My boating dreams are destroyed

[Thomas1985]

Abandoning a boat off Miami sounds like the kind of dream I would have 😂

[Calif.Ted]

This dream was reliant on "Free" long term live aboard anchorage, there is none left here anymore. The free "A" anchorage in San Diego turned into a polluting, floating homeless ghetto before it's closing. One year the $400,000 budgeted for annual removal of derelict vessels was exhausted before 6 months.
The few and small free anchorages remaining here are all limited to 72 hrs.
I don't know what the answer to high housing cost may be but it's not "dreamers" with project boats and irrational expectations and plans.

[Thomas1985]

If you are living aboard then move the boat every few days.

It’s an issue because you want to anchor and possibly return to the boat someday.

[jkishel]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

I'll be charitable and assume you are just repeating something someone else stated without actually looking yourself. Your statement is bogus. If you disagree, show me a marked up chart to prove your point.

I really think you need to look at a chart and get out your dividers. Biscayne Bay in this area is about 2 miles wide. Last I chedcked, that is a LOT more than 200 yards.

This is exactly the kind of statement that is patently false, but gets repeated to drum up indignation by people who are not familiar with the details. The actual expansion of no-anchor zones that have not existed for a long time by that definition is TINY.

I live on land adjacent to the area in question. The bay north of the Venetian Causeway and South of the Tuttle is very, very shallow other than the small anchorage west of Sunset Harbor (currently occupied mostly by derelict vessels) that will be included in the expanded no overnight anchoring area. The new legislation will also essentially eliminate overnight anchoring where all of the other boats (also mostly derelicts) are currently anchored among the many islands south of the Venetian and north of the MacArthur. There is very little useable water there not within 200 yards of land. The legislation has obviously been designed to eliminate overnight anchoring within sight of Miami Beach. This is actually a big change, maybe the biggest in Florida to date.

As a resident of a building overlooking the anchorage, I support this legislation. I posted here only to correct the many erroneous comments that others made regarding the 45 day/1 mile documentation feature of the new bill. While that requirement is quite reasonable in my opinion in regard to other anchoring areas, it does not apply to the OP's situation. As to Miami Beach, the bill will eliminate overnight use of the existing anchorage. The only downside of this is that another anchorage near the ICW and Bimini will now be unavailable to actual cruising vessels.

[Shanachie]

The thing to remember is that these anchorages have almost no connection to sailing and cruising.


They are more like the people who pitch tents on downtown sidewalks or park rusty RVs on side streets.


I have a lot of empathy for people who have trouble making their way in the world, but these are not the ways to remedy their problems. All they do is create difficulties for other people.


Every time there is a storm, several of these boats wash up on beaches. Cities and homeowner associations have to pay to get rid of irresponsible people's trash.


They also create a lot of ill will for responsible sailors. When I have been given a hard time in Florida anchorages, it is usually because a rundown boat was anchored there and caused problems.

[motion30]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

I have now read the bill that was described here, and it is absolutely nothing new. In fact it actually is an IMPROVEMENT, at least for boats that are not being used as permanent housing in ways that are ALREADY illegal.

You are not allowed to anchor in one location for more than 45 days in the "restricted areas." This is already part of Florida law. That is actually a restriction I support and I find totally reasonable.

What this bill does is outline very simply the kind of information that the investigating officer MUST accept as proof that the vessel is not anchored PERMANENTLY if it is found in a restricted area. This is not "unconstitutional." It removes none of your rights. If you are issued a summons you can ALWAYS take it to a court were you are always assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Read the ACTUAL bill. All it says is the investigating office must accept:



For any boat that is a legitimate transiant cruising boat, this should be a very simple matter. If you can not (or for some odd reason will not) provide proof to the officer that the boat has moved, then you might get a summons to appear. You then have the chance to show the judge you are innocent of the violation. I am not aware of any other violation where the presentation of proof to the officer gets you off the hook--by statute--before a summons is issued.

If your "boating dreams" are to be anchored in one spot in the urban waters of Florida, then I am sorry they are destroyed, but I am not particularly sympathetic. For legitimate cruisers how actually use their boats for CRUISING, this is a non-story, and the OP is doing nothing but scare mongering.

It is not unusual that the interests of legitimate transient cruising boats and boats used as cheap, permanent, full-time housing conflict. It is also not unusual that the housing crowd try to scare the cruising crowd into supporting them by presenting information that would charitably be characterized as "partially true." This is a case in point.

I have found that for me, as a cruising sailor, the rules in Florida to control derelict boats have been a net positive. By cleaning out anchorages that have been clogged with derelict and semi-derelict boats, there is now room for boats transiting the area to anchor and then move on. That being said, there ARE rules that are imposed to try to control the cheap housing use of the public waterways that have more impact to legitimate users, andI do have a problem with those.

So this bill requires you to prove your innocence, and somehow that doesn't bother you. The fifth amendment comes to mind when I read this

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by motion30

So this bill requires you to prove your innocence, and somehow that doesn't bother you. The fifth amendment comes to mind when I read this

How do you figure? There are apparently two issues at play. #1 is restriction on overnight anchoring (which was grandfathered in somehow) #2 is provides a quick mechanism to defend an erroneous allegation that you have anchored too long. You can always fight the citation in court, just as you would do today.

You're not getting sympathy because derelect boats have been taking advantage of public resources for decades. They have clogged waterways, been unsightly, contribute little, and cause a mess. To expect the law abiding folks to come to their defense with some sort of twisted constitutional interpretation is laughable. Derelect boats finally got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now want sympathy so they keep at it? Good luck with that.....

[SailingHarmonie]

Originally Posted by motion30

So this bill requires you to prove your innocence, and somehow that doesn't bother you. The fifth amendment comes to mind when I read this

No, it does NOT "require you to prove your innocence." I can assure you if it did I'd be in front of you on the barricades.

What this law does is REQUIRE the officer to accept specific and reasonable forms of proof from you that you have been in compliance with the law. This is a WAY BETTER situation than forcing you to go to court and defend yourself there.

Let's be clear here. If the investigating officer issues you a summons AFTER you provide the documentation that you have complied with the law, HE (or she) is the one in violation of the statute. NOT YOU. If for some silly reason you refuse to provide such documentation at the time of the encounter with the police, you go to court and defend yourself there, with all the presumption of innocence that you are due. Why is this hard to understand? Or maybe you do understand and are deliberately distorting the obvious facts for some reason?

You are clearly not understanding what the bill clearly says in plain language. Or maybe you haven't read it.

[JPK]

I'm still waiting to hear why the OP (if they have a perfectly running boat as they say they do) thinks they are "doomed" and their "dreams are destroyed" because they're being asked to move their boat 1 mile every 45 days. Inconvenienced... maybe. Doomed? Meh.

[Renegde_Sailor]

Reading the text carefully (mind you this is my own interpretation) to the best I can discern this is the new no anchor zone where you may not anchor between sunset and sunrise.



It would seem to me that freaking out over this is completely unwarranted.


The rest of the waterway is open to anchoring, Much of the place they are restricting it is actually logical to restrict anchoring here as most of the shore line has boat docks there anyways.

Much better solution than they came up with in Washington state that is for damn sure, they only will let you anchor 30 days in ANY anchorage, a maximum of 90 days in that year, and when you move you have to move a minimum of 5 nautical miles away.

1nm in 45 days is perfectly reasonable to me.

[OldManMirage]

Originally Posted by jkishel

I live on land adjacent to the area in question. The bay north of the Venetian Causeway and South of the Tuttle is very, very shallow other than the small anchorage west of Sunset Harbor (currently occupied mostly by derelict vessels) that will be included in the expanded no overnight anchoring area. The new legislation will also essentially eliminate overnight anchoring where all of the other boats (also mostly derelicts) are currently anchored among the many islands south of the Venetian and north of the MacArthur. There is very little useable water there not within 200 yards of land. The legislation has obviously been designed to eliminate overnight anchoring within sight of Miami Beach. This is actually a big change, maybe the biggest in Florida to date.

As a resident of a building overlooking the anchorage, I support this legislation. I posted here only to correct the many erroneous comments that others made regarding the 45 day/1 mile documentation feature of the new bill. While that requirement is quite reasonable in my opinion in regard to other anchoring areas, it does not apply to the OP's situation. As to Miami Beach, the bill will eliminate overnight use of the existing anchorage. The only downside of this is that another anchorage near the ICW and Bimini will now be unavailable to actual cruising vessels.

I guess all I see when I look at this picture is a nice bay with a lot of boats. Which is what I would expect to see. What I don't see is why this would be a problem to someone who lives on land.

You want to "Only" see water ? Or maybe water and with only an occasional boat passing through ?

To me all the damn highrise condos muck up the view. The boats look like they are part of the picture.

Now I get the part about overstaying. And there does need to space for transient boaters.

Personally, I think some people just have to have something to complain about. There have always been busybodies, and the worst of them have money and time. And think they know what's best for others.

[5BTM]

I think that in all boats should l have a unique QR code which would be scanned by drones flying over anchorages.

Boats would be charged for the time spend on the mooring.
The water based version of parking meters.

Of course it will affects those that want the full benefit of living in a first world
country without contributing but them is the breaks..

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by 5BTM

I think that in all boats should l have a unique QR code which would be scanned by drones flying over anchorages.

Boats would be charged for the time spend on the mooring.
The water based version of parking meters.

Of course it will affects those that want the full benefit of living in a first world
country without contributing but them is the breaks..

Please no...

[Orion Jim]

Originally Posted by 5BTM

I think that in all boats should l have a unique QR code which would be scanned by drones flying over anchorages.

Boats would be charged for the time spend on the mooring.
The water based version of parking meters.

Of course it will affects those that want the full benefit of living in a first world
country without contributing but them is the breaks..

Only applicable in Canada, and more precisely Ottawa.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

...To me all the damn highrise condos muck up the view. The boats look like they are part of the picture.

Now I get the part about overstaying. And there does need to space for transient boaters.

Personally, I think some people just have to have something to complain about. There have always been busybodies, and the worst of them have money and time. And think they know what's best for others.

Agreed on all points. But your caveat about overstaying is the real issue here.

People ashore justifiably don't want a floating homeless encampment permanently moored in nearby waterways, bringing with it the obvious environmental, law enforcement and, yes, esthetic issues. Or the burden of paying for the derelicts which wash ashore on their property after every storm.

Cruisers are also justified in wanting an opportunity to use an anchorage, not allow it to be claimed by permanent homesteaders.

Our interests align with the homeowners' interests here. We need to be sure we support them when reasonable compromises are proposed. This will help us when we need their support in preventing unreasonable ones (like total anchoring bans.)