Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-01-2014, 08:28 PM   #21
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donsan View Post
Marina owners must be salivating for the additional business.
Actually I do not know a single marina owner who is doing so and I have talked to a few. Now they do want ingress and egress from the marinas protected but that doesn't seem like a big issue. And they do want help removing derelict vessels left in the marina. But they really don't want any unreasonable restrictions on anchoring as they still consider those who anchor to be potential customers. They know that most who anchor still occasionally dock at marinas, most use fuel.
__________________
Advertisement

BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 08:35 PM   #22
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Hey I have no problem with landowners shooting on sight inconsiderate boaters who illegally use their land, let derelict boats wash up, throw trash overboard, etc..etc...etc...

But as a potential anchoring boat...that at worst is going to spoil some landowners view...no sympathy at all... as I said and as to hearing the message...I can only hope it's the other way around.

Maybe some wealthy boatowner will sue every landowner whoever let even one molecule of grass fertilizer/insecticide leach into the water and the class action suit will provide funding for taking care of every waterway..... forever.
__________________

psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 08:48 PM   #23
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,570
There are no general anchoring restrictions in Oz, nothing to stop you anchoring off someone`s mansion waterfront home. There are specific ones, like anchoring in areas where you will upset the seagrass, or under the Harbor Bridge (since a ferry T-Boned an anchored fishing runabout, the fisherperson had a heart attack and died), naval restricted areas, places like that.
We have many more boats kept on moorings under licence issued by Maritime authorities, it is "use it or lose it" so people between real boats use things called 'mooring minders" to be seen as using it. Nasty boats, poor condition, not maintained, often forgotten. Every now and then Maritime has a blitz on them, so people really wanting a mooring can get one.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 09:51 PM   #24
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donsan View Post
We no longer live of the ICW. I sold the ICW house a few years ago and bought a condo on the beach. It was a nice luxurious condo and it was fun. Even felt like living on a boat. We sold it after three years and now live inland at a gated community on a golf course. My point in all this was to provide the perspective of a former long time ICW landowner and Floridian and to ask boaters to be considerate of others. You can choose to listen to the message or ignore it but if the situation continues to deteriorate, the state and local governments will have no choice but to place more restrictions on boating and anchoring.

Just my 2 cents....

I think your point is well made. I also have mixed feelings about this. I'm a boater who prefers anchoring out, but I also have (and have had) waterfront property on or near the ICW where boats anchored regularly. The truth is, I liked waking up and seeing some boats off our dock. I don't recall anyone ever being close enough to cause concern. But when we lived in Key Biscayne (an Island just east of Miami), I'm guessing that the cove we bounded on was probably 600 ft. in diameter. It could easily be the overnight or weekend stay for a half dozen well anchored vessels. Again, no problem, but if the rule that Miami and Ft. Lauderdale would like to push becomes the law, no one will be able to anchor 300 ft. from any sea-wall in that cove. That will mean that it's just another place "off limits".

On the weekends, party boats might come in with a dozen or so people and blast latin music so loud you couldn't even think. True, we didn't like it, and neither did most of the other peaceful anchored vessels out there, because they would leave. If the cops came into the cove, they'd get kicked out for whatever reason, but they'd stay there until they either got kicked out or were ready to leave. Maybe every other weekend, that would happen. Still, it was only a few that were abusers. They made it bad for everyone, but after all, Miami is party city, and even if it's not blasting latin music in the cove, later that night it could be your next door neighbor.

To legislate something that is fair to everyone is going to be difficult. Miami and Key Biscayne don't need the same rules as Sarasota does. I never saw a derelict vessel in Key Biscayne, and very few in Miami Harbor. There used to be a lot of them in Sarasota Harbor till the moorings were installed. These communities are very different, so what do you do?
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 06:29 AM   #25
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
." The law Crown refers to is Florida State Statute 327.60, which states, "Local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the anchoring outside of such mooring fields of nonliveaboard vessels in navigation."

In Sag Harbor the town simply declared all the water in the area , as far as the eye could see THEIR anchorage , and under THEIR control. The water is not shown as a special anchorage on any chart , so anchor lights are required.

As I understand raperian rights all the water on the coast to the high tide line is owned by the federal gov.

A few exceptions ,City Island NY , >Queen Ann Grants< which predated the US and gave the use of 400 ft from the shore to locals.

When the cash went to Homeland Security , the USCG gave up regulating the federal waters in many areas , and the towns sent beserk with no wake zones , and anchor rules.

>if the situation continues to deteriorate, the state and local governments will have no choice but to place more restrictions on boating and anchoring. <

The State and locals have NO right to claim the ability to regulate how navigation is performed.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:02 AM   #26
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
.
The State and locals have NO right to claim the ability to regulate how navigation is performed.
Perhaps true, but naive to think laws can't be changed.

I want un-restricted anchoring just like anybody else, but I see the writing on the wall and it's because of people like Larrry's post above described, "squatters", and derelict boats left unattended for years that's going to change the law.

It's too bad the boating community didn't police themselves better for I fear it's too late now.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:19 AM   #27
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by timjet View Post
Perhaps true, but naive to think laws can't be changed.

I want un-restricted anchoring just like anybody else, but I see the writing on the wall and it's because of people like Larrry's post above described, "squatters", and derelict boats left unattended for years that's going to change the law.

It's too bad the boating community didn't police themselves better for I fear it's too late now
.
I'd love to police boaters better....how?

Even the authorities have their hands tied when dealing with "squatters" and derelicts. Look at the controversy in Oriental with semi-desirables and undesirables there.

I'm not sure that peer pressure from the internet caused one to move or not...but certainly it was way too long for some.

I actually think the blame IS on the towns/landowners.

The vast majority of abusers are CLEAR...not shades of gray. Developing reasonable enforcement and passing legislation that is enforceable and NOT in conflict with the concept of free navigation isn't out of reach of reasonable people.

You don't have to have 100% agreement...I think somewhat way less would be palatable by by both groups if you throw out the extreme votes.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:40 AM   #28
TF Site Team
 
dwhatty's Avatar
 
City: Home Port: Buck's Harbor, Maine
Country: USA
Vessel Name: "Emily Anne"
Vessel Model: 2001 Island Gypsy 32 Europa (Hull #146)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
.

As I understand raperian rights all the water on the coast to the high tide line is owned by the federal gov.

A few exceptions ,City Island NY , >Queen Ann Grants< which predated the US and gave the use of 400 ft from the shore to locals.

In Maine, the law is that the owner of shorefront land owns the land to the low tide mark, unless title to this intertidal zone has been separated. The State, in State waters, owns the bottom seaward of the low tide mark. The Army Corps of Engineers regulates who may set moorings in navigable waters of the State, but usually delegates that to cities and towns that have adopted harbor ordinances.

As a side note, the public has no recreational rights in the intertidal zone, only limited rights there for fishing, fowling and the taking of shellfish.
__________________
David Hawkins
Deer Isle, Maine
dwhatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 09:20 AM   #29
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwhatty View Post
In Maine, the law is that the owner of shorefront land owns the land to the low tide mark, unless title to this intertidal zone has been separated. The State, in State waters, owns the bottom seaward of the low tide mark. The Army Corps of Engineers regulates who may set moorings in navigable waters of the State, but usually delegates that to cities and towns that have adopted harbor ordinances.

As a side note, the public has no recreational rights in the intertidal zone, only limited rights there for fishing, fowling and the taking of shellfish.
That's different than in NJ so again I'm at a loss to a final answer on all waters...

....but I still don't see it an issue for channels marked by the USCG and adjacent waters as being clearly federally sanctioned US important navigable waters and those waters should have mariner rights and priveledges that trump any state or local law.

Waters NOT adjacent to federally marked channels...have at it...pass any law you want as it seems to fall within the concepts of USA governing.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 09:25 AM   #30
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donsan View Post
Just for the record, my father bought our ICW lot in 1952 for the paltry sum of $2000 but a nice chunk of change back then. At the time, anchoring on the Indian River lagoon by live aboards was literally unheard of. So were derelict boats. I may have misled about the deed to the property. What it really said is if the water were to recede, we would have ownership of the exposed land to the point it reaches the channel.

Derelict boats are a big issue and it has grown over the years. 99% of what I have seen are not live aboards. They are just people who are abandoning their boats or want free storage. These boats usually get destroyed when a tropical storm comes along and the state has had difficulty tracking down owners, going through legal processes and then collecting payments from the owner....if possible. I have found boats in various conditions aground in my front yard.
=================================================

I am familiar with the various named streets/roads that run along Indian River. South of Merritt Island in the 6600-7100 block there is one place to pull off the 2 lane narrow, road, for what ever reason. Other land owners on other stretches used boulders, fences and so forth to keep evil motorist with a flat, mechanical, poor judgement..IE out of gas, from pulling over. Not enough for this _______ (insert noun). He has tire destroying pyramids that are almost invisible at night and hard to see in daylight, especially if mowing is needed.

If there was EVER an example to justify eminent domain this road along Indian River is it, and it should be executed with a vengeance. Four lane, turning lane at streets and shoulders with 45 mph speed limit is what is called for. This is the premier example of NIMBY and to hell with the public I can ever recall seeing. This NIMBY situtation is continued by bought off local politicians no doubt.

As for the derelict boats, I think we can agree that the state needs to step up.
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 09:57 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
City: Tampa, FL
Country: USA
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry M View Post
I do agree that derelict vessels are a big problem no matter where you live. But lets control them and not restrict legitimate boaters and there anchoring access.
Exactly. There are already laws in place that allow for the control of derelict vessels. They are not being enforced, because it involves the city and their police actually doing some documentation and real work. Oh my! So much easier to just outlaw all anchoring.

This is the bottom line whenever anyone tells you that these anchoring restrictions have anything at all to do with derelict vessels. It is nothing more than a way for them to be lazy.
denverd0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:05 AM   #32
Guru
 
High Wire's Avatar
 
City: Cape May, NJ and Englewood, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Irish Lady
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,600
We have to be careful with this issue to always differentiate real cruisers from the derelict/homesteader/squatter crowd. Terms like "liveaboard" lumps us all together.
__________________
Archie
1984 Monk 36 Hull #46
Englewood, FL and Cape May, NJ
High Wire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:12 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Billyfeet's Avatar
 
City: Jupiter, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: JOHN D. MACDONALD
Vessel Model: FAIRCHILD SCOUT 30
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd0n View Post
Exactly. There are already laws in place that allow for the control of derelict vessels. They are not being enforced, because it involves the city and their police actually doing some documentation and real work. Oh my! So much easier to just outlaw all anchoring.

This is the bottom line whenever anyone tells you that these anchoring restrictions have anything at all to do with derelict vessels. It is nothing more than a way for them to be lazy.
I agree totally. Let me list a few laws currently on the books that if rigorously enforced would eliminate the "Derelict" problem. 1. PUBLIC INTOXICATION! 2.MARINE SANITATION 3. SAFTY INSPECTION 4.ANCHOR LIGHT 5.NOISE ORDANANCE 6.DISTURBING THE PEACE Having abided in a few long term anchorage areas in Florida and the Caribbean I feel confident that when these laws are uniformly and rigorously enforced the derelict boats and boaters disappear as if by magic. But the Waterfront Property Owner is using the Derelict as whipping boy in the slow but steady march towards eliminating anchoring rights for all.
Billyfeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:21 AM   #34
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd0n View Post
Exactly. There are already laws in place that allow for the control of derelict vessels. They are not being enforced, because it involves the city and their police actually doing some documentation and real work. Oh my! So much easier to just outlaw all anchoring.

This is the bottom line whenever anyone tells you that these anchoring restrictions have anything at all to do with derelict vessels. It is nothing more than a way for them to be lazy.
Actually that's not true in most areas. The laws related to derelict vessels are lacking and removal of such vessels is very time consuming. It's not just anchoring however. Many vessels get left at marinas but those marinas have no easy means of getting rid of them and become responsible for them. The state of Washington has a somewhat more effective process for those and periodically removes and crushes vessels.

Now, that said, I consider derelict vessels and regular anchoring restrictions to be too different issues that now are too often combined into one. I live in an area where there are the few crusaders wanting anchoring reduced or eliminated but they are so very much in the minority. Most of us are surrounded by boats, surrounded by anchorages, and love it as part of the ambiance of where we live. When we're at home we can wake in the morning and look out and see the beautiful site of boats anchored nearby.

The extremists will continue to make proposals which will continue to be voted down. The extremists on the other side will continue to oppose any regulations even those for derelict boats and those other regulations that are minimal. Ultimately there will be answers found somewhere in between. And there will be renegade cities going further. In fact that's the reason the state of Florida started trying to address the problem, to limit what municipalities in the state could do.

I do believe we will be debating anchoring rules throughout the country for decades just as we will discharge rules. But I also believe moderation will win in the vast majority of situations. There will be those few locales who are more extreme.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:30 AM   #35
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyfeet View Post
I agree totally. Let me list a few laws currently on the books that if rigorously enforced would eliminate the "Derelict" problem. 1. PUBLIC INTOXICATION! 2.MARINE SANITATION 3. SAFTY INSPECTION 4.ANCHOR LIGHT 5.NOISE ORDANANCE 6.DISTURBING THE PEACE Having abided in a few long term anchorage areas in Florida and the Caribbean I feel confident that when these laws are uniformly and rigorously enforced the derelict boats and boaters disappear as if by magic. But the Waterfront Property Owner is using the Derelict as whipping boy in the slow but steady march towards eliminating anchoring rights for all.
Those laws all serve some purpose but they don't provide for means of removing the derelict vessel. The situation Oriental NC faced is an excellent example too of how a small problem can grow. And the biggest single impact it created was not on the landowners but on cruisers who normally would anchor there.

Yes some property owners are using that problem for more, but that doesn't mean the derelict problem doesn't need addressing still. And I do not believe in spite of the few who might like it that we're moving toward eliminating all anchoring rights. I do believe ultimately there will be some regulations but nothing like the 300' numbers proposed. Just enough to not create hazards at marinas and public launches and some very minimal distances from docks and docked boats. Funniest thing is that so much is blamed on waterfront property owners and yet the leading advocate for the laws in Fort Lauderdale does not live on the water.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:52 AM   #36
Guru
 
City: Satsuma FL
Country: United States
Vessel Name: No Mo Trawla
Vessel Model: Hurricane SS188
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd0n View Post
Exactly. There are already laws in place that allow for the control of derelict vessels. They are not being enforced, because it involves the city and their police actually doing some documentation and real work. Oh my! So much easier to just outlaw all anchoring.

This is the bottom line whenever anyone tells you that these anchoring restrictions have anything at all to do with derelict vessels. It is nothing more than a way for them to be lazy.
My understanding is the legal processes to remove these derelict boats can take 12-18 months. Hopefully, there have been or will be changes in the law lighten the burden on the taxpayer. It is not a matter of documentation and real work and laziness. The emphasis in law enforcement is on criminal matters over civil matters and rightfully so.
Donsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:05 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Billyfeet's Avatar
 
City: Jupiter, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: JOHN D. MACDONALD
Vessel Model: FAIRCHILD SCOUT 30
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 179
No offense B&B but if you don't think that there are towns and waterfront property owners in Florida that are just waiting for the time when the current ban on municipality anchorage regulation lapses to eliminate anchoring you missed the last few decades of the 20th Century when North Palm Beach and Riviera Beach attempted to PROHIBIT ANCHORING A VESSEL OVERNIGHT!!!! Or this nice little attempt to eliminate the anchorage at the north end of Lake Worth by 'making seagrass beds" and restricting access to the are in the name of protecting marine animals. This is my back yard and I have watched it for 50 years! Jack Nicklaus lives in a MCMansion on the water where this fiasco is brewing. It is well known that he and a few other landowners that abut this great anchorage are working to get it cleared out! Full Text of Public Notice to Fill and Plant Sea Grass in Northern Lake Worth | Cruisers' Net GOOGLE 1300 US 1 North Palm Beach and look at the map. This is a very popular anchorage. It is well protected from North wind during the winter, there is a public access to the road at the north end that is walking distance to a Publix supermarket, CVS Pharmacy and a long walk to a giant West Marine! The holding is in sand/mud at 17' depth. The bad news is that as mentioned in the proposal to fill this "dredge hole" in with sand to "enhance the aquatic environment" and "signage for sea grass protection" it will effective eliminate the anchorage area. Also what is not mentioned is that the reason that there is a "Dredge Hole" this large is that all that nice bulk headed property surrounding this "hole" was filled from soil taken out of the hole! And Old Port Cove Marina and Condominiums, Portage Landing where Jack Nicklaus lives and Lost Tree Village are where the push for this "Enhanced Aquatic Environment" nonsense is coming from! Typical Palm Beach County circle jerk! A developer mines fill from public bottomland, builds and bulkheads his property, and then 60 years down the road had the county re-fill his hole and get's public acces limited so that Jack doesn't have to see me enjoying my coffee in the AM while anchored on "Public Trust" land!
Billyfeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 12:37 PM   #38
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyfeet View Post
No offense B&B but if you don't think that there are towns and waterfront property owners in Florida that are just waiting for the time when the current ban on municipality anchorage regulation lapses to eliminate ahchoring you missed the last few decades of the 20th Century when North Palm Beach and Riviera Beach attempted to PROHIBIT ANCHORING A VESSEL OVERNIGHT!!!! Or this nice little attempt to eliminate the anchorage at the north end of Lake Worth by 'making seagrass beds" and restricting access to the are in the name of protecting marine animals. This is my back yard and I have watched it for 50 years! Jack Nicklaus lives in a MCMansion on the water where this fiasco is brewing. It is well known that he and a few other landowners that abut this great anchorage are working to get it cleared out! Full Text of Public Notice to Fill and Plant Sea Grass in Northern Lake Worth | Cruisers' Net GOOGLE 1300 US 1 North Palm Beach and look at the map. This is a very popular anchorage. It is well protected from North wind during the winter, there is a public access to the road at the north end that is walking distance to a Publix supermarket, CVS Pharmacy and a long walk to a giant West Marine! The holding is in sand/mud at 17" depth. The bad news is that as mentioned in the proposal to fill this "dredge hole" in with sand to "enhance the aquatic environment" and "signage for sea grass protection" it will effective eliminate the anchorage area. Also what is not mentioned is that the reason that there is a "Dredge Hole" this large is that all that nice bulk headed property surrounding this "hole" was filled from soil taken out of the hole! And Old Port Cove Marina and Condominiums, Portage Landing where Jack Nicklaus lives and Lost Tree Village are where the push for this "Enhanced Aquatic Environment" nonsense is coming from! Typical Palm Beach County circle jerk! A developer mines fill from public bottomland, builds and bulkheads his property, and then 60 years down the road had the county re-fill his hole and get's public acces limited so that Jack doesn't have to see me enjoying my coffee in the AM while anchored on "Public Trust" land!
You are accurate in that I missed those decades of the 20th century. I'm in the 21st century. Have been for 14 years. We weren't in FL in the 20th. In fact I wasn't even 21 years old until the last decade and my wife wasn't until this century. So now that we've gotten that out of the way.

I don't doubt there is a push by some people in some areas still for eliminating anchoring, but I do not think the state will relinquish the power and stop restricting the cities. I think municipalities will be limited in what they can do. I feel very certain of that.

Far less certain is what those limitations will be. That's the real question and debate. What restrictions will local governments in the state of Florida be allowed to put on anchoring? So far the state has been very slow to allow local restrictions. They've run a pilot program in a few areas. Now the debate is what are the maximum restrictions a municipality will be allowed to place. I believe they will be moderate. Not as far or as limited as either side of the equation wants. Florida is one state that has stepped in and said we are not going to allow cities to go off on their own tangents.

Now I have no idea what the limits will be nor how many times they will change. I'm personally for a real clampdown on abandoned derelict boats (notice I inserted the word "abandoned") and for very much limiting the limits to be placed on anchoring. I am hoping those limits will just be what most would do naturally based on common sense and courtesy. 300' from homes is ridiculous and I do not see it happening. Ultimately, I believe there will be some form of reasonable compromise.

You refer to matters proposed in the last few decades of the last century. They didn't pass, didn't happen. You refer to an application made in January, 2012. It wasn't approved and enacted. There are people trying to make a name for themselves who propose insane things every day. Fortunately they don't often get their way.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 12:40 PM   #39
TF Site Team
 
Bay Pelican's Avatar
 
City: Chicago, IL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bay Pelican
Vessel Model: Krogen 42
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,789
There are two issues which I concede to the landowners:

Derelict boats. There are a couple of approaches which could be taken which would insure the boats would be removed before they sink and create a hazard. Basically, a bond would have to be put up before you could operate any boat valued at less than 50,000 US. This could be part of an insurance policy or a separate bond with a third party. Details would have to be worked out.

Residence boats. Municipalities are of course leery of boats used as residences by those working in the town or worse for the town, sending their children to school. In either case the boat should be subject to a real estate tax equivalent.

I have no sympathy for the waterside property owner who doesn't want boats anchored in front of his property, too bad, the boats were there first and there are non-waterfront houses galore to choose from.
__________________
Marty
Bay Pelican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 01:02 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Billyfeet's Avatar
 
City: Jupiter, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: JOHN D. MACDONALD
Vessel Model: FAIRCHILD SCOUT 30
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 179
B&B, just to clarify. Riviera Beach was in the process of towing anchored boats to the city marina, locking the boat to the dock, and then confiscating the boat for marina "charges". The law was on the books, they enforced it, and lost a fortune when owners of confiscated vessels sued the city successfully! And the Turtle Cove Restoration scam was still active as of June 2013. I have not been able to determine the current status. But this type of thing tends to come back again and again in Florida. So this was not a dream that I had, it happened, and could happen again. I hope that the State will hold on hard to the concept that uniform laws governing the waters of Florida is the way to go. I was astounded when the whole mooring field test case idea was approved and executed by a few towns. I worked with Riviera Beach and Palm Beach County in the '90s when all the trouble was happening here. I had a presentation showing the success of mooring fields in Newport,RI, Nantucket,MA and Martha's Vinyard, MA. I had a plan identical to the one in Boot Key for restrooms, showers, pump out and garbage facilities. THey looked at me like I was crazy and proceeded to spend a couple of million on lost lawsuits! Here is one example of the depth of stupidity.Supreme Court: Floating Home Still A Man's Castle : NPR
__________________

Billyfeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012