What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[Julie Mor]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

I agree that complaints by influential waterfront property owners are, in part, what's driving this. Marco Island is a good example. However, I own waterfront property in Florida & I can tell you not all waterfront owners are rich & there are plenty of waterfront property owners in Florida are sailors that are against restricting anchoring. But like anyone who cruises in Florida waters we need to make ourselves heard. Please, everyone, log into the survey & make your voice heard. Being able to anchor out in Florida will always be a battle & we all need to help defend our rights. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AnchoringSurvey

If you look who the politicians are listening most closely to, no doubt it will be wealthy land owners. Our present campaign contribution laws give the wealthy the loudest voice. Even our Supreme Court effectively said money is speech. The politicians are the benefactors. So they won't bite the hand that feeds them. Nothing new there.

Taking the survey will hopefully benefit us if we all take the survey and the real results are posted. Though results that are contrary to benefiting the politicians and their major donors may be skewed. Forgive my skepticism. But taking the survey can at least be seen as an educational tool. Many of the present laws are clearly laid out in the survey and one can vote on what changes might be made. If you take the survey, at least you can walk away with a better overall understanding and maybe even some feeling you made your voice heard.

Originally Posted by Neeltje

Don't forget that waterfront property owners big and small do pay a hefty premium in property taxes for the privilege of being there, and if anything talks in this country, it's money.

Yes, but that extra money they pay does not come with any rights to the water they see from their yard. And the money that they talk with won't be in real estate taxes paid but in political contributions made.

Originally Posted by RTB

This is a bit like putting in a housing development near an airport, then having the airport shut down due to noise complaints by the homeowners...

Or next to a super highway, or a sewage treatment plant, or factory, etc, etc. The waterways were there long before the homes and condo buildings, so were the boats. That's the part of the conversation we seldom hear.

[Phantoms]

I haven't read the legislature

"Legislation". In this case it's not even legislation, but an idea for proposals.

[Julie Mor]

Interesting video that just arrived in my email box. Seems this might need to be included in the legislature conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqAXx991lZQ

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

Interesting video that just arrived in my email box. Seems this might need to be included in the legislature conversation.

Good posting, and a very well done video. Economic arguments always carry some weight, and now the connection must be made between the curtailment proposals of anchoring and that economic impact.

I'd like to see all sailors who live in Florida, who know people in the industry who work there (in other words, the voters) to forward this to their state representatives. I am not a resident there, but spend half of the year with my boat, and I will forward this to the people I know.

Again, thanks for posting.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

I'm not sure but I believe the landmark Marco Island court case was originally due to waterfront owners complaining about anchored boats ruining their view. Marco Island tried to impose a 72 hour restriction on anchoring which contradicted Florida State & Federal law. They lost in court & on appeal which pretty much stopped all municipalities from enacting their own anchoring ordinances without complying with State law. Obviously their answer is to change State law.

And, that's the logistical problem. Wealthy landowners can have this issue revisited over and over and over again, as many different ways and times as necessary, until they get what they want. All it takes is a phone call and a campaign contribution check.

Cruisers and boat owners have to win every single time. Rich landowners/condo commandos, and real estate brokers, only have to win once.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Group9

And, that's the logistical problem. Wealthy landowners can have this issue revisited over and over and over again, as many different ways and times as necessary, until they get what they want. All it takes is a phone call and a campaign contribution check.

Cruisers and boat owners have to win every single time. Rich landowners/condo commandos, and real estate brokers, only have to win once.

yep... eventually this has to make it to the supreme court. I'm not a lawyer but isn't there a way to shortcut and go directly to the supreme court when it comes to national / federal impacts?

[td0tz]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

Interesting video that just arrived in my email box. Seems this might need to be included in the legislature conversation.

This is exactly the influence that could counter the perennial push of the wealthy landowners who think they own the view - and the ocean, too.

If it's directed to recognize all boat owners as industry benefactors and not just owners of superyachts, that is.

Hey, Julie, when you move to Florida, I see a future for you. Spokesperson, lobbyist, Legislator?
You're smart, articulate, and, gee, you'd be helping out all us nice boaties.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by zboss

yep... eventually this has to make it to the supreme court. I'm not a lawyer but isn't there a way to shortcut and go directly to the supreme court when it comes to national / federal impacts?

No, not really. Their are a lot of ways to fight state legislation like this, but none of them are cheap or easy.

The Supreme Court only hears a small amount of appealed federal cases. Most are decided at the Court of Appeals level federally. And, really there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear many cases over federal/state jurisdiction issues, because almost every issue imaginable has been decided.

The law on navigable waters and who can regulate them, is pretty well settled. The problem is, to have standing to sue for the state infringing on that authority, takes someone who has been the victim of that exercise of unlawful authority by the state (or city or county).

Navigable Waters Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.
Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The distinction is particularly important in the case of so-called navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal government can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. It also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams. Generally a state or private property owner who is inconvenienced by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws of Eminent Domain would apply, which may lead to compensation for the landowner.
The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.
In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms. One area of this regulation covers matters of transportation and commerce: for example, rules governing the licensing of ships and the dumping of waste. A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled by federal law. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation's navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A third area of regulation involves Workers' Compensation claims. The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901–950). The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States.
The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

The second Supreme Court case ever decided, McCulloch vs. Maryland, was the Supreme Court slapping the State of Maryland down for trying regulate something that was under federal purview.

Here's the wikipedia version:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the U.S. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

See how many times McCulloch has been cited in federal cases though, just in the last few years, and you can see that states still never stop trying.

[a64pilot]

I still see that as the crux of the issue,
Navigable waters are under federal jurisdiction, not State and not Local.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but look up the definition of navigable waters and who has jurisdiction yourselves.

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

As a relatively impoverished "waterfront home owner", I'm convinced that if there were more MSD checks, I'd probably get less turds stuck in my snorkel when scraping the run-off-nutrient-nourished barnacles that cover my copper-clad rudder, but that's beside the point

Probably the city dumping turds again.

[Neeltje]

Has anybody given any thought to how all these dragging "out-of-state" anchors are plowing-up our local substrate and crab pots? Okay, I'm being facetious, but the devil's in the details, and before you start claiming your "rights" to the waters in and around Florida to the detriment of its "Wealthy" waterfront homeowners, just remember that the mega-yachts parked out front account for a good part of the low unemployment rate in Florida's coastal towns, and that most people here actually like having rich people around.

You can take surveys until the cows come home, but rest assured; Floridians will ultimately vote for what works for them.

Jacques

[zboss]

Actually the key words are "business" and "transportation".

Is a cruising boat at anchor being used for "transportation"? Is a live-aboard a vehicle of transportation? I fact, if the purpose of mooring fields is to keep a boat from being transported away when the owner is not moving the boat, are morrig fields even covered under this ruling?

How long can a boat be at anchor before it is no longer being used for transportation?

Originally Posted by Neeltje

and that most people here actually like having rich people around.

Noooo.... people like to pretend being rich. They pretend so much that their credit cards catch fire and they believe they are rich themselves. 99% of "rich" people are one lawsuit or DUI accident away from the poor house.

IMO - I feel that this issue would never even make it on a ballot. There are just too many people that do NOT have waterfront property or boats that this issue has no impact on... to them it would be a ridiculous discussion.

[Scout 30]

I agree, we will never see this on a ballot. To be on the ballot it would have to be a Constitutional amendment & would need 60% to pass. However, we did get the net ban passed years ago so it's possible.

[a64pilot]

Jacques,
How long have you lived in Florida?

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Jacques,
How long have you lived in Florida?

Off and on, since 1970. Why do you ask?