Anchoring restrictions introduced in Florida bill

[a64pilot]

I guess I need to join the SSCA, Consumer groups or whatever they are called do have a very profound effect, AOPA regularly stares down the FAA for instance, and whether you love or hate the NRA, you have to admit they have an impact.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Scott Berg]

SSCA's CCC Poster is ready; please print and post.. write your FL State Legislators. Talking points are on the SSCA Website Homepage above the poster!

http://www.ssca.org/downloads/ccc/SS...g_brochure.pdf

Much more to follow as hearings are scheduled.

[avb3]

Even though I can't vote here, as I am a Canadian, who spends six months of the year in Florida with my sailboat and condo, I will be contacting the local state representative and Senator as I am taxpayer here.

Effective contact means not just emailing, and not just phoning, but arranging a face to face meeting, as those have much more impact than anything else.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Sun and Moon]

Originally Posted by redsky49

...join the SSCA folks

Ok, I just joined.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I guess I need to join the SSCA, Consumer groups or whatever they are called do have a very profound effect, AOPA regularly stares down the FAA for instance, and whether you love or hate the NRA, you have to admit they have an impact.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Exactly. You can't just let the other side be the only ones paying off government officials, and expect to have a level playing field.

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by Sun and Moon

Ok, I just joined.

Me too. I've been meaning to for a long time anyway and this gives me one more very good reason! I am already a BoatUS member.

Al, S/V Finlandia

[hellosailor]

Maybe a series of "thousand boat raft-ups" here and there around the state would help to prove a point.

[dave777]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

When the Feds ceded their control over local waters to the states, they specifically exempted navigation.

Last I recall, the Feds wrote a law claiming effective control into private property of all waters, down to little streams.

The key here is Federal government power. The Feds pay for all sorts of water based infrastructure, from subsidizing almost all ferry traffic, navigation infrastrucure, to Coast Guard law enforcement. Congress could pass a law withholding all sorts of related funding down to a state, if the state were to infringe upon navigation rights.

While on the topic, why not an effort to force harbors to keep say at least 25% of anchoring/mooring areas open to transients else they loose funding. Towns are having their cake and eating it too by converting Federal sea bed areas to revenue generating sea bed for the benefit of the local municipalities.

It's not surprising that wealthy landowners would want this, the same game is played in areas other than boating. It's a matter of making it known before the damage is down.

And we should all realize, if the rich get they way in Florida, other states will fall like dominoes.

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

The supreme court ruled many years ago that the right to anchor is an inherent part of navigation.

That would imply the new bill is doomed to fail.

[Scott Berg]

Long (but important) post...

As many of you are aware SSCA has been leading the fight for cruisers rights for many years. This year our focus has been primarily in Florida and directed specifically at legislation perceived to severely limit navigation rights in the name of safety. While many parts of the proposed FL Senate bill are to cruisers benefit the concept of 'residential setbacks' or, 'owning a view' are clearly not. In support of our anchoring rights and freedom to navigate goals we have retained the services of former Florida Representative Jerry Paul to join with SSCA's registered lobbyist and Concerned Cruisers Committee (CCC) Phil Johnson. Jerry is an active boater who 'gets it' and has been very active on our behalf since his retention. The following press release announced his retention and gives you a brief insight into SSCA's activities to date. Please check the SSCA Home Page for print materials and sample letters as we release them.
Timing is important on this issue as with many.

Scott Berg
President/BOD, SSCA
++++++++++++++++++

On March 10, SSCA retained additional governmental affairs and lobbying support from the firm of Capitol Access in Tallahassee, Florida.

The President of this firm, Jerry Paul, is a friend to the cruising and boating community. A life-long boater and cruiser, he offered to represent SSCA and take on our cause notwithstanding our current limited available funds for such legislative efforts. Mr. Paul is an attorney, marine engineer, former elected member of the Florida House of Representatives, and a graduate of Maine Maritime Academy. Jerry has cruised the waters of Florida and Maine aboard multiple vessels including his own Catalina Sloop. He is a subscriber to Passage Maker Magazine and a member of multiple cruising and boating forums including Cruisers Forum and Defever Cruising Forum. A veteran of Tallahassee politics for 24 years, Mr. Paul’s boutique lobbying firm is well-respected and recognized as a very effective with primary areas of focus on topics related to the environment, agriculture, waterways, submerged land leases, coastal regulations, and infrastructure projects. Many of the members of the Florida Legislature are former colleagues of Mr. Paul who represented the coastal portions of Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties in the Florida Legislature. When Jerry is not in Tallahassee, he spends time on the water, mostly in Southwest Florida, Charlotte Harbor, Boca Grande, and the Florida Keys.

Since joining the cause with SSCA, Jerry and his team have conducted an “all-hands-on-deck” approach with a comprehensive host of one-on-one meetings with every key member of Senate and House leadership, committee chairs, committee members, committee staff, and member staff. His team has compiled a package of communications materials, photos, facts, data, statistics and articles highlighting the facts in the field that affect the interests of cruisers and boaters who enjoy anchorages throughout coastal Florida. He points out that “the dwelling unit set-back provision is an orphan” which does not fit in a bill titled ‘an act related to vessel safety’. To other organizations who seemed to have concluded that this provision would pass regardless of efforts to oppose it, he emphatically pushes back, stating “This provision does not have to pass. We reject that conclusion. We oppose that notion. That set-back cannot become law. We can win this. We can beat this provision if we all stick together.”

His team has been showing committee staff that the 8,000 members of the SSCA, in collaboration with multiple cruising and boater forums, magazines and blogs totaling an estimate of over 100,000 persons actively tracking this issue, support measures that are reasonably connected with safety … but strongly oppose proposed bans founded upon interests that are not necessary for safety. For example, Capitol Access expresses opposition to provisions that are designed to establish preferential rights or control over areas of State waters based upon setbacks from “developed waterfront property” within which occupants of boats may not anchor. These provisions have a nexus with convenience, preference, and aesthetics, rather than safety, and would result in laws that pick between classes and groups of people based upon the nature of the structure they choose to occupy.

Jerry’s team has been pointing out that some of the politics driving this proposed anchoring ban originate from anecdotal examples of disputes between occupants of land-based structures and occupants of waterborne vessels and these disputes have resulted in high-profile, publicized, conflicts between individuals. He’s been showing legislators that our cruising community is sensitive to these matters but, they are suited for resolution through remedies that could be accessed through enforceable judicial remedies … and such disputes do not justify a sweeping law, applied statewide, that would slash the rights and freedoms enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of boaters throughout the maritime waters of coastal Florida who would otherwise be punished by the bad acts of a few individuals. Simply put, these disputes should be resolved on a case-by-case basis through proceedings available in the judicial branch which, unlike the legislative branch, is specifically structured for such resolution.

Mr. Paul’s firm, Capitol Access, also points out that the orphan provision (pushing vessels 200 feet away from any condominiums or houses) could eliminate many existing anchorages where many of the more than 1 million vessels annually visiting Florida waterways currently anchor. They are showing legislators that the occupants of these vessels, once anchored, then engage in massive amounts of economic activity and tax payments through businesses who serve them. He points out that the number of anchorage locations consequentially eliminated depends directly upon the distance that would be prescribed and that nobody really knows how many anchorages would be eliminated. But, in order for policymakers to accurately deliberate these topics they would need to know this so they can balance the interests of [boaters, visitors, Florida’s small businesses, Florida’s tax revenue, and Florida’s economy] … compared with the [aesthetic interests of some waterfront property owners]. He points out that the promoters of this ban have not performed the necessary geographical analysis to identify, count and list each anchorage that would be affected throughout coastal Florida statewide.

It is important to remember that the proponents of this ban rely upon an unscientific survey (conducted by the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission – FWC) which concluded that many people support some version of such a setback, but the respondents to this poll were not provided with necessary information disclosing the consequences associated with particular poll responses including the number of anchorages that would be eliminated by each optional setback distance. Capitol Access also points out that there are many Florida small businesses that depend on the economic activities of each such anchorage yet those businesses were not consulted to provide their input on the lost revenue and job losses that would result from the proposed new layer of governmental regulation. They argue that this ban is not even ripe for legislative consideration until this information is compiled and presented by the proponents.

Through the combined efforts of Mr. Paul’s firm, Capitol Access, and the efforts of SSCA Boat US and others, we are making progress. Eyes are being opened. We’re winning over members. They are swinging our way. We are developing strong legislator champions positioned in the right posts to help defend our freedom and stop this legislation. But, we are only 14 days into a 60-day session. Our opponents have recognized our recent progress. They will regroup and push back. Jerry points out that the bills (Senate and House) have not yet been scheduled for committee hearings although that will occur soon. Stay tuned. At that time, there will be a need for some members of our cruising community to attend committee hearings in Tallahassee to provide testimony. Jerry will also help us coordinated a well-timed and carefully crafted host of messages to be tendered through massive email campaign from all of our members and friends … to key legislators. We will provide notice of these messages, timing, and email addresses through our cruising forums."

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by dave777

Last I recall, the Feds wrote a law claiming effective control into private property of all waters, down to little streams.



SNIP)

Federal claims of jurisdiction stem from the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act and have more to do with limiting damage to the environment than anything else. I suspect local and state laws will use the same reasoning.

Lots of anchorage are over things like sea grass beds or areas sea creatures use to reproduce. Already lights are limited or prohibited during turtle egg laying season and anchoring over sea grass beds can result in six figure (or larger) fines.

Depending on how you define it (FDEP defines live aboard as being on the boat ten days or more a month) I have been living on my boat in Florida over a couple of years. Also have lived in Florida since 1954. I have to say I have no problem with more restrictive anchoring rules than are being proposed. The real problem is that there are simply too many boaters in Florida, and a fair number of them are jerks; of course no one at CF falls into that group.

When I go cruising I never seem to have a problem finding a place to anchor. Of course I cruise in places like West of Key West or the West Coast of Florida avoiding Sarasota. My definition of cruising does not including anchoring close to a West Marine and Publix for weeks or months on end and never getting out of the ICW.

As for the money issue lets face it, cruisers are a drop in the bucket to the Florida economy. Any boycott or threat of boycott would not be noticed by anyone in Florida, at least in a negative way. When ever I go into Publix to get food I notice most employs there tolerate me at best, along with the other cruisers in the store. Lets face it cruisers don't shop like more normal customers, they stock up on things like rice and beans and canned goods and don't really have the ability to store fresh meat or produce.

Bottom line is there are way more boaters than there use to be and they tend to stick around longer and anchor more and cruise less. The result is a greater demand for a limited supply of anchorages close to stores many of the cruisers want.

Simply question of supply not meeting the demand.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Scott Berg

His team has been showing committee staff that the 8,000 members of the SSCA, in collaboration with multiple cruising and boater forums, magazines and blogs totaling an estimate of over 100,000 persons actively tracking this issue, support measures that are reasonably connected with safety … but strongly oppose proposed bans founded upon interests that are not necessary for safety.

See here is the bottom line. The elected State officials care nothing about, nor should they care about, any of these people. All they care about, as they should, is the thinking of the people that elected them and the business that may be affected. That is why the survey asked those question about a responder.

The only real way to stop this whole thing is to get FL residents and especially business to weigh against the Bill.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill
The supreme court ruled many years ago that the right to anchor is an inherent part of navigation.

There are many places along or near the AICW where anchoring is prohibited. Annapolis, MD (OK, not on the ICW) has placed rental mooring balls in most of the water surrounding the city and prohibits anchoring. Beaufort, SC is another.

[SURV69]

If you anchor out in a place long enough, you might be a resident/voter(it doesn't take much) ... same might go for the state of Florida in general ...

[hellosailor]

Bottom rights, which include anchoring and mooring rights, are totally separate from navigation rights and the right of passage under US state and federal law.


If you didn't know that, didn't understand it, and don't know the history behind it, then you might as well give up now, because you'll never grasp the reason that Florida can discuss anchoring restrictions in navigable waters.


That's like confusing prostitution with obstetrics, because they both involve the same locations.

[leftbrainstuff]

We'll just scratch Florida off our list of places to visit. Vote with your windlass and go elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app