Owner puts boats to block anchorage in Miami

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Crosis

Well Slapnuts, there is a far cry between confiscating homes as you so childishly assert I am for and telling land owners they do not and will not ever own water. Frankly the fact you even wrote that means you do feel they own the water. I bet you are own a waterfront home and feel you own the water behind your house. Guess what. You don't and your money does not give you any rights or powers over the poor.


I will take a nice trip to visit my family in Miami and will go in the night and cut every one of those derelict boats free. See what you rich douches can do about it.

Now, if those boats are cut free, you'll be a prime suspect so you better leave your cell phone and any vehicle that can be traced to you behind, tell nobody (oops, too late already!), and you better take care to not be seen on any local security cameras. Loose lips sink ships....yours, not his.

[meridian28]

We are anchored in Sunset Lake and have been waiting for three weeks for a crossing window. The small boats take up maybe 25% of the anchoring area. There are a dozen boats anchored here now all waiting for the weather. You won't find a better protected area around here.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by rwidman

It seems to me that there is a middle ground somewhere where boats not in danger of sinking and capable of moving under their own power should be allowed to anchor for a set period of time, perhaps 30 days and a certain distance from a residence, perhaps 300 yards.

Laws such as this would protect the cruiser's right to anchor his/her boat while cruising and also protect landowners and other citizens from having to look at junked boats until they sink and from unnecessary noise and unruly behavior.



So I can easily see both sides of the situation.

If a boat is not in danger of sinking and can move under its own power, it's not a junked boat that anyone needs protection from.

A 300 yard setoff would effectively close all protected anchorages in south Florida. Is that really what you are in favor of?

Maybe your view of "both sides" has become a bit unbalanced?

[kismet]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Hmm...looks like he beat the complaining cruisers using their own game...???

Anchoring rights apply to any/all, correct???

So, now he's the bad guy for taking your anchor spot?

He is the bad guy for interfering with free access to the waterway storing unattended boats on public property. They should be towed and he should be fined.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Crosis

Well Slapnuts, there is a far cry between confiscating homes as you so childishly assert I am for and telling land owners they do not and will not ever own water. Frankly the fact you even wrote that means you do feel they own the water. I bet you are own a waterfront home and feel you own the water behind your house. Guess what. You don't and your money does not give you any rights or powers over the poor.


I will take a nice trip to visit my family in Miami and will go in the night and cut every one of those derelict boats free. See what you rich douches can do about it.

Well Crosis,
Your remarkable and stinging response will take days, if not weeks from which I will need to emotionally recover. However, trying to leave my spiritual angst aside, there are a few issues that should be addressed: Firstly, when conversing among intelligent people, a general requirement is that when you comment on a subject, your remarks are based in knowable facts, not assumption. And, since you were incapable of recognizing any humor or sarcasm in my response, I must assume that you perceive life at face value--an unfortunate character trait quite common among some elements of humanity. . . I will get to the quick. I never said the property owners owned the water. I never said that I thought the property owners should own the water. I never said I on this Forum that I own a waterfront home. I have never said I had special rights over the poor.I have never said on this Forum that I was rich. I have no personal knowledge of being endowed with "slapnuts" (and I am quite intimate with my physiognomy)and I certainly have never had the physical requirements necessary for a "douche." I do, however, believe that in a Democracy rights are granted to people irrespective of class, color, or religious affiliation. That means that those who have achieved success in economic terms should be governed and protected by the same laws as those less fortunate. After all, this is the basis of all Democracies today. Class conflict is inherent to Man and all men are not created equal in intelligence, drive and abilities but ,theoretically, are so in our American jurisprudence system. In conclusion, I think it unwise to take the law into your own hands and "cut every one of those derelict boats free" as it would assume ,by your own admission, you are above the law. But, unfortunately, this was the humor you sadly missed in my previous post. Good luck, good sailing, and by the way . . . the last time I heard the creative monikers you used above was smoking cigarettes and looking at "dirty" magazines with my buddies in the alley behind our house when I was 13. Ah, the memories . . . Captain Rognvald, sailor in confession.

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Crosis,
Why not simply confiscate the "douchebags" homes and give them to "The People" thereby negating any future problems from these rapacious, wealthy homeowners? "The People" always know better than any private citizen since they represent the general good and humble masses. Then, you could allow whomever wanted to anchor in that area (with any vessel) unlimited access. And, who better to represent the people than those selfsame government officials mentioned above who have been elected to promote the public good. I really think you're on to something here . . . Power to the People! Comrade Rognvald--Illinois Chapter of the Red Brigade

Just the opposite

He bought the house knowing the state low gave everyone the right to anchor in front of his house. He does NOT own the water.

But now he wants the state to change the law to make his property more valuable.

That's not capitalism, that's plain greed.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If a boat is not in danger of sinking and can move under its own power, it's not a junked boat that anyone needs protection from.

This is not the definition of a derelict vessel in florida, although they can be used as contributing factors. Things like lots of bird poop, no engine and no sails (equaling no locomotion) also count as derelict.

Florida has no official definition of what constitutes a derelict vessel as far as I have been have to find. Which says to me that the law is "constitutionally ambiguous" and therefore illegal to enforce. IMO.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

Just the opposite

He bought the house knowing the state low gave everyone the right to anchor in front of his house. He does NOT own the water.

But now he wants the state to change the law to make his property more valuable.

That's not capitalism, that's plain greed.

I guess you, like Crosis, missed it too. Read my above comment.

[WindwardPrinces]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If a boat is not in danger of sinking and can move under its own power, it's not a junked boat that anyone needs protection from.

A 300 yard setoff would effectively close all protected anchorages in south Florida. Is that really what you are in favor of?

Maybe your view of "both sides" has become a bit unbalanced?

300 yards (3 football fields) seems a bit much. Maybe 150 feet? It depends on the purpose of the legislation.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

300 yards (3 football fields) seems a bit much. Maybe 150 feet? It depends on the purpose of the legislation.

Any restriction allows the owner of abutting land to control that much property that he does not own and I think that is wrong. Where I live, there is a 25' setback from the front/back of my property and 15' from my property line on either side. If that's considered adequate to protect mine and my neighbors interest in our respective property, then why isn't that same 15' or 25' good enough for waterfront homeowners? They don't own the property beyond the high tide mark so shouldn't control it either. It belongs to all of us and none of us and should stay that way. I do think that the same rules of civilized behavior and respect for others that apply on land should apply on the water, so boat owners anchored close to someones home (or another boat) should behave appropriately so as to blend in and not keep their neighbor awake at night or offend them with public nudity or loud/bad language and they should respect the landowners right to access his own property so should not block access to a dock or launching area by anchoring too close to either of those. We don't need any more rules than we already have.

[WindwardPrinces]

To be honest, I don't think this is as much about loud music, parties, and nudity (which of course are already controlled by other local ordinances), as it is about boats being within view of someone's house.

It is disconcerting if someone anchors a boat next to your house, just like it would be disconcerting if someone were to park an RV in front of your house.

So what's a reasonable distance?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by zboss

This is not the definition of a derelict vessel in florida, although they can be used as contributing factors. Things like lots of bird poop, no engine and no sails (equaling no locomotion) also count as derelict.

Florida has no official definition of what constitutes a derelict vessel as far as I have been have to find. Which says to me that the law is "constitutionally ambiguous" and therefore illegal to enforce. IMO.

The bottom section of this post:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1706387

[nimblemotors]

Maybe one shouldn't buy a house next to the public waterway if that is a big deal! They built houses next to the drag strip, and the new homeowners complained it was very loud.
Build your house across from the Walmart parking lot, and then complain about RV's parked there??
I have a lot with lake view, it is far enough away that I see boats, but not what kind of chips they are eating on their boat.

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

To be honest, I don't think this is as much about loud music, parties, and nudity (which of course are already controlled by other local ordinances), as it is about boats being within view of someone's house.

It is disconcerting if someone anchors a boat next to your house, just like it would be disconcerting if someone were to park an RV in front of your house.

So what's a reasonable distance?

[cpa]

I would suggest that if people don't want to look at boats (or have boaters look at them), then perhaps they should have not bought land that sits next to the water. I guess they could install a fence.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by WindwardPrinces

To be honest, I don't think this is as much about loud music, parties, and nudity (which of course are already controlled by other local ordinances), as it is about boats being within view of someone's house.

It is disconcerting if someone anchors a boat next to your house, just like it would be disconcerting if someone were to park an RV in front of your house.

So what's a reasonable distance?

That's an individual thing. Each homeowner should be allowed to build his house whatever distance from the water he deems necessary to avoid being too close to boats that may be anchored on public waterways that abut his property. If he bought the house already built, and he finds anchored boats to be "disconcerting," he should have researched the laws governing where it was legal to anchor and assumed the worst case. The right to anchor there existed long before his ownership of the property. That right should not be infringed just because a current owner of nearby property doesn't like anchored boats.