Miami Beach Anchoring Harassment

[SKMT]

Originally Posted by sailingchiro

Maybe you could host a 10-15 boat raft up party for the week. Sounds like fun. Provide leotards for the overweight yoga classes on deck.

Yeah if they ever run me out of here, this spot is getting listed as a 5-star anchorage on every crusier app/site.

[SKMT]

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

I think I'd try to negotiate something that works for you and pacifies the complainers at the same time. That may mean that you agree to leave within a time-frame... which is essentially where you are at now. If that wasn't successful, I'd just move on.

I understand your thinking, but theres two major problems:
A) That FWC said I can't go anchor ANYWHERE else in Miami Beach, except a couple clogged anchoranges.
B) If I tuck my tail and leave, I'm impliciting aknowledging that I'm the one that is in the wrong. And therefore, I can forget about ever coming back here in the future, without going thru all this again twofold.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well, you probably wouldn't. Would you?

Amazingly, even people on sailboats often know other people. And people tend to notice.

It's a small world.

Sometimes, you just have to do the right thing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

If what you're saying is "Don't make them mad, because they'll get the crooked politicians to write the laws so that nobody else can anchor there", I wish I could argue with you, but I can't.

What exactly would be crooked about politicians writing an anchoring law?

You may not like it but politicians represent their voting constituency. If they want anchoring laws enacted, nothing crooked about it.

This assumes the law doesn't conflict with other laws and they don't roll it up to the state or federal level to address the conflicts.

Be careful what you ask for when "standing up to the man". You may provide the spur to get a new law passed and others can get caught up in it.

[EXTangen]

I hope this comes to some reasonable solution. As a homeowner on waterfront property, I can understand that a semi-permanent resident blocking the view I paid for could get irritating. As a boat owner, I would like to think that legal anchoring anywhere should be free of harassment. I would tend to agree with an earlier opinion that boats are for leaving harassment behind. If I was causing a problem by sticking around longer than reasonable, I might also consider the long term impact if the locals push through more restrictions. I urge "reasonable and prudent" action by both the locals and the transients. Please avoid escalation unless you have been poorly treated. Good Luck!

Erik

[33trippindaisy]

For those who wish to stay, within areas that are not restricted, you can do a bit of research and clearly find the loop holes available. The easiest one is anchor up, have your fishing license current, your boat ready for inspection by any LE agency, then hang out a half dozen fishing poles, and get ready.

You see they can't stop you from fishing, period. You need the local fishing permits and the Regs that they provide, and you are allowed to fish at any time of day or night, and even if they find you asleep inside, when they knock tell them you are/were in the bathroom with a bad case of the poops and you are sorry it took you so long to get out on the deck!

You can sit and fish forever as long as you are actively fishing in a non restricted area, and yes anchoring to fish is allowed. Throw out a few green sticks for good measure, let them know the fishing around here sure is nice!

Now as to the personal ability to withstand harassment, you should always call the Mayor, the Governor, the heads of all departments and let the **** roll downhill.

You should always have a "trail cam" or two positioned on the boat as they are only activated by movement and have night vision capability and are actually pretty cheap. Nothing like evidence of harassment to get a politician working with you vs against you. While on camera, ask kindly for a Supervisor to respond to your location when dealing with unruly officers. Always do this.

And yes for the record I am a retired Supervisory level Police officer. You might even say something like "I realize Officer you are under a lot of pressure here from who ever has complained, so having the Supervisor or Shift Commander on hand will be helpful for us both".......don't argue with a field officer ever, as they are only one word from their boss from being on their way. But be clear you are "requesting and expecting" a Field Supervisor at your location. The failure to provide you with this is almost 100% of the time, a Violation of Department Policy.

I'm 63 years old, have served my Country twice Honorably, retired as a LEO, and served as the President of my local FOP. The Law is supposed to work well for people who abide by the Law. There will always be cocky, rogue warriors on Duty, and they need to be dealt with in a calm, but professional method.

Harassment of Law Abiding Citizens is simply not acceptable, and is the quickest way to end your career if it is documented, and every officer understands that. The person those type of officer's are looking for is the meek, compliant type that will simply obey their every order. We don't want or need this type of person serving our communities, and it is truly all of our responsibilities to have their anchor pulled, and have them shipped out. You just have to know how to do it, and take the time to do it right. I've seen two complaints derail a career or promotion for ever. Remember its your Right, be willing to Fight for it!

[StoneCrab]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Be careful what you ask for when "standing up to the man". You may provide the spur to get a new law passed and others can get caught up in it.

I think what Florida fears most is for boaters to permanently anchor in the waterways and stay long enough that the boats become derelict. Then it becomes a social problem, which laws will address.

Laws can't address every issue and often create new issues. In the absence of laws, civility requires mutual respect, cooperation and a willingness to get along. In a give and take world, you get to do what you want as long as you take into account the wants and needs of others, and you don't abuse it.

Although you haven't said it directly, I'm guessing that you are planning on staying there permanently. Take the recent boardings and week-long reprieve as a signal that you are over staying what is reasonable and acceptable to the surrounding community.

In this case there isn't a law (yet) preventing anchoring for marine safety and because we don't have a system for owning water (yet) in the US. As valhalla360 points out this can change. While you may be legal at this point, I'm guessing that your plan is to push the limits on what is "right" by staying put until forced out. At that point, the waters in which you are anchoring will not be available to anyone else either, then or in the future and it will be a legal matter.

[dwedeking2]

blocking the view I paid for could get irritating.

Does it state on your deed or purchase contract that you purchased property rights to the view?



I realized this may have been the reason you purchased the property but I would be suprised if there is any clause on your deed stating your rights to a view. You purchased rights to a piece of land and the structure on it.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

What exactly would be crooked about politicians writing an anchoring law?

You may not like it but politicians represent their voting constituency. If they want anchoring laws enacted, nothing crooked about it.

That's not really true.

You see, I've been watching the Florida legislature for a few years now. And that's not how it really works.

I've watched them do some pretty weaselly things. Last year they passed a BS law with no purpose other than eliminating Walton County's ability to grant the public access to the beaches they've always had access to. Written specifically to affect regulations passed the year before in Walton County, and specifically to grandfather-in similar legislation in Appalachicola. Who proposed it? A lawmaker who was retiring that year in an unaffected county in Southern Florida, so no current legislator's fingerprints wouldn't be on it. Completely designed to limit public access public access to private beaches, which should never have been private, and which the public has had access to until a few homeowners had started putting ropes around a few years ago.

Also last year, I watched as they proposed some legislation that would have disallowed homeowners from installing solar panels on their own homes and selling the excess electricity back to a local power company. Statewide legislation that was written so obscurely that after multiple readings, I didn't know if it was for or against the homeowner. Was called “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice,” by by "Floridians for Solar Choice" but was really a bid by the power companies to LIMIT solar options - the exact opposite of what it was named. It was a constitutional amendment, and if it had passed would have been nearly impossible to overturn. It failed after a grass-root effort and local papers managed to get the word out over what the legislation was really about.

This is the important part: don't pretend that Florida politicians are just "representing their voting constituency". I just gave you two examples of where Florida politicians clearly weren't representing their constituency, but rather some influential lobbying firms regarding legislation that is actually not in their constituents' interests.

Is it in a landlocked county's best interest that their constituents not have access to the beach? Is it in anyone's interest (other than the power company's) that individual's solar options be limited? I'd argue with you on both of those that the constituents don't even know what's going on in Tallahassee with their representatives.

In Florida, money talks, and a lot of people are comfortably numb.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by 33trippindaisy

For those who wish to stay, within areas that are not restricted, you can do a bit of research and clearly find the loop holes available. The easiest one is anchor up, have your fishing license current, your boat ready for inspection by any LE agency, then hang out a half dozen fishing poles, and get ready.

You see they can't stop you from fishing, period. You need the local fishing permits and the Regs that they provide, and you are allowed to fish at any time of day or night, and even if they find you asleep inside, when they knock tell them you are/were in the bathroom with a bad case of the poops and you are sorry it took you so long to get out on the deck!

You can sit and fish forever as long as you are actively fishing in a non restricted area, and yes anchoring to fish is allowed. Throw out a few green sticks for good measure, let them know the fishing around here sure is nice!

You know, that's true.


There is nothing more sacred in Florida than fishing.


Probably only good for one night, though.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

What exactly would be crooked about politicians writing an anchoring law?

You may not like it but politicians represent their voting constituency. If they want anchoring laws enacted, nothing crooked about it.

.

From having worked as a federal law enforcement officer in south Florida, I would say that the problem is, that laws like these, are generally written in a thinly disguised quid pro quo bribery operation (campaign contributions) rather than from a spirit of what is good for the community.

Especially, when you see lawmakers, like we saw in Florida, introducing bills that only affected areas they they didn't even represent, and that they had no identifiable interest in.

So, saying there is nothing crooked about it, is only true up until someone is indicted and convicted, which I learned that in south Florida, was about as likely as it happening in Mexico.

Voters in south Florida don't just tolerate corruption, they demand it!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

Does it state on your deed or purchase contract that you purchased property rights to the view?
I realized this may have been the reason you purchased the property but I would be suprised if there is any clause on your deed stating your rights to a view. You purchased rights to a piece of land and the structure on it.

What you're describing, sounds, to me, like a negative easement, or covenant.


Securing a Right to View: Broadening the Scope of Negative Easements” ~ by Tara J. Foste
“... Throughout the United States views represent valuable property interests, and landowners and tenants recognize this by paying more to acquire them. Yet, in spite of their value in terms of dollars at the closing table, property views are not considered a right incident to the land in this country and unless acquired pursuant to an express grant or covenant, they generally aren't protected in a court of law. This Comment discusses the evolution of property view rights in the United States...”
➥ https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46711560.pdf

[Saleen411]

Originally Posted by EXTangen

I hope this comes to some reasonable solution. As a homeowner on waterfront property, I can understand that a semi-permanent resident blocking the view I paid for could get irritating. As a boat owner, I would like to think that legal anchoring anywhere should be free of harassment. I would tend to agree with an earlier opinion that boats are for leaving harassment behind. If I was causing a problem by sticking around longer than reasonable, I might also consider the long term impact if the locals push through more restrictions. I urge "reasonable and prudent" action by both the locals and the transients. Please avoid escalation unless you have been poorly treated. Good Luck!

Erik

I too am a waterfront homeowner and I agree with your views.

HOWEVER, I have had issues with certain boats anchoring behind my house.....esp weekend party barges.

How many homeowners would be happy with an RV parking in their backyards?.....esp an RV full of party goers.

Not saying anything negative about the OP.....just saying that the homeowner is not always being unreasonable when they make a complaint.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

I too am a waterfront homeowner and I agree with your views.

HOWEVER, I have had issues with certain boats anchoring behind my house.....esp weekend party barges.

How many homeowners would be happy with an RV parking in their backyards?.....esp an RV full of party goers.

Not saying anything negative about the OP.....just saying that the homeowner is not always being unreasonable when they make a complaint.

Good point that's worth highlighting. The reasonableness test applies to all parties. The above scenario, for example, might be best addressed by lawful complaints for a "nuisance" action or disturbing the peace. Among other things, this puts the focus on the behavior of the individual parties as opposed to broader rules & regs that have the potential to affect everyone, whether their anchoring creates a nuisance or not. Perhaps one answer in the present case is for the OP, to the extent practicable, to move his boat around to different spots within the same general area.

[SKMT]

Originally Posted by EXTangen

I can understand that a semi-permanent resident blocking the view I paid for could get irritating.

I'm not "Blocking" anyones view though. I'm at minimum 100 yards from any seawall depending upon wind. Meanwhile damn near every house is stacked within 15-20ft feet from their neighbors house on either side. That's the part that I find ridiculous.

And also, remember that I am on an anchor, so everyday I'm swinging in different positions in relation to individual homes & their line of sight.