FL boaters get ready to fight again.....

[FSMike]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

If you wish to stop this AND appeal to the taxing authorities, pass on a massive tax increase of the imputed additional property holding to the land owners adjacent to the water. They will soon stop insisting they 'own' the water and the bottom.

In Florida some waterfront property owners DO own some of the bottom. Other property owners lease bottom land from the state.
The majority do neither.
Nobody owns the water as far as I can tell, if they do I stole some of it lol.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

There a ton of really great "middle ground" ideas. the problem is it will cost lots of money to actually enforce any of them. Well maybe not a ton and FWC has plenty of boats already, but they'll want a bunch of money and I really doubt anyone at the state level will want to pay for it.


Any 30 day rule, must move "x" mile radius away, etc, etc would be difficult to keep tabs on.


My guess is either nothing will be done or something very restrictive but easy to enforce will be passed.

Law enforcement agencies rue the thought of having to spend time "enforcing" laws on the water. Moreso, municipalities in particular don't want to pay for it. So, how do we ensure modicum of order is maintained in anchorages in such a way as both of these government related concerns are met? In most cases all anchorages require is monitoring, not a trip out by law enforcement to discover if anything requiring enforcement that didn't exist yesterday is present now. There's really an easy way to monitor arrivals, departures and longevity in an anchorage without making a time consuming trip out on the municipalities nickle. Drones. It's remarkable that in Sausalito, Ca. the RBRA and law enforcement agencies don't know exactly how many boats are in Richardson Bay. And, one of their objections to having an anchorage as opposed to a mooring field is it's difficult to monitor the movement of boats into and out of an anchorage. So, making sure boats staying beyond 72 hours apply for a permit and have their boat inspected is hard, so very hard and in the municipal governments view an unneccessary expense... Criminy, use a drone to count the boats. Use a drone to identify boats. Only make a trip out when a boat is beyond 72 hours and has not applied for a permit. I'm deeply engaged in trying to address objections by the RBRA, some members of the Sausalito City Council, Audabon Society and others largely hostile to the so-called "anchor outs" and the establishment of an organized, managed anchorage. Anyone whose ever made a living selling understands that addressing "exceptions", establishing credibility and trust are important in sales. In Sausalito a major, justifiable objection is to damage caused to shoreside property by boats that drag anchor in winter storms. Is a low cost way to overcome the objection to install "snag lines" capable of stopping dragging anchors around the perimeter of a clearly marked anchorage? Another objection is anchor chain damages eelgrass. Well, to date apparently nobody has considered placing buoys to identify the eelgrass beds and designate them as a no-anchoring zone. Send out a drone to identify boats obviously in violation of a rule, law or regulation. Then and only then make a trip out.

The point is, aside from dealing with derelict or abandoned boats, most other exceptions can be addressed and possible low cost solutions proposed.

But in order to accomplish anything you must first engage.

[Lake-Effect]

I'm curious about the reported derelict boats - not being removed and owners charged with cost of disposal, or boats auctioned off

• what level of government is tasked with enforcing?
• registration - assuming derelicts aren't properly registered, what level of government enforces that?
• does enforcement need to start with a complaint? (If so, y'all should be complaining often and hard about derelicts)

Seems to me the authorities could have a fairly basic process for handling this - assuming there's an effective law against derelicts - tag the offending boat, try contacting the boat owner, impound after x days, auction after y days. Am I right in deducing that there ISN'T an effective law against derelicts at this point?


Give that there are real costs to maintain alot of the FL waterways we'd like to anchor in, it's hard to imagine a workable system that wouldn't include some sort of permit & charge, unless you can make the case that the anchoring cruisers bring value in other ways.


Good luck with this fight; as a relatively impecunious trailer-cruiser hoping to cruise there, I'd hate to see FL waters walled-off to everyone but the wealthy.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well ...

Red letter day folks! Gord made a joke!!!!!!!!!!

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm curious about the reported derelict boats - not being removed and owners charged with cost of disposal, or boats auctioned off

• what level of government is tasked with enforcing?
• registration - assuming derelicts aren't properly registered, what level of government enforces that?
• does enforcement need to start with a complaint? (If so, y'all should be complaining often and hard about derelicts)

In Sausalito, Ca. the Richardson Bay Regional Authority (RBRA) is charged with disposing of boats and depends upon the California vehicle code that establishes registration requirements and remedies for violations of the codes. Operations are funded by a combination of resources I am not able to list. There has over the last year or so been a program designed to encourage boat owners to bring registrations current. Owners that fail to respond to multiple mailed notices stand to lose their boat in the jaws of a crusher, and do. Naturally, derelict and abandoned boats are the first to go. Reducing the numbers of registered, stored boats is problematic, and those responsible for them are rumoured to be four people who are holding onto them for a variety of reasons. I suspect the primary reason is resale at a profit.

There's no shortage of complaints. More about the fact there's people in various states of disrepair though than boats...

Seems to me the authorities could have a fairly basic process for handling this - assuming there's an effective law against derelicts - tag the offending boat, try contacting the boat owner, impound after x days, auction after y days. Am I right in deducing that there ISN'T an effective law against derelicts at this point?

Part of the problem is if boats are auctioned rather than taken entirely out of circulation by destruction, is they end up in the hands of some poor sod in need of a refuge from homelessness or a place to do drugs... After the first winter storm the boat either ends up dragging anchor into some rich guy's shoreside structure causing thousands of dollars in damage, sinks or if successfully recovered ends up abandoned - again.

Give that there are real costs to maintain alot of the FL waterways we'd like to anchor in, it's hard to imagine a workable system that wouldn't include some sort of permit & charge, unless you can make the case that the anchoring cruisers bring value in other ways.

In Sausalito I'm encouraging the RBRA to approve a clearly marked, organized and managed anchorage. Anyone staying longer than 72 hours must apply for a permit. A boat inspection including seaworthiness, ground tackle that must meet minimum acceptable standards, current registration, a functioning MSD; and onboard are the normally expected safety devices - fire extinguishers, flares & etc - must all be up to snuff before a permit is issued. In addition to minimize the chance a boat dragging anchor will go beyond the anchorage, "snag lines" are present around the perimeter at ground level, secured between two points and elevated slightly above the ground in order to reduce the chance a dragging anchor will skip over the line. Monitoring, rather focusing on trips to the anchorage for the purpose of enforcement can be facillitated by using a drone to monitor the movement of boats. The recalcitrant can be dealt with swiftly and their boats impounded.

Good luck with this fight; as a relatively impecunious trailer-cruiser hoping to cruise there, I'd hate to see FL waters walled-off to everyone but the wealthy.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Wrong

[/LIST]In Sausalito, Ca. the Richardson Bay Regional Authority (RBRA) is charged with disposing of boats and depends upon the California vehicle code that establishes registration requirements and remedies for violations of the codes. Operations are funded by a combination of resources I am not able to list. There has over the last year or so been a program designed to encourage boat owners to bring registrations current. Owners that fail to respond to multiple mailed notices stand to lose their boat in the jaws of a crusher, and do. Naturally, derelict and abandoned boats are the first to go. Reducing the numbers of registered, stored boats is problematic, and those responsible for them are rumoured to be four people who are holding onto them for a variety of reasons. I suspect the primary reason is resale at a profit.

There's no shortage of complaints. More about the fact there's people in various states of disrepair though than boats...




Part of the problem is if boats are auctioned rather than taken entirely out of circulation by destruction, is they end up in the hands of some poor sod in need of a refuge from homelessness or a place to do drugs... After the first winter storm the boat either ends up dragging anchor into some rich guy's shoreside structure causing thousands of dollars in damage, sinks or if successfully recovered ends up abandoned - again.



In Sausalito I'm encouraging the RBRA to approve a clearly marked, organized and managed anchorage. Anyone staying longer than 72 hours must apply for a permit. A boat inspection including seaworthiness, ground tackle that must meet minimum acceptable standards, current registration, a functioning MSD; and onboard are the normally expected safety devices - fire extinguishers, flares & etc - must all be up to snuff before a permit is issued. In addition to minimize the chance a boat dragging anchor will go beyond the anchorage, "snag lines" are present around the perimeter at ground level, secured between two points and elevated slightly above the ground in order to reduce the chance a dragging anchor will skip over the line. Monitoring, rather focusing on trips to the anchorage for the purpose of enforcement can be facillitated by using a drone to monitor the movement of boats. The recalcitrant can be dealt with swiftly and their boats impounded.

That sounded sane till drones and impounded.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Cadence

That sounded sane till drones and impounded.

A big problem in Sausalito is the Sheriff is underfunded and the police department rues the idea of having any role monitoring and enforcing rules, regulations and laws in Richardson Bay. Nor does City Hall want to spend any money toward that end. So, anarchy and chaos reigns supreme.

It may more attractive to both, the law enforcement agencies and City Hall if minimum time and expense is spent using a drone to monitor the arrival and departure of boats in Richardson Bay, rather than launching their boat just to go count boats... No point in having a permit and inspection requirement if your not going to monitor how long newly arrived boats have been in the anchorage. In fact considering the 'fun factor' in controlling a drone, the police will be falling over one another for their turn.

If 'impoundment' is too draconian a word for you, choose one to your liking. It's an unfortunate reality enforcement of rules, regulations and laws is sometimes necessary. Otherwise you end up with what has prevailed in Richardson Bay for too long.

By the way, my purpose in commenting in this thread is simply to suggest having a plan prepared that may be acceptable to those wanting to affect your anchoring rights may give you a strategic advantage. That's my objective here in Sausalito, and if anyone has a better plan or set of ideas bring them on.

[Waterway Guide]

UPDATE: The public workshop for new vessel anchoring laws in Florida has been scheduled for:

Thursday, October 8, 2015
9:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Morris Hall (17 House Office Bldg.)
Florida Capitol, Tallahassee, FL.

Please spread the word, and email me if you'd like to attend and meet up with the "team on the ground" there.

If you need a little background on the issue, visit:
Florida anchoring regulation workshop date announced located in General | Waterway Guide News Update

[Boatguy30]

Nice pic of Georgetown on the info page.

I'd be interesting in sharing the drive with someone from my area leaving early and returning the same day.

Jeff

[Davy J]

UPDATE: The public workshop for new vessel anchoring laws in Florida has been scheduled for: Thursday, October 8, 2015

Thanks for the update. Will be coming in from Tampa, most likely Wed. and return Thursday.

If you have the ability, please attend. Even if you do not live in Florida.

[DennisDW]

I'm a Florida waterfront property owner. 'Not rich. Mid-50s block house on a bayou in St. Pete. I look out on maybe 8 or 10 abandoned vessels. They're not close to me but I worry that they'll break loose and drag down on my dock and boat. It has happened in the past and every heavy thunderstorm or, God forbid, tropical storm is a concern. There are far fewer of them now than 12 or 15 years ago. I don't know why.

My understanding is that the discussion was about reasonable setbacks from the shoreline for anchoring. What's reasonable? I think most of us would not anchor where we would swing into a dock or seawall. That should be about 100' out for most any generous scope in Florida depths. Do we need a law that enforces common sense? Probably not on the water. Even the most placid bay will weed out the fools who anchor close in with cloths line on a cinder block.

But what if some one does anchors 100' from my back porch where I can see them buck nekid in the ports and they can see me sporting through the house chasing my lovely wife? (I wish she wouldn't run.) Here's where I'm conflicted. I would love to have responsible cruisers as neighbors and share stories with them. I would not like dirty, noisy folks in the same spot. And neither of them swinging up to my seawall every tide change.

Me, being one of the directly affected, ought to have a clear opinion and I don't. As such, maybe it would be better to hope the politicos leave off making a bad rule. They have so very many previous bad rules that the're good at it and that scares me. And I do take my boat out. I wouldn't want to have huge no anchoring zones restricting my travels.

What to do? Come have a drink,
Dennis

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by DennisDW

I'm a Florida waterfront property owner. 'Not rich. Mid-50s block house on a bayou in St. Pete. I look out on maybe 8 or 10 abandoned vessels. They're not close to me but I worry that they'll break loose and drag down on my dock and boat. It has happened in the past and every heavy thunderstorm or, God forbid, tropical storm is a concern. There are far fewer of them now than 12 or 15 years ago. I don't know why.

My understanding is that the discussion was about reasonable setbacks from the shoreline for anchoring. What's reasonable? I think most of us would not anchor where we would swing into a dock or seawall. That should be about 100' out for most any generous scope in Florida depths. Do we need a law that enforces common sense? Probably not on the water. Even the most placid bay will weed out the fools who anchor close in with cloths line on a cinder block.

But what if some one does anchors 100' from my back porch where I can see them buck nekid in the ports and they can see me sporting through the house chasing my lovely wife? (I wish she wouldn't run.) Here's where I'm conflicted. I would love to have responsible cruisers as neighbors and share stories with them. I would not like dirty, noisy folks in the same spot. And neither of them swinging up to my seawall every tide change.

Me, being one of the directly affected, ought to have a clear opinion and I don't. As such, maybe it would be better to hope the politicos leave off making a bad rule. They have so very many previous bad rules that the're good at it and that scares me. And I do take my boat out. I wouldn't want to have huge no anchoring zones restricting my travels.

What to do? Come have a drink,
Dennis

Sounds like a man with common sense.

[Captain Bill]

The derelict boat problem is a red herring. Fl counties are given about 8 million dollars a year from boat registration fees and one of the primary purposes of the money (there's a restrictive list about what the money can be used for) isvto remove derelict boats. The counties are supposed to make an annual report to the state on how they used the money or give it back. The SCCA tried to get a look at the reports, but last I heard had been unsuccessful. I suspect they get tossed into the county's general fund never to be seen again. I noticed one county was applying for a $70,000 grant to remove derelict boats because they had no money to do so, yet they should have gotten about $150,000 every year for that express purpose. When I looked at my home county's budget there were no line items or projects that could be tied to any allowed purpose for the use of those funds. My county should be getting a big chunk of money based on the number of boats registered there, but you never see any water projects that could account for where that money went. There are some nice boat ramps but they were done with grant money from a different source.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

The derelict boat problem is a red herring. Fl counties are given about 8 million dollars a year from boat registration fees and one of the primary purposes of the money (there's a restrictive list about what the money can be used for) isvto remove derelict boats. The counties are supposed to make an annual report to the state on how they used the money or give it back. The SCCA tried to get a look at the reports, but last I heard had been unsuccessful. I suspect they get tossed into the county's general fund never to be seen again. I noticed one county was applying for a $70,000 grant to remove derelict boats because they had no money to do so, yet they should have gotten about $150,000 every year for that express purpose. When I looked at my home county's budget there were no line items or projects that could be tied to any allowed purpose for the use of those funds. My county should be getting a big chunk of money based on the number of boats registered there, but you never see any water projects that could account for where that money went. There are some nice boat ramps but they were done with grant money from a different source.

You probably nailed it with general fund. Sad but true with governments.

[Davy J]

There are far fewer of them now than 12 or 15 years ago. I don't know why.

Question for you DennisDW, when you purchased your house, were there boats anchored in the bayou?

I ask, because I also own waterfront property. However, the water behind my house does not make a good anchorage.

One of my assumptions is that these property owners complaining about boats anchoring, never asked the real estate agent why those boats were next to the property to begin with..................