Florida Anchoring limits heating up

[healhustler]

More strategy talk from FL cities to limit anchoring, now heating up.

Florida's Anchoring Debate Heats Up - Inside Practical Sailor Blog Article

 

[Donsan]

More strategy talk from FL cities to limit anchoring, now heating up.

Florida's Anchoring Debate Heats Up - Inside Practical Sailor Blog Article

Marina owners must be salivating for the additional business.

As a previous property owner on the ICW, I have mixed feelings about this and crabbing too. My deed was somewhat unusual but gave me ownership of underwater land all the way out to the channel....almost 1/2 mile. In fact, the city did not have an easement for Rockledge Drive except for the road itself. Over the years I saw my property rights used and abused by boaters, crabbers, marathoners, bicycle clubs, utilities, motorcycles and on and on. Some boaters would just dinghy up to the dock and tie up like it was the municipal marina. I sold the property some years ago for other reasons. My point is, owners property rights are often abused and not just by boaters. Eventually, they feel compelled to go to the police and local governments to get their property rights and privacy protected. Florida is a haven for snowbird boaters and on many places along the ICW, there just is not enough free anchorages for the number of snowbirds or locals who want free. Part of the reason is a lack of marinas and transient slips.

Anyway, please respect land owners property rights and where possible, if you see other boaters who don't, call them out. Freedom on the water is a precious thing but the more it is abused, the more it will be restricted.

 

[timjet]

As a FL resident and frequent boater I have never been asked by any LEO to leave an anchorage. From the talk on several forums, I'm probably lucky.

Since this a boating forum I can see the opinion weighted heavily in favor of un-restricted anchoring. However Donson has a valid point. Boaters who fail to honor land owners rights by being a noise nuisance, visual eyesore or using their property as a dinghy landing will hasten the inevitable anchoring restrictions. There are many more landowners than boaters and if they're on the ICW or other waterfront property they probably have more money and clout than the average boater using his waterfront as a hang out.

I've seen many boats anchored in some very nice locations that I would not want to see 24/7 if I owned the adjacent waterfront land.

I really don't see a solution to this issue. Mooring fields are a good start and quite frankly I don't see the boating communities objection to outlawing anchoring within a mile or two of a mooring field. However some folks will not want to pay the $20 a night for this convenience, choosing to anchor right next to the mooring field. Perhaps a more reasonable $5 per night will encourage those folks.

Derelict boats are a huge problem is FL, though the boating community tends to downplay the significance of this. My favorite anchorage on the north end of Longboat Key is home to 4 derelict boats that have been there for several years. They are an eyesore and take up valuable anchoring space. If I were a waterfront land owner I would be doing my best to restrict anchoring here. Most waterfront land owners probably don't know the boating community doesn't condone these boats, they just want them out of here and would support any legislation preventing such an eyesore. This beautiful cove would probably be otherwise empty of boats during the week.

 

[Billyfeet]

"A gopher never quits"---Karl Spackler This sums up the never ending battle in Florida between people who have spent gabs of money to obtain a deed to a piece of property that "fronts the water" and people who own vessels who want to moor said vessel on property deemed by The Florida Constitution to be held in trust for the people of Florida. I have been involved with this since 1979. I'm too old and disgusted by the process to give a damn what happens.

 

[Larry M]

Here we go again. Remember the anchoring lawsuit at Marco Island in 2007 involving Dave Dumas (a Krogen 42 owner ) and the City of Marco Island? This is from a Cruising World article:

Dumas is the Marco Island resident who staged a civil act of disobedience last January when he dropped the hook off Kinship, his 42-foot trawler, within 300 feet of a seawall and waited to get a citation, which he did. According to Dumas, just one or two people caused this whole brouhaha. "These big-buck people buy property on the waterway and consider it their back yard," he says. "These are private citizens who think they can control public waterways."
Judge Crown agrees. In his ruling, he stated the ordinance was "an unlawful regulation of publicly owned sovereign waterways in violation of Florida law." 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."

The Marco City Council did appeal the case but it didn't go anywhere. There was also another anchoring case the year before in Stuart that has a similar outcome. Hopefully this will follow the same path.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Wow this is the reason I cruise the inside passage and the PNW.. Many friends say come east and join us for a few years! Why with this and other restrictions on the east coast.

 

[Donsan]

"These big-buck people buy property on the waterway and consider it their back yard," he says. "These are private citizens who think they can control public waterways."

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.

 

[psneeld]

I once had a guy park his older, but not too bad Honda on the street out in front of my house. So I called the police to get him to move so I could stare at the neighbors mailbox.

I couldn't believe a resident, taxpaying citizen doesn't have the right to force that guy to move on...can you believe that????

All the guy wanted to do was get out, stretch his legs and see the neighborhood...can you believe the nerve of that guy? He may have wanted to walk to the pizza place and eat too!!!!

Later I found out he was a billionaire and wound up buying the back 1000 acres of the neighborhood to build his mansion on.

never could understand why he didn't like me.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The property owners own just that the land/property! They do not the water rights too, thank goodness...

 

[dwhatty]

I once had a guy park his older, but not too bad Honda on the street out in front of my house. So I called the police to get him to move so I could stare at the neighbors mailbox.

I couldn't believe a resident, taxpaying citizen doesn't have the right to force that guy to move on...can you believe that????

All the guy wanted to do was get out, stretch his legs and see the neighborhood...can you believe the nerve of that guy? He may have wanted to walk to the pizza place and eat too!!!!

Later I found out he was a billionaire and wound up buying the back 1000 acres of the neighborhood to build his mansion on.

never could understand why he didn't like me.

That about says it all.

 

[MurrayM]

We met some Kiwi sea kayakers camped on Burnett Bay beach, across from and up the mainland coast a bit from Port Hardy on Vancouver Island. They said in New Zealand you cannot own property within something like 10 metres from the high water mark of any waterway. This means if you were canoeing a river, you could camp in front of a mega million dollar home, or go for a hike along the shore of any beach or river. This sure makes sense to me!

My condolences to those of you who have share anchorages with more than two other boats

 

[Larry M]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry M
"These big-buck people buy property on the waterway and consider it their back yard," he says. "These are private citizens who think they can control public waterways."


Donsan: The quote is from Dave Dumas, who is a Marco Island resident.

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.

 

[Donsan]

I am not advocating the restriction of legitimate boaters or even anchoring. My whole point is be considerate of land owners and their property. If you abuse them, they will turn against the boating community....legitimate or otherwise. Also, keep in mind, boaters don't pay the landowners property taxes which I assure you are substantial for waterfront property in Florida.

 

[psneeld]

And why should they or care about property taxes?

They don't buy or sell anything that has one bit about that property...no tax deductions or profit when it sells...

They just anchor for a few days, maybe spend some money in the local economy and move on....the ICW is a Federal boat highway...doesn't matter who bought property on it or when....basically imminent domain has made it a passageway for boaters and because anchoring is a safe part of boating...landowners and their rights to the ICW and adjacent anchorages have lost their interest in it...just a fact of life that many boaters will go to the mat for.

Off the ICW and adjacent anchorages...then I could care less what the local populations want or think...they have a bit more control of those waters and I agree.

 

[Underway]

...what about the derelict boats on the Great Loop....

 

[Donsan]

Where I lived, the river (lagoon) was over a mile wide. The ICW is the channel, not the complete river.

You need to study up on law. One facet of eminent domain is property rights may not be taken by governments from landowners without compensation. Landowners along the ICW were never compensated for such uses or abuses of their property.

I would never have been upset if a boat anchored in front of my property for a night of even two (unless they used my dock, waterfront or front yard) but take a look at Cocoa Florida just south of the 520 causeway in the winter and you will notice 50 or more boats anchored there some for 2-3 months at a time.

I am a boater too and at some I will want to do the Great Loop and anchor in various FL locations but I am very worried about what the state will do because of the increasing numbers of boats squatting in the ICW because it is free. Not overnight anchoring...SQUATTING for extended periods of time.

 

[psneeld]

Was any LAND ever taken by a boat that anchored? Did they prevent the landowner from using it any way they wanted? Trespassers are a different story...they can be prosecuted...not just some boat anchored.

For landowners it's really more like a zoning change than imminent domain.

Me study up.....oooohhhh maybe the other way around.....

Squatting on free water? hardly......what's the definition of squatting anyway? I see 30 days as being a reasonable stay...how about others????

Sure get rid of folks that don't meet environmental laws, etc...but squatting????...that sounds a lot like free range mentality even when sodbusters "legally" owned the land parceled out.

Sorry..I see any landowner withing 100 yards of a waterway a threat to general freedoms and usually they are the worst polluters with all kinds of runoff both natural and manmade.

No sympathy here...just another boater ready to fight landowners and their "I bought it so everything I see.... I have some say in it's control....

If transient boaters are such an issue...how come so many other places are building free docks and offering things to transient boaters like never before???

Even in the Jacksonville area they just built a big beautiful transient dock in one of their parks.

 

[caltexflanc]

Wow this is the reason I cruise the inside passage and the PNW.. Many friends say come east and join us for a few years! Why with this and other restrictions on the east coast.

Because it affects maybe 2% of the anchorages, and I am being liberal with that. If you include the whole east coast, a small fraction of a percent.

Because the boating is year around and quite varied.

The PNW is absolutely fantastic, but has its own limitations. And remember the areas in FL under discussion are along the major transient thorofares.

We were living in Dallas when we decided to buy a boat to live and cruise on full time. Having done a lot of cruising on both coasts, and absolutely loving the PNW, it took us less than a minute to decide where we'd go, a decision we never regretted.

 

[Larry M]

George you're right. Try anchoring within the Seattle City Limits on Lake Union, Lake Washington or the water front. San Diego also has major anchoring restrictions. It's not just an East Coast and Florida issue.

 

[Donsan]

Was any LAND ever taken by a boat that anchored? Did they prevent the landowner from using it any way they wanted? Trespassers are a different story...they can be prosecuted...not just some boat anchored.

For landowners it's really more like a zoning change than imminent domain.

Me study up.....oooohhhh maybe the other way around.....

Squatting on free water? hardly......what's the definition of squatting anyway? I see 30 days as being a reasonable stay...how about others????

Sure get rid of folks that don't meet environmental laws, etc...but squatting????...that sounds a lot like free range mentality even when sodbusters "legally" owned the land parceled out.

Sorry..I see any landowner withing 100 yards of a waterway a threat to general freedoms and usually they are the worst polluters with all kinds of runoff both natural and manmade.

No sympathy here...just another boater ready to fight landowners and their "I bought it so everything I see.... I have some say in it's control....

If transient boaters are such an issue...how come so many other places are building free docks and offering things to transient boaters like never before???

Even in the Jacksonville area they just built a big beautiful transient dock in one of their parks.

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....

 

[BandB]

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.

 

[psneeld]

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.

 

[BruceK]

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.

 

[healhustler]

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?

 

[FF]

." 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.

 

[timjet]

.
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.

 

[psneeld]

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.

 

[dwhatty]

.

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.

 

[psneeld]

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.

 

[Mule]

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.