What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

PS - Please stop systematically blaming the "Rich Waterfront Homeowners" of Florida for all your anchoring woes. Many of them have done more to keep these waters attractive for you than you'll ever know.

I'm pretty sure they're looking out for their own interests, not those of the cruising community.

Yes, we all want the anchorages to look nice. But most of these initiatives turn out to be a direct tax, with those local homeowners weighing in pretty heavily to enhance their property investments and views.

I see a link between this and the other big controversy in Florida - which allows beachfront owners to claim the sand by the ocean as their own private beach down to the mean average high water line, and put fences around their part. The rest of the public, who actually funds beach restoration and the roads, are limited to the beach up to the mean high water line.

There is no limit to human greed.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by DotDun

How long did it take?

How much money?

Marco Island loses appeal in boat anchoring case - Marco Eagle

You think all that happened for free to the boater who was the test case? And, you don't get attorney's fees, even when you win, in a criminal case as the defendant.

But, here is a question to ponder. If existing law allows cities and counties and the state to do whatever they want, why don't they go ahead and do it?

Why don't they just cite anchoring boaters for trespassing on their "submerged lands"? It's theirs, right? Why not? There must be a reason. What could it be?

[Group9]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

There is no limit to human greed.

What does the boss of the Simpson's say about greed. "I'd trade everything I have, for just a little bit more."

Part of the reason I moved away from south Florida after living there. I've lived all over the country (and worked all over the world) and I don't think I've seen a more corrupt place, where literally everything and everybody is for sale. Just our bad luck it has to be such a pretty place, nature wise.

The same people who are pushing the anchoring laws, fight against laws protecting the environment down there on every front.

I don't know what will be extinct first in Florida, boaters or mangroves. The same people hate them both equally, and for the same reason: they get in the way.

[Scout 30]

Existing law does not allow individual municipalities to create their own anchoring ordinances. That's why this is so important.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

Existing law does not allow individual municipalities to create their own anchoring ordinances. That's why this is so important.

Exactly.

If they really own the water, through the submerged lands act, they could just post "No Trespassing" signs and cite anyone who trespassed (or anchored) there (and, in fact people who own land locked, non-navigable waters, can do that very thing).

[RTB]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

PS - Please stop systematically blaming the "Rich Waterfront Homeowners" of Florida for all your anchoring woes. Many of them have done more to keep these waters attractive for you than you'll ever know.

I don't see why the "Rich Waterfront Homeowners" should have any say AT ALL!

The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) is a 3,000-mile (4,800 km) inland waterway along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Some sections of the waterway consist of natural inlets, saltwater rivers, bays, and sounds, while others are artificial canals. It provides a navigable route along its length without many of the hazards of travel on the open sea.
Intracoastal Waterway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can find ZERO information saying the waterway was built for developers to build expensive homes with a view, on it's banks. Next thing you know, the rich will ask for all bridges to remain closed, because it is inconvenient to wait for bridge openings. Hey, Florida could save a lot of money if bridge maintenance was no longer necessary. Plus, they could fire all of the bridge tenders.

Ralph

[soverel]

http://www.fortmyersbeachtalk.com/pa....html?nav=5051



Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by soverel

Matanzas Inn to continue mooring field services - Fortmyersbeachtalk.com | Fort Myers Beach Bulletin, Fort Myers Beach Observer.



Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Wow, that really ought to be a money maker, based on the weekly fee, it's more than I pay for my Marina slip in Panama City's city marina.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Group9

Marco Island loses appeal in boat anchoring case - Marco Eagle

You think all that happened for free to the boater who was the test case? And, you don't get attorney's fees, even when you win, in a criminal case as the defendant.

I don't have to think, I know, the boater who was the test case lives less than 500' from me. It was free for the boater, the attorney did the work pro-bono.

Originally Posted by Group9

But, here is a question to ponder. If existing law allows cities and counties and the state to do whatever they want, why don't they go ahead and do it?

Why don't they just cite anchoring boaters for trespassing on their "submerged lands"? It's theirs, right? Why not? There must be a reason. What could it be?

No need to ponder the question because that's not the existing law. The state of Florida controls the submerged land and a muni only has the level of control the state grants them thru a submerged land lease. Currently, via the pilot program, the state will only grant a submerged land lease when the muni gives something back to the boating community, which to date has been mooring fields.

What you have to realize is that any muni can write/pass any ordinance it wants. It's not until that ordinance is tested in court is it deemed in conflict with higher statutes. Belaboring the Marco Island case it was deemed that the state laws were confusing, hence lazy attorneys working for munis gave their opinion that the muni was OK writing anchoring ordinances. The FWC clarified/rewrote the state laws in 2009 after the Marco Island case to make sure the lazy muni attorneys were no longer confused.

Now the no-anchoring advocates have taken their argument to the state legislature to have the state laws changed, trying to take power from the state (FWC) and give it to the munis.

IMO, FWC is a boaters best friend on this topic.

[Custom30]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Wow, that really ought to be a money maker, based on the weekly fee, it's more than I pay for my Marina slip in Panama City's city marina.

This article from 2013 lays it out pretty well.

I know the Harbormaster, a really great guy, and the only City employee associated with the Mooring Field. Law enforcement is getting twice his salary to look after it on the weekends.

The point is, the very best, safest anchorage, capable of accommodating hundreds of boats at no cost, is now displaced entirely by controlled moorings.

The only good holding left is used up by long term anchorers, and is a very long way from the City dinghy dock or Barnacle Bill's dinghy dock. It is even at least a half mile to land behind Topp's grocery, if you call climbing through the mangroves a dinghy dock.

This is about displacing free anchorages in front of multimillion dollar real estate. The waterfront millionaires (billionaires in some cases there), throw enough money at council members so that an annual loss of $85,000 to restrict anchoring seems reasonable.


'

[a64pilot]

Your saying at those rates they LOSE money? As I said my Marina is cheaper, and rates lower than that runs the entire Marina, and shows a profit.

How can a mooring field with bathrooms and a dinghy dock cost that much?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Custom30

This is about displacing free anchorages in front of multimillion dollar real estate. The waterfront millionaires (billionaires in some cases there), throw enough money at council members so that an annual loss of $85,000 to restrict anchoring seems reasonable.


'

So your position is that waterfront millionaires throw money so that instead of a couple of anchored boats there are many more boats moored.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

So your position is that waterfront millionaires throw money so that instead of a couple of anchored boats there are many more boats moored.

The key point is that boats are only allowed in the mooring field. I don't think that means more boats, only more restrictions on the boats and where they can be.

The reality is that this lowers the capacity for boats in a given area.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The reality is that this lowers the capacity for boats in a given area.

That is exactly my concern, for many reasons there will be much less availability of places to stay.
Camping in a State park is wonderful, great facilities etc., try to find an open spot on any popular weekend, they are booked out months in advavce.

Make it so that you can only stop in a mooring field, and it's going to be like trying to find a Motel room in Daytona for bike week.

Tacking on a several hundred dollar a month mooring field as a requirement is a great way to get rid of the budget cruiser, which I think is a large part of what they are after.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The key point is that boats are only allowed in the mooring field. I don't think that means more boats, only more restrictions on the boats and where they can be.

The reality is that this lowers the capacity for boats in a given area.

Have you ever used a mooring field?

Boats are much closer together in both FMB and Boot Key Mooring fields than any 2 boats would anchor.

And no, anchoring is allowed outside the mooring field (and buffer zone).