City Commissioner response to Collins Canal in Miami Beach

[WindwardPrinces]

Originally Posted by rognvald

The only sensible solution to circumvent unnecessary laws/regulations is to limit anchoring to a 3-5 day period with the requirement to move at least one mile to a new anchorage.

How do you know how long a boat has been there? What if someone wants to stay a week? What if someone is ducking in out of the weather for a bit?

The 3-5 day anchoring regulation seems a bit arbitrary to me, particularly as it sets a precedent that allows the local municipality control of the waterways, and would certainly be taken up in other municipalities as well. Are you just talking about within the canal?

Seems to me a dinghy permit isn't unreasonable on a canal or at a dock, but I don't know the local layout.

[WindwardPrinces]

Originally Posted by Davy J

I know you folks are having a good time discussing this. But the OP is MIA and also has some interesting statistics..............
Join date 2004, only has one post...........

Something seems funky............

Good point. Also, I didn't really really understand his post.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Did we get sidetracked?

Hard to say. The OP didn't post the contents of what he sent to the officials. All anyone could go by is the title, which specifies that the official responded to something involving the Collins Canal. And the recent change to Canal regulations has been a point of contention with cruisers.

The rest of what he posted was just his thoughts on responding to the official's request for more input. Those seem disjointed to me, and falling into the trap of being pulled into agreeing that derelict boats are the issue.

The issue is not derelict boats.

That isn't the issue for ANY anchorage regulations in FL. FL has many laws specifically addressing derelict boats. They just don't enforce them.

This issue is only about a couple of fat cats who have some of the officials in their back pockets, and have a beef (psychosis?) with boats in front of their properties. Or within a couple of miles of their properties.

Mark

[zboss]

Originally Posted by colemj

Hard to say. The OP didn't post the contents of what he sent to the officials. All anyone could go by is the title, which specifies that the official responded to something involving the Collins Canal. And the recent change to Canal regulations has been a point of contention with cruisers.

The rest of what he posted was just his thoughts on responding to the official's request for more input. Those seem disjointed to me, and falling into the trap of being pulled into agreeing that derelict boats are the issue.

The issue is not derelict boats.

That isn't the issue for ANY anchorage regulations in FL. FL has many laws specifically addressing derelict boats. They just don't enforce them.

This issue is only about a couple of fat cats who have some of the officials in their back pockets, and have a beef (psychosis?) with boats in front of their properties. Or within a couple of miles of their properties.

Mark

The cutting off of access is specifically to address people living aboard and nearby collins canal. They couldn't get movement on getting rid of the boats fast enough so this is their way of ramping up the pressure.

I wish there was some way of suing the city and residents for libel.

As for those that don't think the people living onboard without sails and without moving... there is a reason they are there. Maybe they have jobs at a local restaurant, or maybe servicing the Ferrari's we see so often down there. People do not set up shop in a city if they are not there to seek work. There are much better places to be a bum on the hook.

[Lake-Effect]

(future ICW cruiser)

Some localities might want to monitor and regulate cruising visits, due to restraints like limited amount of anchoring/mooring. It doesn't have to be adversarial.

A thought: the locality creates what is called a cruising passport. This is a doc package available at most piers/marinas/landing points and surrounding businesses for a nominal fee (rough guess $50/week). In the package is a set of numbered/barcoded stickers for your boat and dink, a url you go to to self-register, a guide-map and business directory to the area, some coupons and promotions for local businesses, etc.

Local authorities look for the sticker on dink or boat, and scan it to confirm that the package was paid and registered.

Done right, this isn't an impediment to cruisers, it's an enabler. It gives them useful info, the coupons potentially make up for the weekly, and the ad revenue helps fund the program.

[colemj]

I admit that we haven't been in the Venetian Causeway and Collins Canal area for several years. When we used to frequent that area, there were only a very few boats that were live-aboard full-time. Those boats were in decent shape and all were working in the area. These boats were VASTLY outnumbered by the transient cruising boats going through.

Is the area now a dump with lots of derelicts and drug addicts? If so, there are already several laws to address and remove them.

However, I have the feeling that it is the cruisers in good boats that are being targeted.

Falling into the trap of addressing this as a derelict situation plays directly into their hands, and will fail.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(future ICW cruiser)

Some localities might want to monitor and regulate cruising visits, due to restraints like limited amount of anchoring/mooring. It doesn't have to be adversarial.

A thought: the locality creates what is called a cruising passport. This is a doc package available at most piers/marinas/landing points and surrounding businesses for a nominal fee (rough guess $50/week). In the package is a set of numbered/barcoded stickers for your boat and dink, a url you go to to self-register, a guide-map and business directory to the area, some coupons and promotions for local businesses, etc.

Local authorities look for the sticker on dink or boat, and scan it to confirm that the package was paid and registered.

Done right, this isn't an impediment to cruisers, it's an enabler. It gives them useful info, the coupons potentially make up for the weekly, and the ad revenue helps fund the program.

When we last visited that area several years ago, the police would come by the day we arrive, look us over carefully while introducing themselves and welcoming us to the area. Tell us (after making their judgement call) that we are free to stay as we please, that we could take on water at the police dock, and gave us a pink slip of paper that was one of the carbon copies of some form that they filled out with a bit of our information. About every 3-4 days, they would swing buy us and ask us how everything was going (no boarding - just passing by slowly).

I thought this worked well for keeping tabs and order in the area. I quite liked it, actually.

I never did figure out what that pink piece of paper was for.

Mark

[rognvald]

"The issue is not derelict boats.

That isn't the issue for ANY anchorage regulations in FL. FL has many laws specifically addressing derelict boats. They just don't enforce them.

This issue is only about a couple of fat cats who have some of the officials in their back pockets, and have a beef (psychosis?) with boats in front of their properties. Or within a couple of miles of their properties." Dolemj

Mark,
Why do I have a problem picturing you wearing a shaggy beard and a red beret as you motor your beautiful Manta down the resplendent Miami canals denouncing those capitalist "fat cats" for their audacity to be concerned about the view they have paid for in their multi-million dollar estates? Perhaps a better picture might be you riding a Warm-Blood German chestnut mare sporting a tweed cap, jumpers and black riding boots as you pass a line of humble serfs bidding their Master: "G'day, Lord Mark . . . G'day. . . say hello to the countess, will ya . . . the missus sends her best!" Ah, for the love of Capitalism. Good luck and horsemanship . . .

[Matt Johnson]

When we were there last June, there were definitely derelict (no sails, motor etc) right outside the canal just south of the bridge. Not as bad as Key West and other hot spots, but it wasn't just usable cruising boats out there.

We also saw two completely stripped boats randomly appear in the middle of the night to be abandoned. One sank shortly after

Matt

[Boatguy30]

To the "fat cats" he refers to anyone with a yacht less than 100' is trash.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by colemj

Is the area now a dump with lots of derelicts and drug addicts? If so, there are already several laws to address and remove them. Mark

No it is not From ALL of miami-dade the FWC Derelict Vessel Map:

10:56 PM - Select by County: MIAMI-DADE:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 32
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 13
* Identified At Risk (Active): 0 (InActive): 34

There are a few boats that are rough but the reality is this is a "land grab". Boats don't have a homeowners association "setting aesthetic standards" but the condos and little islands do. Who the heck has the right to say that my bird pooped boat isn't exactly the way I like it? Nobody because I wasn't stupid enough to sign on to that HOA contract.

I am generally in opposition to anchoring laws that put limits that are unrealistically short. 1 Week? I've barely gotten off the boat to explore after 1 week. Two weeks? I've just discovered that sushi bar. Three weeks ? I'm just getting around to working on the stainless.

I think the main issue comes down to how land dwellers perceive time and how cruisers perceive time. We are surrounded by people living rush rush days and they see us out there lazing about and they just don't get it.

Here is some more stats by region. Please note that the Police have only identified 25 vessels at risk in ALL OF FLORIDA:

11:02 PM - Select by Region: FWSW:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 11
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 12
* Identified At Risk (Active): 5 (InActive): 13
11:02 PM - Select by Region: FWSB:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 63
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 32
* Identified At Risk (Active): 6 (InActive): 51
11:01 PM - Select by Region: FWSA:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 7
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 7
* Identified At Risk (Active): 3 (InActive): 68
11:01 PM - Select by Region: FWNW:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 13
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 50
* Identified At Risk (Active): 2 (InActive): 16
11:01 PM - Select by Region: FWNE:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 25
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 42
* Identified At Risk (Active): 4 (InActive): 27
11:00 PM - Select by Region: FWNC:
* Derelict Vessels and Hazard to Navigation: 7
* Derelict Vessels and Not Hazard to Navigation: 18
* Identified At Risk (Active): 5 (InActive): 16

[hellosailor]

"Here is some more stats by region. Please note that the Police have only identified 25 vessels at risk in ALL OF FLORIDA:"
That's not quite right, is it? They differentiate between those ACTIVELY at risk and those INACTIVE but still AT RISK. Plus, the additional derelict boats.
Maybe I'm the only ignoramus that doesn't understand why there are two classes of "at risk" PLUS a class of those already in derelict status. It seems to imply a much bigger problem of "boat trash" overall.


And something that everything seems to have glossed over: This posting was originally about Collins Canal? Was this a man-made canal dredged by private owners or a municipality, and as such legally NOT at all the same as a public waterway? Canals dredged by the builders of a private community are subject to private title, private deeds, private ownership, as the adjacent landowners who blithely built docks on them have often come to woefully find out.
It might pay to confirm just what the status of that "canal" is, before anyone tries to mistake it for the ICW and truly public waterways.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rognvald

"The issue is not derelict boats.

That isn't the issue for ANY anchorage regulations in FL. FL has many laws specifically addressing derelict boats. They just don't enforce them.

This issue is only about a couple of fat cats who have some of the officials in their back pockets, and have a beef (psychosis?) with boats in front of their properties. Or within a couple of miles of their properties." Dolemj

Mark,
Why do I have a problem picturing you wearing a shaggy beard and a red beret as you motor your beautiful Manta down the resplendent Miami canals denouncing those capitalist "fat cats" for their audacity to be concerned about the view they have paid for in their multi-million dollar estates? Perhaps a better picture might be you riding a Warm-Blood German chestnut mare sporting a tweed cap, jumpers and black riding boots as you pass a line of humble serfs bidding their Master: "G'day, Lord Mark . . . G'day. . . say hello to the countess, will ya . . . the missus sends her best!" Ah, for the love of Capitalism. Good luck and horsemanship . . .

I'm not sure what your point is. The couple of people I referred to have a long and public history in this matter and have even had trouble with the police and corruption investigations because of their actions. It is well-documented for many years now, so you can go see for yourself.

I'm not deriding capitalism, or even painting with a broad brush. I specifically pointed out two people out of the thousands who have water front property in the area, along with a few politicians who are documented to have corruption/nepotism issues in this matter.

I guess in your Ayn Rand world view, the above causes cognitive dissonance.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

And something that everything seems to have glossed over: This posting was originally about Collins Canal? Was this a man-made canal dredged by private owners or a municipality, and as such legally NOT at all the same as a public waterway? Canals dredged by the builders of a private community are subject to private title, private deeds, private ownership, as the adjacent landowners who blithely built docks on them have often come to woefully find out.
It might pay to confirm just what the status of that "canal" is, before anyone tries to mistake it for the ICW and truly public waterways.

Google is your friend, but to answer your question, the Collins Canal was built in the very early 1900's by a guy named Collins who owned 5 miles of swamp land where Miami/South Beach exist today. He wanted to drain it for agriculture, so built the canal. A bit later, he thought the now dry land would be good for expanding the city and started to build around the canal and use the canal for a public waterway to get around the new place.

So yes, it was built "privately" with the purpose of navigating the town, which was "privately" developed (initially). Keep in mind that the only private property that borders this canal are houses where the canal is in the back of them and well-hidden by fences and growth. It is not a beautiful canal, and nobody is sitting on their deck over-looking it and saying "my those derelict dinghies tied up to the Publix dock are ruining my Grey Poupon sandwich".

It is a navigable waterway controlled by the state.

Mark

[zeehag]

the REAL question and basis is money vs not moneyed. those on boats are perceived as not paying property taxes , which vexes landowners. they think their property tax money should be used to keep their land clean . .their land, in their mineds goes to mid channel. in reality , their land only goes to waterline. ok so how to fix this?? avoid the place. totally. go elsewhere.
miami will be just liike san diego-- placement on moorings of derelict ugly boats being lived in by those unable to move onward or afford to repair the mayhem wrought on their boats by birdees and breakdowns. they are trying, kinda.
the property owner says-- hay these jerks dont pay property tax here, why should they benefit from the beautiful place i pay taxes on ....
get real. is the money , honey, not the appearance of the boats invading his over protected alleged territory.
and the cruisers say--hay is water, federally protected for our use.. we have RIGHT to anchor here!!! bs. we have PRIVILEGE to anchor, not a right.
and therein lies the rub.
fix that and ye fix the problem. good luck.
i was blatantly TOLD in san diego while i was moored that i didnt pay property tax, why should i be benefitting from the amenities of city of coronado. the fact is, as a mooring tenant,l we did pay property taxes.
and so the war continues and will always continue.