Miami Beach Anchoring Harassment

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by StoneCrab

Although you haven't said it directly, I'm guessing that you are planning on staying there permanently. Take the recent boardings and week-long reprieve as a signal that you are over staying what is reasonable and acceptable to the surrounding community.

In this case there isn't a law (yet) preventing anchoring for marine safety and because we don't have a system for owning water (yet) in the US. As valhalla360 points out this can change. While you may be legal at this point, I'm guessing that your plan is to push the limits on what is "right" by staying put until forced out. At that point, the waters in which you are anchoring will not be available to anyone else either, then or in the future and it will be a legal matter.

Well, I gotta say, this is a pretty reasonable take on the situation.

[Chotu]

Plus, this isn't what boats are about. This is a land mentality.

You have a boat for freedom and travel hopefully.

Start using it. Not worth the stress or hassle.

[Cyrus Safdari]

So if I'm reading this right, there's a LEO who is threatening to write you tickets for violations of a law that don't exist unless you do what he wants?

YOu may want to look at this page
https://www.justice.gov/crt/addressi...rtment-justice

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

I too am a waterfront homeowner and I agree with your views.

HOWEVER, I have had issues with certain boats anchoring behind my house.....esp weekend party barges.

How many homeowners would be happy with an RV parking in their backyards?.....esp an RV full of party goers.

Not saying anything negative about the OP.....just saying that the homeowner is not always being unreasonable when they make a complaint.

Sorry but behind your house is not your backyard. You don't get to decide who stays or goes on public property

[plumqik]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well, you probably wouldn't. Would you?

Yep I was thinking the same way: You never heard about it becuz they were so good at their job!

[33trippindaisy]

You see the real issue here is about "Control", as it usually is. Homeowners love their view, but then again that is not just "their" view! That water belongs to everyone, at all times. Now with that said, boaters must follow the current written Laws of the areas that they boat in. Courtesy from both sides would be nice, but don't expect that from many of the land owners, as they think the view is theirs.

In the perfect situation, as in North Carolina, the Water Enforcement guys can actually help you if you ask up front. Ask them by Law how long you can stay anchored and how far you must move to be legal as that time expires. Divide your stay by two, and move twice as far away each time as required by law. If the complaints continue, you have the right to file a complaint yourself. Remember this, the Court will always respect one party's desire to be well beyond the Lawful Requirements vs the other party simply complaining where no Violation exists.

Truly this is a sad situation that has gone on long enough. Real Estate laws should probably place notice that your property rights never include a view over water that you simply don't own.

Tolerance is not being offered by the land owner, never has really, and as always the LAW is the only thing that matters in a dispute. If a boater just moved on every time a landowner complained, you would probably be in Canadian Waters before the year is up.

I think this has gone on long enough. Maritime Law rules anyway, and no municipality has the legal right to try to operate beyond that. It has been tried in north Carolina as well on the ICWW with signs stating no wake zone etc. As a person trying to be courteous, I do slow down myself, and then I wave if anyone is out on their dock....guess what....they wave back. Courtesy is contagious they say!

[Saleen411]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Sorry but behind your house is not your backyard. You don't get to decide who stays or goes on public property

Never said that I did.

[sailorboy1]

someone please PM me to come back to the thread to read what happened when it is over (by over I mean the FWC either writes a ticket that gets "resolved" of admits the officer was wrong and leaves the OP alone)

[taxwizz]

The cop acting on the orders of the wealthy homeowners sees himself as their friend and equal and a member of their "group".
Meanwhile the wealthy homeowners see the corrupt cop as a slimy stooge who will do anything for a fist full of dollars. They know that he could never be their equal.

[taxwizz]

But..... Did their boats disappear?

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I haven't heard of anyone "disappearing" because they anchored in front of some rich guys house.

[taxwizz]

Did you actually type all of that?

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

316.072 Obedience to and effect of traffic laws.—(1) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER REFERRING TO VEHICLES UPON THE HIGHWAYS.—The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the operation of vehicles and bicycles and the movement of pedestrians upon all state-maintained highways, county-maintained highways, and municipal streets and alleys and wherever vehicles have the right to travel.
(2) REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC LAWS.—It is unlawful for any person to do any act forbidden, or to fail to perform any act required, in this chapter. It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle, to require or knowingly permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to law. A violation of this subsection is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
(3) OBEDIENCE TO POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.—It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer, traffic crash investigation officer as described in s. 316.640, traffic infraction enforcement officer as described in s. 316.640, or member of the fire department at the scene of a fire, rescue operation, or other emergency. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, certified emergency medical technicians or paramedics may respond to the scene of emergencies and may provide emergency medical treatment on the scene and provide transport of patients in the performance of their duties for an emergency medical services provider licensed under chapter 401 and in accordance with any local emergency medical response protocols.




Note that the failure to obey a lawful order only applies to vehicles on a public highway, it does not mention vessels at all. If a water cop told me he was giving me a lawful order to move from an anchorage where I had every right, I might actually thank him for his and the states future major contribution to my cruising kitty.

[SKMT]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Plus, this isn't what boats are about. This is a land mentality.

You have a boat for freedom and travel hopefully.

Start using it. Not worth the stress or hassle.

I agree about the hassle part. But the major conflict is that this FWC is (falsely) claiming I can't just move to a different location in this bay, or the next bay over. And I have a feeling if I do move, that I'm just gonna have to go thru this process all over again, with the next set of homeowners who think they own the water as far as their eyes can see.

Also, I understand the stereotypical "cruiser" is always on the move. But thats not my perogative. Thats not to say my intention is to just sit in one anchorage for eternity. But I'm on a different type of lifestyle than many on this site. I like to fish, I have a car, and my girlfriend lives here. Miami is homebase. I don't live on a boat for the purpose of constsntly changing my location.

Now with that said, I'm gonna try the next bay over, just to avoid the negativity. But if that FWC starts harassing me over there, then I'm gonna stand my ground. I've now confirmed with 2 seperate M.B. marine patrol that I am 100% legal.

And for the few who are insinuating that I am possibly inconsiderate to the landowners, as I've said, I'm far out in the center of the bay. My "sound system" consists of a single tiny bluetooth speaker (not loud). I've never had more than 3 ppl on my boat at a time. My boat isn't a piece of junk.

These people simply have the false sense that they own the water. And despite being fortunate enough in life to own a multimillion dollar waterfront home, it apparently just ruins their life to see a boat on a public waterway. (gasp)

This post was never meant to stoke homeowner vs boater relations (altho these ppl are clearly ********). My main concern was just this FWC officer claiming false information & seemingly beholden to "wealthy ppl" more than the actual law.

If he messes wih me at my knew location, I will update. But for now I'm gonna go the anti-climatic route, even though I have confirmed that I am 100% in the right.

Thanks for the responses

[Woodland Hills]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

I too am a waterfront homeowner and I agree with your views.

HOWEVER, I have had issues with certain boats anchoring behind my house.....esp weekend party barges.

How many homeowners would be happy with an RV parking in their backyards?.....esp an RV full of party goers.

Not saying anything negative about the OP.....just saying that the homeowner is not always being unreasonable when they make a complaint.

If I was foolish enough to buy a house abutting a college football stadium would I have a right to complain about tailgating on the weekend just because it wasn’t football season when I toured the property? You were the one who failed to do due diligence and investigate the boat traffic on summer weekends in a popular anchorage right in front of your prospective house, it is down to you to take care of your business before the fact, not after.

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

If I was foolish enough to buy a house abutting a college football stadium would I have a right to complain about tailgating on the weekend just because it wasn’t football season when I toured the property? You were the one who failed to do due diligence and investigate the boat traffic on summer weekends in a popular anchorage right in front of your prospective house, it is down to you to take care of your business before the fact, not after.

Father in law bought a house and across the creek was the neighborhood pool. They started having music parties in the evenings, he got furious and took them to court and lost. Was not considered enough of a public nuisance and no one else had complained. But see he was different and was easily offended and would work himself up into rages. And your going to find these type people everywhere, and they inject themselves into the system very aggressively.

[Saleen411]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

If I was foolish enough to buy a house abutting a college football stadium would I have a right to complain about tailgating on the weekend just because it wasn’t football season when I toured the property? You were the one who failed to do due diligence and investigate the boat traffic on summer weekends in a popular anchorage right in front of your prospective house, it is down to you to take care of your business before the fact, not after.

Failed to do "due diligence"? Seriously?.... Moi?

For your information, I'm NOT on a popular anchorage...You obviously must be talking about somebody else.

RARELY does any boat anchor where i reside and when they do, 99% of the time there are NO issues. But hey, just about ANY waterfront home owner not on a canal can have an issue with a nuisance boat every once in awhile.