Proposed anchoring legislation for Florida

[sailingabe41ds]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I’m interested in this part.

What advantages are these out of district people getting by sponsoring this?

That is so easy...it happens where i live. All our county supervisors are against development..but development is happening. They all get financial conributions from the developers. The local supervisor votes against..but all the others vote for. Then when the others need your help that supervisor votes against but the outsider votes with. The local supervisor looks good but outvoted.
In this case the local representative who is payed off by tge hotel industry votes against but gets the ones out the district to vote for or introduce bills.
I have followed the voting paterns in Ventura county and it is so obvious. A rep named Linda Parks is against development. She votes against in the district she represents...but in the marina where my boat is she is full development since it is not her district. She is not consistent with her beliefs..but very consistent with illI will scratch your back..you scratch mine.

Abe

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by landsend

You mean 90 days in one spot is too short a time? Three months? A quarter of a year?

Seems like a reasonable time limit.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I've cruised, but we were never in one area for more than 1-2 weeks, and very seldom for more than 3-4 nights. Mostly 1-3 nights.


The Constitution says the federal government has say over interstate commerce, but it's murky when it comes to recreational use and even more so with long tern anchoring. Anchoring for a few nights is a part of navigation, but living in one spot is not likely what the framers of the constitution cared about. I'm pretty sure they would have considered this a local issue.


Then there is a concept of a shared resource. The waters of the United States do not belong to any one person, so it would seem that the owner of the mansion who wants a clear view and the live-aboard who wants free long-term rent (not navigating) are both expecting more than they have any right to.



And there is little question that there is no depth of skullduggery both groups won't stoop to. The politics is obvious. But I have also had private conversations with harbor masters in other parts of the country, and it's not the long-term residents they have trouble with, it is the long-term residents with antisocial dispositions that cause the trouble. If the boat is kept neat and moves just a short distance once in a while, no one minds.


Now back to the rants.

[B_Hunter45]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

It's all about the money. Wealthy people don't want anyone anchoring in their view. The local representatives are heavily influenced by the large number of locals who want to be able to anchor. So you go somewhere else, find a politician who has no real skin in the game, and make a sizeable donation to get him to introduce the bill.


This is how politics work, all the world around.

But in the USA this art was perfected.

Every passing day polititians find ways to put more restrictions. The free world is not free.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I don't have a dog in the fight. I've cruised, but we were never in one area for more than 1-2 weeks, and very seldom for more than 3-4 nights. Mostly 1-3 nights.


The Constitution says the federal government has say over interstate commerce, but it's murky when it comes to recreational use and even more so with long tern anchoring. Anchoring for a few nights is a part of navigation, but living in one spot is not likely what the framers of the constitution cared about. I'm pretty sure they would have considered this a local issue.


Then there is a concept of a shared resource. The waters of the United States do not belong to any one person, so it would seem that the owner of the mansion who wants a clear view and the live-aboard who wants free long-term rent (not navigating) are both expecting more than they have any right to.



And there is little question that there is no depth of skullduggery both groups won't stoop to. The politics is obvious. But I have also had private conversations with harbor masters in other parts of the country, and it's not the long-term residents they have trouble with, it is the long-term residents with antisocial dispositions that cause the trouble. If the boat is kept neat and moves just a short distance once in a while, no one minds.


Now back to the rants.

The Federal government devolved authority over submerged lands out to 3 milles from each state's coast to the states through the Submerged Lands Act back in 1953, so there's no constitutional issue here. I would tend to agree with you, no one get to camp on the side of a public land in front of my house indefinitely, why should they have a right to do the same thing on the other side of my house on the water.

[freshalaska]

So if the boat bums have to go, where do they go, someone’s else’s back yard, who cares if then someone else has to deal with them. Your always going to have some losers in a society. Just try and get them to behave a-bit better without declaring war on them. A little more tolerance goes a long way but not very prevalent in today’s society.
Easy for me to say cause I see very few boat bums in my neck of the woods.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by freshalaska

So if the boat bums have to go, where do they go, someone’s else’s back yard, who cares if then someone else has to deal with them. Your always going to have some losers in a society. Just try and get them to behave a-bit better without declaring war on them. A little more tolerance goes a long way but not very prevalent in today’s society.
Easy for me to say cause I see very few boat bums in my neck of the woods.

Stop being reasonable ! There is no room for it in this political climate.

[Seymore]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The Constitution says the federal government has say over interstate commerce, but it's murky when it comes to recreational use and even more so with long tern anchoring. Anchoring for a few nights is a part of navigation, but living in one spot is not likely what the framers of the constitution cared about. I'm pretty sure they would have considered this a local issue.


Then there is a concept of a shared resource. The waters of the United States do not belong to any one person, so it would seem that the owner of the mansion who wants a clear view and the live-aboard who wants free long-term rent (not navigating) are both expecting more than they have any right to.



And there is little question that there is no depth of skullduggery both groups won't stoop to. The politics is obvious. But I have also had private conversations with harbor masters in other parts of the country, and it's not the long-term residents they have trouble with, it is the long-term residents with antisocial dispositions that cause the trouble. If the boat is kept neat and moves just a short distance once in a while, no one minds.

+1 Hear hear!!

[Davy J]

Originally Posted by Sailing Ohm

but I was wondering if anyone has specific details about things like dates of public forums, the actual sponsors of the bill, and who is in these ‘committees’.
I can find the bill pdf on Flsenate.gov but that is pretty much all that loads for me.

Ok, I will try to help. First go here:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/639

You will see that the bill is now in Criminal Justice Committee, what anchoring has to do with criminal justice is beyond me, but there it is. Click on "committees". You will now see the "criminal Justice Committee":

https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/CJ/

You can then click on "meeting Notice", which should take you here:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/...ingNotice/5145

As of right now, it doesn't look to be on the schedule, That will change by the day though.

One piece of good news is that Jeff Brandes is the chair, (Edit sorry, Brandes is Vice Chair), he has shot down other anti-boater bills in the past.

Keep watching, do what you can.

[Davy J]

You can also look at this bill, which is disguised as a DWI bill, but notice the last section which includes anchoring limitations in Monroe County:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1086

[dwedeking2]

I'm not sure about the rest of Florida but in the Keys a large percentage of the anchor outs and moorings are working class people. A 1 bedroom apt here will run you $2000 - $3000 per month, that is most of your paycheck if your a cook, host or server at a local restaurant. Living on a paid for boat on a mooring costs me $400 a month so the situation allows me to put away savings (or for those with kids provide schooling, clothes etc). Spending money on a good anchor system (the holding here sucks) gives you that much more of an edge.

I talked to a local chef recently, their property (hotel and 2 restaurants) needs 20 people to fill their schedule. Our company (4 restaurants) could easily use 10 - 15 people. This law would make this situation worse.
This law isn't about derelict boats or safety. It's about the views from hotels and rich people's homes. There is a boat sitting abandoned and sitting aground off N Roosevelt St. Has been there for 3 years that I've been here. Only visited by the local graffiti artists. But FWC harrasses anchor outs near hotels all the time. I consider my mooring bill a bribe just to not be harrassed by FWC.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I'm not sure about the rest of Florida but in the Keys a large percentage of the anchor outs and moorings are working class people. A 1 bedroom apt here will run you $2000 - $3000 per month, that is most of your paycheck if your a cook, host or server at a local restaurant. Living on a paid for boat on a mooring costs me $400 a month so the situation allows me to put away savings (or for those with kids provide schooling, clothes etc). Spending money on a good anchor system (the holding here sucks) gives you that much more of an edge.

I talked to a local chef recently, their property (hotel and 2 restaurants) needs 20 people to fill their schedule. Our company (4 restaurants) could easily use 10 - 15 people. This law would make this situation worse.
This law isn't about derelict boats or safety. It's about the views from hotels and rich people's homes. There is a boat sitting abandoned and sitting aground off N Roosevelt St. Has been there for 3 years that I've been here. Only visited by the local graffiti artists. But FWC harrasses anchor outs near hotels all the time. I consider my mooring bill a bribe just to not be harrassed by FWC.

It sounds like you're long term mooring in a legal area set aside for it, so this wouldn't impact you would it? I certainly understand the impact of housing costs, I once lived in a similar situation. However I don't understand why banning indefinitely living in a public space on the water is controversial while indefinitely making house on public land is banned without anyone taking issue with the policy? Again, what is the difference between someone who is trying to make ends meet parking a camper in the public park land on one side of my (1500 square foot, $400k so no mansion here) house indefinitely and someone parking their boat in the public water in the other side of my house and living there indefinitely? Both are taking up public space for their own exclusive private use, the only difference is that there's a good chance the indefinitely parked boat folks are also dumping their feces and urine in our public water as well in most areas. I'd object to both equally, while a number of folks here would crucify me for objecting to the boater while they themselves would never tolerate someone parking their camper indefinitely next to their own home.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

It sounds like you're long term mooring in a legal area set aside for it, so this wouldn't impact you would it? I certainly understand the impact of housing costs, I once lived in a similar situation. However I don't understand why banning indefinitely living in a public space on the water is controversial while indefinitely making house on public land is banned without anyone taking issue with the policy? Again, what is the difference between someone who is trying to make ends meet parking a camper in the public park land on one side of my (1500 square foot, $400k so no mansion here) house indefinitely and someone parking their boat in the public water in the other side of my house and living there indefinitely? Both are taking up public space for their own exclusive private use, the only difference is that there's a good chance the indefinitely parked boat folks are also dumping their feces and urine in our public water as well in most areas. I'd object to both equally, while a number of folks here would crucify me for objecting to the boater while they themselves would never tolerate someone parking their camper indefinitely next to their own home.

1) Your right, doesn't affect me one bit as I pay the mooring bribe to not be harrassed by the FWC.



2) Pump out isn't an issue as the city pump out for the moorings will also pump out the anchor outs for free as part of a grant program. Just have to call them and tell them where you boat is.



3) I don't have an issue with RVers living on public land either.

[Woodland Hills]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I'm not sure about the rest of Florida but in the Keys a large percentage of the anchor outs and moorings are working class people. A 1 bedroom apt here will run you $2000 - $3000 per month, that is most of your paycheck if your a cook, host or server at a local restaurant. Living on a paid for boat on a mooring costs me $400 a month so the situation allows me to put away savings (or for those with kids provide schooling, clothes etc). Spending money on a good anchor system (the holding here sucks) gives you that much more of an edge.

I talked to a local chef recently, their property (hotel and 2 restaurants) needs 20 people to fill their schedule. Our company (4 restaurants) could easily use 10 - 15 people. This law would make this situation worse.
This law isn't about derelict boats or safety. It's about the views from hotels and rich people's homes. There is a boat sitting abandoned and sitting aground off N Roosevelt St. Has been there for 3 years that I've been here. Only visited by the local graffiti artists. But FWC harrasses anchor outs near hotels all the time. I consider my mooring bill a bribe just to not be harrassed by FWC.

So what you are saying is that instead of requiring a living wage or affordable housing for low wage workers we should allow the working poor to live in floating slums? Isn’t that simply shifting the burden from profit making businesses onto the general tax paying public who are the actual owners of the anchorage?
How is asking boats to move four times a year an undue burden? Here in Marathon there has been a 30-some foot sailboat anchored a half mile off the beach for several months. Why can’t others do the same for a couple of nights and then return to the anchorage?
If the problem is that wages are too low to live on land in Key West then go elsewhere until wages improve. All people are doing now by living in the anchorage is enabling those who are exploiting them by paying crap wages.
Maybe your boss could fill those empty positions if he paid you enough to actually live in Key West.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

So what you are saying is that instead of requiring a living wage or affordable housing for low wage workers we should allow the working poor to live in floating slums? Isn’t that simply shifting the burden from profit making businesses onto the general tax paying public who are the actual owners of the anchorage?
How is asking boats to move four times a year an undue burden? Here in Marathon there has been a 30-some foot sailboat anchored a half mile off the beach for several months. Why can’t others do the same for a couple of nights and then return to the anchorage?
If the problem is that wages are too low to live on land in Key West then go elsewhere until wages improve. All people are doing now by living in the anchorage is enabling those who are exploiting them by paying crap wages.
Maybe your boss could fill those empty positions if he paid you enough to actually live in Key West.

The proposed law actually says you can't just move a bit. It has to be more than 5 miles between places you anchor (so you can only have a job for the 90 days your anchored in Key West then move to Marathon and find a job for 90 days).

I totally agree. I'd love for the local employers to pay $100k a year to the dishwasher and the local rich people pay $85 for a cup of coffee. Right now I'm being paid double what I'd be paid at a similar job in the mid west. Being on a boat I'm making profit$$$$. The economics are so skewed here right now it's like California circa 1849.

They just did a survey of city workers. 11% feel they are making enough to live on. So it's not just the greedy business owners.

[Mike OReilly]

I've no horse in this game, although as a general rule I dislike seeing any restrictions on anchoring. But I also recognize that recreational anchoring is different from taking up permanent residence at one spot.

In Canada, and I presume the USA, public waterways are there for all to enjoy. They are public, therefore no one gets to claim exclusive use of them. Not the boater, and certainly not the rich owner of some fancy hotel. So why not treat public waterways similar to the way public lands are treated?

In Ontario, Canada, a citizen has the right to camp for free on Crown Land (that is otherwise not being utilized for other purposes). But that right is limited to three weeks (21 days) at any one location. This ensures everyone gets a crack at using and enjoying a specific location. Permanently anchoring in one location would be the equivalent of me building a house on Crown Land. That would be unfair for everyone else.

In the USA I know your public lands have more complexity to their usage, but they all come with limitations regarding how long people can remain on them. I see no reason why anchoring in public waterways shouldn't be treated similarly. Maybe with different time limits, but the principle seems sound to me