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.