New Anchor-out Law - Madeira Beach FL

[smbdyiam2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles
Town of Madeira Beach FL on ICW near St Petersburg recently passed a statute greatly restricting anchoring.

Cliff-Note version:
Boat must get a $5 permit
Good for 72-hours
Cannot leave boat for more than 8-hours
Only one permit per 30-day period

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-aboard-boats#
This is what I first read. It was not about abandoned boats or derelicts, just about anchoring where some one might see you. With out paying city a fee. If they don.t like your looks get towed away.
I don't like abandoned boats. Long story big cost . but if this boat is paying for it's license and tags and passes safety inspections What's the problem. LOOKS? Bad law. Lee


This is what I read. I did not read where the city tried to help a disabled person. I did not read where the news tried to help a disabled person. I did not read about neighbors helping a person in need. I did not see a GoFundMe site set up. all I saw was a city and neighbors trying to move him out of site. and fine him for being there in their view. Shame shame . If the boat is disabled fix it. not tow it out of sight. does a person have rights or just if they don't bother the view. Possible to provide transportation for wife? Help with marina costs? No just drag out of view!!! I live from SS check to SS check .I cannot help but I can speak out when see wrongs. If My little boat broke down while passing thro here I would have to anchor till next SS check came to fix it. Would I get towed to trash pit To? Lee

[motion30]

other cities have tried to enact their own anchoring laws. Only A few places have been allowed variances. The state law controls all anchoring in Florida not local ordinances since 2007

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by motion30

other cities have tried to enact their own anchoring laws. Only A few places have been allowed variances. The state law controls all anchoring in Florida not local ordinances since 2007

As mentioned previously, Madeira Beach, like most towns, employ an attorney knowledgeable in laws. According to one of the articles, the ordinance was adjusted to avoid conflicts with other laws. It may not withstand a vigorous challenge, but it certainly contemplated it and felt the law ordinance would prevail.

[33trippindaisy]

"State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause"......this is the Decision of the SCOTUS. So the question is, does one desire the "fight or flight" method of dealing with Laws placed on law abiding persons intended to fix the issues of the non law abiding. Tom, trust me when I tell you, I am a Certified Law Enforcement Instructor, who taught for years at our State Law Enforcement Academy. Don't think I missed any classes, LOL! Your points, most of them, are well taken though. I do agree with you that the problem of derilect vessels is a huge problem. And I agree that more Regulations are coming. My point is simple, the Reg's need to be lawful, we as boaters need to be lawful, and using the Law to keep oneself separated from those who are not, is the only way any of us can use the water the way we want to.....legally. So trust me on the part about fishing, stay clear of areas that don't like boaters if you are so inclined, and remember that not all Laws passed by Local area's are Constituionally correct. They simply are not. If they could do what they want to there would not be any ugly boats there now to even talk about. As a legal boater, a Citizen of the USA, and a Disabled Veteran, I guess I'm hoping I have already paid to enjoy my life. The 637 stitches and staples I have had in my body tell me it's okay to think this way. We do have a lot of problems, yet none of them are solved by assaulting legal Citizens enjoying their Rights. Never will be.

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by 33trippindaisy

I do agree with you that the problem of derilect vessels is a huge problem. And I agree that more Regulations are coming. My point is simple, the Reg's need to be lawful, we as boaters need to be lawful, and using the Law to keep oneself separated from those who are not, is the only way any of us can use the water the way we want to.....legally. So trust me on the part about fishing, stay clear of areas that don't like boaters if you are so inclined, and remember that not all Laws passed by Local area's are Constituionally correct. They simply are not. If they could do what they want to there would not be any ugly boats there now to even talk about. As a legal boater, a Citizen of the USA, and a Disabled Veteran, I guess I'm hoping I have already paid to enjoy my life. The 637 stitches and staples I have had in my body tell me it's okay to think this way. We do have a lot of problems, yet none of them are solved by assaulting legal Citizens enjoying their Rights. Never will be.

A derelict boat as I see it is one that no one lives on. When I am on my boat I live there be it 10 minutes or 10 month. I believe that derelict boats need removed. I believe That a boat that anyone is on, is not derelict. does not compute. This law is saying they can limit how long you can use public waters. What kind of boat can use them. Basically because some one does not like their looks.
If you think about this ,a man visiting his girlfriend in a high rise across the water sees a boat that reminds him of his wife at home, he can call and complain and have it removed. Even if the boat is 50' $1000,000. He has his rights . The boat owner has the right to move?
This is not about derelict boats . It is about a view.
My view is the law is wrong. Lee

[a64pilot]

The problem is with boats that are essentially abandoned.
You can’t just leave your vehicle abandoned on public property, why is a boat any different?
Try to homestead on public property in an RV and see what happens, why is or should a boat be any different?

This is how people in those Condo’s think, and it’s not hard to understand why they think this way.

[mvweebles]

BoatUS has a government affairs division that presumably works to further boater's interests. If you want to be heard, contact them at govtaffairs@boatus.com. According the the comments at the end of the PMM article, BoatUS (and AGLCA!) have been in contact with Madeira Beach concerning a conflict in definition of "Liveaboard" so the City Attorney suggested a tweak to the verbiage and has affirmed his opinion the ordinance does not conflict with state or federal laws so the ordinance has gone into effect until its either changed or challenged in court.

I agree with a64pilot. I don't understand why people believe squatting on public property is acceptable just because it's a waterway and not a public street or park. That said, the 72-hour limit and $5 permit rule is draconian. As I mentioned before, move to the south side of the bridge - still a no-wake zone and outside of Madeira Beach waters. Or go anchor and wait for a ticket so you can challenge it in court, though I can think of better ways to waste brain cells that fighting city hall.

Finally, here's a decent explanation of anchoring rules in Florida:
Florida Anchoring Laws - Tula's Endless Summer

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The problem is with boats that are essentially abandoned.
You can’t just leave your vehicle abandoned on public property, why is a boat any different?
Try to homestead on public property in an RV and see what happens, why is or should a boat be any different?

This is how people in those Condo’s think, and it’s not hard to understand why they think this way.

4 sentences
1 not abandoned does not apply
2 not abandoned does not apply
3 a little different . Homesteading is to claim land for ownership and pay taxes , and be able to legally sell to some one else . Not case here. this is about using public lands. as to R V 's on public property . Well most homeless do not own R Vs or anything else. Most live in parks ,under bridges, vacant houses or lots, door ways, or just a gutter. See it all time . Just walk down main street USA. A lot live in cars parked on public streets. Many cities try to ship them off. Lots of problems there. IF ONE CAN FIGURE OUT A GOOD SULUTION TO THIS SPEAK UP . Good paying jobs may help.
4 how these people think? Think about them selves is that the answer?
I see a man and wife on boat trying to survive. With little income, disabled, and wife working a minimum wage job they try to exist. Not in disrepair. not abandoned , not obstructing waterway, .
Does that mean if they do not like color of my boat I can be towed out of sight.

[Woodland Hills]

One solution on land is to establish safe parking lots for car sleepers that are patrolled by LEOs and security guards. Vehicles must vacate every day to stop them from becoming permanent encampment like the tent cities we have all seen.

[a64pilot]

If it were just the one guy and his wife, then there would be no problem.
However it’s not, it’s thousands of junk boats taking up all the available space in an anchorage and they sit there unused until they break away in a storm and end up in someone’s yard, or sink.
I’m talking about all the boats with no sails, or if there are sails, they are shredded, they have no bimini’s or if they do those are also rotted away, and they are often covered in bird droppings, but someone must visit them at least once a year to affix the boat registration decal.
You can’t leave a car sitting on flat tires and rusting away on public streets just because you pay for the tag every year, why can you leave a junk boat sitting to rot?
That is the majority of the ones i see, and I’m annoyed by them taking up all the available space in anchorages, you can’t stop for all the junk boats.

And your disillusioned if you think people down on their luck don’t live in RV’s, many live in parks if they have a little money, but according to the news many live on the streets in California.

Me, I want something in between the $200 a night Marina slip and staying in a junkyard.
If the abandoned, derelict, junk boats were cleaned out, then there would be many available spaces, the locals wouldn’t have junk boats in their yards every storm to Have to pay to have removed, and the disabled person you speak of with the working wife would have a safe place to stay.
It doesn’t take money to keep your boat cleaned up and not covered in junk and bird poop.

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If it were just the one guy and his wife, then there would be no problem.
However it’s not, it’s thousands of junk boats taking up all the available space in an anchorage and they sit there unused until they break away in a storm and end up in someone’s yard, or sink.
I’m talking about all the boats with no sails, or if there are sails, they are shredded, they have no bimini’s or if they do those are also rotted away, and they are often covered in bird droppings, but someone must visit them at least once a year to affix the boat registration decal.
You can’t leave a car sitting on flat tires and rusting away on public streets just because you pay for the tag every year, why can you leave a junk boat sitting to rot?
That is the majority of the ones i see, and I’m annoyed by them taking up all the available space in anchorages, you can’t stop for all the junk boats.

And your disillusioned if you think people down on their luck don’t live in RV’s, many live in parks if they have a little money, but according to the news many live on the streets in California.

Me, I want something in between the $200 a night Marina slip and staying in a junkyard.
If the abandoned, derelict, junk boats were cleaned out, then there would be many available spaces, the locals wouldn’t have junk boats in their yards every storm to Have to pay to have removed, and the disabled person you speak of with the working wife would have a safe place to stay.
It doesn’t take money to keep your boat cleaned up and not covered in junk and bird poop.

I agree with all of this..
expressly the last paragraph right on. 100
But the law is not about the junk derelicts etc. it is about the boats they don't like and that they do not make money on. look at it . 72 hrs $5 move on or use our marina. Pull up to park so kids can play, nope broke law go rent space at our marina then let kids play , only cost is slip at marina. Dos anyone think they hired a new manager for the marina because they like the owner? or is city owner?

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by smbdyiam2

Dos anyone think they hired a new manager for the marina because they like the owner? or is city owner?

Madeira Beach owns the marina, and it's primarily a commercial marina with dry-sailing trailer-boats. The past marina manager left recently after an audit revealed some financial issues. I'd imagine they have transient slips, and it's not a long walk to downtown Madeira Beach, but I don't think it's a popular place for transients.

This ordinance came about because 'villagers with pitchforks' (the condo owners) flooded a normally poorly attended town meeting and feigned concern over health and safety, but only about the permanently anchored boats off their pool deck (I guess the permanently anchored boats 1/2-mile north are not a safety issue).

It got the attention of the mayor who was voted in when a different mob stormed meetings 3-years ago and ousted the old regime. The ordinance passed by unanimous vote, which is rare for this particular board (two are hold-overs from the old regime - needless to say, they don't often see eye-to-eye).

Here's the bottom line: you can defend the vagrant boaters all you want or play armchair-lawyer trying to parse laws that are clearly settled-science, but long term anchored boats (occupied or not) are perceived as a blight and legitimate cruisers are being swept away by the same net. You can either tap away on meaningless threads like this, or you can articulate your boating interests via BoatUS and/or attend local town meetings. Chances are, defending vagrant boats (whatever you want to call them) compared to taxpaying constituents is a losing strategy.

[33trippindaisy]

I don't think many folks are trying to defend the truly derelict vessels. They are a problem. But the problem itself is not fixed by dividing the boating folks. I live in North Carolina, and we have probably a lot less boats just parked and left for ever. The reason why is that any vessel unattended, or loose, or in actual disrepair to a point of beginning to sink is going to get salvaged. You can stop any Wildlife officer and tell them you are going to take the vessel. They will direct you downtown for the permit, and they will place notice on the boat "if it is floating safely". If it is in peril, a person may simply use Maritime Salvage laws, take the boat, then place an add in the paper to give the owner the option to pay for the salvage itself. You still must apply for your title etc the same as Marina owners do when someone fails to pay their slip fees. There are a lot of decent old boats for $500.00 with a title available. Most worth every penny of that. The other thing of noteable importance is having a mooring field. THEN the City has a Right to earn money on your usage of their ball. Anchoring is not illegal, and never has been. Stay outside of navigable water ways and visit your boat at least once every thirty days to make sure it is safe for everybody. That is not a derelict or abandoned vessel. A truly abandoned derelict vessel should be removed, but lets say after thirty days of notice, by a sticker with a number that must be called. If no response the City should tow it. Period. If someone is living on it, thats a totally different issue. In NC they require you to move it every thirty days but it seems they allow folks to stay within a few hundred yards of where they were.....but then that means it's actually being used. The City's really need to find the right deal for everyone, after all it (the water) does belong to everyone right?

[smbdyiam2]

I've thought about this a lot last couple days. I saw comment to let boatUS know. They only want to sell/talk insurance. Try to send them an email with out being a customer. After a hour it not done . Say call I lost the ability to hear on Phone. So I am sending emails to all my state senators and representatives.
In the meantime try changing boat for car and car for boat.
Example = Drive car into town and pay $5 to park for 72 Hrs. Cannot go to work cause cannot leave car for more than 8 hrs. Cannot drive to park have to use city parking lot for $75 and up. after 72 hrs get out. You get idea? All laws obeyed either on water or on land .
But here water laws unfair. I know about anchoring in channels or parking in right of way. This is just about parking in their view, lee

[Tetepare]

My family are amongst the maligned condo owners in MB. Perhaps if people had to put up with what they do, there would be a different opinion than those who think the problem is overblown.

Last week alone in their canal they had three derelict problems. One boat blew into the canal and was bashing against a breakwater, with flotsam all over. The previous occupant was gone, no doubt abandoned the boat once it became a problem, as they always do.

Another boat was floating around in the canal, unoccupied.

A third, a 43’ sailboat, had been brought into the canal, tied to a private pier, and was listing. By the time cops got there it sank. Previous occcupant of course gone.

They’ve had “live aboards” with goats on board, screaming drunks, and boats that drag anchor into the middle of the canal and sit.

In almost all cases the boat motors don’t work so the derelicts wind up where the wind blows them.

When there is a “problem” (for the occupants, that is) such as blowing onto the shore or sinking, the occupants abandon the boats, never to be seen again, leaving the mess to the locals to clean up.

This isn’t an occasional problem, it’s a recurring problem. And it’s not a matter of blocking a view, it’s drunks and all night screaming, boats blocking the channel, tying to private docks, smashing into other boats, and sunk boats.

This is a real problem- security, peace, safe navigation, property damage, and environmental pollution.