New Anchor-out Law - Madeira Beach FL

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Cadence

It was robbed and put into the general fund. I believe, the no. would never be used for identification, another joke.

It seems to me that this is a misconception.

Actually, any SS tax receipts not used to pay SS benefits were, and are, as required by law, put into Treasury bonds, which will be redeemed to pay future benefits. No other use has been put to these funds. No funds have been robbed. No SS Tax receipts have been put into any general fund.

The federal government sells bonds to finance projects, so SS tax receipts have been used for other projects as a result of the bonds having been purchased and held in trust for SS. But the Fed Gov't does have to pay them back including interest, as with any Treasury bond, and the SS bonds are not in threat of not being paid back.

They are, however, insufficient to meet future benefit payment needs.

[MrPix]

Originally Posted by flyingfin

Any local government can write laws and enforce them. If you get ticketed, then it will be your job - should you accept it - to hire an attorney and challenge it. Or pay the fine and move on. Quoting federal law or the constitution to Boat Cop Barney in these local towns will get you nowhere.

Telling them the law does have a utility, though. They cannot claim ignorance of the law, so by telling them what the law is you strip away their qualified immunity.

So even though it doesn't stop them giving you a ticket, it helps you to strip away the protections against them being personally liable.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by smbdyiam2

This law is not about derelict or abandoned boats. It is about ALL boats anchored in "THEIR WATERS" I say fine or jail law breakers, just don't make the laws so any one with a boat anchored is breaking the law. It is bad law.

And...

Originally Posted by sailorladd

Makes my blood boil when I see garbage like this, who are these "authorities" that impose such restrictions??? It is just a damn money grab in my humble but mature opinion....slowly but surely our freedoms are being eroded, not only in the sailing world but in every walk of life....wake up sheeple...

I don't see the problem with the Madeira Beach ordinance other than some possible conflict with the Fl statute. Travelling cruisers aren't likely to complain about $5 fee assuming it isn't too hard to obtain. They might wish for the option to renew it for another three days.

But I do see a problem with derelict boats. I hate to see nice harbors cluttered with dirty boats with collections of dingys and work rafts, etc and I don't like to anchor around them. The condo guys are right to complain. The navigable waterways should be open for navigation, including reasonable stopovers, not used for badly kept floating homes which are themselves a danger to navigation and a danger to the environment.

There is a need for longer term anchoring, and for that I'd really like to see an annual permit and fee for boats which qualify (meet CG regs, and capable of navigation, and other rules the locality might like to apply).

Of course this all depends on the enforcement capability and budget of the locality or the state. That part will not be easy to solve but at least the ordinance gives the locality some tools to use.

As for me, I won't be anchoring there any time soon. Have you guys noted the water depth? It's shallow.

[Frugal Agrippa]

I'm not qualified to comment on the legal aspects of a state or municipality regulating the seas within their domain or at least view, but some controls seem reasonable if for no other reason than that the pertinent authorities will be keeping an eye on vessels at anchor, for a $5 fee.

frugal agrippa
i'd rather be sailing...

[TravelinLight]

I will say there is a lot of this going on in the land locked part of my state to ensure people are not using run down RVs as makeshift homes. They are instituting urban camping bans as well as restrictions on where RVs can be parked.

I understand the plight of the homeless / poor, but the trash, drugs, and crime associated with these tent encampment and RV side streets needs to be dealt with. I would assume as noted above there will be selective enforcement and criteria to weed out those trying to camp off shore in a run down boat.

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by wingssail

And...



I don't see the problem with the Madeira Beach ordinance other than some possible conflict with the Fl statute. Travelling cruisers aren't likely to complain about $5 fee assuming it isn't too hard to obtain. They might wish for the option to renew it for another three days.

But I do see a problem with derelict boats. I hate to see nice harbors cluttered with dirty boats with collections of dingys and work rafts, etc and I don't like to anchor around them. The condo guys are right to complain. The navigable waterways should be open for navigation, including reasonable stopovers, not used for badly kept floating homes which are themselves a danger to navigation and a danger to the environment.

There is a need for longer term anchoring, and for that I'd really like to see an annual permit and fee for boats which qualify (meet CG regs, and capable of navigation, and other rules the locality might like to apply).

Of course this all depends on the enforcement capability and budget of the locality or the state. That part will not be easy to solve but at least the ordinance gives the locality some tools to use.

As for me, I won't be anchoring there any time soon. Have you guys noted the water depth? It's shallow.

well I see a problem with a $5 fee to anchor. I do not need a $5 permit to park a car in a safe spot.
I agree about derelict boats. This law is not about derelict boats, It is about anchoring. The boats at the beginning of this were not derelict. They were legal, passed inspections , and had paid all licenses and fees by the state.
As for the permits for long term anchoring , who decides what is long term ( 72 HRS ). Who decides what cost to put on this long term permit. Do you have to reside in this city to get one?
And other rules that locals apply? Does that mean my boat can only be one color or a certain shape or size? It is not about the derelicts and junk boats. It is about who can stay on board, how long, what they look like.
How about only 50' catamarans white, owned by government officials. Make any one else upset? lee

[Woodland Hills]

No I’m not upset about removing abandoned boats. And I’m not upset about paying to park my car in a popular area either. In fact I rather like having the option of valet parking, especially if it’s raining.
If you are going to make an analogy to cars, then parking your boat at a marina is like parking in a lot next to the stadium or city center and an anchorage is like parking in the remote lot a mile away from the stadium or the downtown. One is going to cost more than the other, but neither is going to be free. The same at the airport: cheap parking offsite and expensive at the terminal. This is just the same thing for boats.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by smbdyiam2

well I see a problem with a $5 fee to anchor. I do not need a $5 permit to park a car in a safe spot.

Um....Paid parking is a thing everywhere, in fact it's one of the few universal things that can be found pretty much anywhere in the world!

[a64pilot]

If they actually enforce a permit to anchor thing which I doubt, I’ll bet you’ll find to get it, it’s during business hours downtown at the civic headquarters, Mon-Fri.
Who can do that? Who would want to?

It’s more likely a legal way to get rid of the boats, as they have found out they can’t pass an anchoring ban, so they are attempting to regulate anchoring cause I’d guess the Fl law doesn’t mention that’s they can’t regulate, it just says they can’t ban or similar.
However the effect is the same, the boats will be gone.


Like it or not, but it’s coming, look to Ga for an example.

My first thought as something to do in Retirement was a Motorhome and travel around, but I had learned from us having a 5th wheel that meant realistically you travel from one KOA to another paying $30 or more a night to stay, State parks almost always meant a reservation well in advance as they are in demand.

The people and the Governments that represent them, want boats in KOA’a too. So I’ve just adopted the strategy of no anchoring in towns when I can help it.

If you don’t like it, join or form some kind of association to fight it, associations work, but unless your well off and will spend some big $$$ your not gong to accomplish anything by yourself.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If they actually enforce a permit to anchor thing which I doubt, I’ll bet you’ll find to get it, it’s during business hours downtown at the civic headquarters, Mon-Fri.....It’s more likely a legal way to get rid of the boats

Permits are purchased at the MB City Marina which, according to their website, is open 7-days/week from 7am to sunset. As previously mentioned, if you need a place to anchor nearby and don't want to poke-the-bear, it appears going about 1/4 mile south would take you beyond the watchful eyes of the condos.

On the second point, there is no dispute this all about getting rid of long-term anchor-outs. It's why the citizens complained, and it's why the Mayor/Commissioners enacted the ordinance.

[motion30]

There are already laws to deal with derelict boats, have the water cops do their job. simple as that

[endlesspursuit]

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 have lived in Florida since 1966. I grew up in Pinellas County. Indian Rocks Beach Area. We live in Melbourne Beach area and also have a little place in the Keys. I've seen derelict boats all over Florida and it is a problem, but they are the problem and not the cruising boats. Its easy to tell the difference. I think Mad Beach's $5 for 72 hr is bull to appease the condo commandos. What they should do is like BLM land. 14 days and then you have to move. Makes it easy for the general public and also makes it easy to remove abandoned boats. Mad Beach needs to adjust their law. I see cruising boats here fall and spring. I don't know how much they send here but they do come ashore and patronize the local businesses. Stay a few days and then their off somewhere else. Mad Beach is full of themselves if they think cruisers want to stay there very long. Honestly its crowed and it sucks IMO.
And by the way. Stop by Melbourne beach, we have a pier with low docks, several restaurants and a grocery all on one street.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by motion30

There are already laws to deal with derelict boats, have the water cops do their job. simple as that

Apparently that is a lot of work, I guess papers have to be filed, notices stuck on boats and a due process followed, that takes time and effort.
They are looking for an easy way to make the boats go away in my opinion.
Although I’m not sure what legal authority they have if you choose to not follow their rules. Are they allowed to haul and dispose of your boat? Store it in the city marina at $100 a day and a $500 fee for towing it there?

In my opinion if they were smart they would follow whatever procedure the Federal Government has for Federal land, then in my opinion they would have a stronger position, there is precedence, but I readily admit ignorance of the law.

[sailorboy1]

It isn't as simple as that.

- the boat has to be ticketed
- then with time it goes to the State
- it gets on a list
- eventually it gets put on a bid for removal
- the bids go out, get received and reviewed
- the bid finally get awarded
- the boat finally gets removed

Just how long do you think this takes given the number of government groups involved?

I'm on a mooring here in Boot Key next to a group of anchored boats and I notice there are boats that I haven't seen anyone on since I got here Nov 7. Some have no Florida registration sticker so doubtful they are registered. I would make the case that any boat anchored, not registered, no one on it, is a delict boat. Yet these boats don't even have a sticker on them, so step 1 hasn't even been done. I'm sure they didn't just show up recently.

Yesterday a delict boat out in the anchorage caught fire. All the authorities could do was watch it burn. It took 2 days for the fire to finally find a hose to melt and the boat to sink. Now it is sitting in the middle of the anchorage and the authorities can not even put a marker on the mast sticking just a little up out of the water so others can see it.

Last year I was on a mooring in Sarasota Fl. I complained that the mooring field was 75% empty, but they put me on a mooring next to a delict boat anchored in the middle of the field. The office gave me a story of how that boat had just shown up a couple of days prior (didn't matter to me and they still didn't allow me to move to a different ball). But going by the anchored boat there was no doubt from the growth on the anchor lines and how twisted up they were that that boat had been there a long time. The boat had a Fl registration sticker that had expired 4 years ago. But because I complained the next day a sheriff boat came out and put some stickers on it (the sheriff boat was stationed right there in the marina so had been in area the whole time). So basically step 1 of the process just isn't happening as a normal course of the cops driving around ticketing people for other stuff.

[GreenWave]

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.

This “law” will prevent none of these scenarios from happening.