Visit our Popular Forums

rwidman · 20-12-2014, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

Are these your definitions or the official definitions . There lies the problem. What about a cruiser that stops for 3-6 months to work to build up there kitty? Would they appreciate being called a squatter?

That's pretty much what they would be. No different than someone setting up a camper on public land.

letsgetsailing3 · 20-12-2014, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwidman

That's pretty much what they would be. No different than someone setting up a camper on public land.

So they're not squatting if they're using a mooring ball instead of an anchor?

How long are cruisers permitted to stay in one place, before they become "squatters"?

smj · 20-12-2014, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwidman

That's pretty much what they would be. No different than someone setting up a camper on public land.

People like you suck all the life and enjoyment out of cruising.

rwidman · 20-12-2014, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

So they're not squatting if they're using a mooring ball instead of an anchor?

No. They are known to the city and paying rent. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

rwidman · 20-12-2014, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

People like you suck all the life and enjoyment out of cruising.

It's simply reality. Why are you blaming me for it?

I didn't pass these laws.

letsgetsailing3 · 20-12-2014, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwidman

No. They are known to the city and paying rent. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Why should they be a) known to the city, and b) paying rent to the city? They're anchoring in the sand, which wasn't built by the city, and isn't owned by the city.

If someone is camping in the wilderness, do they owe rent?

rwidman · 20-12-2014, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Why should they be a) known to the city, and b) paying rent to the city? They're anchoring in the sand, which wasn't built by the city, and isn't owned by the city.

If someone is camping in the wilderness, do they owe rent?

Probably.

Nobody is saying you have yo pay for a mooring, only that you can't anchor in the middle of the mooring field. Doesn't this make sense?

You should be aware that FL is not the only part of the country where towns or cities (or marinas) have established mooring fields and prohibit anchoring in the mooring fields.

You really need to take this up with the various state legislatures and/or courts if this bothers you so much. There's nothing I or anyone else on this forum can do to change things.

letsgetsailing3 · 20-12-2014, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwidman

Probably.

Nobody is saying you have yo pay for a mooring, only that you can't anchor in the middle of the mooring field. Doesn't this make sense?

You should be aware that FL is not the only part of the country where towns or cities (or marinas) have established mooring fields and prohibit anchoring in the mooring fields.

You really need to take this up with the various state legislatures and/or courts if this bothers you so much. There's nothing I or anyone else on this forum can do to change things.

This is a forum. The purpose is to discuss topics of interest. In spite of my commentary, I can actually see pros and cons to this, but short of a slam dunk, I lean towards more freedoms and less government controls.

RTB · 20-12-2014, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

People like you suck all the life and enjoyment out of cruising.

Relax my friend. I don't think a lot of these guys actually do much cruising.

Ralph

DotDun · 20-12-2014, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Is this really about derelict boats? I don't think that it is. Who's behind it? Nothing you mentioned in your post can't be handled with laws specifically targeted at derelict boats. If a boat is coast guard registered, the owner is easily found. If it's registered in Florida, as it needs to be if it's in the state for more than 90 days, the registration number is right there on the sticker. Again the owner can be found.

What is the problem this program is intending to solve? Maybe we should start there, and come of with a solution to that. If the only answer is dealing with derelict boats, we should have some regulations regarding that.

I didn't make a "strawman" of a large buffer zone around moorings. The argument against giving a lot of waterway authority to municipalities is the concern that they might pull a "Marco Island", and set arbitrary anchoring limits in order to appease a few influential locals, at a significant cost to the cruising community.

No need to get into chest thumping mode. Just tell us what problems you see this law solving.

Look at the before and after of FMB, BKH, and Sarasota. If you don't agree they are 'better', then you'll never agree with the pilot program.

DotDun · 20-12-2014, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Why should they be a) known to the city, and b) paying rent to the city? They're anchoring in the sand, which wasn't built by the city, and isn't owned by the city.

If someone is camping in the wilderness, do they owe rent?

This is where you are wrong. The state of Florida gives control of the 'sand' to the muni, so yes, they own it. Same as owning the streets and parks.

And yes, you camp in a park, you owe rent.

letsgetsailing3 · 20-12-2014, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DotDun

This is where you are wrong. The state of Florida gives control of the 'sand' to the muni, so yes, they own it. Same as owning the streets and parks.

And yes, you camp in a park, you owe rent.

No, I'm not wrong. The 'sand' isn't a park.