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

[sparrowhawk1]

Reminds me of a joke about a guy that buys a house next to railroad tracks then complains about the trains.

[DennisDW]

Originally Posted by Davy J

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..................

Good question. Yes there were many boats in worse state of repair. I have to admit it never crossed my mind as a decision factor. I was buying a dock with a house attached. Not a view. My wife is fond of telling the story of how I wouldn't even consider the place until I checked the dock and depths.

I might be an atypical waterfront owner as I'm just a liveaboard with a garage and workshop and the Mrs allows me to sleep inside.

How far of a sea wall/ dock setback do you think is fair? We already have an exclusion of 25' I think for commercial fishermen (mullet) in Pinellas county.

[Davy J]

How far of a sea wall/ dock setback do you think is fair?

The canal I live on, from sea wall to sea wall, is about 175' wide. There are no problems with people getting boats on or off docks, there is plenty of room for boats to pass. I think 50'-75' set back is more than enough, but that won't please property owners who don't want any boats anchored near them at all.

[tinkrman69]

there should be a stand off requirement of no more of three hundred feet from residential water front. boaters have just as much right to put our boats in their view as they do putting their monstrous...er... mansions in our view.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Davy J

I attended the FL senate hearings on SB 1548 last year and can tell you there is an attempt to restrict anchoring by any boats near waterfront property. They are just using the derelict problem as their excuse.

I think the only solution is to ban private ownership of waterfront. That seems impossible in this case.

In many areas of Australia public access is mandated. Of course this only works where property ownership doesn't extend to the waterline.

As we plan our gulf coast transit from west to east we'll bypass these resticed areas as quickly as possible.

It seems very un American. Maybe its time for another one of your excellent constituional amendments that give power back to the people.

As for derelict boats that should be an easy fix. Simply have your numerous marine law enforcement agencies do spot checks on sea worthiness. If you the owner can't move the boat then they tow it.

You do it with cars and the owner is responsible for the parking fees. If no owner then sell it, dispose of it or gift it to a non profit like the scouts.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

I think the only solution is to ban private ownership of waterfront. That seems impossible in this case.

In many areas of Australia public access is mandated. Of course this only works where property ownership doesn't extend to the waterline.

As we plan our gulf coast transit from west to east we'll bypass these resticed areas as quickly as possible.

It seems very un American. Maybe its time for another one of your excellent constituional amendments that give power back to the people.

As for derelict boats that should be an easy fix. Simply have your numerous marine law enforcement agencies do spot checks on sea worthiness. If you the owner can't move the boat then they tow it.

You do it with cars and the owner is responsible for the parking fees. If no owner then sell it, dispose of it or gift it to a non profit like the scouts.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Damn I agree. I donated one kept up in a fashionable marine 600 on so miles away. Mine was health concerns but people need to be realistic. Unfortunately the derelict boats seem to be people chasing a dream and sometimes you need to call it for what it is.

Up to the high tide mark should be the land owner's.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

I think the only solution is to ban private ownership of waterfront. That seems impossible in this case.

In many areas of Australia public access is mandated. Of course this only works where property ownership doesn't extend to the waterline.

An interesting review of Florida public beach law. No idea if it has any application to canals.

Bar Journal Article

[JTHAW]

Originally Posted by zboss

There has to be a compromise - otherwise we lose this until it finds its way to court.

I would propose an anchoring license. Seasonal, weekly, yearly license to anchor anywhere you can currently anchor.

The politicians would like the extra money and a hundred or two a year would not break the bank for most cruisers.

I mean, if you take an RV to a state or National park you have to pay a fee to park right? If you park your car you have to feed a meter. Where it gets problematic is that if you use the same analogy, you could find that just like there is "residents only" parking, you could have "residents only" anchoring areas.

NO!!!! no more licensing, taxes, fees, restrictions, proposals....f*%& what the politicians would like!...As stated above....they are trying to strangle the freedom of the waterways....If derelict boats are the issue then that is ALL the wording has to address in the bill....fine,... easy to get rid of derelict boats.....But.... that is not what was legislatively worded in last years, ..(thank G)...defeated bill !
******I don't want my free waterways becoming &*%^$# parking lots, with meters and id cards and drones, and cameras...?...and restriction signs, and permits, and police ticketing my vessel..and..??? ...GET a GRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LEOCAT66]

Originally Posted by Group9

If I really believed this had anything to do with removing derelict vessels, I would support it. But, living in Florida and investigating politicians for corruption for a living, has pretty much jaded me on stuff like this. This is all about servicing wealthy land owners and real estate brokers, in return for campaign (and other) money paid.

You are dead right Group 9. Remember, follow the money!

[LEOCAT66]

N

Originally Posted by zboss

There has to be a compromise - otherwise we lose this until it finds its way to court.

I would propose an anchoring license. Seasonal, weekly, yearly license to anchor anywhere you can currently anchor.

The politicians would like the extra money and a hundred or two a year would not break the bank for most cruisers.

I mean, if you take an RV to a state or National park you have to pay a fee to park right? If you park your car you have to feed a meter. Where it gets problematic is that if you use the same analogy, you could find that just like there is "residents only" parking, you could have "residents only" anchoring areas.

There has never been a need to compromise that which is totally legal under federal law and to do so is to blink.

Florida really does not want this to go before a federal court, which is where it belongs and needs to be right now. Let the chips fall where they may.

Any Florida official who attempts to continually circumvent Federal Law by harassing the public to passify constituents, who probably contributed to their campaigns, should be tried, convicted, and jailed.

Remember, these local politics will sell their mother to get re-elected, and we the cruisers have no voice from their view.

[Davy J]

Well I was unable to attend due to work related duties, as I’m sure many of you were, but did watch the video stream of the hearing on anchoring restrictions. You can watch the video archive here:

House Video Player: State Affairs Committee

What I can say, is that if boaters don’t speak up about this, we are going to lose this battle. My suggestion is to email the representatives on this committee, the State Affairs Committee, and voice your opinion. The State Affairs Committee can be found here:

Florida House of Representatives - State Affairs Committee

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Davy J

Well I was unable to attend due to work related duties, as I’m sure many of you were, but did watch the video stream of the hearing on anchoring restrictions. You can watch the video archive here:

House Video Player: State Affairs Committee

What I can say, is that if boaters don’t speak up about this, we are going to lose this battle. My suggestion is to email the representatives on this committee, the State Affairs Committee, and voice your opinion. The State Affairs Committee can be found here:

Florida House of Representatives - State Affairs Committee

Davy,

You are making sense. It's a matter that some places only want the big spenders with the yacht at the marina. A letter from every voting little guy can make a difference. That vote carries as much weight as the rich guys towards the people staying in office. It does however need to address derelict boats to some degree. Do you want to be anchored next to some ones ill advised dream with a cider block as an anchor?

[Group9]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

I usually steer clear of these discussions on-line, 'cause I feel a bit insulted by the plethora of comments about Florida property owners....(remember I'm one of YOU, too!)

But, thought I'd just try and remind some that we Florida property owners are trying to fight these restrictions, too...

Having grown up in Florida (and still a resident and voter here), as a longtime property owner in Florida (and payer of Florida property taxes), and as someone who pays the darned State of Florida every year for a "submerged land lease", I can assure you that while some short-sided (and "greedy") residents may wish to restrict anchoring rights in Florida, I am NOT one of them....AND..

And, let me tell you that there are MANY, MANY of us out here who are what are know as "native Florida boaters", and I've never met one who supports restricting anchoring!

Remember, not only do I vote in Florida, and pay property tax here ($$$$), but I also pay a submerged land lease....as well as everything else that everyone else pays...

So, when you all spout off about greedy property owners trying to restrict anchoring, you should remember that there are many of us that ARE boaters/sailors/etc....and we do NOT support these restrictions....
Forgetting that we are one of you all too, makes some of you look a bit short-side too...



Fair winds...

John

That was my experience when I lived there, too. The people pushing this are northern transplants who moved down south to a boating center, and now have decided they don't like boats. Fred Karlton, for instance, the guy pushing this the hardest, was born in New York. Just like the people who move next to railroad tracks or can airport, then want something done about the noise. But, they have money to donate, and that trumps everything else, especially in Florida these days.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Davy,

You are making sense. It's a matter that some places only want the big spenders with the yacht at the marina. A letter from every voting little guy can make a difference. That vote carries as much weight as the rich guys towards the people staying in office. It does however need to address derelict boats to some degree. Do you want to be anchored next to some ones ill advised dream with a cider block as an anchor?

There are already unenforced laws to deal with derelicts, the operative word being"unenforced". That's how you know its a straw man.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Group9

There are already unenforced laws to deal with derelicts, the operative word being"unenforced". That's how you know its a straw man.

I believe, the operative word, being enforced applies to many laws. I won't point out my favorite. Hell, legislators need to pass laws to justify their jobs.