What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by RTB

There you go with the nasty "cruiser" comments again....

Hey, we'll be in St. Augustine again next year. We should meet up at the fort (Castillo de San Marcos), and have a duel.

Attachment 94037

.........or we could just meet up for a nice late lunch at Columbia Restaurant. Then, I'd love to check out your boat.

Ralph

Love to Ralph!

We'll do it in that order (not to worry, I'm a lousy shot). May I, however, suggest the Gourmet Hut instead? It's right next to the Castillo (in case one of us shoots himself in the foot), and it's cheaper (in case I end up treating your cheap Cruiser ass).

As for the seeing the boat, we'll have to take a little road trip (1/2 hour tops) to Palatka, where she now bobs around in the barnacle-free waters of the Saint Johns River.

Give me a private heads-up when you get here.

BTW, you can anchor out in front of the Castillo, and dinghy up to the first pier just north of it...

Jacques

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Obviously you had to have been there. I suppose Google could be your friend.

I'm not defending Florida law, I'm trying to tell you what it states.

I personally enjoy the mooring fields, I've also anchored close to FMB and BKH and KW and bunch of other places around FL.

As you stated, FL is not a problem. The mooring fields take up less than 10nm of Florida's 1200 miles of tidal coastline. So why is everyone complaining/worrying?

I suppose one shouldn't have to register/pay when anchoring in Dry Tortugas National Park, after all, it's just sand and no mooring balls???

This is a pilot program. It means that they're testing out the concept in a few municipalities with the intention of expanding it. It has nothing at all to do with Dry Tortugas National Park fees.

As far as coastline is concerned, there are vast lengths of coastline that aren't suitable for anchoring. Those 10 nm are key points of access in desirable locations. Many natural anchorages throughout the state are co-located with municipalities that have their own interests which may or may not align with those of cruisers, so I would anticipate that those strategic locations would be the most affected.

The point of the pilot program is to establish law for the entire state. The concern is that anchorages will be more controlled throughout the state, as opposed to the relative freedom that currently exists.

I refer you to what happened in Marco Island as an example where a municipality attempts to establish controls over waterways. They did not have the legal footing to do so, and their ordinance was overturned. This is valuable in showing the potential conflict of priorities between cruisers and municipalities.

There are pros and cons of these anchoring policies. You've mentioned a couple of pros (more control of derelict boats, and mooring balls available), but I'm not sure they outweigh the concerns of giving municipalities greater control of the waterways.

I don't see derelict boats as a big problem in the Florida Panhandle, but it may be a bigger concern on the east coast, or in places like Key West. Like I said, better targeted and properly funded legislation would be more effective of that single goal. Nothing here has compelled me to believe that giving local municipalities more control of anchorages is to the cruiser's benefit. What do they get out of this grand bargain, other than mandatory use of moorings near municipalities?

I don't have a problem with the pilot program, but I'm wondering where people see this as ultimately going? Like I mentioned before, I'm hesitant to give up freedoms without a compelling argument to do so.

On a related note, are some percentage of these mooring balls reserved for transient use with some time limit, as opposed to local permanent subscribers?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This is a pilot program. It means that they're testing out the concept in a few municipalities with the intention of expanding it. It has nothing at all to do with Dry Tortugas National Park fees.

The only viewpoint expressed has been "damn them, they're taking away my right to anchor wherever the hell I want". Point is, this is not an uncommon act.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

As far as coastline is concerned, there are vast lengths of coastline that aren't suitable for anchoring. Those 10 nm are key points of access in desirable locations. Many natural anchorages throughout the state are co-located with municipalities that have their own interests which may or may not align with those of cruisers, so I would anticipate that those strategic locations would be the most affected.

No doubt, but just like the parking garage that replaced an empty field next to a popular venue and now you have to pay to park. It's called growth and population shift, wherever that happens, things change.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The point of the pilot program is to establish law for the entire state. The concern is that anchorages will be more controlled throughout the state, as opposed to the relative freedom that currently exists.

Technically, the point of the pilot program is to test giving munis some level of control over the water adjacent to their jurisdiction. FWC is evaluating the effects of such on all parties involved.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I refer you to what happened in Marco Island as an example where a municipality attempts to establish controls over waterways. They did not have the legal footing to do so, and their ordinance was overturned. This is valuable in showing the potential conflict of priorities between cruisers and municipalities.

There are various points of view, more than just the cruiser.

Yes, the Marco Island case was 'illegal' as declared by a court. So what laws did it break? Florida State Law. So, now, those on the other side of the argument from the cruiser are taking their plea to the state legislature. The bothersome piece is the fact FWC will have to follow any/all laws passed by the legislature. I view FWC as trying to give voice to 'the cruising/boating community' by launching the lasted survey. It's obvious the wealthy are being heard by the politicians, but that process has been ingrained in our society forever and ain't gonna change. Hence, I view FWC as the only hope for any injection of common sense into the state legislative process.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

There are pros and cons of these anchoring policies. You've mentioned a couple of pros (more control of derelict boats, and mooring balls available), but I'm not sure they outweigh the concerns of giving municipalities greater control of the waterways.

That's one point of view.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't see derelict boats as a big problem in the Florida Panhandle, but it may be a bigger concern on the east coast, or in places like Key West. Like I said, better targeted and properly funded legislation would be more effective of that single goal. Nothing here has compelled me to believe that giving local municipalities more control of anchorages is to the cruiser's benefit. What do they get out of this grand bargain, other than mandatory use of moorings near municipalities?

Again, that's one point of view. The landlubbers that have to look at a derelict for a year or more it takes to get it removed (after being declared derelict) under current law have a different point of view, especially when the owner (if they can even be found) can't pay for removal and the taxpayer ends up with the bill.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't have a problem with the pilot program, but I'm wondering where people see this as ultimately going? Like I mentioned before, I'm hesitant to give up freedoms without a compelling argument to do so.

My PoV:

Prior to the Marco Island case, which spurred the 2009 rewrite/clarification of state law, there were several munis writing whatever ordinance they desired around anchoring. I understand a few are still trying to enforce the local ordinances that are still on the books.

The backlash from the 2009 rewrite spurred the Pilot Program. IoW, FWC was able hold back the legislature by offering a program to test giving munis some level of control. Remember, under the Pilot Program, all local ordinances must be approved by FWC (after public input).

Some that never accepted the local anchoring ordinance smackdown from state, are constantly hounding the state legislators to change state law. Last session we saw attempts by 2 legislators. This happened at the same time the FWC was asking to add 3 years to the Pilot Program. The reason for the 3 year extension is because it took too long to get the mooring fields up and running in all 5 of the test sites (I think Sarasota opened in year 4 of the program). FWC wants more time to evaluate the effects.

One has to believe the reason FWC put out the latest survey is to get a feel for what the cruising/boating community can live with in terms of 'no anchor zones' so they are equipped for the arguments in the next legislative session. If you read between the lines, if there was a 150' zone with areas outside the zone left with existing law, would that be bad? This also hints the FWC doesn't have a good feeling about a program like the Pilot going forward. Munis are objecting to the costs associated with operation of a mooring field.

There will always be forces on each side of the topic and until an equatable resolution is found, there will be change.

Sitting, screaming, yelling about boaters rights, class warfare, and d#$%-waving about who is a real cruiser doesn't add any value to what is really happening at the state level.

All, IMO of course. YMMV

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

On a related note, are some percentage of these mooring balls reserved for transient use with some time limit, as opposed to local permanent subscribers?

You have to read each mooring field's rules. I know Sarasota allows wet storage and BKH does not. I know Sarasota has some moorings reserved for transients, I think FMB and BKH are first come first serve.

[a64pilot]

OK, here is my thought about how this will happen.
First there will be mooring fields, nicely located so as not to be in anyones backyard.
Not too much longer after the fields go in you will only be allowed to stop in these fields, no more anchoring anywhere in _______ county, they will say it's for many reasons, safety, pollution control, environmental, whatever it takes. Which of course means no more "stored" boats, abandoned or otherwise as numbers I've seen quoted here, my marina slip is as cheap.

Of course any "real" cruiser won't mind the $300 or so a month additional cost.

A big reason I no longer enjoy RVing, is it became driving from one over crowded parking lot to another where they were stacked like automobiles in a Walmart parking lot.

Take the FWC survey, I did. Most of the questions didn't have the answers I would have chosen as an option, seemed to be very slanted to me.

[RTB]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

Love to Ralph!

We'll do it in that order (not to worry, I'm a lousy shot). May I, however, suggest the Gourmet Hut instead? It's right next to the Castillo (in case one of us shoots himself in the foot), and it's cheaper (in case I end up treating your cheap Cruiser ass).

BTW, you can anchor out in front of the Castillo, and dinghy up to the first pier just north of it...

Jacques

No worries. I'm a lousy shot too. Probably because I close my eyes and try to cover my ears before pulling the trigger.

No problem about anchoring. We take a mooring, and stay a week or two, treating it as something of a vacation (from cruising....does that make any sense?). We were actually there in November 2013, when that sailboat dragged and crashed into the Bridge of Lions. Probably does encourage thoughts about anchoring restrictions by the locals. We saw the sunken sailboat being towed a day or two later.







On our run from Daytona to St. Augustine previously, we ran out of daylight. There is an "anchorage" shown on the west side of the ICW, before the State Road 312 Bridge. I tried to find a spot there, but with skinny water around and derelict boats with 4-6 anchors out, finally gave up dropping the hook. We ended up anchoring just before the bridge, and went in the next morning. Is the anchorage still filled with all of those boats?

A64pilot- I hope your thoughts are wrong. The only link on this thread (todays rules) was by Dot Dun http://www.boatus.com/Assets/www.boa...nformation.pdf

I never did the survey, and it appears closed now. Is this what most of the arguments are based on? Did the survey actually include some proposed rules?

Ralph

[bob_77903]

T for Trouble

[RTB]

Originally Posted by bob_77903

T for Trouble

I work hard to live up to my name....But I'm honest and try to help people the best I can by posting accurate information based on experience.

Ralph

[bob_77903]

Agreed my friend

[Group9]

And, once you accept it is waterfront property owners and real estate developers and brokers driving this, you have to ask, "Who are these people?"

Foreign investors fueled nearly one-third of real estate transactions last year in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, according to a National Association of Realtors report. Eighty-one percent paid cash, the report found, and 72 percent bought a condo or townhouse.

Think many of those weren't on the water? Me, either.

I lived in Miami. The bad thing about many foreigners coming to a place like Miami, is that the first thing they do after buying property here, is start trying to make things here exactly like they were where they came from. And, a lot of countries do let property owners control the water around and next to them. In a way, you can't blame them for thinking they should be able to do it here, too.

And, I lived in ten different states and I never saw a place like south Florida where literally everything, is for sale, including laws and government. They don't even seem to be that embarrassed about it. It literally is the culture.

The panhandle is like a different country.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Group9

The panhandle is like a different country.

Now that is a true statement, but Guv'ment is corrupt there too, last public marina that went private and built condo's, the Mayor in PC got the penthouse.
Just co-incidence I guess huh?

Something's up with the current City Marina now, there was going to be a park on the land adjacent to it, but the State gave the land to the City, now suddenly the land is too valuable to be "wasted" on a park

[BandB]

Just amazing how a simple question leads to political diatribes, rants against and for this and that. Answering the question, there is a pilot program which impacts just a few places. However, in general Florida is blessed with thousands of anchorages available throughout the state. There are 7 excellent anchorages within 2 miles of our house in Fort Lauderdale. Oh, and one mooring field which has nothing to do with the pilot program, has long been there. And if you get tired of anchoring then 20 marinas are so. Seldom is anchoring a problem and generally there is plenty of room. When we left home yesterday morning there were a half dozen sailboats anchored within our view.

[Neeltje]

I've got a hard time relating to the "Florida Bashers" on this topic. Not only because most of the anchoring and political problems they're up in arms against would probably affect their State in a similar fashion had it this much water around it, but also because it's unjustified.

Most of you know that the State of Florida lives off of tourism, sugar, citrus fruit and cattle ranching (in that order).

Do you honestly think that Florida would risk alienating even a small portion of it's major income source to please a few waterfront property owners here and there?

If you really want to be "mistreated" as a tourist, go to Paris, Rome or Madrid next summer. Then we'll talk.

Jacques

[RKsailsolo]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Now that is a true statement, but Guv'ment is corrupt there too, last public marina that went private and built condo's, the Mayor in PC got the penthouse.

Just co-incidence I guess huh?



Something's up with the current City Marina now, there was going to be a park on the land adjacent to it, but the State gave the land to the City, now suddenly the land is too valuable to be "wasted" on a park

And what happened to Destin Pass is a crime. That monstrous building on the edge of Highway 98 sucked all the charm out of approaching the Luckiest fishing village in the world. http://nbiproperties.mojoimage.net/w...518&w=960&zc=1

[RTB]

Originally Posted by RKsailsolo

And what happened to Destin Pass is a crime.

We've been in and out of Destin Harbor twice recently. What is different these days? I'm asking, because I had never been there before 2013.

Ralph

[RTB]

Sorry, can't open that link on my computer for some reason.

Ralph