Greetings to all the ships at sea and all the ports of call.
The ordinances for the pilot program have been in force for over a month now.
(See complete ordinance at http://www.staugustinegovernment.com/the-city/featured-stories-archive/mooring3.cfm )
The first ticket was recently issued for violation of the ordinances. If you are a cruiser following the progress of the program, you need to know that our city is a perfect place for boaters of all kinds. Rest assured that the folks who live here on their boats are at the ready to defend our anchoring rights in their entirety. There is no need to avoid our town whether you anchor out, use a mooring or get a slip. Please refer to my separate blog regarding law enforcement and you will understand it all . . .
Ok, with all this in mind, let me get back to the point. Our local guy, Mike McDougal, also known as Wolfy, has been invited to leave or go to a mooring ball. Police man Jerry, aka famous Jerry city water cop, has issued him a ticket and Wolfy has retained an attorney. Famous Jerry was as professional as ever when he gave out the ticket. Wolf told me that he really had to try hard to get that ticket and as usual famous Jerry was considerate and polite. Jerry has always been extremely professional while carrying out his duties as city water cop.
Visit our site often (http://sandysta.wordpress.com/) for updates on how this will lay out. Let’s all hope for a peaceful and prosperous solution. Let’s all remember that boaters also have civic responsibilities to attend to. Just because you live on a boat does not mean you need not be a good citizen of the town in which you live. The city has a big birthday party coming up and she needs to look nice. If your boat looks crappy then clean it up. Don’t dump your raw sewage into my river or I will get you myself. If you are anchored 50 feet from a marine structure then you need to move because you are just being crazy. Any half decent mariner knows better than to anchor within 2 or 3 hundred feet of someone’s dock. Fifty feet from a dock is not enough. If you have a choice of which side of the river to anchor on , like we do in the New Colony of Vilano, then anchor on the marsh side where you don’t have to sit right in front of somebody’s dock. Don’t be stupid. I have my eye on you guys. Love you all, love our city too. Get ready for another great cruising season!!!!
Cruising News:
Check out the very latest on the Pilot Program case in court now in St.Augustine: http://sandysta.wordpress.com/
I guess someone decided to challenge the city in court on the anchoring regulations. Who know what could come of it.
http://sandysta.wordpress.com/
Chuck
UPDATE: DAY IN COURT FOR ST AUGUSTINE PILOT PROGRAM
Posted on April 30, 2012 by mayor sandy
Lord have mercy!!!! We didn’t lose yet. There was quite a show in the small court room today. Lots of lawyers and city big wigs gathered round. Lots of really big photos and aerial shots and witnesses and so on. And there sat Wolfy all by himself. We won’t need a lawyer till we reach federal court so Wolf took them on himself. He cited the constitutional articles, the navigational servitude clause and the preemptive clause authorizing federal control over “interstate waterways” ….what we know as the ICW. The city presented two precedents for consideration by the judge. Since it would take Wolfy some time to read these, Judge Tinlin continued the case until June 1, 2012 with no additional action to be taken by the city until Wolfy submits a written response to the case precedents and adjudication takes place. I took the liberty of spending four hours going over the precedents decisions and I have to say that for a while there I thought they really had us……….however, in the third reading I finally found out what was amiss. Turns out that both cases the city set forth had nothing to do with the federal navigable interstate waterways but the state coastal waterways. In my -not a lawyer- opinion, that is like apples and oranges. One case was regarding anchoring in the ocean offshore of Hawaii and the other was state coastal waterways of Santa Barbara California. Neither of these states even have a federal interstate waterway. Our city is dealing with the ICW…. a unique waterway under statutory control of the US Army Corp of Engineers. The preemptive clause for our river requires “national continuity” of regulations. So we will write a response and submit to Judge Tinlin asap. I am trying to make and post a copy of every legal document for public review. It’s not so easy for me to tend to secretarial duties as I myself am anchored …..FAR OUT. Stay tuned though, I will get everything copied and post it here. Let freedom ring.
Greetings Claiborne,
We ALL need help on this one. Sandy is a positive force hereabouts, and her rapidfire delivery on the phone leaves me as confused as her blog. I did not attend, knew nada of the the court appearance, thus can’t clarify anything. Todays Record (http://www.staugustine.com) covered the news also, but from my experience, is not to be counted upon. I hope to attend the next court appearance in June. What I know:
Michael MacDougall got a ticket for illegal anchoring on the San Sebastian river. The ordinance he violated is one of six ordinances enacted as part of the FFWCC ‘s Pilot Program. Should the ordinance be found in violation of constitutional rights, or of overstepping federal navigational servitudes, or violating public trust doctrines, then that portion of the ordinance will be struck down. Boaters will still have to abide by the remaining rules until/unless those are taken to court. The ordinance is http://www.staugustinegovernment.com/visitors/documents/Ord2011-10-2.pdf
The main thrust of Florida’s Pilot Program seems to be to generate a tidal current to wash boaters into established mooring fields. Municipal revenues are generated. The constitutional freedoms and rights that individuals enjoy within our United States seem to be diluted by proposed and existing Pilot Program ordinances.
City of St Augustine requires that no portion of your anchored boat be closer than 50 feet from the boundary (edge of, if one can draw a defining line of a meandering river) of the San Sebastian. Captain MacDougall’s boat apparently infringed on that boundary. Boaters and the general public can sit back and marvel at our sense of what’s important, what occupies our governments, and how our courts respond.
St Augustine marine businesses serve the boating community well. City-run moorings are a convenience and affordable. Ordinances that outlaw anchoring and attempt to create a municipal monopoly are unwarranted, unnecessary, and probably unconstitutional.
Jay Bliss
Florida’s proposed mooring fields and restrictions on anchoring.
Anchoring is an act of navigation, navigation is under the jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts. Admiralty Courts exist only at the federal level. It is not only that a plaintiff has immediate appeal to the admiralty, it does not make any sense to continue to fight these restrictions at the state level and incur all of the expense and waste of time that such a process requires.
Once again the boating public is responding to the state’s attempt at control of navigation on its waters (which by definition are navigable water of the United States) by playing their game when they have stacked their rules against the boating public. The state or municipality pass laws, issue tickets, and the plaintiffs respond by getting lawyers to fight them in state courts. In general the history of such law suits have been decided against the boaters and merely rule on the efficacy of the state legislated laws. If having gone through the lengthy and expensive litigations at the state level (remember that lawyers get paid by the hour and the longer it takes the better for them) the state court ruling is challenged at the federal level and the state merely drops the charges and there is nothing for the federal court to rule upon.
The laws of the United States are superior to state laws and state laws in conflict must yield. Likewise the Federal Court rulings are supreme. State courts are supposed to take these superior court decisions into account and comply accordingly. Unfortunately if federal rulings are never presented they are almost never considered by the state courts.
With the foregoing in mind consider the following rulings and laws which exist at the National Level, all of which are superior to any state legislation:
1.U. S. Constitution, Article III, Sec 2.1
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, … (and) to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction …”
2.U.S. Supreme Court, Butler v. Boston Steamship Co. 130 US 557, 141 US 1, Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Baslum 293 US 21, 42
“As the constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to ‘all admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ and as this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature and not in the state legislatures.”
3.U.S. Supreme Court, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart 253 US 149, 164
“Congress cannot transfer its legislative power to the states, … by nature this in nondelegable.”
4.U.S. Supreme Court, State of Washington v. Dawson 264 U.S. 219
In responding to and overturning a lower court decision where a state was attempting to apply a local state law to all vessels which visit or navigate in the state the U.S. Supreme Court decreed: “This cause presents a situation where there was no attempt to prescribe general rules. On the contrary the manifest purpose was to permit any state to alter the maritime law, and thereby introduce conflicting requirements. To prevent this result the Constitution adopted the law of the sea as the measure of maritime rights and obligations. The confusion and difficulty if vessels were compelled to comply with the local statutes at every port, are not difficult to see. Of course, some within the states may prefer local rules, but the Union was formed with the very definite design of freeing maritime commerce from intolerable restrictions incident to such control. The subject is national. Local interests must yield to the common welfare. The Constitution is supreme.”
5.U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol 30, 55th Congress, Sess 425, Sec. 10 states:
“That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; …”
6.U.S. Supreme Court, State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois 362 US 482
The phrase “not affirmatively authorized by Congress” as opposed to the phrase “affirmatively authorized by law” which was used in an earlier similar law (51st Congress …) makes mere state authorization inadequate.”
7.U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Republic Steel Corp. I11 362 US 482
The diminution of navigable capacity is an obstruction to navigation. “Obstruction to navigation is not limited to structures specifically, but also includes diminution of navigable capacity by other means.” {(personal comment) The State declaring areas where anchoring is not allowed is certainly a diminution of navigational capacity.}
8.U.S. Law 28 USC 1333
Admiralty jurisdiction covers every vessel under the American Flag, whether it is on the ocean or within the boundaries of a state, no matter what size or means of propulsion, or whether it is documented or not.
9.Federal District Court, Anderson v. Reames 161 S.W.2d 957 961
“…’rights of navigation’ include the right to anchorage, which may be exercised for either business purposes or pleasure.”
10.Federal District Court, Hayn v. Culliford 3 C.P.Eiv 417
“’navigation’ for some purpose, includes a period when a ship is not in motion, as, for instance, when she is at anchor.”
11.U.S. Supreme Court, Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs 229 US 82
When overturning a lower court case the U.S. Supreme Court said: “If the public right of navigation is the dominant right, and if, as must be the case, the title of the owner of the bed of navigable waters hold subject absolutely to the public right of navigation, this dominant right must include the right to the use of the bed of water for every purpose which is in aid of navigation.”
12.U.S. Law 33 USC 471 Chap 10
“The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized, empowered, and directed to define and establish anchorage grounds for vessel in all harbors, rivers, bays and other navigable waters of the United States whenever it is manifest to the said secretary that the maritime or commercial interest of the United States require such anchorage grounds for the safe navigation….” {(personal comment) when the language “authorized, empowered, and directed” is used it implies sole authority to perform the named act.}
The list could go on and on, surprising what a little research can find. The Boating Public is a definite minority and it is only by the laws which exist in this country can navigational rights be protected.
As another note, if the state or municipality establishes a mooring field and it is not a federally designated “special anchorage area” all vessels moored there are required by law to show anchor lights at night and during periods of reduced visibility. It is only vessels under 65 feet, when at anchor in a “special anchorage area”, which are exempt. This is not even considering the danger of collision with an unmarked and unlighted mooring ball.
Robert Driscoll
Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To A “Navigation Alert” Position at Kingsley Creek RR Bridge
