Florida Anchoring Law - HB481 update

[Helmsman]

Fiar enough. I was able to edit my original post to read

"The State required disclosure shows AGLCA has three lobbyists engaged for this Bill."

To wrap up my thoughts, what struck me when I was in the hallway after the meeting is I really didn't think there was a big difference between the AGCLA position and Sec 1 of HB481. I cannot fathom why they objected to it so much except to speculate that they just object to anything that restricts anchoring in any manner - the old "Two legs Bad" approach.

I'm told getting this through the Senate will be more difficult. Given what I've learned in this thread about ALA and the crazy permutations, maybe the ultimate bill will be some sort of impossible to enforce Frankenstein bill that doesn't work.

It's my personal opinion that AGLCA is not part of the solution. They have their head in the sand concerning the issues of liveaboards. Possible time will tell I have my head in the sand. Come up to Tallahassee and he heard!

Peter

Just in my very limited knowledge of the battles in Florida, I have found that there are several layers and agendas to any of these bills. They are much like what I found with proposed legislation during my extensive experience in DC, Brussels, and other capitols around the world. A lot of what seems apparent in legislation often times isn’t.

I think you mentioned you spoke with the three AGLCA members in Tallahassee. Why not talk with Kim? I think you can get her contact info on the web site. Perhaps a talk with her might help you understand AGLCA’s and MTOA’s position a little better. And she always listens to every point of view.

By the way, you are in much better shape than me! My head isn’t in the sand, it is full of sand!

 

[mvweebles]

Just in my very limited knowledge of the battles in Florida, I have found that there are several layers and agendas to any of these bills. They are much like what I found with proposed legislation during my extensive experience in DC, Brussels, and other capitols around the world. A lot of what seems apparent in legislation often times isn’t.

I think you mentioned you spoke with the three AGLCA members in Tallahassee. Why not talk with Kim? I think you can get her contact info on the web site. Perhaps a talk with her might help you understand AGLCA’s and MTOA’s position a little better. And she always listens to every point of view.

By the way, you are in much better shape than me! My head isn’t in the sand, it is full of sand!

So this may be a fairly long post that gives the backstory of my participation - the hallway conversation after the House Subcommittee meeting was mostly between David Suarez (info below) and Kim Russo - I was mostly a bystander and each had their entourage of lobbyists and aides. Not sure it's of broad interest but since you asked about talking with Kim, I think it best to back-up a bit to explain my participation.

About 6-months ago on CruisersForum, someone posted about a law that would ban anchoring for Cruisers and please help. Was a pretty blantent appeal of a homeless anchor-out trying to ride the coat tails of legit cruisers which pissed me off. So I did a 30-second Google search and found the the Mayor/Commissioners of Miami Beach who were dealing with the issue. I sent them all an Email supporting their efforts but asking that they consider a state-wide initiative becuase towns on the other side of the state were dealing with the same thing. One of the commissioners - David Suarez - wrote back asking who the hell am I? So we chatted. Ironically, the CF post asking a call-to-action backfired.

I didn't know of AGLCA's interest until a few weeks ago when @Jklotz on this forum posted Kim Russo's YouTube/Podcast. I posted comments on her YouTube channel and have subsequently traded a few emails. Nice person. BTW - AGLCA was founded as an offshoot of a TrawlerFest presentation back in 1999 - while I wasn't part of the Loopers due to my San Francisco ties, 1999 was during my tenure as one of the core TF presenters including founding instructor for TrawlerFest University (Bob Smith of Ford Lehman fame being the other).

David Suarez, the Miami Beach commissioner, called me this past Sunday and asked if I would go to Tallahassee to express my position on HB481. I re-read the Bill and and told him that I was fine with Section 1 (the 30-day out of 6-month limit), but vehemently opposed Section 2 (no-anchoring around rich folks homes) and Section 3 (increasing buffer around Mooring Fields from 100 yds to 300 yds). He was fine with that so I went. As an aside, I made it a point to find HB481's sponsor after the meeting and thank her for her service and to consider tweaks to the bill, that Secs 2 and 3 were an over-reach in my opinion. I followed-up today with an email expressing the same. BTW - I get really nervous speaking in public so I'm awful. But the one thing I did that I think made a difference was to clearly state I was in favor of the specific sections of the bill and to suggest how it might be tweaked. Doubt it will go anywhere but I think it made my presentation more sincere. ("Your haircut really highlights your eyes" versus "You're hot!").

So what did I learn? Like I inferred in my original post, this was quite the Civics Lesson for me. Was the 2-minute talking time worth a 12-hour round trip? You bet it was. I'm an active participant in this Forum and it felt like it was time to do more than just tap keystrokes.

Personally, I am really conflicted by this topic. I believe I mentioned I once worried about living under a bridge. I am very sympathetic to homeless issues and don't really care that the $5 bill I give someone might buy a half-pint of booze. If I were in their shoes facing the same cold night, I'd do the same. Their choice. But I've really become pissed-off that public facilities like parks and libraries are unusuable because they've been usurped by homeless. iWhen folks like @CanuckSailor and a few others get all high and mighty about how squatters need affordable housing and there is no room at marinas so should be allowed to anchor anywhere for as long as they want, sort of pisses me off. To my ear, they sound like entitled jerks who demand handouts and a subsidy. When AGLCA takes positions that effectively enables them, I don't get pissed off (it comes from a good place), but I do shake my head. I wonder if they've ever been to some of these anchorages. What exactly do they want?

Long post. If you're still reading, thanks. No offense meant to anyone. I'm just tired of paying taxes so that PoS boats with tattered sails can sit for years and eventually wash up on a beach and I need to pay even more taxes to get them removed. Enough is enough. So I went to Tallahassee.

Peter

 

[Jklotz]

Interesting Peter. Thanks for that, really helps to understand your point of view. I commend you for making the effort to try to do what you think is right. Most don't, they just complain about it. I hope your involvement influences the outcome. Personally, I agree with your stance.

 

[Helmsman]

So this may be a fairly long post that gives the backstory of my participation - the hallway conversation after the House Subcommittee meeting was mostly between David Suarez (info below) and Kim Russo - I was mostly a bystander and each had their entourage of lobbyists and aides. Not sure it's of broad interest but since you asked about talking with Kim, I think it best to back-up a bit to explain my participation.

About 6-months ago on CruisersForum, someone posted about a law that would ban anchoring for Cruisers and please help. Was a pretty blantent appeal of a homeless anchor-out trying to ride the coat tails of legit cruisers which pissed me off. So I did a 30-second Google search and found the the Mayor/Commissioners of Miami Beach who were dealing with the issue. I sent them all an Email supporting their efforts but asking that they consider a state-wide initiative becuase towns on the other side of the state were dealing with the same thing. One of the commissioners - David Suarez - wrote back asking who the hell am I? So we chatted. Ironically, the CF post asking a call-to-action backfired.

I didn't know of AGLCA's interest until a few weeks ago when @Jklotz on this forum posted Kim Russo's YouTube/Podcast. I posted comments on her YouTube channel and have subsequently traded a few emails. Nice person. BTW - AGLCA was founded as an offshoot of a TrawlerFest presentation back in 1999 - while I wasn't part of the Loopers due to my San Francisco ties, 1999 was during my tenure as one of the core TF presenters including founding instructor for TrawlerFest University (Bob Smith of Ford Lehman fame being the other).

David Suarez, the Miami Beach commissioner, called me this past Sunday and asked if I would go to Tallahassee to express my position on HB481. I re-read the Bill and and told him that I was fine with Section 1 (the 30-day out of 6-month limit), but vehemently opposed Section 2 (no-anchoring around rich folks homes) and Section 3 (increasing buffer around Mooring Fields from 100 yds to 300 yds). He was fine with that so I went. As an aside, I made it a point to find HB481's sponsor after the meeting and thank her for her service and to consider tweaks to the bill, that Secs 2 and 3 were an over-reach in my opinion. I followed-up today with an email expressing the same. BTW - I get really nervous speaking in public so I'm awful. But the one thing I did that I think made a difference was to clearly state I was in favor of the specific sections of the bill and to suggest how it might be tweaked. Doubt it will go anywhere but I think it made my presentation more sincere. ("Your haircut really highlights your eyes" versus "You're hot!").

So what did I learn? Like I inferred in my original post, this was quite the Civics Lesson for me. Was the 2-minute talking time worth a 12-hour round trip? You bet it was. I'm an active participant in this Forum and it felt like it was time to do more than just tap keystrokes.

Personally, I am really conflicted by this topic. I believe I mentioned I once worried about living under a bridge. I am very sympathetic to homeless issues and don't really care that the $5 bill I give someone might buy a half-pint of booze. If I were in their shoes facing the same cold night, I'd do the same. Their choice. But I've really become pissed-off that public facilities like parks and libraries are unusuable because they've been usurped by homeless. iWhen folks like @CanuckSailor and a few others get all high and mighty about how squatters need affordable housing and there is no room at marinas so should be allowed to anchor anywhere for as long as they want, sort of pisses me off. To my ear, they sound like entitled jerks who demand handouts and a subsidy. When AGLCA takes positions that effectively enables them, I don't get pissed off (it comes from a good place), but I do shake my head. I wonder if they've ever been to some of these anchorages. What exactly do they want?

Long post. If you're still reading, thanks. No offense meant to anyone. I'm just tired of paying taxes so that PoS boats with tattered sails can sit for years and eventually wash up on a beach and I need to pay even more taxes to get them removed. Enough is enough. So I went to Tallahassee.

Peter

Thanks Peter,

I do understand the position you are settling into. The problem with derelict boats is a problem everywhere. Anchoring in front of homes disturbs the view for many people, some of who think they own the water in front of them. When they find out they don’t, they set out to change that through more rules. Folks who don’t abide by the rules wont care, and that won’t be fixed by passing more rules. The effect of it will probably be to eliminate those who do abide by the rules, maintain their boats, pay taxes, spend money, do valuable work in the area, but hey, home owners will be able to look out over an “undisturbed” view of the public water and bottom lands, (well except for those boaters who don’t obey the rules and abandon and/or anchor and then put up a fight in court.)
The answer is already legislated if we are going to be fair to all those who want access to those waters. It just needs to be enforced. But enforcement is expensive. The taxpayer pays for that also. Increasing rules rather than enforcing them seems a bit epidemic in all walks of life. Easy but it very seldom works. But some people will feel better about it, thinking they made a difference.

Unfortunately, I think the actual difference will be legitimate cruisers deciding Miami is too much trouble. Then it will be Palm Beach, then Jacksonville, then Tampa, then Pensacola, then…..

Perhaps it is age for me, but I don’t think that area is such a great place to cruise anyway. Easier just to avoid the whole mess. Too many rules to try to remember, you know? Much nicer to wake up on the rivers, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake, or the Erie Canal and listen to the wildlife, while looking out over the best nature has to offer, and traveling to the small towns and byways where you are welcome. But, that is only my opinion, and I am sure not shared by many.

 

[Jklotz]

The answer is already legislated if we are going to be fair to all those who want access to those waters. It just needs to be enforced. But enforcement is expensive. The taxpayer pays for that also. Increasing rules rather than enforcing them seems a bit epidemic in all walks of life.

That's pretty much the crux of it. Enforcement is the key.

 

[TBill36]

To me, there are 2 problems. Live-aboards that overstay their welcome and derelict boats. Dereclict boats seems to be more of a problem that the bill is trying to address by limiting time at anchor that affects cruisers and live-aboards. I'm all for getting rid of both, but understand the live-aboard position.
The boat ramps and anchorages in my area are becoming a dumping ground. Buy a boat you can't afford and just anchor it where you can get access to it and let it deteriorate until it sinks and the tax payer has to have it removed.
There is one near me that the idiot owner has anchored with no chain and polypropylene rope thats good for about 6 weeks in the sun. It breaks loose every once in a while and the owner just re-anchors with the same gear. Law enforcement tell me as long as he rectifies the issue, he's ok - no fine for breaking loose etc. So you have to wait until it hits something and then he's worthless so I guess the receiver of the damage gets to make a claim on his insurance.
I'm planning a trip from up the intercoastal and reading the reviews on activecaptain, a lot of warnings about derelict boats sunk in the anchorages.
I'm surprised that the real cruisers aren't all for cleaning this up. And I bet maybe a handful want to stay at an anchorage for more than 30 days anyway. Stay for 30 days, move a few miles, then come back for another 30 days. The change in scenery will do them good.

 

[Bud]

Homelessness is an issue that contributes to this anchorage problem down here. I would say here in the keys the homeless are homeless because of alcohol, drugs and mental health issues. After hurricane Irma we had an abundance of derelick boats around and they moved into them. The cops/judges have no where to send them other then jail which does not seem to help them. They need additional services/facilities that we do not have here. They need help to sober up, clean up, get a basic job. Maybe a sober farm or something, At first they might not be to productive but in time with continuing help they could be. That would help them be a contributing part of society and give them some momentum in a positiive direction. We have had an opioid epedemic here in the US, it started with prescription pushing and has been prolonged by fentanyl , alot of these homeless are the survivors of that epedemic and have spent years addicted, we should be able to figure out how to deal with them.

 

[psneeld]

Section 8 housing.... why not section 8 boats and anchorages?

If land is at such a premium, instead of anarchy on the water...organize it before it becomes......

 

[Bud]

There is an island down here off of Key West called Wisteria Island, federally owned but not federally monitored. This island is loaded with homeless and they bounce around on and off derelick boats to the island. They mostly use kayaks to get to mainland. The feds by not policing this island are infact subsidizing this problem with the homeless. IMOP anytime you allow homeless camps in an area you are subsidizing them. Trying to get the federal government to do something is like pulling teeth. Our local enforcement can go on the island to get people that are wanted for a crime but they do not have the authority to kick them out. The first step in helping these people is to stop enabling them.

 

[slowgoesit]

I applaud Peter, and others, who have taken the time out of their busy lives to offer suggestions/guidance to our elected officials. In response to an appeal by MTOA, I did indeed e-mail 6 of the committee members with my concerns, from my perspective as both an active cruiser, and as a water front land owner, for what good it did.

One thing to consider is that the existing laws (those that are considered unenforceable, and un, or under-funded) were passed by the same legislative body that is considering the CURRENT laws.

While I try to be optimistic, expecting different results (ie; clearly stated, understandable, and funded laws) out of this is akin to whistling in the graveyard.

 

[Don L]

I have been reading of this Florida anchoring issue from before I even started boating. I didn't fully understand it till I had cruised in Florida a few years. In all the time that has passed nothing really has changed except there are a few mooring fields.

 

[twistedtree]

To me the fundamental problem is people permanently or semi-permanently occupying public space. Public space is there for all to enjoy, then move on so the next person can enjoy it. It is NOT a place to homestead or otherwise monopolize. This problem includes tents along side walks, RV homes along streets, and all the same sorts of things on the water.

In the same way that a permanently anchored liveaboard is monopolizing public space, a home owner who wants their view free of anchored boats is also monopolizing that public space.

I think this aligns me with Weebles position on the elements of the bill. Yes on time limits, and No on the anchor-free zones unless there is a sound safety or navigation reason for it.

 

[mvweebles]

To me the fundamental problem is people permanently or semi-permanently occupying public space. Public space is there for all to enjoy, then move on so the next person can enjoy it. It is NOT a place to homestead or otherwise monopolize. This problem includes tents along side walks, RV homes along streets, and all the same sorts of things on the water.

In the same way that a permanently anchored liveaboard is monopolizing public space, a home owner who wants their view free of anchored boats is also monopolizing that public space.

I think this aligns me with Weebles position on the elements of the bill. Yes on time limits, and No on the anchor-free zones unless there is a sound safety or navigation reason for it.

My position exactly. Attached is a screenshot from Realtor.com - Hibiscus Island is top, Palm Island is bottom. A "Starter Home" on the water is $20m and can go to $150m. These are very rich people.

Section 2 of HB481 wants to ban anchoring between the two islands (they are 200 yards apart) due to environmental concerns about eel grass. To their defense, there are several other nearby manmade islands with 8-9 figure homes that have already been declared no-anchor-zones.

AGLCA/MTOA have paper-tiger arguments about how the existing laws should be enforced which is easily defeated (or at least ignored). A much better argument would be the one TT crisply gave - would go beyond cruisers into people's sense of right and wrong. The one bad thing about being in the top 1% (0.1% in this case) is you're outnumbered. It would be a bank-shot argument where AGLCA would get what they want by enjoining anti-rich-folk sentiment.

Why do I say the "just-enforce-existing-law" argument is easily defeated? Because it essentially agrees that something should be done about marine homeless encampments so the only question is what should be done. The ALA law of a couple years ago develops a long, arduous, and expensive process to enforce so it doesn't work. Advocating for it is essentially saying you're anti-enforcement (or in favor of spending money unnecessarily). Section 1 of HB481 is a direct line to solution. If we agree there is a problem, why not clear the underbrush and make it easy to enforce? The logical answer is the AGLCA/MTOA does not really support any anchoring restrictions, probably because they worry about the slippery-slope argument where all anchoring will be banned.

If I could say one thing to AGLCA/MTOA: READ THE ROOM!!!! There's a good argument on public rights' equity as stated by TT. May not succeed but has a much better shot than the spurious ones they're advocating.

Peter

 

[Stick14]

I am a member of both MTOA and AGLCA and serve as the MTOA representative on the Boaters’ Rights Coalition, which is supported by both organizations. Below are my thoughts and observations.

Boaters’ Rights Coalition Overview:

1. The Coalition consists of four cruising groups: AGLCA, DeFever Cruisers, MTOA, and SSCA.
2. MTOA actively contributes funds and resources to support the Coalition.
3. 100% of our funding comes from separate and specific contributions to the Boaters’ Rights Fund—none of it comes from annual membership dues.
4. We strongly oppose legislation that restricts or eliminates anchoring access for cruisers.
5. We strongly oppose derelict vessels.
6. We are committed to protecting the rights of responsible boaters to enjoy our waterways, not only in Florida but across the country.

The Challenge: Balancing Access, Regulation, and Enforcement
Finding the right balance between anchoring rights, addressing derelict vessels, and ensuring responsible boating is an ongoing challenge. A look at recent history highlights the need for constant vigilance:

• Over the years, we have seen "scope creep" in regulations that restrict anchoring.
• A few years ago, a bill was passed banning anchoring in certain areas of Biscayne Bay—the same year the Boaters’ Rights Coalition opted not to retain a lobbyist.
• Since then, there have been repeated attempts to expand these restrictions.
• The Coalition played a key role in negotiating the 45-day anchoring limit for ALAs (Anchoring Limitation Areas). However, several attempts have been made to reduce this timeframe even further.

Why This Matters
The loss of a few anchoring locations in Biscayne Bay may not drastically change how we boat today. The 45-day limit is not an inherently "magic" number. The real concern is where the line gets drawn. If we are not proactive, small losses will accumulate until the no-anchor zones spread across much of the state, and the 45-day limit could shrink to just a few days.

Our Position on SB 164
The Boaters’ Rights Coalition fully supports SB 164. This bill addresses many concerns expressed by FWC officers regarding derelict vessels. It strengthens law enforcement's ability to enforce regulations while imposing strict penalties on those who violate them.

Our Mission
There is no perfect solution, but the Boaters’ Rights Coalition remains a grassroots group of cruisers dedicated to protecting the rights of responsible boaters. Our goal is simple: to ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy our waterways.

For more information, visit Boaters' Rights Advocacy Coalition Home.

 

[KRinSC]

I’d like to set the record straight on behalf of AGLCA on a few of the points discussed here.

To date, we have never used our members’ dues to fund our advocacy efforts. We undertake a fundraising campaign every year to cover the costs of our lobbyist.

We contract with one lobbying firm at a flat rate. This year, because of the number of bills of interest filed, that firm has added additional resources. Each person lobbying on our behalf must register. That’s why the records show three lobbyists. That’s the lobby firm’s choice, not ours, and again, we are not paying “per person”.

AGLCA does not blindly argue against all legislation that might affect anchoring. In fact, we support one of this year’s bills (SB 164/HB 1149, Vessel Accountability).

When providing testimony at these hearings, you must first fill in a form with a check box that says you are appearing “for” or “against” to the bill being heard (or you can provide information). Since we don’t support the entire bill in its current form, we are against it. It’s as simple as that. We don’t want it to pass as-is and we don’t want to go on record as being “for” it.

During my conversation with Commissioner Suarez after the committee meeting, I agreed with him that a time limit for anchoring makes sense. Our coalition has supported that concept for years with the Anchoring Limitation Areas legislation we were instrumental in developing.

To be crystal clear, the most egregious part of this bill, which we strongly oppose, is the closure of more of the areas in Biscayne Bay to overnight anchoring. As to the rest of it, we believe there is room to negotiate for a time limit that boats can stay at anchor in Biscayne Bay and elsewhere, and we understand and agree with Commissioner Suarez’s point that the number of Anchoring Limitation Areas needed in Biscayne Bay is impractical. But if the carve outs where anchoring would be banned around the islands in Biscayne Bay remain in the bill, we will continue to oppose it.

Kimberly Russo
Executive Director
America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association

 

[CaptTom]

The problem isn't just that laws (new or old) aren't enforced. It's that they're selectively enforced.

My guess is that anti-anchoring laws are strictly enforced when well-connected residents want them to be.

Passing more laws only gives more opportunities for this selective enforcement. The vagabonds and derelicts will just move to where the enforcement is lax. The rest of us will be faced with more restrictions and more income-producing mooring fields where anchorages used to be.

And no, I don't have a solution. My gut feeling is that enforcing time limits would go a long way. And maybe only put mooring fields in places where anchoring is difficult, instead of taking over good anchorages. Will any of this ever happen? Not holding my breath.

 

[Don L]

AND the people paying BIG $$$$$$$ taxes for that view get to look at a run down dirty trash covered anchor out liveaboard or derlick who is paying nothing.

At least with the time limits you get cruising boats moving in/out and they for the most part are seaworthy well kept boats.

I agin will state that in all my time anchoring in Florida I have NEVER had a FWC or a sheriff stop by and even talk to me.

 

[mvweebles]

One thing to consider is that the existing laws (those that are considered unenforceable, and un, or under-funded) were passed by the same legislative body that is considering the CURRENT laws

When you dig into the current Anchorage Limitation Area (ALA) law, it's pretty clear it was heavily negotiated into a Frankenstein law that became intentionally difficult to administer and enforce. If folks support restrictions to long-term anchor-out, why not make it easier for law enforcement to cite offenders?

Peter

 

[slowgoesit]

When you did into the current Anchorage Limitation Law (ALA), it's pretty clear it was heavily negotiated into a Frankenstein law that became intentionally difficult to administer and enforce. If folks support restrictions to long-term anchor-out, why not make it easier for law enforcement to cite offenders?

Peter

Totally agree!

 

[KRinSC]

When you dig into the current Anchorage Limitation Area (ALA) law, it's pretty clear it was heavily negotiated into a Frankenstein law that became intentionally difficult to administer and enforce. If folks support restrictions to long-term anchor-out, why not make it easier for law enforcement to cite offenders?

Peter

Yes, it was heavily negotiated, but I wouldn't say it was intentionally made difficult to administer and enforce. Our coalition members regularly talk with LEOs on the water to see where the issues are with enforcement of ALAs and we are actively discussing what might make enforcement easier. That's one of the reasons we support the Vessel Accountability bills mentioned above. After the hearing Tuesday, I questioned both Commissioner Suarez and the law enforcement officer who testified on whether the 30 days in a 6-month period time limit proposed in the bill is enforceable. They assured me that if they did not have to spend time dealing with derelict vessels, they'd have time to enforce the time limits.

 

[mvweebles]

Yes, it was heavily negotiated, but I wouldn't say it was intentionally made difficult to administer and enforce. Our coalition members regularly talk with LEOs on the water to see where the issues are with enforcement of ALAs and we are actively discussing what might make enforcement easier. That's one of the reasons we support the Vessel Accountability bills mentioned above. After the hearing Tuesday, I questioned both Commissioner Suarez and the law enforcement officer who testified on whether the 30 days in a 6-month period time limit proposed in the bill is enforceable. They assured me that if they did not have to spend time dealing with derelict vessels, they'd have time to enforce the time limits.

What was the thinking behind the ALA law? Heres the process as laid out by FWC - it's not a practical approach.

• Limited to 100 acres;
• no more than 10% of the navigable waters; etc.
• Town or county determines need for an ALA
• County makes application to FWC
• FWC posts notices and comment
• Signs and boundaries need to be posted and maintained with clear information on the Ordinance that created it

After running that gauntlet, law enforcement can enforce it though I'm guessing the offending boats are long gone by then. It's designed as a whack-a-mole. Sec 1 of HB481 skips right to the punchline - if a squatter moves in and stays there for 30-days, they can be cited. No bureaucratic gauntlet that takes months (year?) to work through.

It's disingenuous to suggest there is already a law in place and the solution is to enforce it.

Peter

 

[Bud]

What was the thinking behind the ALA law? Heres the process as laid out by FWC - it's not a practical approach.

• Limited to 100 acres;
• no more than 10% of the navigable waters; etc.
• Town or county determines need for an ALA
• County makes application to FWC
• FWC posts notices and comment
• Signs and boundaries need to be posted and maintained with clear information on the Ordinance that created it

After running that gauntlet, law enforcement can enforce it though I'm guessing the offending boats are long gone by then. It's designed as a whack-a-mole. Sec 1 of HB481 skips right to the punchline - if a squatter moves in and stays there for 30-days, they can be cited. No bureaucratic gauntlet that takes months (year?) to work through.

It's disingenuous to suggest there is already a law in place and the solution is to enforce it.

Peter

I think the issue is that they can cite them all day long to no avail, but they want to be able to remove the vessel and they don't have the law behind them to legally do that. That was the issue down here in Monroe Cty.
Bud

 

[Spike]

First, thanks to Kim and Stick for jumping in here and stating the coalitions points better that my feeble attempts. You both have much more knowledge of the issues than I. I know you both have more important things to deal with also.

Second, maybe instead of focusing on what doesn't or won't work someone here on TF can provide a bullet proof solution that works for everyone concerned about the anchoring issues? You know, a law that covers the whole state and is clearly defined and enforceable?? It could then be introduced next year to glowing praise from the legislators and sweep through both houses with 100% support. instead of "nope, never gonna work" people would be saying "brilliant"! I'll wait.....

 

[Bud]

First, thanks to Kim and Stick for jumping in here and stating the coalitions points better that my feeble attempts. You both have much more knowledge of the issues than I. I know you both have more important things to deal with also.

Second, maybe instead of focusing on what doesn't or won't work someone here on TF can provide a bullet proof solution that works for everyone concerned about the anchoring issues? You know, a law that covers the whole state and is clearly defined and enforceable?? It could then be introduced next year to glowing praise from the legislators and sweep through both houses with 100% support. instead of "nope, never gonna work" people would be saying "brilliant"! I'll wait.....

It will come down to man power for enforcement. Florida has a huge coast line and canal systems, all needing patrol and enforcement. One idea is to make it mandatory to put oversize reg or doc# on overhead (visual from the air) with special letters, maybe with metal in them so that a satelilite system with a program that can read the numbers and keep track of how long a boat has been at that location. It could spit out a list of over 30 or over 90 everyday for enforcement to investigate.
Bud

 

[mvweebles]

First, thanks to Kim and Stick for jumping in here and stating the coalitions points better that my feeble attempts. You both have much more knowledge of the issues than I. I know you both have more important things to deal with also.

Second, maybe instead of focusing on what doesn't or won't work someone here on TF can provide a bullet proof solution that works for everyone concerned about the anchoring issues? You know, a law that covers the whole state and is clearly defined and enforceable?? It could then be introduced next year to glowing praise from the legislators and sweep through both houses with 100% support. instead of "nope, never gonna work" people would be saying "brilliant"! I'll wait.....

From my perspective, Sec 1 of HB481 is pretty dang close to being clear and enforceable. Not sure 30-days is the right number but it's straightforward. Hang around for too long and you'll have LEO on your butt.

I breezed through the other two Bills @KRinSC (Kim Russo) cites. They are long and difficult requiring a registration system for each boat that wants to anchor. Like the ALA provisions, seems to have a high administrative overhead. But perhaps I didn't read them closely enough - one is close to 25 pages long (HB481 is 4 pages).

Really comes down to what problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to be really surgical about a solution (ALA and similar approaches supported by AGLCA because they allow maximum anchoring privelages), the more complex the law becomes and, unfortunately, the less likely it will be to achieve the desired outcome.

For me, I'm fine with some sort of simple time limit. Even if I want to overstay my time I seriously doubt I'd be targeted by LEO. Granted it's a leap of faith, but I really think LEO is concerned about Liveaboard squatters not transient cruisers.

Peter

EDIT - my apologies to the AGLCA for misrepresenting their funding for lobbying efforts. I assumed it came from one pot mainly because if I were a member, I wouldn't care.

I do thank their efforts to lobby. I obviously wish the direction were slightly different but I sincerely appreciate that they are doing.

Can someone post the URL to make a contribution to their lobbying funding?

 

[psneeld]

It will come down to man power for enforcement. Florida has a huge coast line and canal systems, all needing patrol and enforcement. One idea is to make it mandatory to put oversize reg or doc# on overhead (visual from the air) with special letters, maybe with metal in them so that a satelilite system with a program that can read the numbers and keep track of how long a boat has been at that location. It could spit out a list of over 30 or over 90 everyday for enforcement to investigate.
Bud

Hugely both man intensive and technically expensive and doesn't prevent manipulation.

Ask NOAA how fishing vessel tracking works and what it costs. Some of that may be alleviated by a transponder system that can connect to cel phone towers.

Here, I looked it up for anyone....from Bing search....

"The budget for the NOAA vessel tracking system is part of the $6.6 billion in discretionary appropriations proposed for NOAA in the fiscal year 2025. This budget request represents an increase of $187.9 million from the previous year's budget"

It could be set up by issuing transponders if the vessel wants to stay in a single spot/area past a certain length of time...say 2 weeks (negotiable). A fee schedule could be set up for longer stays. The trick would be how to monitor vessels claiming they are only staying less than two weeks (if that is the requirement to register for transponder).

The registration costs for transponders would have to cover the additional costs associated with the program. Some though would have to go into the ability to "game" even that system which will take some time. It may turn out to be unworkable or unaffordable.

For true cruisers, especially snowbirders, maybe something like a cel based E-Z pass system would work. It would also help all affected states monitor a vessel to see if they are exceeding time limits within their state for registration/tax requirements.

As far as derelicts and homeless... anyone here think they are too worried about laws? The only law that works is a rousting that keeps them moving along. The quickly figure out areas where it's still convenient to squat but the rousting is minimal. True derelicts are the worst as there is little effort except random surges as there is no one to contact and it takes time, money and manpower to claim title and remove them. The current laws seem to be able to do that, but funding always seems to fall short of the demand or the manpower to coordinate the effort.

Once upon a time I got to be supervisor for a fleet of surface and air assets assigned to maritime law enforcement. We could have accumulated more data and sent resources to remove floating derelicts/roust homesteader vessels... but the political and legal quagmire never allowed it. I have no idea if that same ability is within other maritime law enforcement agencies, but I do know their actual time on the water is usually torn between many different directives at any given time.

 

[CaptTom]

True derelicts are the worst as there is little effort except random surges as there is no one to contact and it takes time, money and manpower to claim title and remove them.

I think this is a key problem.

I notice that broken-down cars on the highway get a red or orange sticker stuck to the back window. I've never seen one up close, but presumably it says something along the lines of "move this wreck or we'll move it for you." I wonder if something similar could be done on the water.

We've all seen boats and wondered whether they were abandoned. A LE officer noticing one could go knock on the hull. Nobody home? Check back later. Still nobody home? It's abandoned. Slap a sticker on it. Now it's eligible for "salvage" by any tow boat operator. They'll need an "impound lot" to store it for a while, to see if anyone shows up to claim it. If not, it's theirs. If so, there's a towing and storage fee before it can be released.

Obviously I haven't fleshed this out. Presumably a whole bunch of laws would need to be reviewed to make sure we're not violating anyone's rights. So, what am I missing?

Yes, I know I'm making a problem for those who want to store their boats at anchor, for free. I am not sympathetic. Go through the process to get a mooring approved, pay slip rent or buy a trailer.

 

[Bud]

Hugely both man intensive and technically expensive and doesn't prevent manipulation.

Ask NOAA how fishing vessel tracking works and what it costs. Some of that may be alleviated by a transponder system that can connect to cel phone towers.

Here, I looked it up for anyone....from Bing search....

"The budget for the NOAA vessel tracking system is part of the $6.6 billion in discretionary appropriations proposed for NOAA in the fiscal year 2025. This budget request represents an increase of $187.9 million from the previous year's budget"

It could be set up by issuing transponders if the vessel wants to stay in a single spot/area past a certain length of time...say 2 weeks (negotiable). A fee schedule could be set up for longer stays. The trick would be how to monitor vessels claiming they are only staying less than two weeks (if that is the requirement to register for transponder).

The registration costs for transponders would have to cover the additional costs associated with the program. Some though would have to go into the ability to "game" even that system which will take some time. It may turn out to be unworkable or unaffordable.

For true cruisers, especially snowbirders, maybe something like a cel based E-Z pass system would work. It would also help all affected states monitor a vessel to see if they are exceeding time limits within their state for registration/tax requirements.

As far as derelicts and homeless... anyone here think they are too worried about laws? The only law that works is a rousting that keeps them moving along. The quickly figure out areas where it's still convenient to squat but the rousting is minimal. True derelicts are the worst as there is little effort except random surges as there is no one to contact and it takes time, money and manpower to claim title and remove them. The current laws seem to be able to do that, but funding always seems to fall short of the demand or the manpower to coordinate the effort.

Once upon a time I got to be supervisor for a fleet of surface and air assets assigned to maritime law enforcement. We could have accumulated more data and sent resources to remove floating derelicts/roust homesteader vessels... but the political and legal quagmire never allowed it. I have no idea if that same ability is within other maritime law enforcement agencies, but I do know their actual time on the water is usually torn between many different directives at any given time.

Maybe, but the main point is there needs to be a technological solution instead of relying on old fashion manpower combined with more regs and imaginary fences. FWC going from one boat to another trying to interview document ect.. obviously has not worked. Remember the first letter of the acronym FWC stands for fish and here in the Keys we have a robust commercial and recreational fishery. That alone keeps FWC straight out. Dealing with anchorages are an after thought or if politics dictate they may cruise by and investigate. They will occasionally do night time light citations for mast lights but thats easy, they can send acouple of plebes to do that.

 

[Bud]

Hugely both man intensive and technically expensive and doesn't prevent manipulation.

Ask NOAA how fishing vessel tracking works and what it costs. Some of that may be alleviated by a transponder system that can connect to cel phone towers.

Here, I looked it up for anyone....from Bing search....

"The budget for the NOAA vessel tracking system is part of the $6.6 billion in discretionary appropriations proposed for NOAA in the fiscal year 2025. This budget request represents an increase of $187.9 million from the previous year's budget"

It could be set up by issuing transponders if the vessel wants to stay in a single spot/area past a certain length of time...say 2 weeks (negotiable). A fee schedule could be set up for longer stays. The trick would be how to monitor vessels claiming they are only staying less than two weeks (if that is the requirement to register for transponder).

The registration costs for transponders would have to cover the additional costs associated with the program. Some though would have to go into the ability to "game" even that system which will take some time. It may turn out to be unworkable or unaffordable.

For true cruisers, especially snowbirders, maybe something like a cel based E-Z pass system would work. It would also help all affected states monitor a vessel to see if they are exceeding time limits within their state for registration/tax requirements.

As far as derelicts and homeless... anyone here think they are too worried about laws? The only law that works is a rousting that keeps them moving along. The quickly figure out areas where it's still convenient to squat but the rousting is minimal. True derelicts are the worst as there is little effort except random surges as there is no one to contact and it takes time, money and manpower to claim title and remove them. The current laws seem to be able to do that, but funding always seems to fall short of the demand or the manpower to coordinate the effort.

Once upon a time I got to be supervisor for a fleet of surface and air assets assigned to maritime law enforcement. We could have accumulated more data and sent resources to remove floating derelicts/roust homesteader vessels... but the political and legal quagmire never allowed it. I have no idea if that same ability is within other maritime law enforcement agencies, but I do know their actual time on the water is usually torn between many different directives at any given time.

I believe you misunderstood my post I am not proposing satelite transceivers. I am proposing reading the reg# on the overhead with a satelite picture. Come in! Then somebody sitting in an office can look up the reg# get owner contact info and contact owner for interview if overstaying.
Bud

 

[psneeld]

I believe you misunderstood my post I am not proposing satelite transceivers. I am proposing reading the reg# on the overhead with a satelite picture. Come in! Then somebody sitting in an office can look up the reg# get owner contact info and contact owner for interview if overstaying.
Bud

Whose satellite(s) will provide this intel?

I sure as heck don't know but can guess the satellites the US Govt controls have bigger fish to fry and commercial ones probably would cost a pretty penny for regular service. It might be around the corner, but someone has got to show the numbers before I think it could happen soon.

A drone flying over targeted areas might be the better option. Still probably not in anyone's budget any more than funding dedicated boat patrols to do the same.

But the suggested numbering is a method that many commercial fisherman are required to do Someone would probably have to do a quick study of what out of all the options are even viable. Not sure my buddy is still doing them, he is in Washington, DC (retired USCG) that does those kinds of studies for the Govt as a retirement side gig. Not cheap but his reports get serious attention there so Florida should be easy too.

The bottom line is always money and the squeaky wheel theory. This is an important topic with many of us... but in the big scheme of things?

Maybe a program like neighborhood watch should be set up.... anchorage watch. Certified members could produce evidence to a point person in one or several agencies that could start the enforcement/legal process. It's usually field work that costs (like satellite use and it's intel logging), so maybe something like deputized volunteers could pick up the slack.

The USCG swears by the USCGAUX, maybe local/state governments could mimic. The system always isn't perfect, but overall some good is done.