Miami Beach Anchoring Harassment

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

That's not really true.

You see, I've been watching the Florida legislature for a few years now. And that's not how it really works.

I've watched them do some pretty weaselly things. Last year they passed a BS law with no purpose other than eliminating Walton County's ability to grant the public access to the beaches they've always had access to. Written specifically to affect regulations passed the year before in Walton County, and specifically to grandfather-in similar legislation in Appalachicola. Who proposed it? A lawmaker who was retiring that year in an unaffected county in Southern Florida, so no current legislator's fingerprints wouldn't be on it. Completely designed to limit public access public access to private beaches, which should never have been private, and which the public has had access to until a few homeowners had started putting ropes around a few years ago.

Also last year, I watched as they proposed some legislation that would have disallowed homeowners from installing solar panels on their own homes and selling the excess electricity back to a local power company. Statewide legislation that was written so obscurely that after multiple readings, I didn't know if it was for or against the homeowner. Was called “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice,” by by "Floridians for Solar Choice" but was really a bid by the power companies to LIMIT solar options - the exact opposite of what it was named. It was a constitutional amendment, and if it had passed would have been nearly impossible to overturn. It failed after a grass-root effort and local papers managed to get the word out over what the legislation was really about.

This is the important part: don't pretend that Florida politicians are just "representing their voting constituency". I just gave you two examples of where Florida politicians clearly weren't representing their constituency, but rather some influential lobbying firms regarding legislation that is actually not in their constituents' interests.

Is it in a landlocked county's best interest that their constituents not have access to the beach? Is it in anyone's interest (other than the power company's) that individual's solar options be limited? I'd argue with you on both of those that the constituents don't even know what's going on in Tallahassee with their representatives.

In Florida, money talks, and a lot of people are comfortably numb.

If the public didn't like it, they have the option to vote them out. Of course, if you don't follow and understand the legislation followed by making your opinion known, that's your fault...not crooked politicians.

Of course, your two examples don't provide evidence of crooked actions. Limits on net metering for solar is a perfect example. Why should I pay more because you get net metering at retail prices...look into it some time, it forces your neighbors to subsidize your electricity bill and undermines the reliability of the grid...something that an honest politician would protect the public from.

So to summarize, you shown nothing that suggests anything crooked about politicians enacting law to limit long term liveaboards if that is what their constituency wants.

[valhalla360]

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

Actually, if they get enough neighbors together and they push legislation far enough up the line...yeah, they do get to decide.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

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.

But in that case, the homeowner who did their due diligence wouldn't expect permanently moored liveaboards...so unlike the example of buying next to a football stadium where it's expected that there will be football games in the fall, there was no expectation that people would be living just off their back yard.

The only thing odd about your case is you either didn't relate the story entirely as it happened or the cop was stupid in the way he approached you. Possibly a bit of both.

To call out a non-existent law makes it difficult for him to take further action as it could look like harassment. If the cop really was illegitimately trying to make you move along, they wouldn't make up imaginary laws. They would keep an eye out and then nail you for violating the many conflicting laws we have on the books...until you decided to move on.

[motion30]

But at least it is decided on a state level. If it was decided on a local level a few homeowners could have more influence

[boat driver]

The only thing you have not mentioned is permitted time to anchor in same spot.
The issue is squatters- and the problems of the derelict vessels.
You mentioned the head but at one point MB discussed/applied for a no discharge zone, I have no idea if it was passed.

I have a question- if you were a land owner/apartment lease holder and this is your "mooring". would you be treated same?
Just a thought.

[GordMay]

... 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 ...

Just as we cruisers/liveaboarders think the water, itself, is ours, at least to use as we please.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If the public didn't like it, they have the option to vote them out. Of course, if you don't follow and understand the legislation followed by making your opinion known, that's your fault...not crooked politicians.

Of course, your two examples don't provide evidence of crooked actions. Limits on net metering for solar is a perfect example. Why should I pay more because you get net metering at retail prices...look into it some time, it forces your neighbors to subsidize your electricity bill and undermines the reliability of the grid...something that an honest politician would protect the public from.

So to summarize, you shown nothing that suggests anything crooked about politicians enacting law to limit long term liveaboards if that is what their constituency wants.

I gave you two examples of where politicians put forth legislation that was in the interests of a small number of big-moneyed interests and not the public at large, and where the way that legislation was worded was designed to hide their true agenda. Even further, in one of those cases they had some unrelated politician who was leaving office the following year put forth that legislation so that the true proponents of it wouldn't have their fingerprints on it.

I'm sorry, but you were duped on that solar law. That law was titled and worded in a way to make it seemingly the way you described it, but what it really did was the opposite - it limited solar competition, and it would have been enshrined in the Florida Constitution. It was actually proposed by the power companies, not a consumer organization trying to promote the use of solar. It was a wolf in sheep's clothing. It failed to pass, but I'd expect to see it again in a different form.

To pretend the public has enough time to decipher legalese designed to obsfuscate the true intent of legislation is classbook "crooked", and yes, I condemn that.

Now this has nothing to do with anchoring laws, but these are the same folks who approved changes to the anchoring laws in the years before, and they're the ones who limited the anchoring in specific areas like those around Miami. If they propose legislation to "protect your anchoring rights", expect it to further limit them. More government hardly ever gives you more freedom.

When a piece of Florida legislation is titled "I'm your friend - I'm just trying to enshrine rights you already have", LOOK OUT! It may well be hiding it's true intent.

[Saleen411]

The only thing odd about your case is you either didn't relate the story entirely as it happened or the cop was stupid in the way he approached you. Possibly a bit of both.

Ummm...not my case, story or thread. I am not the OP.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

Did you actually type all of that?

No I cut and pasted it from the Florida statute online at the following web site. I did not think I would want to make everyone wade through the entire site to find this section.



Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

But in that case, the homeowner who did their due diligence wouldn't expect permanently moored liveaboards...so unlike the example of buying next to a football stadium where it's expected that there will be football games in the fall, there was no expectation that people would be living just off their back yard.

A homeowner that does their due dilligence would know that they don't control the waterways.

Which means someone can use those waterways without the permission of the homeowner.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by SKMT

SNIP

That would be very inconvenient because my current location is well protected, has a safe place to tie up my tender, recieve mail/packages, free street parking, as well as a free place to dispose of trash and fill jugs of water.

SNIP

As someone who grew up in Miami and has been sailing in Florida since the 1950s it still shocks me to read things like this. Not to mention reading all the posts defending this point of view.

What makes anyone think they are entitled to free stuff. Truth be told most marinas in South Florida are full and the boat owners are paying big bucks to get parking, trash disposal, and water. Florida has been more than welcoming to those boaters.

On the other hand there are lots of places in Florida where those living on boats expect free stuff; a place to dock a tender, access to water, and a place to dump trash for starters. In the Keys they have closed a park because boaters were doing things like overhauling outboards on picnic tables, over stressing the rest rooms, massively increasing water usage, and in some cases doing things like urinating in public; not to mention going nude on their boats while small children were in the park. In some areas the folks living on boats incapable of moving would be homeless other wise.

The result of an increasing number of folks living on boats who put stress on the communities infrastructure (expecting to do it free of charge) at best and often are a real problem with things like drug use and crime has resulted in more laws being passed to restrict where this can happen. I have sailed in the Keys up to the Panhandle and never had an issue anchoring. But I was never within miles of a house unless I was in marina. I also never expected free stuff.

As there are more folks on boats in the future I expect there will be even more restrictions on where boats can anchor. The thin is they will never affect cruisers like me who cruise to get away from it all; but it will affect those that are not really capable of moving their boat and expect free stuff to help them.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

FWC Boating Regulations....

https://myfwc.com/boating/regulations/

Next time FWC comes around you quote him chapter and verse on the regulations.

"Law enforcement officers of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, sheriffs’ deputies of the various counties, municipal police officers, and all other law enforcement officers, as defined in section 943.10, Florida Statutes, have the authority to order the removal or relocation of vessels deemed to be an interference with navigation or a hazard to public safety; to enforce all boating safety laws; and to conduct vessel inspections in accordance with state law."

[BenBowSirocco]

I grew up in a house with shoreline on a good sized lake.
It was always taught to me by my family that when you own shoreline, you implicitly agree by law to share the water in front of it. Most of the time it’s good people trying to have a good time.

A home owner upset at boats making noise or using the water, (like anchoring), I’m sorry buts it’s simply not up to you.
You paid money for a house and a property that gave you access to the water. Congratulations, you worked your butt off and paid top dollar to have 24-7 instant access to the PUBLIC waterway. It’s public- people suck- tough luck. Get over it or move on.

Is it polite for someone else to show up and play loud music? No. That is a very impolite thing to do in a public place. But in the big picture very few people do that. Go out and speak the people doing it and I bet it would change.
Is it fair to expect dinghy access, free water, free trash- no.
But a municipality providing these things will generally receive money spent in the proximity of that infrastructure. Although you may receive an abuser of them as well, that is the nature of the variety of life. All kinds.

This situation seems like an opportunity to flex your rights and remind people that everyone has the right to use the water. It’s earths most valuable rescourse and we all need to share it.
I hope you can have a civil conversation with the officers and perhaps even subsequently the homeowners.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by tomfl

As someone who grew up in Miami and has been sailing in Florida since the 1950s it still shocks me to read things like this. Not to mention reading all the posts defending this point of view.

What makes anyone think they are entitled to free stuff. Truth be told most marinas in South Florida are full and the boat owners are paying big bucks to get parking, trash disposal, and water. Florida has been more than welcoming to those boaters.

On the other hand there are lots of places in Florida where those living on boats expect free stuff; a place to dock a tender, access to water, and a place to dump trash for starters. In the Keys they have closed a park because boaters were doing things like overhauling outboards on picnic tables, over stressing the rest rooms, massively increasing water usage, and in some cases doing things like urinating in public; not to mention going nude on their boats while small children were in the park. In some areas the folks living on boats incapable of moving would be homeless other wise.

The result of an increasing number of folks living on boats who put stress on the communities infrastructure (expecting to do it free of charge) at best and often are a real problem with things like drug use and crime has resulted in more laws being passed to restrict where this can happen. I have sailed in the Keys up to the Panhandle and never had an issue anchoring. But I was never within miles of a house unless I was in marina. I also never expected free stuff.

As there are more folks on boats in the future I expect there will be even more restrictions on where boats can anchor. The thin is they will never affect cruisers like me who cruise to get away from it all; but it will affect those that are not really capable of moving their boat and expect free stuff to help them.

Exactly. No one should approach boating like that in the USA. Trying to get everything they can from a community. Take, take, take.

The riff Raff on boats in Florida is absolutely out of control. Overhauling outboards on picnic tables. Complete trash.

Boating for a summer way up North has reminded me why I don't particularly like boating in Florida. I had started to think I didn't like the vibe on boats. As it turns out, I didn't like people on boats in Florida. The crime. The sketchy weirdos.

We have spent the entire summer without closing the companionway hatch once. Never had to chain or padlock up our dinghy or motor. Had nothing but nice, courteous people all around us.

I truly thought the world went to hell. Apparently, it was just because I'd been boating in Florida too much.

[Montanan]

We have somewhat similar conflicts up here in Big Sky country.

Can become rather contentious. Albeit not quite as contentious as Pro-Life / Pro-Choice debates.