Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2016, 11:23 PM   #61
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post
Here is a funny thought. Of those homeowners that is pushing for a moratorium on anchoring in front of their property. How many of them have a dock in front or back of said property..........
It would amaze you how many people own waterfront homes and have no interest whatsoever in boating, especially in Miami. Fort Lauderdale is more an active boating community. Miami and West Palm are more resort living communities.
__________________
Advertisement

BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2016, 11:51 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
bcam's Avatar
 
City: Union, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Touch of Grey
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
When did the Coast Guard cede control of navigable waters to Florida? I am missing something here.
__________________

bcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 12:07 AM   #63
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcam View Post
When did the Coast Guard cede control of navigable waters to Florida? I am missing something here.
That's always been the situation and is along the ICW in every state. Florida owns the land under the water. The ICW is considered inland water.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 03:57 AM   #64
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
To amplify B's response:

The states hold title to the beds off all waters within their borders. This comes from old English common law as it existed in 1776. In 1787, the existing English Common Law was enacted as US law at the time. At that time title to all submerged lands resided in the sovereign, i.e. the king. As states were sovereign, the SC held very early in our history that states, as the sovereign successor to the Crown, held title to the beds of their wetlands pursuant to that common law. So, states do in fact own the land beneath all navigable waters within their borders. The confusion comes from the fact that the US Government has been held since very early days to hold an absolute power over the "navigable waters" of the US under the Commerce Clause. So, since the Feds have control of the navigable water, the effect is that the states own and control the land beneath the waters but subject to the Feds power. So a state may decide what happens on or to the land or bed of the waterway, but it may not interfere with its "navigability".

An interesting example-a long time firend of mine in Shallotte, NC claimed ownership of land in the Shallotte River just off Shallotte Point. His family had been granted the land by a grant from the King in 1757. He had several big oyster beds there and raised and sold oysters. North Carolina took him to court claiming the state owned the land and he would have to pay fees for exclusinve use. In court, the state lost with the court finding that the King could and did make a grant of his sovereign rights and, when NC became a state, they did so subject to the prior actions of the King. That was great for Randy. However, about 10 years later, the Corps of Engineers decided to dredge Shallotte Inlet. They chose to use some of Randy's underwater land for dredge spoil. He sued the Feds claiming they needed to pay him for "taking" his land. He lost. The Court held that the Feds right to control the navigable waters was absolute and he had no rights to any compensation for a "taking". Fortunately for him, they did ultimately megotiate some payment for his loss. But, he got the good and the bad of the law governing inland waterways.
THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 08:46 AM   #65
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by THD View Post
TIMjet-shouldn't all those little boats be considered "abandoned" under Fla law? No apparent owner, no activity, no movement. Does he keep the registrations current on all of them? It would seem he is doing precisely what he objects to just to keep others from also doing it. I suspect he would be pretty pi$$ed if the state came long and removed them as abandoned.
I'm pretty sure they are small sailing dinghy's so registration is not required. I heard from a local when we anchored there that there is a 6 mo anchoring rule so he hires someone to reshuffle all the boats. I don't know how true that is.

Concerning the ability and legality of moving a derelict boat, Gulfport muni marina a couple of years ago had a real problem with abandoned boats in the marina. We use to keep our sailboat there but when we returned a couple of years later with the intention of keeping our power boat there the marina had many fishing boats and several abandoned boats. We went elsewhere. When I talked to the dockmaster about this he said that the abandoned boats were not paying dockage and the cost to hire an attorney and pay the legal costs to have them remove were to much.

There are probably some good ways to remove abandoned boats, but the state doesn't want to pay for the legal and removal costs. Laws need to be changed to make this easier. In some perhaps many cases the abandoned boat's owner can't be identified.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 10:56 AM   #66
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by THD View Post

An interesting example-a long time firend of mine in Shallotte, NC claimed ownership of land in the Shallotte River just off Shallotte Point. His family had been granted the land by a grant from the King in 1757. He had several big oyster beds there and raised and sold oysters. North Carolina took him to court claiming the state owned the land and he would have to pay fees for exclusinve use. In court, the state lost with the court finding that the King could and did make a grant of his sovereign rights and, when NC became a state, they did so subject to the prior actions of the King. That was great for Randy. However, about 10 years later, the Corps of Engineers decided to dredge Shallotte Inlet. They chose to use some of Randy's underwater land for dredge spoil. He sued the Feds claiming they needed to pay him for "taking" his land. He lost. The Court held that the Feds right to control the navigable waters was absolute and he had no rights to any compensation for a "taking". Fortunately for him, they did ultimately megotiate some payment for his loss. But, he got the good and the bad of the law governing inland waterways.
A similar issue is one every marina deals with. Most marinas in Florida do not own the land under their docks. The state does and it rents the right to use it to the marinas. However, a few do have deeds to the submerged land. They don't have to pay a fee to the state.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 11:03 AM   #67
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by timjet View Post
I'm pretty sure they are small sailing dinghy's so registration is not required. I heard from a local when we anchored there that there is a 6 mo anchoring rule so he hires someone to reshuffle all the boats. I don't know how true that is.

Concerning the ability and legality of moving a derelict boat, Gulfport muni marina a couple of years ago had a real problem with abandoned boats in the marina. We use to keep our sailboat there but when we returned a couple of years later with the intention of keeping our power boat there the marina had many fishing boats and several abandoned boats. We went elsewhere. When I talked to the dockmaster about this he said that the abandoned boats were not paying dockage and the cost to hire an attorney and pay the legal costs to have them remove were to much.

There are probably some good ways to remove abandoned boats, but the state doesn't want to pay for the legal and removal costs. Laws need to be changed to make this easier. In some perhaps many cases the abandoned boat's owner can't be identified.
Making this scenario you painted even worse. Let's say the marina does go to court and wins. They now own the boats, have full responsibility for them. So, if the boats sink in place or if they have issues such as sinking or leaking of fuel in a move, the marina now has the environmental issue to deal with. Very quickly, moving a derelict boat can become a $50k or $100k cost. This is why marinas in South Florida were selling such boats for as little as a dollar or giving them away. Let's see, I give a 40' fishing vessel to a homeless man with the only provision that he must remove it. I even help him start it and I assist him with a tow in clearing the docks and heading out. Then he's on his own. 500 yards out the boat starts taking on water. Coast Guard is called, owner rescued, boat sinks. The homeless man is responsible for salvage now, not the marina.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 12:08 PM   #68
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,155
Well the bill passed the FL house:


Florida House passes anchoring restrictions bill | Trade Only Today
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 12:29 PM   #69
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
[QUOTE=Alaskan Sea-Duction;421895]Well the bill passed the FL house:

/QUOTE]

And will likely pass the Senate. This is one of hundreds of special interest bills in a session that the vast majority of representatives know nothing about and don't care about so they vote for it as a favor since the favor will be returned at some time.

There's a part of me tempted to sue them for passing this bill and destroying my view. There are two marked anchorages we can see from our second level balcony. We love their presence and love to look out at them. I believe both of them are made no anchoring zones by this bill. We did contact every committee member and wrote to every representative opposing this bill with virtually no response. The vast majority don't live on the water and don't boat.

It's really bad when you pass a bill to exempt areas from a state law put into effect in a bill you passed six years ago.

Well, always hope they'll now pass another bill one day eliminating this exception to the previous bill.

Or always hope that the boats would now anchor closer to where we could see them better.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 12:36 PM   #70
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,155
The wealthy homeowners pocket book buy your state representatives. Why is the boating community not beating down doors and saying NO? BB what did the representatives say when you contacted them?
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 01:48 PM   #71
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post
The wealthy homeowners pocket book buy your state representatives. Why is the boating community not beating down doors and saying NO? BB what did the representatives say when you contacted them?
Actually I attribute this to total ignorance on the part of the representatives. The boating community did beat down their doors. FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) opposed the bill.

Most responses were form letters. A couple got calls from assistants of assistants. I think we actually spoke to three. One was clearly in agreement with us but told us up front that it would pass. He said he'd talked to many others and made no progress at all. Florida is many different states. The majority of the state has nothing in common with South Florida. Years ago they tried to pass a thong law. No one in their areas was wearing thongs. Why did they care so much what someone on the beach in Miami wore? The law would have specified minimum width of the section of cloth between the buttocks. Who the heck is going to measure and police that? Is there anywhere in the country casinos would make more sense than Miami? We have daily casino cruises to three miles offshore so people can gamble but the state gets no benefit. We have casinos on Indian reservations with the state getting no benefit. But the representatives in Central and Northern Florida think casinos are evil. They never listen to the fact we have them, just aren't collecting any revenues.

Ok, representative number two. His IQ couldn't have been over 80. He couldn't stop talking about derelict boats in spite of me telling him that was a separate bill. He went on a wild tangent about how would I feel if I had an expensive home on the water and boats anchored out near it. I told him, I do and I like it. He said, "I'll bet your wife doesn't like it." At that point my lovely wife spoke up and told him "You'd freaking (except she didn't use that word) loose that bet you stupid buffoon." We concluded that conversation shortly after that.

Representative number three was of the opinion since it was just a couple of places (I did inform them a couple was two and this was five) if they wanted it just give it to them. Then said something about the representative who submitted the bill was a good friend and had always been willing to help him. He asked if I lived in Florida. I said yes. He said because most of the letters I've seen have come from non-Florida residents and others from people who owned no property, lived on boats, paid no Florida tax. I told him how much property tax I paid and how much sales tax my businesses collected. He said he really thought we were all making too much out of this bill and he'd given his word so had to keep it. He was honest in saying he didn't really know much about boating and the ICW as he lived in Gainesville. It was clear he was supporting a friend who had authored the bill.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how a bill like this passes so overwhelmingly. No one has surveyed the population. I live in a community of about 350 homes, almost all waterfront. We're in an area of perhaps 1500 homes, almost all waterfront. I would guess of those who were aware of this bill at least 75% opposed it. Everyone I talked to thought it was stupid. But then 90% of these homes have docks and boats.

The Middle River area which is very near to us and was part of this is different. It has a lot of homeowners with boats. But it also has a lot of homes with two or three slips, all rented out and one of those was strongly in favor of the bill for "business" reasons. He has no boat but has three slips all rented out to megayachts and he collects over $5k per month in slip rental. I also talked to one Middle River homeowner who was for the bill because the anchored boats got in the way of jet skis and water skiing and it's one of the few places for those two.

I will say that to the majority of the representatives in Florida, South Florida is pretty much a foreign country they don't understand and don't like but they sure do like to try to legislate it. They couldn't find the five locations on a map if their life depended on it. The majority of input they received did not come from those who elected them or vote in their area.

Now, to be fair, these five locations being restricted changes very little overall. Not earth shattering. However, it's an ugly precedent to override an existing law because a few people complain. The "four" locations in Miami Beach are really in one greater location. They're between islands along the Venetian Causeway and then Sunset Bay which is nearby. I could understand the argument for those areas being too narrow between homes to anchor. I just oppose how this came about and the fact there was no trade off. For instance, why not create a better anchorage or mooring field there and a dinghy dock accessible and large enough to accommodate people. Biscayne Bay has all sorts of potential. But that's the sort of thing the Pilot Program is designed to assess. The location in Fort Lauderdale is really one from left field and I can only think that it's designation for water sports is largely responsible. If so, then that makes some sense. I am concerned if that eliminated the Aqua Vista anchorage as it's well outside the inside Middle River area.

However, my opposition to the bill has nothing to do with the locations, with the rights of boaters or with the rights of homeowners. It is superseding the law and violating a process already underway. It's the entire idea that you could have hundreds of separate regulations for specific areas in the state. It's also the idea that you take away without giving. Ultimately I'm for more and better anchoring and mooring while having some minimum restrictions on anchoring.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 02:12 PM   #72
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,093
B,
I have spent my entire professional life dealing with legislators. You made some very interesting observations and you did almost the right thing by making an appointment and discussing it with them personally. I say "almost" because you never want to burn bridges with a legislator. No matter how much of an incompetent fool they may be, you can't let them know that you know it. That same incompetent fool may end up being a committee chair, house speaker, or Governor some day. You may need their support down the road.
- Legislators will listen to their own constituents. Letters from outside their district will get little attention. Letters from out of the state will get none.
- Legislators live and die on relationships. In the one case you cited, he told you that he had a relationship with another legislator and was going to support the legislation as a favor to him. This happens all the time and is an important way that things actually get done.
- Legislators live and die on relationship part 2. Legislators will listen to constituents whom they have a relationship with. Do they know you? Do they know your business? Are they your neighbor or do your kids go to school together. Did you support their campaign? Do you contact them during the year when the legislature is not in session to discuss a variety of issues of importance to you, as well as their own pet projects?
- While less important, legislators do pay attention to who attends and testifies at the committee hearings for the legislation. Those that show up, are listened to.

There is no way that every legislator is going to be able to read, understand, and make an informed decision on every piece of legislation they vote on. If we have a relationship with our own legislator, then we can become the goto person when legislation comes up in our area of expertise.

I spend lots of time and money each year on local campaigns and chatting with legislators. I am fortunate now that my current legislators are smart folks. That has not always been the case.

All I am saying, is the time to try to influence legislation is not after a bill has been introduced, but long before the legislator has ever been elected to begin with.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 02:48 PM   #73
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Dave

I have no interest or desire in influencing legislators on the basis you suggest or in any way other than the facts under consideration. I don't like or get involved in politics. I've been friends with congressmen and not influenced them or even voted for them. My only time ever influencing government officials was on business relationships and what the business I was involved with could do for their constituents and what we needed to allow us to do so. I had business relationships with Prime Ministers and maintained them with their successors.

I have never given a dollar to any political campaign or any PAC and will never. I find the election process today disgusting and more so the higher the level.

Now enough on that as I don't like discussing politics and certainly not here. The bill will pass and life will go on. We'll worry about future anchoring legislation. The general feeling is this one will lead to more, but perhaps even the passing of this bill will in the short term lighten the push for broader anchoring restrictions. I'm most interested in the conclusions and recommendations at the completion of the Pilot project in 2017.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 02:52 PM   #74
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
This sunken sailboat has been "docked" for years at an abandoned pier at our marina. Wonder why it hasn't been removed yet. Other sunken boats have been removed nearby along the strait within the last year. The sailboat is adjacent to the USCG dock.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 03:29 PM   #75
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
This sunken sailboat has been "docked" for years at an abandoned pier at our marina. Wonder why it hasn't been removed yet. Other sunken boats have been removed nearby along the strait within the last year. The sailboat is adjacent to the USCG dock.
Who is removing sunken boats?

Perhaps the difference in the others and this one is "hazardous to navigation". This one would not appear to be a hazard to navigation, just to one's senses.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 03:59 PM   #76
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,919
The USCG can get involved and even pay for a salvage out of environmental funds (well up until a few years ago...haven't run across it lately) if there is a threat from trapped pollutants.


I am sure there is a threshold where they will get involved or not depending on how many gallons...seemed like around 100 gallons was a figure I have heard in the past.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2016, 10:37 PM   #77
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
Here in Sarasota, the city that turned the downtown anchorage into a mooring field to get rid of the derelict boats, there were two sailboats beached next to downtown Sarasota's Ringling Bridge nearly two months ago. Today, a crane arrived to remove at least this one, which was blown up on the rip rap surrounding the abutment on the city side of the bridge. Maybe tomorrow's paper will say who paid for it. Regardless, I'm sure it hasn't helped the attitude any.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	FullSizeRender-1.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	117.3 KB
ID:	49598   Click image for larger version

Name:	FullSizeRender.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	113.1 KB
ID:	49599  
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 08:25 AM   #78
Guru
 
Steve's Avatar
 
City: Thibodaux, Louisiana
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Gumbo
Vessel Model: 2003 Monk 36
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,607
That first one, can't tell much about the second, looks in pretty good shape. I wonder if it was a "derelict" . Maybe broke off or a mooring failed?
__________________
Steve W.
http://mvgumbo.blogspot.com/
Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 10:09 AM   #79
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
It would amaze you how many people own waterfront homes and have no interest whatsoever in boating, especially in Miami. Fort Lauderdale is more an active boating community. Miami and West Palm are more resort living communities.
Well, I find it amazing when I'm in FL as to how many boaters have no interest in waterfront homes. And I know some that have both. Interestingly, those with both bitch about noisy, wake creating, anchoring where they shouldn't boaters. Its complicated.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 10:34 AM   #80
Guru
 
High Wire's Avatar
 
City: Cape May, NJ and Englewood, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Irish Lady
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,602
The camels nose is under the tent. Mark my words the following sentence will be stretched to apply to most anchorage areas in FL and eventually the whole east coast.

"The following densely populated urban areas, which have narrow state waterways, residential docking facilities, and significant recreational boating traffic, are designated as anchoring limitation areas"

They are no different than anywhere else along the ICW that are not open marsh area.
__________________

__________________
Archie
1984 Monk 36 Hull #46
Englewood, FL and Cape May, NJ
High Wire 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 01:58 PM.


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