View Single Post
Old 03-10-2016, 09:59 PM   #130
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