Martin/Stuart were chosen as a “team” pilot project under the pilot project program created by MIAF, NMMA, BoatUS three years ago and placed in Ch. 327. At the time it was chosen, Stuart had a mooring field and Martin was seeking permits. As of today, that is still the case. Martin does not have all permits (it’s lacking the Corps permit) and therefore does not have a ‘properly permitted mooring field’ as required in the statutes.
Regardless, Martin proceeded with an ordinance and has included Stuart in its ordinance.Stuart passed a Resolution in Mid-December agreeing to the Martin regulation of Stuart. All of Jensen Beach is a NO ANCHORING zone; Manatee Pocket is regulated and the City has a 300 ft. no anchoring buffer.
THE ORDINANCE is scheduled to go before the FWC Commissioners May 2/3 in Crystal River.The ordinance is the most anti-boater, confused jumble of regulations I’ve ever seen. It makes the case for why we needed to create the program! It might actually make Miami Beach look reasonable.
Martin has refused to come to the table to negotiate with cruisers. They have not been much more willing to talk with FWC either from what I gather in a phone conversation with Stuart. They are hanging their hats on the fact that this is the “people’s ordinance” based on two short meetings filled with property owners.and held last September. The public hearing, first reading of the ordinance was not even “discovered” until 4 days before the Martin County Commission meeting.
Martin has taken the very cavalier attitude that they will force FWC to reject their ordinance and then perhaps sit down with stakeholders! This places FWC staff in the untenable position of taking an unresolved product forward, wasting the Commissioner’s time and forcing the Commission tobe the bad guy. What does Martin get for all this? The ability to say to constituents :FWC made us write a new ordinance. That is unfair to everyone involved or who should be involved.
In a publicly noticed meeting on March 13, only BOATUS, NMMA, Seven Seas Cruisers, DEP attended. The County did not send the attorney who wrote the ordinance. She was “too busy.” They sent an engineer who is not a boater. She tried, but she was at a distinct disadvantage.We all were treated to the the unwillingness and inability to enter a dialog with stakeholders which at times was beyond rude.
We spent 4.5 hours asking questions only to receive flip responses and or be asked to sit there are rewrite whole sections of their ordinance while their attorney pondered the meaning of the word “is.” Even if we had been successful in wordsmithing, the language would not have gone back to Martin/Stuart.
Boat/US is demanding that Martin/Stuart voluntarily remove themselves from the agenda. We also are demanding that the representatives of the two governments be given authority to negotiate changes to the ordinance.
Comments regarding this ordinance and the st. Pete ordinance can be found at the FWC pilot project web site. I have attached the BoatUS letter regarding the Martin/Stuart ordinance.
In summary, our concerns are:
1. Infractions of this ordinance are criminal and will remain on the boater’s record for life. If you anchor just shy of the 300 ft. or 1,000 ft. buffer, you will be a criminal.
2. Jensen Beach, where the Martin county mooring field will ultimately be positioned has a 1,000 Ft. buffer from shore to the mooring field and out on all sides!. When asked why the county is regulating anchoring before the mooring field is in place, the response was “because we can.”
3. The anchoring restrictions could be read to include the fisherman just stopping to fish.
4. The ordinance attempts to make use of the original St. Augustine definitions. However it does not use the full definition nor does it use the definition in the same context. Thus, the definitions are tortured and make no sense.
5. The 300 ft. buffer may make sense behind the Stuart mooring field – but we have asked for 75 ft. in the remainder of the county. when asked why the 300 ft. buffer the response was “it was easier for us to write the ordinance if we just had one buffer distance.”
6. In order to prove sea=worthiness the boater must travel, under its own power,to a “designated location” (undefined and unmarked) twice a year.
7. In order to prove “operability” the cruiser must show a recent successful inspection by the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Thus, a voluntary program is being used in a regulatory manner. Failure to show that successful inspection would make the boater a criminal.
If you go to http://myfwc.com/boating/anchoring and mooring you should find the ordinances and the opportunity to comment. The public comment period ends SUNDAY, MARCH 18 at midnight. However, I believe FWC will take comments sent to Thomas.Shipp@myfwc.com for a couple of days beyond that.
I am happy to discuss further. I’m just trying to get some folks down in the area affected to know what’s going on and to start rattling some cages about taking this off the FWC agenda and forcing Martin to be responsible. We have worked too hard on the pilot project to have it treated as some “joke” that this county and city can “game.”
Bonnie Basham
Click Here to Read the BoatU.S. Comments to City of Stuart-Martin County on Proposed Anchoring Ordinances March 2012-2
The FWC has finally flexed their muscles on ridiculous proposals for ordinances within the Pilot Program. Stuart/Martin County was asking for a 1000 ft. buffer zone from all shoreline. Incredible. Fortunately, the FWC has rejected it and asked them to rewrite it as it does not adhere to the objectives of the PP as written. This is a great change, Claiborne! A GREAT CHANGE!
Here’s the link where your readers can see the letter sent from the FWC to Kathy Fitzpatrick of Stuart/Martin County:
http://marinersbarr.org/fpp/docs/stuart/20120319-FWC-rejection.pdf
Hugs,
Charmaine
The 1000 feet from shore in Stuart is a sick joke–three is absolutely no justification for that other than cranky homeowners who don’t want to see boats outside their windows. It basically eliminates anchoring there because you have to be so far offshore there is absolutely no protection from wind or wakes. Apparently, they are just ignoring the part of the law that says these regulations must “promote access to the waters of this state.”
John Kettlewell
The entire process in Stuart has been a bad joke – the lawyer dealing with this issue there seems to think she calls the shots. Nice to see that the FWC has made it clear that’s not the case; I hope she gets the message.
I agree with Bonnie, Stuart/Martin County should be removed from the program so that the rest of this state recognizes that it is not an exercise in (forgive the pun Bonnie) boater ‘bashing’…
Wally Moran
Stuart/Martin County has made a mockery of the Pilot Program. The powers that be there have total disregard for boaters and cruisers. It would be best for all concerned if the FWC removed Stuart/Martin County from being a participant in the Pilot Program. It is beyond question they have no intention of participating and are instead hell bent on discriminating! There should be zero tolerance for this type of behavior. I applaud the stand Boat US is taking and am very happy to know they are seeing clearly the utter nonsense that boaters and cruisers are dealing with here in the State of Florida. It is time overdue for the madness to end.
Charmaine