New Anchor-out Law - Madeira Beach FL

[mvweebles]

Tetepare: the vast majority of anchored boats are not in MB waters (the ones nearest the American legion). In fact, Sea Towers Condos are in St Pete, not MB. Assuming your family is part of that site, how does this work? How does MB enforce an ordinance in SP waters?

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand. My Sister bought house that had sat unoccupied for 5 years. The repairs were great. But biggest problem was abandoned boats. left on her property with out trailers. estimates to remove were ridiculess.. county told her to file for ownership and wait till approved. She did not want to own this junk just get rid of it. On her property 6 Miles from nearest lake in Florida. She cut one 18' boat up and put in trash dumpster . They dumped it back on her lot and said it was not building materials and could not go to public land fill. After 6 months she burnt them in back yard. said she saved about $600. I got there to see ashes. I really understand.
\
But that does not mean That I have to move my legally anchored boat because someone does not want to see it.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand and am anti delict boat. But the issue I feel isn't one that is going to be solved by a local law that that we don't feel is going to hold. What the residents really need to do is show up at their State reps office and do the same as they did to try to get State action on delict boats.

Coming from up north where every harbor had its own harbormaster and the rules would vary, I like that in Florida things are consistent at the State level. I don't really understand it is so hard to address the delict boat issue, but suspect it is a money and/or liability issue.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by 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.

There were already laws against all the behavior you mentioned, without requiring all boaters to register in order to pass through for a day or two. If they aren't sufficient, lets strengthen the laws regarding registering vessels so that we can find the owners. Maybe require some insurance or a deposit against abandoning said vessels. Have a state wide "if you're not verified to be registered, you must pay a cruising tax". Require that vessels have an ability to navigate.

Surely we can have enforceable laws against derelict boats and drunken screaming without forming ridiculous laws against cruisers.

This really is no different from the laws being discussed in Walton County, FL, where people with properties next to the beach are suddenly claiming that they have exclusive beach rights, and that nobody can walk on their beaches any more. And they truck out the same "I'm afraid of all the drunks who want to sleep on my porch" stories, while they pass a law that prevents kids from playing volleyball on the beach.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can certainly sympathize with anyone in that situation. Perhaps setting up a regulation, whereby a boat can only be anchored in place for 7 days - and then must be moved, by its own propulsion, at least mile away, and only allowed to return after 30 days - might be the best of the worst solutions. It could be triggered by an actual citizen complaint - and having to move a derelict boat 4 times a month might sort it out, before it manages to sink, and can no longer be easily condemned and towed away.

[smbdyiam2]

[QUOTE=Tetepare;3049244]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.[/QUOTE

I posted earlier to switch cars and boats. Now switch water and land.

Above is stated " in their canal"" this this this etc.
On my street we get at least 5 dumped dogs, 3 refrigerators. 3 sofas, 20 bags of trash. and 2 truck loads of tree limbs in a mile and 1/2 every year . Why / Because we are 6 miles out of town were it is illegal to dump like that. You know who gets to pay for a lot of this removal. We do if it is on our property. county if on right of way. Empty lots? owners over time
One year my neighbor was up in NYC to see about his ailing mother. He was gone all summer. Some one took a four wheel drive and did donnuts in his front yard. The man he had hired to mow grass didn't because of the ruts. Good Samaritan drives past and reports him to county for not mowing grass. County sends letter if grass not mowed in 10 days they will mow it and charge him for expenses. Approx.. $1500. So he flies down from NYC to Orlando takes a shuttle back to here . Hires a rancher down street to level his yard. Hires mower to plant seed and mow again till he gets back. Flies back to NYC he had to pay for all this . We live 6 miles from town but classified as residential neighborhood. So are required by law to keep property in decent shape.

So do I feel great sorrow for condo owners that have to see boats and drunks etc.? I think they are in a residential neighbor hood and should be required by law to keep area in decent shape . It comes with the territory.

[Hardhead]

IMO, the big issue - is crafting a regulation that does not effect normal, law abiding boat owners, with seaworthy boats, but also clears out the derelict boats at the least expense to the government. The normal knee-jerk solution is to levy a tax, or permit fee, on all law abiding boat owners - to cover the escalated expenses of letting the problem get bad in the 1st place. IMO, just requiring all floating boats to be either 1) tied to private property, or, 2) be capable of self-propelling, at least 1 mile, under the boat's own power, as a matter of general seaworthiness. I really think the law abiding boating community should be pushing for something like this - so as to avoid the other inevitable outcome of more mandatory fees/permits. Just the hassle alone, of complying with the fee/permit scheme, is as bad as any fee imposed.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

IMO, the big issue - is crafting a regulation that does not effect normal, law abiding boat owners, with seaworthy boats, but also clears out the derelict boats at the least expense to the government. The normal knee-jerk solution is to levy a tax, or permit fee, on all law abiding boat owners - to cover the escalated expenses of letting the problem get bad in the 1st place. IMO, just requiring all floating boats to be either 1) tied to private property, or, 2) be capable of self-propelling, at least 1 mile, under the boat's own power, as a matter of general seaworthiness. I really think the law abiding boating community should be pushing for something like this - so as to avoid the other inevitable outcome of more mandatory fees/permits. Just the hassle alone, of complying with the fee/permit scheme, is as bad as any fee imposed.

A strange, but frequent thought, where punishing the innocent as looked at as the next best thing to punishing the guilty.

[Rocko]

Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed House Bill 7175, amending several state ... The statute does not allow a locality to regulate anchoring by redefining a vessel ...
You visited this page on 1/5/20.
Has anyone seen this statute ??
Yrs ago I found a site that had this in PDF and was told to print it out and tape it to my boat for the likes of fwc and other enforcement to see and read .
It's been sometime now and I'm still looking for this to read and print .
It's an interesting article . I just vaguely remember but I taped it to a house boat I had in Boca grand.
Would like to hear back from someone about it if anyone knows, thanks

[JBsurfin]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

it wouldn't stand once challenged. But someone is probably going to have to challenge it.

Or I wonder it letting the State people know that the town is passing "laws" they don't have authority to do would correct it.

Condo people living next to the water crack me up. Did they not expect there to be boats in "their" water?

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/...:peace::peace:

[Cruisingalice]

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#

What if you have to work. There's commute time to and fro.... Sometimes people work 12 hour shifts... Then there's grocery shopping and laundry to do. .. geesh

[Cruisingalice]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

I would suggest that we simply criminalize poverty and put them all in prison or on chain gangs, but it seems we are well on our way there already. Just make sleeping outside a crime, eliminate any cheap housing via zoning laws and voila: problem solved. This process is nearly complete, all that remains is closing a few loopholes like boats and car or RV sleepers. The end result is that the poorest and the neediest are herded into a relatively few places which makes it easy to overlook and ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind. The system is working as designed and the results are as intended. Make the fines for minor violations high enough and the whole thing is nearly self-supporting.

Like Walmart detention centers run by FEMA, who I might add has ordered 50000 guilitines...😓😓

[Cruisingalice]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Let's hope that like many other places, they do plenty of profiling and selective enforcement of this law.

72 hours is a bit short for a stay. Should have made it a week or two so people could spend some money there.

.... Plus... Three days time may not be enough time for the weather to change in your favor

[Happ]

Inspire of what many of you believe the “rich “ condo owners infringing on your rights to live for free let me clue you in on what is really happening. Those few derelict boats you talk about end up on the beach when the anchor line or more often mooring line breaks. which is all to often attached to a refrigerator, engine block, etc. The owners do not have insurance or the money to have the boat towed off the beach much less disposed of when they are destroyed by a storm. The cities have to pay to remove the boats. Scraping a derelict boat is far more expensive then you can imagine.

Part of owning a home, condo, or boat is maintaining it. Many of you if not most of you maintain your boats and respect the environment whether it is in your slip at a marina or on a hook. Unfortunately there are many who think they are entitled to live for free. When you live on a boat at anchor you use public services. Bathrooms, trash cans, water, etc. All this costs money. Someone passing through as a transient hopefully eats at a restaurant, has a drink or 2 at the local pub, buys food at the local market, etc. This is why the town I live in welcomes transients. They contribute to our local economy.

It is the few that want to live for free that leave their seacocks open so they don’t have to pump out their heads. There are the few that never wash their boats. Don’t blame someone who paid money for a view. There are a few selfish people that want everything for free that are ruining it for everyone else!

We as a group should stop blaming the towns but start talking to our fellow boaters about respecting what we have. So we can enjoy that million dollar view we all love and cherish.

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by Cruisingalice

What if you have to work. There's commute time to and fro.... Sometimes people work 12 hour shifts... Then there's grocery shopping and laundry to do. .. geesh

remember I said switch cars and boats-----
this law would say buy $5 permit to park car.
Cannot leave car for 8 hrs.
have to leave after 72 hrs.
No returns for 30 days.

Well a car is for transportation--Ditto boat.
Some cars RVS we sleep in -----ditto boat.
Some cars are nice looking some are not---Ditto boats.
sometimes a car is all we own ----Ditto boat.

Just a bad law it blocks some peoples view and the city needs/wants more money.