What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

.......... Tacking on a several hundred dollar a month mooring field as a requirement is a great way to get rid of the budget cruiser, which I think is a large part of what they are after.

What's the difference between a "budget cruiser" and a derelict boat?

[soverel]

The mooring field has 70 balls. Capacity might approach 100% for one or two weeks a year. Another couple months at 60 to 80% and about 10 to 15 boats the rest of the year.

And full time anchored boats. About 25 to 35.

The land lease for the mooring field specifies a maximum of 10 liveaboards in the mooring field.

They displaced that many liveaboards when they put the field in. Most moved back to anchorage.

The balls require maintenance and i am sure insurance protecting the town. Tack on harbor master police enforcement and a hefty % to motel administering mooring field, Hence in the red operations.

Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by RTB

I don't see why the "Rich Waterfront Homeowners" should have any say AT ALL!

And according to you, who should have a "say"? You perhaps? How would you like it if Floridians were put in charge of the Alamo's maintenance budget?


The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) is a 3,000-mile (4,800 km) inland waterway along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Some sections of the waterway consist of natural inlets, saltwater rivers, bays, and sounds, while others are artificial canals. It provides a navigable route along its length without many of the hazards of travel on the open sea.
Intracoastal Waterway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of "ICW" I have, but where does it say that it's also supposed to be a 3,000 mile long parking lot?

I can find ZERO information saying the waterway was built for developers to build expensive homes with a view, on it's banks. Next thing you know, the rich will ask for all bridges to remain closed, because it is inconvenient to wait for bridge openings. Hey, Florida could save a lot of money if bridge maintenance was no longer necessary. Plus, they could fire all of the bridge tenders.

The ICW was "built" to accommodate commercial traffic, not boaters. Boaters only started using it once said developers had created destinations on it and made it easy to travel.

As far as closing bridges is concerned, take heart, we're doing our best. In fact, just this year, the Mayor of Saint Augustine asked the ACE to replace the current "Open On Demand" status of the Bridge of Lions by a 1-hour systematic closure during rush hours. The ACE refused for whatever reason, and since there's always at least one sailboat a day insisting on coming through at 8 AM or 5 PM, we still have our usual 800 car traffic jam morning and night. May I remind you that this does not only affect the "Rich Waterfront Property Owners", since most of them are serving tea at that time.

It's also true that Florida could save a lot of money by letting its bridges crumble down on your sorry heads, but hey, we're business minded, so we'll resist the temptation for the time being.


Ralph

Jacques

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rwidman

What's the difference between a "budget cruiser" and a derelict boat?

Well I'd say a derelict is a run down piece of junk that is un-seaworthy and most often abandoned.
A budget cruiser is someone who has a budget, has to consider costs, and adding $300 to $400 a month or $4K a yr or so means they have to cut it from the budget somewhere else, or they simply just don't have the budget that can withstand that. I really have seen a few people with not a whole lot of money, but take pride in their boat and keep it up really well with sweat equity.

Gotta be careful with turning up your nose at people based on their fiscal means, I don't care who you are, there are people with way more means and way more expensive boats than you have. If you start excluding people with less funds than you have, you may wake up one day to find yourself excludued.

I do believe that a driving force behind this is to exclude the "Riff Raff".

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Well I'd say a derelict is a run down piece of junk that is un-seaworthy and most often abandoned.
A budget cruiser is someone who has a budget, has to consider costs, and adding $300 to $400 a month or $4K a yr or so means they have to cut it from the budget somewhere else, or they simply just don't have the budget that can withstand that. I really have seen a few people with not a whole lot of money, but take pride in their boat and keep it up really well with sweat equity.

Gotta be careful with turning up your nose at people based on their fiscal means, I don't care who you are, there are people with way more means and way more expensive boats than you have. If you start excluding people with less funds than you have, you may wake up one day to find yourself excludued.

I do believe that a driving force behind this is to exclude the "Riff Raff".

We all have a budget of some sort, big or small. I think these restrictions are to prevent people from just anchoring run down boats and living on them, dumping their sewage and other waste into the water eventually abandoning the boats for the public to dispose of. It's not a lot different than not allowing folks to park their campers on city streets for weeks or months at a time.

If you own a land based home, just imagine having a hobo jungle spring up across the street from your house. How would you feel about that?

[soverel]

Originally Posted by rwidman

What's the difference between a "budget cruiser" and a derelict boat?

Florida law has a multi item checklist on this very thing. A vessel can be determined to be derelict or at risk. Fortunately, Florida Law also specifies that a vessel does not need to be "pretty".

Im sure they knew that beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder.

And fortunately for budget cruisers that determination is left up to law enforcement and not the people on the boat next to you. (or members of a forum).

These anchoring discussions always seem to evolve to this point.

I believe the fact to be, that unless you know the law as well as your rights that police will try to intimidate you. The post I responded to today on this thread stated he was threatened with arrest six years ago, and given erronious information by a LEO. I know of NO law that says you cant anchor elsewhere (and there were many anchored vessels there at the time) nor that the only recourse was to go to a dock. There was and still is a sign that unless you check in at the mooring field office you are considered trespassing. Rather like slipping into a room at a motel without going to the office first.

There have been changes made to the marine unit since that time, six years ago. A cop with an attitude. He is GONE. Your welcome (wink wink)

But for purpose of discussion I read so much misinformation on these threads. If a cop can intimidate one person and they repeat that misinformation obtained by a LEO, well Florida gets a bad rep.

Know the laws.
Be Legal.
Anchor or rent a ball.

Plenty of derelict boats on balls too.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rwidman

We all have a budget of some sort, big or small. I think these restrictions are to prevent people from just anchoring run down boats and living on them, dumping their sewage and other waste into the water eventually abandoning the boats for the public to dispose of. It's not a lot different than not allowing folks to park their campers on city streets for weeks or months at a time.



If you own a land based home, just imagine having a hobo jungle spring up across the street from your house. How would you feel about that?

I think your right, but surely there is a better way to do that than by making me pay four grand a yr for something that I don't want, and even that is apparently not enough, the tax payer still has to pick up the short fall.
Your Hobo jungle example, I don't see anything that would prevent that, except maybe zoning? I live just at the edge of town and think the land around here is actually zoned Commercial, but if the guy who owned the land across the street wanted a bunch of Hobo's, I think he would get them?
But this is all privately owned land which is a bad example, need to compare it to federal land out west like Nevada etc. I have no idea what keeps people from essentially squatting in a camper, truthfully I don't think anything does? They have as much right to it as I do?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I think your right, but surely there is a better way to do that than by making me pay four grand a yr for something that I don't want, and even that is apparently not enough, the tax payer still has to pick up the short fall.
Your Hobo jungle example, I don't see anything that would prevent that, except maybe zoning? I live just at the edge of town and think the land around here is actually zoned Commercial, but if the guy who owned the land across the street wanted a bunch of Hobo's, I think he would get them?
But this is all privately owned land which is a bad example, need to compare it to federal land out west like Nevada etc. I have no idea what keeps people from essentially squatting in a camper, truthfully I don't think anything does? They have as much right to it as I do?

What are you paying four grand a yr for?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I think your right, but surely there is a better way to do that than by making me pay four grand a yr for something that I don't want, and even that is apparently not enough, the tax payer still has to pick up the short fall.

Florida is a big place so just don't go there. In the Northeast we would kill for $15/night moorings!

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rwidman

What are you paying four grand a yr for?

Moorings if that becomes the law

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Moorings if that becomes the law

But you wrote that it's something you don't want. I'm not understanding your post.

"making me pay four grand a yr for something that I don't want,"

[Group9]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I don't have to think, I know, the boater who was the test case lives less than 500' from me. It was free for the boater, the attorney did the work pro-bono.



No need to ponder the question because that's not the existing law. The state of Florida controls the submerged land and a muni only has the level of control the state grants them thru a submerged land lease. Currently, via the pilot program, the state will only grant a submerged land lease when the muni gives something back to the boating community, which to date has been mooring fields.

What you have to realize is that any muni can write/pass any ordinance it wants. It's not until that ordinance is tested in court is it deemed in conflict with higher statutes. Belaboring the Marco Island case it was deemed that the state laws were confusing, hence lazy attorneys working for munis gave their opinion that the muni was OK writing anchoring ordinances. The FWC clarified/rewrote the state laws in 2009 after the Marco Island case to make sure the lazy muni attorneys were no longer confused.

Now the no-anchoring advocates have taken their argument to the state legislature to have the state laws changed, trying to take power from the state (FWC) and give it to the munis.

IMO, FWC is a boaters best friend on this topic.

You sure don't sound like you like boaters very much. What's your real story? It's okay. Go ahead. Tell us. I'm sure we've heard it before.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rwidman

But you wrote that it's something you don't want. I'm not understanding your post.

"making me pay four grand a yr for something that I don't want,"

I do not want mandatory mooring fields

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Group9

You sure don't sound like you like boaters very much. What's your real story? It's okay. Go ahead. Tell us. I'm sure we've heard it before.

It's not boaters, it's those that haven't a clue but yet still blather on topics they know nothing about.

I corrected your implied facts with truth on the Marco Island anchoring case then explained the law in case those reading would like to understand the current state of anchoring in Florida. I believe if one is going to complain about the law you should know a little about it first. Some just like to complain.

[Capecoder]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

I still can't understand why nobody seems to be claiming their "right" to pitch a tent for a few weeks on the side of our National Highways whenever and wherever they feel like it. After all, they've got the same basic status as our Federal Waterways, don't they?

I still believe that well managed, affordable, municipal mooring fields with mobile pump-outs are the only way to go in increasingly congested (and often sensitive) areas.

Jacques

PS - Please stop systematically blaming the "Rich Waterfront Homeowners" of Florida for all your anchoring woes. Many of them have done more to keep these waters attractive for you than you'll ever know.

You sound like the rich guy Who thinks I got mine and f@#$ the rest of you. The same ones who fill the wet lands build a huge house with the chemical treated lawns and complain they can see boats on the ICW in front of their palace.