New Anchor-out Law - Madeira Beach FL

[catnap892]

I thought the towns could only restrict mooring if that town offered a municipal mooring field? If this posting is correct, the law may have no standing.

[Spartanacus]

Originally Posted by Rocko

Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed House Bill 7175, amending several state ... The statute does not allow a locality to regulate anchoring by redefining a vessel ...
You visited this page on 1/5/20.
Has anyone seen this statute ??
Yrs ago I found a site that had this in PDF and was told to print it out and tape it to my boat for the likes of fwc and other enforcement to see and read .
It's been sometime now and I'm still looking for this to read and print .
It's an interesting article . I just vaguely remember but I taped it to a house boat I had in Boca grand.
Would like to hear back from someone about it if anyone knows, thanks

Found the FL statute PDF ... however it's 128 pages, any hints at where this paragraph is?

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by Happ

Inspire of what many of you believe the “rich “ condo owners infringing on your rights to live for free let me clue you in on what is really happening. Those few derelict boats you talk about end up on the beach when the anchor line or more often mooring line breaks. which is all to often attached to a refrigerator, engine block, etc. The owners do not have insurance or the money to have the boat towed off the beach much less disposed of when they are destroyed by a storm. The cities have to pay to remove the boats. Scraping a derelict boat is far more expensive then you can imagine.

Part of owning a home, condo, or boat is maintaining it. Many of you if not most of you maintain your boats and respect the environment whether it is in your slip at a marina or on a hook. Unfortunately there are many who think they are entitled to live for free. When you live on a boat at anchor you use public services. Bathrooms, trash cans, water, etc. All this costs money. Someone passing through as a transient hopefully eats at a restaurant, has a drink or 2 at the local pub, buys food at the local market, etc. This is why the town I live in welcomes transients. They contribute to our local economy.

It is the few that want to live for free that leave their seacocks open so they don’t have to pump out their heads. There are the few that never wash their boats. Don’t blame someone who paid money for a view. There are a few selfish people that want everything for free that are ruining it for everyone else!

We as a group should stop blaming the towns but start talking to our fellow boaters about respecting what we have. So we can enjoy that million dollar view we all love and cherish.

This law is not about derelict or abandoned boats. It is about ALL boats anchored in "THEIR WATERS" I say fine or jail law breakers, just don't make the laws so any one with a boat anchored is breaking the law. It is bad law.

[night0wl]

So far as I know, all these complaints about boats breaking moorings and washing up. Part of our annual registration fee in Florida is a fee for derelict boat cleanup. Towns need to follow the rules to get those funds. Few are willing to do the work...so they just create this kind of half baked program to drive the derelicts to the next town over so they dont have to file the paperwork and wait for reimbursement.

[smbdyiam2]

http://hisc.org/Cruising/AnchoringRights.pdf
look bottom first page top second page to start.
So if this is not your permeant home address it is not a live aboard? Just a full time cruiser. A full time cruiser can not be evicted like a liveaboard? Hmmm

[sailorladd]

Makes my blood boil when I see garbage like this, who are these "authorities" that impose such restrictions??? It is just a damn money grab in my humble but mature opinion....slowly but surely our freedoms are being eroded, not only in the sailing world but in every walk of life....wake up sheeple...

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smbdyiam2

http://hisc.org/Cruising/AnchoringRights.pdf
look bottom first page top second page to start.
So if this is not your permeant home address it is not a live aboard? Just a full time cruiser. A full time cruiser can not be evicted like a liveaboard? Hmmm

It is important in Fl to understand that “live aboard” has a definition as boats go.

Delict boats aren't live aboard boats.

The cost of removing washed ashore boats could be reduced by requiring boats to have liability insurance to register like for cars. Of course that does nothing in the delict boat problem.

[Cruisingalice]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

it wouldn't stand once challenged. But someone is probably going to have to challenge it.

Or I wonder it letting the State people know that the town is passing "laws" they don't have authority to do would correct it.

Condo people living next to the water crack me up. Did they not expect there to be boats in "their" water?

... I agree. It's everybodies water

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Happ

We as a group should stop blaming the towns but start talking to our fellow boaters about respecting what we have. So we can enjoy that million dollar view we all love and cherish.

A nice thought, but people who are capable/willing to listen to such discussions and likely to respond are not the problem.

[ocean.jedi]

legally, the constitution requires the feds to regulate the navigable waterways in a uniform manner, so that the US doesn't become a "balkanized" with local communities each setting up different rules to keep out "strangers" -- we are one nation and the constitution prohibits local xenophobic regulation.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Happ

It is the few that want to live for free that leave their seacocks open so they don’t have to pump out their heads. There are the few that never wash their boats. Don’t blame someone who paid money for a view. There are a few selfish people that want everything for free that are ruining it for everyone else!

I hold both of those parties responsible. People should take care of their boats, and people on land don't own the beach and the ocean.

So our laws need to consider all of the above. I do think we need registration/traceability and fees that cover delinquency for boats. Being on a boat isn't free, and it shouldn't be thought of as free. Just like owning land or a car or an RV isn't free, even if you own that property free and clear.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Being on a boat isn't free, and it shouldn't be thought of as free. Just like owning land or a car or an RV isn't free, even if you own that property free and clear.

Agree 100% - the fundamental flaw in many of our laws is that it was falsely concluded that dumping something into the environment had no cost. Sewage, car exhaust, factory effluent, you name it. The model that dumping was free was quite reasonable in older eras - no one could dump enough of anything to create a big problem. Due to industrialization this did not scale, now we have problems from 'free' dumping.

[dwedeking2]

If it's too costly to the city to remove sunk/partially sunk/boats on a beach, how is it not too costly to remove boats without a permit. You'll still have to go through the trouble of notifying the last known registered owner and the attached delays. Also have to deal with getting rid of that non-permitted boat.



Sounds like this law will be ignored by the ones that are causing any issue, only affect those traveling through (who will just travel a little further) and a couple of liveaboard people that are still responsible enough to have a floating boat but are on the cusp of losing it all (making them move may make them lose the job that is allowing them to hold what little they have together).



But at least some politician will be able to say they did something so they won't have to go out and find a productive job anytime soon.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by ocean.jedi

legally, the constitution requires the feds to regulate the navigable waterways in a uniform manner, so that the US doesn't become a "balkanized" with local communities each setting up different rules to keep out "strangers" -- we are one nation and the constitution prohibits local xenophobic regulation.

Actually unfortunately not, the Submerged Lands Act gave ownership of submerged navigable lands within 3 miles of state boundaries to the states. As I might have mentioned already in this thread
You really should read the whole thread if for no other reason than to see the responses I got about the "tyranny" of balkanization, it included some not so polite references to my alleged ignorance of the 10th Amendment. As I said, it's an uphill battle against those folks here in the U.S.

[Nicholson58]

A way to handle this is for the Fed to shift mandatory maintenance of any usurped waterway to the city claiming jurisdiction including dredging.