Visit our Popular Forums

mvweebles · 30-12-2019, 08:48

Town of Madeira Beach FL on ICW near St Petersburg recently passed a statute greatly restricting anchoring.

Cliff-Note version:

Boat must get a $5 permit
Good for 72-hours
Cannot leave boat for more than 8-hours
Only one permit per 30-day period

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-aboard-boats#

GreenWave · 30-12-2019, 09:00

Not sure how they enforce this since the city doesn't own the waterway. While I agree that derelict boat owners are the issue, the rest of us shouldn't be punished.

mvweebles · 30-12-2019, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenWave

Not sure how they enforce this since the city doesn't own the waterway. While I agree that derelict boat owners are the issue, the rest of us shouldn't be punished.

The Pinellas County sheriff's office has several patrol boats and authority to issue citations, including DUI's and speeding through no-wake zones. They undoubtedly have authority to enforce local codes and regulations. This is settled-science.

From a practical stand point, coughing-up the money to impound a dozen derelict boats could be daunting for a community of roughly 4200 households. Maybe the snowbirds in the condo's who complained about the environmental damage will chip-in to write the check.

tomfl · 30-12-2019, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Town of Madeira Beach FL on ICW near St Petersburg recently passed a statute greatly restricting anchoring.

Cliff-Note version:

Boat must get a $5 permit
Good for 72-hours
Cannot leave boat for more than 8-hours
Only one permit per 30-day period

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-aboard-boats#

While 8 Oct., 2019 is sorta recent it will be 2020 in a couple of days so in some sense this is old news.

The topic of local city/county anchoring laws has been discussed many times before. Like it or not I am sure we will see more of them as time goes by. In one sense the guy in the vid who is disabled and has a wife working as a waitress is a good example of what is happening. When he says he would live on dirt if he had the money it illustrates why so many folks are live aboards on run down boats; they would probably be homeless otherwise.

I am also sure we will see more laws aimed at the homeless. Not saying I have a solution, just that I understand both sides of the issue.

Woodland Hills · 30-12-2019, 09:50

I would suggest that we simply criminalize poverty and put them all in prison or on chain gangs, but it seems we are well on our way there already. Just make sleeping outside a crime, eliminate any cheap housing via zoning laws and voila: problem solved. This process is nearly complete, all that remains is closing a few loopholes like boats and car or RV sleepers. The end result is that the poorest and the neediest are herded into a relatively few places which makes it easy to overlook and ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind. The system is working as designed and the results are as intended. Make the fines for minor violations high enough and the whole thing is nearly self-supporting.

cpisz · 30-12-2019, 09:54

What bothers me is the inconsistency. Now we not only need to keep track of each states individual restrictions but each county and each town! And of course ignorance of the law is no excuse right. And a person from another country is supposed to know to check each towns individual restrictions right. And a person just traveling through that needs a quick stop. Right. The US has become obsurd.

redneckrob · 30-12-2019, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpisz

What bothers me is the inconsistency. Now we not only need to keep track of each states individual restrictions but each county and each town! And of course ignorance of the law is no excuse right. And a person from another country is supposed to know to check each towns individual restrictions right. And a person just traveling through that needs a quick stop. Right. The US has become obsurd.

Any "tyranny" from the government I've personally experienced has been at the city and county level, but we've got a big chunk of the population in the US that believes federal level government should be minimal so you've got an uphill battle against replacing patchwork local ordinances with anything remotely uniform. In fact the Submerged Lands Act that devolved control of waterways in state waters to the states is a relatively recent devolution and if anything the movement seems to be toward more local control.

GreenWave · 30-12-2019, 10:40

Well, I am going to have to do some more legal research. I just cannot believe this law, as written, would hold up under appeal. Just go after the derelicts! I would be happy with a holding tank lockout rule or certification of pumpouts etc.

**GordMay** · 30-12-2019, 11:06

The Submerged Lands Act (SLA) (43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq.) grants coastal states title to natural resources located within their coastal submerged lands out to three miles from their coastlines (three marine leagues for Texas and Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coastlines). The SLA defines “natural resources” to includes oil, gas, and all other minerals, and fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life,” yet expressly excludes “water power, or the use of water for the production of power.” 43 U.S.C. § 1301(e). Title II addresses the rights and claims by the states to the lands and resources beneath navigable waters within their historic boundaries and provides for their development by the states. Title III preserves the control of the seabed and resources therein of the outer Continental Shelf beyond state boundaries and to the federal government and authorizes leasing by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with certain specified terms and conditions.
➥ https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Document...ands%20Act.pdf

Section 4
“... (d) Nothing in this Act shall affect the use, development, improvement, or control by or under the constitutional authority of the United States of said lands and waters for the purposes of navigation or flood control or the production of power, or be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, or to provide for flood control, or the production of power ..
Section 6. POWERS RETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.—
(a) The United States retains all its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all of which shall be para-mount to, but shall not be deemed to include, proprietary rights of ownership, or the rights of management, administration, leasing, use, and development of the lands and natural resources which are specifically recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to the respective States and others by section 3 of this Act.
➥ https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/S...ands%20Act.pdf

Discovery 15797 · 30-12-2019, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Any "tyranny" from the government I've personally experienced has been at the city and county level, but we've got a big chunk of the population in the US that believes federal level government should be minimal so you've got an uphill battle against replacing patchwork local ordinances with anything remotely uniform. In fact the Submerged Lands Act that devolved control of waterways in state waters to the states is a relatively recent devolution and if anything the movement seems to be toward more local control.

Read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution; it's pretty clear.

Control & title of submerged lands within a state's boundaries was officially recognized in 1953. The recent devolution has come about due to some people's reckless and irresponsible abandonment of vessels, and also the uptick of people who obtain a derelict vessel with no intent of using the vessel for 'navigating' the waterways.

Chotu · 30-12-2019, 11:58

Let's hope that like many other places, they do plenty of profiling and selective enforcement of this law.

72 hours is a bit short for a stay. Should have made it a week or two so people could spend some money there.

**hpeer** · 30-12-2019, 12:02

Gord,
Are you implying that if a boat is “navigating” (however that may be interpreted) then the local authority has no jurisdiction?

I can see the argument that to navigate requires you to stop and rest and resupply periodically. The only thing in that law Unconstitutional would then be the initial fee. ????

**GordMay** · 30-12-2019, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by hpeer

Gord,
Are you implying ...?

I'm not implying/opining - just offering some fact, which others might use, in part, to form opinions.

mvweebles · 30-12-2019, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chotu

Let's hope that like many other places, they do plenty of profiling and selective enforcement of this law.

72 hours is a bit short for a stay. Should have made it a week or two so people could spend some money there.

This law will only be enforced when there's a complaint - and there will be complaints from the same condo building that got 100+ people to flood the meeting. Madeira Beach is a small town with part-time mayor and commissioners - that type of showing gets their attention.

This will blow-over in a few months. Anchor on the south side of the bridge. There is no condo on that side, and no one will care as long as you don't over-stay your welcome.