Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2016, 12:43 PM   #121
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
As to any suggestion marinas were in support of this legislation, I don't know of a single marina that supported it.
I never said any marina supported it. More to the point, marinas, boat builders and yards have their own issues with federal, state and county governments which are separate and distinct from the anchoring imbroglio. Their lobbying efforts are steered to these issues, not the long ongoing anchoring tiff.
__________________
Advertisement

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 01:01 PM   #122
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
I never said any marina supported it. More to the point, marinas, boat builders and yards have their own issues with federal, state and county governments which are separate and distinct from the anchoring imbroglio. Their lobbying efforts are steered to these issues, not the long ongoing anchoring tiff.
That was not directed at you. Moonstruck implied that. I've heard others say it. I agree with you. The marinas haven't been involved to my knowledge and those I know in the marina industry opposed this bill.
__________________

BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 07:34 PM   #123
Guru
 
hmason's Avatar
 
City: Westport, CT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Magic
Vessel Model: Grand Banks 46 Europa
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,901
B & B, thank you for being a voice of reason and for taking the tIme to offer your expert opinions.

We anchor most of the time when we travel north and south between CT and FL. We are courteous and quiet. The only noise we allow outside of our boat is the sound of our anchor chain as we have no choice. We have never been chastised by a homeowner or the LEOs. For the most part, the cruisers we see around us are courteous as well. We spend a night and move on in the morning unless the weather is prohibitive. When we reach our destination in FL we stay at a marina, in a slip. When we arrive in CT we stay at our yacht club in our slip.

I think it behooves a cruiser to not overstay at an anchorage. I would not leave my car parked in front of someone's home for days on end either.

Again, thanks for your time and input, it is valued.

Howard
__________________
Howard
Magic, 1996 Grand Banks Europa
Westport, CT and Stuart, FL
hmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 07:48 PM   #124
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmason View Post
B & B, thank you for being a voice of reason and for taking the tIme to offer your expert opinions.

We anchor most of the time when we travel north and south between CT and FL. We are courteous and quiet. The only noise we allow outside of our boat is the sound of our anchor chain as we have no choice. We have never been chastised by a homeowner or the LEOs. For the most part, the cruisers we see around us are courteous as well. We spend a night and move on in the morning unless the weather is prohibitive. When we reach our destination in FL we stay at a marina, in a slip. When we arrive in CT we stay at our yacht club in our slip.

I think it behooves a cruiser to not overstay at an anchorage. I would not leave my car parked in front of someone's home for days on end either.

Again, thanks for your time and input, it is valued.

Howard
Mine is just one opinion just like the others. I just don't want to see those who are pro-anchor shoot themselves in the foot. Now they're doing a petition to have the Governor veto the bill. Both sides of the legislature passed it overwhelmingly. 105 to 12 and 36 to 2. They have 300 names so far. There are thousands in the restricted anchor areas. It's just time to regroup before they lose credibility and their voice becomes ignored. The Governor isn't going to veto but if he did it would quickly be overridden. As much as I hate it, I have to accept it. I'm going to miss being able to look out my bedroom window and see anchored boats.

I wonder if had a compromise been presented it might have passed instead of the bill that did. We'll never know.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:35 PM   #125
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmason View Post
I think it behooves a cruiser to not overstay at an anchorage. I would not leave my car parked in front of someone's home for days on end either.
Howard, I agree with you on the value of BandB's contributions to this thread. I also appreciate your courtesy as you cruise. If everyone did the same as you, there likely wouldn't be an issue.

Interesting, most anywhere you can park your car on a residential street in front of someones home and it is perfectly legal, regardless of how long you leave it there.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:11 PM   #126
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post

Interesting, most anywhere you can park your car on a residential street in front of someones home and it is perfectly legal, regardless of how long you leave it there.
A couple of weaknesses in that analogy. First, there are generally separations between your property and the street so they are kept a certain distance from your property. There are also regulations regarding how close to your driveway as they must leave that area clear. The above is true almost everywhere. Now the one that varies. Some municipalities will tag and ultimately remove a car that is just left parked in front of a house and never moved.

Also, many areas have additional limitations. The rules just like these anchorage rules are not set by the homeowner but the local government. Some streets have no parking on one side. Some have none near the corners. None allow it near fire hydrants. Add to that rules on which way a parked car must be turned and requiring it to have current registration and tags.

So parking on residential streets is often regulated in one way or another and the municipality is allowed to regulate it any way they see fit.

In many neighborhoods even homeowners are restricted from what they can park in their own driveway.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:18 PM   #127
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: 10,262
Feel blessed I haven't experienced that all yet.



Out my way, homes along waterways are typically along out-of-the-way waterways, specially dredged for the housing development, and silting-up so boating access is limited, unlike in the above photograph.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:43 PM   #128
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: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
A couple of weaknesses in that analogy. First, there are generally separations between your property and the street so they are kept a certain distance from your property. There are also regulations regarding how close to your driveway as they must leave that area clear. The above is true almost everywhere. Now the one that varies. Some municipalities will tag and ultimately remove a car that is just left parked in front of a house and never moved.
...
My street is private, and parking is limited to 24 hours. Other communities have time limitations on public streets for parking in residential areas too. It all depends. No doubt, towing companies enjoy such rules, including residents.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 10:34 PM   #129
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
A couple of weaknesses in that analogy. First, there are generally separations between your property and the street so they are kept a certain distance from your property. There are also regulations regarding how close to your driveway as they must leave that area clear. The above is true almost everywhere. Now the one that varies. Some municipalities will tag and ultimately remove a car that is just left parked in front of a house and never moved.
Just to be difficult.....

WA and FL are the same in that state owned tidelands extend up to Mean High Water. That means that a property owner owns down to Mean High Water and no further. If you were to anchor above the MHW line, you would be anchored on the homeowners property. However, for any of our boats, we would be anchored well away from the owners property line since we would rather not anchor over water that will disappear out from underneath us. We would be much further, as a matter of fact, from the property owners land than most cars parked in front of a residential street on the land side of that property.

I am sure that reasonable laws could be written (if they aren't already) that would prohibit a boat from anchoring in such as way as to prevent access by the property owner the same as rules prohibit blocking a driveway.

I will never boat in FL since it is a long way from where I am. It would trouble me however if this attitude in FL became a trend. There are lots of very expensive homes along the shores of Puget Sound. Most of the last along the sound is privately owned even if it is devoid of any homes or structures. I would hate to see waterfront property owners influence lawmakers into designing rules which would prohibit the use of state tidelands by any but those that owned property along those tidelands.

Anyway, this has been a very interesting discussion for me being from the opposite corner.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 10:59 PM   #130
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
B-I think the alternative is already in place and that is the pilot program and study regarding developing mooring fields. As you have pointed out this bill provides a special power to local municipalities to override whatever the results of that study may be and removes those waters from any actions the FWC may propose based on that study. As with many issues brought before legislatures, I think cost has a substantial role in this as well. Enacting statewide rules necessarily involves statewide costs to implement and enforce any rules passes. AS has been noted, laws the would effectively address the derelict boat issue are not hard to come up with, indeed, Fla has some on the books already. The will and the money to enforce them is an entirely different issue. There is no real important (to legislators) constituency demanding such enforcement. So, no $$ gets pointed in that direction. Whereas, "ruining" one's view does come from an important constituency, wealthy homeowners. And there is an easy hook on which to hang any law "boating safety" whether any prohibited anchorage does in fact have any safety issues, and there is a way to pass the responsibility and the cost down the line to the municipalities-let them pass the requisite legislation banning anchoring in certain areas and thus they have to bear the cost. I certainly don't think you will see the FWC guys out there chasing people out, it will be local law enforcement. Let's see what happens the first time the local mayor or county exec says he needs to raise property taxes to pay for another police boat and two new water cops to enforce it.
THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 11:09 PM   #131
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
It would trouble me however if this attitude in FL became a trend. There are lots of very expensive homes along the shores of Puget Sound. Most of the last along the sound is privately owned even if it is devoid of any homes or structures. I would hate to see waterfront property owners influence lawmakers into designing rules which would prohibit the use of state tidelands by any but those that owned property along those tidelands.

.
As to attitude, we're talking a small number of people in a very specific location. There is plenty of anchoring in the area in Miami where the restrictions were put in. Also, there have been the occasional conflicts many places. I've read of boaters being chased away in GA from what was really plenty of distance from the homeowner.

As to MHW and property, all our property is above the MHW. We have a seawall as do most homes in our area plus we only have 2.5' tidal variation.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 11:23 PM   #132
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by THD View Post
B-I think the alternative is already in place and that is the pilot program and study regarding developing mooring fields. As you have pointed out this bill provides a special power to local municipalities to override whatever the results of that study may be and removes those waters from any actions the FWC may propose based on that study. As with many issues brought before legislatures, I think cost has a substantial role in this as well. Enacting statewide rules necessarily involves statewide costs to implement and enforce any rules passes. AS has been noted, laws the would effectively address the derelict boat issue are not hard to come up with, indeed, Fla has some on the books already. The will and the money to enforce them is an entirely different issue. There is no real important (to legislators) constituency demanding such enforcement. So, no $$ gets pointed in that direction. Whereas, "ruining" one's view does come from an important constituency, wealthy homeowners. And there is an easy hook on which to hang any law "boating safety" whether any prohibited anchorage does in fact have any safety issues, and there is a way to pass the responsibility and the cost down the line to the municipalities-let them pass the requisite legislation banning anchoring in certain areas and thus they have to bear the cost. I certainly don't think you will see the FWC guys out there chasing people out, it will be local law enforcement. Let's see what happens the first time the local mayor or county exec says he needs to raise property taxes to pay for another police boat and two new water cops to enforce it.
I agree the Pilot Program is an excellent approach. However, it will end and we will be back to one side wanting no anchoring within 300' and the other wanting no restrictions on anchoring anywhere.

And FL does not have laws on the books that adequately address derelict boats.

As to anchoring in the areas where prohibitions have been passed, I picture LEO simply informing the party anchoring and asking them to move.

I also do expect other areas to get anchoring restrictions prior to the completion of the Pilot program. That is very unfortunate. However, it will still be a very limited portion of a huge amount of water.

And speaking of dollars. I don't see the City of Miami Beach or Fort Lauderdale building a sudden huge cash surplus on the $50, $100 and even $250 fines for anchoring. Now, what will be interesting is to see the first boat that pulls into one of these areas and says I'm going to anchor tonight and I'll pay the $50 fine. Can they get multiple tickets for one day? Or does that buy them a day?

I don't like the precedent but then when we look at the actual impact of these restrictions, it's a mountain out of a molehill. Now, also, do you really think this is the first time the unhappy Sunset guy who put all the boats out has complained about local issues? I suspect he's had other complaints on different things before and once this one dies down he'll be annoying local law enforcement or his homeowners association with more.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 12:35 AM   #133
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
B-If the calls from homeowners get too numerous or a pain for the local sheriff, and the restricted area is fronting a HOA development, I can see the HOA's seeking the OK from local city/county councils to enforce the law themselves. While local city/county guys may think that this is great, removes the enforcement cost from them, I think that would be a nightmare.
THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 12:55 AM   #134
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by THD View Post
B-If the calls from homeowners get too numerous or a pain for the local sheriff, and the restricted area is fronting a HOA development, I can see the HOA's seeking the OK from local city/county councils to enforce the law themselves. While local city/county guys may think that this is great, removes the enforcement cost from them, I think that would be a nightmare.
HOA's can't enforce laws. There is no giving them the ok. They would have to incorporate as a city and Miami Beach isn't going to give that tax base up.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 06:44 AM   #135
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
:My street is private, and parking is limited to 24 hours."

You may OWN the land under your street , but not the federal (below high tide) waters.

The feds GAVE their right to regulate these waters of the US to the states.

Simply remove that ability and the waters will return to federal control, and the requirement to Navigate , which includes anchoring will be returned to the public.

KISS
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 09:56 AM   #136
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
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?
The ones that end up there come from the mooring field for the Sarasota Sailing Squadron. And they normally are not derelict.
__________________

Capt.Bill11 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 02:08 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