POLL - Anchor-outs vs Cruisers - should permanent anchor-outs be restricted in ICW/AICW anchorages?

[mvweebles]

I think this is key element. It’s not OK to take over public space and occupy it as those it’s now your private space. That means an inherent time limit on use by any individual.

Why not have an even shorter time limit like 7 days, after which a permit is required allowing up to 30 days. To get a permit you would have to provide registration and ownership info, plus proof of liability and wreck removal insurance.

I cannot explain why, but every Florida ICW/AICW town seems to believe their problem is unique thus must have an unprecedented solution. In my observations and conversations with town councils, they have desire to clear out anchor-outs but flummoxed in how to do it. They do not ask other towns what they have done, they do not seek out well-known examples of where it has been managed (San Diego Bay is a great example). They don't ask cruisers. Heck, they don't even ask their local Sheriff's what they need to enforce.

My takeaway? In Florida at least, the town councils are dominated by real estate and development interests. These are people who don't have a transient past and while many have a nice house with ubiquitous 21-foot center console, they have no idea about the cruiser underbelly of Florida. As the saying goes, you cannot tell a tadpole what it's like to be a frog.

In my opinion, Madeira Beach, dead center of the 25-mile stretch of ICW between Clearwater Beach and Pass-a-Grille, could be developed into a cruiser mecca. They have very large anchorages that could be developed into moorings, they have City-owned waterfront land where a large dinghy dock could make the redveloped downtown easily accessible, and they have an existing marina that could manage the infrastructure. Not just snowbird cruisers, but Tampa Bay has thousands of cruiser-style boats, many of whom would enjoy a weekend destination as I just described. You'd think it's a good enough idea that it would at least get a wink instead of a blank stare. Only interest of these towns seems to be increasing tax base via condos and, as a sidebar, businesses to attract them. Not a lot of vision.

Poll closes later this morning. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't already registered their opinion (for or against) to do so ASAP.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

All true very rare to see abandoned boats in New England. Do see liveaboards under shrink wrap in slips. Particularly in cities like Boston. Still you’re right weather means a way to heat the boat. That usually means electricity or constant access to a heat source and unfrozen water. So economics and weather gets rid of the low lying fruit.
But it’s unwise to discount the economics. Much of Florida, and places like Savannah, the Beauforts, HH have money but much of the area along the ICW not so much. I’ve visited these places by land and water. I know I dropped a lot more money on the local economies coming by land. That includes the tourist hot spots. Just compare your expenditures staying at city dock v hotels and a car.

 

[hmason]

I think monitoring anchored boats could be a one person job with the use of a drone.

 

[Hippocampus]

Even part time. Done dawn or dusk.

 

[mvweebles]

---

Poll is now closed. Same poll was posted on TrawlerForum. Interesting, although CF is 4x the size of TF, number of respondants on TF was 3x greater than CF. The percentage of TF respondants supporting a time limit was significantly higher (84% TF answered "Yes" compared to 63% CF). I can only speculate based on the reason for this. Could be CF'ers are just more anti-regulation; could be TF'ers are older and more conservative; could be CF has a lot of people living on stationary boats and flooded the survey responses; could be CF is more global and TF has more snowbird/Florida-aware boaters who are familiar with the anchor-out concerns.

Makes no difference - the attached will be forwarded to BoatUS and Florida State Legislation. Thanks to all who responded.

 

[rnanaples]

Make the rule must have.
Insurance
Registration that is active.
Proof of ownership.

 

[thataway]

This is nothing new. I have been a waterfront home owner in Florida for over 30 years. This issue was being discussed in the boating, legal and legislative arenas--but not solved when I was on BOD of Seven Seas Cruising Association back in the late 90s as well on Escambia County's Marine resource committee in the early 2000 period. I fear it may not be solved in today's world where it has become far more prevalent.

The problem in Pensacola has gradually become worse during the years. It is not as simple to just impound the vessels and maybe eventually a City or County may pay thousands of dollars to acquire the vessels, haul them off, and dispose of them. The place these boats are anchored is rarely used by cruising boats, even though we are a frequent stop on the "Great Loop". Owners of these boats know all of the tricks, such as leaving a young child alone on the boat--so law enforcement cannot seize the vessel.

Pumpout is available within a mile of this anchorage, yet zero of the boats anchored there pump out. I doubt that they have a type I or II MSD. Many have had sinking boats and several dinghies attached to make a floating raft. 100% of the weekly water sampling in this bayou in 2024 resulted in "Closed and contaminated waters". There are two public parks with beaches on the bayou.

Below is an example of a boat which was finally removed at a cost in excess of $10,000. Someone had been living on that boat until it swamped in a storm. It cost over $30,000 to remove 3 boats which were partially sunk, There are at least 6 more partially sunk vessels, plus a number which are derelict, but with people living aboard.

Despite potential further changes---there were a number of changes made through out the years--I fear there will be even more derelict and boats which abuse our waters by illegally anchoring.

 

[Captain DJ]

Many good ideas on this forum and we thank Peter for surveying this issue and taking the results to some pertinent organizations. I have read every response and waited to comment.

My best recommendation is to be careful of creating yet more laws which are seldom enforced. We just spent the last three + months cruising the PNW, Gulf Islands, Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast of BC and Desolation Sound. It reminds me of what we experienced in many places on our journey, specifically Ganges on Salt Spring Island, Gorge Harbour on Cortes Island and False Creek anchorages at Vancouver, BC.

Governments have a long history of making "problem causing solutions" and even more often making legislation that sounds good, yet is either never or seldom enforced. Both approaches are a waste of resources.

Rule #1 - make laws/regulations enforceable
Rule #2 - use technology to keep it simple
Rule # 3 - make it cheap & easy to use
Rule # 4 - keep it affordable with humane penalties and solutions
Rule # 5 - try to be fair to all parties

In False Creek they offer free anchoring permits up to 30 days with decal/tab info, proof of ownership, and contact information.
They only asked boaters not to anchor in traffic zones (clearly marked). Not to abandon vessels. And to post permit data where it could be viewed and monitored by public employee.

We saw over half the anchored boats ignore these simple common sense rules. Articles have been written about boats ignoring these rules year after year and never paying fines, yet remaining there year after year. So, obviously, this is not working.

I have thought of ideas to simplify adoption of easily monitored usage and humane, enforceable responses to those who choose not to obey. But I don't want to rant and this is long already.

Let me know by PM if you want more detail and thanks again Peter and all who have replied. Great subject that will continue to become more vital to cruisers as we go forward in today's reality.

God Bless

 

[Don L]

I'm sure a free public pump out dock would be a boon to low income folks.

But not if their boat don't run and can't make it to the dock.

there are places in Florida that have a free pump out boat that goes around and pumps out anchored boats

 

[Delta Riverat]

Hopefully they can go service the 6 other boats like the one above with people still living on them.

 

[alvasurg]

I am one of those Florida residents affected by these squatters. I have a condo which looks out on a part of Biscayne Bay that is littered with these boats. In fact, when tooling around on my small boat,I almost hit the mast of one these sunken horrors. Not to cast aspersions, but the majority of these boats are sailboats with no access to pumpouts. These folks are not cruisers staying for a week, month or season. These are permanent environmental and visual dumps!
I guess you can guess where I stand on this.

 

[Hippocampus]

Posts #67 and #68 are reality based. End of day it costs money to address this problem. The thread repeatedly points out there are existing laws that would adequately address this problem. These boats are in violation of EPA rules and regulations at a federal level and in violation of law and regulation at a state and local level.

On land if your septic system fails you must fix it or the residence is declared uninhabitable and you must move out. This is actively enforced by local law enforcement. In my town and state you cannot reside on public land. I live inside a park where 12 houses were grandfathered in. Unannounced periodic sweeps were done and RVs, old SUVs, tents and travel trailers are impounded and removed. This went on for a year. Now it is very,very rare this problem occurs.

So addressing the same problem on the water will initially be quite expensive. It was in my park. Not only in the removal but also in providing housing and services for this population. They were offered services if they meet income requirements for housing and additional services in accordance to their other needs(medical,psychiatric, substance abuse etc.). They retained the freedom to accept or not those services. Their rights were not violated. Department of human services was involved as well in that many of the children were truant or living in circumstances in violation of child abuse laws. Extensive litigation occurred but mostly concerning the children involved from what local social media and the local paper said.

The laws on land are clear. You cannot live in a residence that places the environment at significant risk. You cannot live in a residence that places children at risk.

On land recognition of the problem to authorities usually comes from abutters but along with them in the case of my park local police as there was an increase in crime. These illegal residents would get into altercations with visitors to the park or pray on them. This motivated the use of funds to solve the problem. Money came primarily from the state and town coffers. Both local and state police were involved initially but rapidly only town. Park rangers identified subsequent violators immediately once the park was cleared. It now is no longer a problem. Potential offenders know violation will result in immediate removal so violation doesn’t occur.

As regards Florida a similar intervention could occur within existing law. It would require significant initial cost. Again EPA, state and local law would probably be sufficient. Defer to the legal eagles as regards if this is true. But the high costs aren't continuous. Believe tax payers would accept those costs if presented as an environmental issue and violation of existing law. Believe in court the violators would repeatedly lose as this behavior is obviously violating multiple laws. In my professional life have cared for multiple individuals who were evicted and multiple people who were unhoused. They retain the right to refuse housing and services. They do not have a right to violate the law.

 

[mvweebles]

Maybe the best path here is for private property owners and concerned boaters to sue towns for their lack of enforcement. Governments seem to respond to threat of lawsuit. The lame lawsuits homeless advocates have mounted have certainly frozen local governments.

I can't explain why this is so hard. Seems obvious to me , and the solutions fairly simple.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

This statement " The place these boats are anchored is rarely used by cruising boats" might suggest that they are not the problem I think mist of us cruisers are worried about. Yet I know In souther Florida and points north...that is not the case in some areas.

I totally disagree that some posts are "reality based" in entirety. Many /most posts all bring up good points but resolving the problem isn't a scatter-gun approach.

Being at the forefront of different legislative action though the years concerning the maritime community...it is WAY more complicated than a few simple guidelines to straighten existing/future laws out. While I agree that's how it should happen...all too often lawsuits are brought and laws altered by the justice system that drive the poor agencies tasked with enforcing maritime laws into stalemates that dishearten those agencies and they tend to respond to the "crisis" of the moment driven by political/local frenzies/alliances/ follow the money paths.

Suing governments is why we are in stalemate now.... there ARE laws on the books that allow the removal of derelicts and probably limiting time to anchor without some pressure...but they are often not enforced because of all the different factions fighting instead of problem solving. One has to go all the way to root causes like "any accident" to find the beginning of the societal unraveling. Then you have to have a moratorium on factions suing/taking legal action to stymie the efforts of others trying to get something constructive done.

Bottom line is it's ISN'T a simple problem as some would make it out to be...neither is about a gazillion other societal problems that have increased exponentially through the years yet we are still stuck with only 365 days in a year...even less with the days people are willing to work.

This may sound a contradiction to some things I have posted but that is my point. There are simple solutions, but somewhere you have to break the chain of ways that simple solution to enforcement of existing laws is constantly undermined.

 

[CaptTom]

I am one of those Florida residents affected by these squatters.... These folks are not cruisers staying for a week, month or season. These are permanent environmental and visual dumps!

Thank you. It's essential that land-side residents be able to distinguish between these two groups.

I understand why some residents get frustrated by lack of action and demand a quick fix like "ban ALL anchoring!" I can't say I blame them. But going that route creates an "Us vs. Them" environment which benefits nobody.

My point is, those of us impacted, both land-based home owners and cruisers, have a common interest in solving this. We need to work together. We need to acknowledge each others' positions. Then find workable solutions.

 

[ranger58sb]

all too often lawsuits are brought and laws altered by the justice system that drive the poor agencies tasked with enforcing maritime laws into stalemates that dishearten those agencies and they tend to respond to the "crisis" of the moment driven by political/local frenzies/alliances/ follow the money paths.

Suing governments is why we are in stalemate now.... there ARE laws on the books that allow the removal of derelicts and probably limiting time to anchor without some pressure...but they are often not enforced because of all the different factions fighting instead of problem solving.

Yeah... and often the budgeting process is a serious underlying hurdle.

Probably not dissimilar from the Fed budget process, which I'm more familiar with: Start the build process three-ish years early (with estimates of future requirements and their costs), refine in year -2, refine again in year -1... then in the actual budget year, the legislative body responds with 50% or more cuts.

Make do. And then take the blame for not having enough funding to do the job.

(I expect FEMA and Secret Service are both currently-noticeable victims of all that.)

-Chris

 

[Don L]

I have been reading of this "issue" for 15+ years. The discussion never changes really and nothing really ever comes of it. I admit I didn't really understand till I got into Florida waters. But now with 7 years of experience going up/down both coasts of Fl I feel I do get it. A a boater I got upset when I go to FL that has lots of good anchorages clogged by either an abandoned boats or by run down floating trash piles. There there was the shear number of washed up on shore or wrecked boats. There was never any doubt in my mind that people on water living in expensive houses didn't want these in their backyards. Heck I didn't want them in the same anchorage I was in. Just like the term "trailer trash" has meaning to most people the term "boat scum" has the same except "boat scum" are right out in the open.

The only way this will ever get resolved is by changing the State of Florida law that gives right of navigation to every anchored boat. Yes there may be some pain involved. But the laws are met to maintain waterway use for boating, not living full time.

Interesting that this problem sticks around with little action other than "talk", but meanwhile FL had no issue making a new law not allowing camping on public land aimed at the homeless.

 

[psneeld]

I was always under the assumption that it was Federal Law that regulated many waterways and that was on issue the states had with passing/enforcing certain laws.

States can regulate waterways as long as the regs don't conflict with the federal ones.

Navigable servitude - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Navigable servitude is a doctrine in United States constitutional law that gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It is also sometimes called federal navigational servitude.[1]
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate "commerce ... among the several states." In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this power extended to regulation over navigable inland waterways of the United States, which were an important hub of transportation in the early years of the Republic.[2] The concept of navigational servitude is relatively new and originated in the 20th century.[3]
Although the Supreme Court recognizes Federal control over navigable waterways is absolute[4] the public interest is not absolute.[5] The government has the power to reroute a waterway,[6] block a navigable creek,[7] or completely de-water a river,[8] each without recourse by those who are adversely affected by the reduction in navigable capacity. One court has held that a federal agency can restrict individuals paddling on a stream, finding boating is not a "federally protected right".[9] This servitude does not extend beyond the navigable waterway below the ordinary high-water mark,[3] nor to the banks of a navigable stream.

 

[CaptTom]

The only way this will ever get resolved is by changing the State of Florida law that gives right of navigation to every anchored boat.

Dumb ol' me, without the benefit of a law degree, can distinguish between navigation and squatting.

And, since I'm not a judge or lawyer, I would see no problem with a law at the federal, state or local level which would define the former so as the exclude the latter.

Instead, we get dumb ideas like banning all anchoring, either by region or by one-size-fits-all distances from other structures or activities.

My recommendation to land owners and cruisers who want something to change: Focus on the word navigation. Not on rules prohibiting use of specific patches of water by all boats.

 

[psneeld]

I am no expert on this subject...just following it for 40+ years.

In 2021 Florida passed anchoring legislation in favor of cruisers.... it did create a few areas where the town controls it all through extensive mooring areas (ST Augustine is one example).

Florida Passes New Anchoring-Restriction Law

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed a new anchoring law that balances the needs of cruising boat owners, including many snowbirds, with the needs of local areas to remove derelict or “at-risk” boats (see the picture above).

The bill had passed the Florida Senate by a vote of 39 to 0, and the House by 116 to 1.

The new bill protects the ability of active cruisers to access shoreside services and amenities, while letting counties establish anchoring limitation areas next to urban areas that have lots of boating traffic and residential docking facilities. It grandfathers in any areas already designated as anchoring limitation zones by Florida laws.

For cruising boat owners, the important part of the new law stipulates that active cruisers or other vessel operators can access high-demand anchoring areas for up to 45 consecutive days in a six-month period. Florida has been challenged with a number of abandoned or derelict vessels that have remained anchored for much longer periods.

“This law gives responsible active cruisers traveling Florida’s waters the ability to stay in an anchorage limitation area for 45 days, which we believe meets the needs of most cruisers,” said David Kennedy, the manager of government affairs for BoatUS. “By limiting a stay to a little more than six weeks, it also opens up more access to fellow cruisers while balancing the needs of municipalities struggling with at-risk vessels, which can be poorly maintained, may not follow sanitation requirements, or are left unattended and often end up as liabilities to counties when they are abandoned or wash ashore in storm events.”

The law grandfathers in the current anchoring prohibitions in six busy waterways in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. It also provides accommodations for vessels experiencing mechanical failure or problems with weather conditions.

The new law does place a limit on what counties can do. The aggregate total of anchorage limitation areas in a county for example, cannot exceed ten percent of the county’s “navigable-in-fact” waterways.” It also requires counties to notify the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and to publish a public notice at least 30 days before introducing a new anchoring ordinance. "

Georgia a couple years ago tried to pass outrageous anchoring laws, put it out for public comment and lobbyists help squash it in its infancy to a more reasonable set of regs.

Hasn't helped with the derelicts, but it gives the boaters a better foundation to challenge "town rules" if you get harassed by LEOs. Best not to fight them at the moment, but sound off to places like BoatUS and state representatives and it may help.

 

[Captain DJ]

Just to reply to any that argue my suggestions are "simple" and the issue is complex. Sometimes "simple" solutions are not "easy". Often it is the case that it is extremely hard, at first and gets easier as the years go by as in #72 answer by Hippocampus regarding the park he gets to live in.

As to Chris's #76 issue claiming budget restrictions being at the root of FEMA or Secret Service failures, I would say both are failures of leadership and wastefulness; along with FDA, FBI, CDC, NIH, SEC and other agencies. Revolving doors between the monitors and those being monitored only exacerbates the problems. We continue to spend more on health care than any nation with the worst outcomes of the top 40 countries. Same with education. We have bloated administrations full of people that not only do not get fired for gross incompetence, they often get raises and promotions.