I plan to spend some time in FL. Anchoring, mooring and renting overnight slip space.

The problem I see up in NE is that moorings take over all the good anchorages. I guess I'd pay a few bucks for a decent transient mooring, but when they're all private moorings and there's no place left to anchor, I get irritated. Especially if they're all unused moorings just wasting the space others could be anchoring in.

Private moorings are very hard to come by in Florida. In order to install a mooring one must get a submerged land lease from the state, not an easy task. I haven't seen that many and I would guess the majority of those are illegal.

But to your point, mooring fields do appear in the more popular anchorages. There is a reason for that! Other than those bemoaning the price/rules, consensus is that a mooring field is much better/safer than a bunch of anchored boats in close quarters.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by DotDun

The pilot program allowed municipalities to establish a mooring field and associated no-anchor zone around the mooring field. Unfortunately, Monroe found a loophole in the law and was able to declare all of Monroe county as part of the pilot. But nothing I've seen in Monroe has been unreasonable.

The problem with legislation and attached regulations is not whether they are used reasonably or not, the problem is is what's allow to happen. Not every jurisdiction will apply the reasonableness test. Rather, and I'm sure we've all seen this, they will push the limits of what was intended.


That is where the danger lies.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by avb3

The problem with legislation and attach regulations is not whether they are used reasonably or not, the problem is is what's a allow to happen. Not every jurisdiction will apply the reasonableness test. Rather, and I'm sure we've all seen this, they will push the limits of what was intended.


That is where the danger lies.

No doubt! Humans are well, human.

But we have to credit Alan Richard (now retired) in crafting the 2009 ordinance. Excerpts from that time.

FWC Assistant General Counsel Alan Richard said pending clarifications to Florida Statute 327-60(2) will leave no doubt that cities do not have authority to prohibit anchoring.

Richard added that the city already has laws to enforce noise, sewage dumping, live aboards and derelict boats.

“These are already crimes. Cuff ‘em and stuff ‘em,” he said.

All of the pilot area municipalities had their ordinances scrutinized by the FWC who then held public meetings/online surveys. It wasn't a municipality free-for-all. Example: The Stuart proposed ordinance included a 1000' perimeter of no-anchoring around the mooring field. The final ordinance has a 150' perimeter. That change happened because of the FWC.

A cruiser can only hope that if the new/next state law allows more of these programs, the same level of scrutiny by the FWC and public will be included.

So those of you bemoaning the survey under the guise of 'there ain't no good laws', you need to understand the Florida FWC is a cruiser's friend. Drop your idealist viewpoint and participate or it's possible you'll end up losing a lot more ground (the kind with a water covering).

Remember, the major reason a democracy fails, is apathy!

[JusDreaming]

Originally Posted by DotDun

No doubt! Humans are well, human.

But we have to credit Alan Richard (now retired) in crafting the 2009 ordinance. Excerpts from that time.





All of the pilot area municipalities had their ordinances scrutinized by the FWC who then held public meetings/online surveys. It wasn't a municipality free-for-all. Example: The Stuart proposed ordinance included a 1000' perimeter of no-anchoring around the mooring field. The final ordinance has a 150' perimeter. That change happened because of the FWC.

A cruiser can only hope that if the new/next state law allows more of these programs, the same level of scrutiny by the FWC and public will be included.

So those of you bemoaning the survey under the guise of 'there ain't no good laws', you need to understand the Florida FWC is a cruiser's friend. Drop your idealist viewpoint and participate or it's possible you'll end up losing a lot more ground (the kind with a water covering).

Remember, the major reason a democracy fails, is apathy!

Very well said,
I can't see the difference from anchoring 150 ft. from mooring field, how could the anchoring characteristics be that different, or the available amenities.
As far as having pump out records, the environments around the ICW and it's tributaries can't continue to absorb the extra pollution. I know some will say " My "Poop is minimal to what is dumped by land use" it is true. But should we as boaters not be stewards of our environment. EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS!!!
All we, as Florida residents, are just asking that you dump your tanks three miles out, use pump out boat, or pump out at a marina while getting fuel.
And for what it is worth, I have yet to see any form of enforcement or the interest in enforcing the law in the Stuart Mooring field. There are boats anchored well within the 150 ft. limit.