Florida Mooring and Anchoring Pilot Program Survey

[Boatguy30]

What's different from 2009? Can you not anchor in the NE part of the harbor or the SW anymore? I assume they also have overflow anchoring in the winter in the creeks near the high radiation AM towers.

Anyway, I don't claim to be a keys expert. I've lived aboard around 2 years total there in the last 15 years.

My concern is the wholesale confiscation of the waterways by local governments. which the florida mooring field rules allow and basically encourage.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it has not changed much since 2009.

AGAIN, I'm fine with some mooring fields scattered around the state in high use/ problem areas.

the problem is when cities put in fields where there is no demand simply to clear large sections of the waterway. This was done here in Salt Run and also in Sarastoa. It will be done plenty more places if the state allows.

Hmm, Sarasota was 84% occupied in the first 6 months of operation. They decided to proceed to phase 2, doubling to size of mooring field. That would suggest there is demand...??

[Boatguy30]

Ok, I'm done with this. When either side of the intracoastal from state line to state line is mooring field I'll blame you guys.

In Sarasota they TOOK over something like over a square mile of water to put in what was it like 30 moorings. They also officially evicted all the sailing squadron guys. I assume some of those guys took up the legal city moorings and some stayed at the squadron.

MY POINTE, Again is the city TOOK public waterway from the public!!!!

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Hmm, Sarasota was 84% occupied in the first 6 months of operation. They decided to proceed to phase 2, doubling to size of mooring field. That would suggest there is demand...??

The displacement of anchorage by the mooring field creates the demand.

Phase II will eliminate the rest of the possibilities and create a more urgent demand.

That is the point.

'

[Boatguy30]

Hey, thanks for chipping in.
I guess the other way to look at this is not only does it improve the view for the land owners, but it get the riff raff blue collar types off the waterways for the yachclub set that has no problem throwing down $25 every night for a mooring.

I know I'm going to be challenged on the $25 per night but let's call it a statewide average in 2-3 years time. could be a lot higher if there's no where to anchor. and hey, those moorings don't maintain themselves.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Custom30

The displacement of anchorage by the mooring field creates the demand.

Phase II will eliminate the rest of the possibilities and create a more urgent demand.

That is the point.

'

And you can't camp anymore in the middle of Marco Island like you could 50 years ago. Why? Because it's developed! Lots more people enjoying Marco Island today than did 50 years ago. I don't understand how that's bad.

[Boatguy30]

Um, was that state land they gave to the city of Marco Island for free?

that's what's happening on the waterways and it's wrong. The cities should have to pay a fair market lease for the land and return the money to state residents like Alaska does for oil.

[hellosailor]

"Well if insurance is required,"

Don't get hung up on that. According to the Florida DMV, 1 in 4 Florida drivers are uninsured or unlicensed (1:10 in most other states) and it is "technologically impossible" to make sure everyone has current insurance. Many buy a policy that is paid monthly, use it for one month to show DMV, then cancel their coverage.

Think marinas and watercops will do any better?

Apparently the technology that other states have used so well for so many years, doesn't work so far outside the mainland US.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Um, was that state land they gave to the city of Marco Island for free?

that's what's happening on the waterways and it's wrong. The cities should have to pay a fair market lease for the land and return the money to state residents like Alaska does for oil.

Might be wrong, but it's legal. Not all laws are fair.

I still don't see how taking a piece of public waterway, improving it such that more can enjoy it is a bad thing. If the municipalities don't live up to the improvement, the state takes it back.

[Boatguy30]

Sure improve away, but don't charge me for something I don't want and don't need.

Are you serious with this? what about a new toll booth when you back out of your driveway, a bill for every time your kid or grand kid uses the slide at recess?

ENOUGH!

[sailorboy1]

For the real cruisers here, do you really find the "new" FL mooring fields really any different for other places along the Eastern USA up to Maine?

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by DotDun

And you can't camp anymore in the middle of Marco Island like you could 50 years ago. Why? Because it's developed! Lots more people enjoying Marco Island today than did 50 years ago. I don't understand how that's bad.

To equate the way the campers "enjoyed" Marco Island, and the way it's current inhabitants "enjoy" it, proves you have no idea what we are even talking about.

There are almost no marco islands to be camped on anymore, and there will be no anchorages to enjoy.

The Cities will build the mooring fields, completely displacing any spot that will hold an anchor. When funding for maintenance becomes a problem, they will "privatize" them to gain liability release. Free anchorages will then have turned into for profit enterprises, like developed land.

Anchorages are free and unregulated, and should remain so, period.

There are plenty of laws already in place to deal with waste and derelict vessels, that need to be enforced. these are just lame excuses to regulate, tax, and sell something that was previously off limits.

Better still to serve the affluent waterfront owners who are more likely to be campaign contributors than any anchoring cruiser.

The Survey proves their intentions in black and white, by the questions it literally begs. I am shocked that one of the questions wasn't; "Do you think the mooring fields have helped cruisers stop beating their wives?"

'

[pbiJim]

Originally Posted by Group9

I doubt many responsible boat owners would have a problem with mandatory insurance.

Please count me as one of those who you assume to be few. I am not a big fan of any type of mandatory insurance.

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by pbiJim

Please count me as one of those who you assume to be few. I am not a big fan of any type of mandatory insurance.

I have insurance, but still don't want to be required to have it.

When the Cities have their mooring fields, what is there that keeps them from deciding upon insurance limits that exceed those carried by most cruisers, thus eliminating the cruisers legally.

Unless you studied every possible shelter to know what insurance would be needed to pick up a ball there, you could be caught "not eligible" for the only shelter available.

'

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

For the real cruisers here, do you really find the "new" FL mooring fields really any different for other places along the Eastern USA up to Maine?

That's why we live here. And I personally like the publicly managed privately owned model in the NE. The density of the harbors is also totally different.