Oops! Apex in Key West Naval Problem Last Weekend

[grandgeezer]

36 minutes ago, D C said:

I would rather go there and spend money to the benefit of those locals who are happy that ships come into port and provide them with income.  🙂

Apparently the majority of the town don’t want the ships so majority rules, that’s where it stands now. Maybe if you state your case, they’ll change their mind.

[LGW59]

42 minutes ago, D C said:

I would rather go there and spend money to the benefit of those locals who are happy that ships come into port and provide them with income.  🙂

Call Venice and share your views, report back on your success

[smbt1]

2 hours ago, miaminative0853 said:

Let's add one more element to your hypothetical example: There is a aggressive, vocal group of neighbors that doesnt want your car in the neighborhood at all, properly parked or not.

 

This isnt about a cruise ship being a few feet over a boundary line. If it was, it would never be a story. It would just get worked out amicably between the Navy and the CLs. Neither has a reason to get into a big dispute over something so minor and easily resolved. 

Again the Navy made a similar action a few years ago. Legally if they do not protest the boundary being crossed and they allow it to take place for an extended period, 5 years in most cases it can create an easement and they lose control of the area 

 

Considering that the Navy is usually fighting their own battled against the environmental groups and they have taken similar action before the current set of protests it is unlikely that it is driven by the protestors.

[mnocket]

3 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

Apparently the majority of the town don’t want the ships so majority rules, that’s where it stands now. Maybe if you state your case, they’ll change their mind.

Not only would I not join a club that would have me as a member - I would not visit a place that doesn't want me😁

[Arizona Wildcat]

On 2/10/2022 at 1:38 PM, Covepointcruiser said:

No boundary is needed, look at the Naval Charts!   Seamanship 101.

Seriously?  There aren't lines painted on the ocean but every marine pilot is responsible for how much space they need for their ship and to not be in restricted areas.  It is very tight for Edge to use the private dock.  Requires a great pilot and tying up at an exact spot.

[Arizona Wildcat]

13 hours ago, smbt1 said:

Compare the picture you quoted to the picture in the article.  The tie down point in the picture you quoted was right at the marker, the one that the Navy complained about was about 30 feet over the line.

 

Basically the pier has a deed.  The ship is docked such that it extends past the boundary into area owned and controlled by the Navy.

 

Consider it to be the same as if a neighbor decided to use part of your land to park a car, let him do it long enough and he could claim an easement since you did not object to his use.  

 

The Navy is simply saying that the ships cannot dock outside of the area specified in the deed.

Really quite simple.  Don't park when your vehicle extends into a red zone.

Good example.   

As one who fished out of Sitka and Ketchikan- the cruise ship.industry brought jobs along with destroying the historic feeling of the towns with the many jewelry stores.  Skagway too.

Key West is a wonderful place to spend a day or two.  It is much "less nice" when 3000 cruise passengers descend on the town.

[D C]

6 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

Apparently the majority of the town don’t want the ships so majority rules, that’s where it stands now. Maybe if you state your case, they’ll change their mind.

As it stands now, there are no restrictions on cruise ships in Key West.  Had the state not stepped in, the city was inevitably headed for a lengthy and costly legal battle with the owner of Pier B.  

[smbt1]

34 minutes ago, D C said:

As it stands now, there are no restrictions on cruise ships in Key West.  Had the state not stepped in, the city was inevitably headed for a lengthy and costly legal battle with the owner of Pier B.  

Actually the potential legal battle only came about because the state stepped in. the potential for a legal battle would come from the city council passing an ordinance to restrict ships from using dock b.

 

If the referendum had been allowed to stand it would have changed the city charter and the owners of dock b would not have been able to successfully sue. 

 

Why do you think they made the million dollar contribution 3 days before the language was inserted to change state law over riding the referendum.

[D C]

5 hours ago, smbt1 said:

Actually the potential legal battle only came about because the state stepped in. the potential for a legal battle would come from the city council passing an ordinance to restrict ships from using dock b.

 

If the referendum had been allowed to stand it would have changed the city charter and the owners of dock b would not have been able to successfully sue. 

 

Why do you think they made the million dollar contribution 3 days before the language was inserted to change state law over riding the referendum.

Not even close. 

The city has a perpetual contract with Pier B. 

Pier B is also privately owned. 

The city attorney has said multiple times that any attempt to breach the contract and limit ships would result in a lawsuit that would bring up Constitutional issues, and would be extremely expensive for the city to settle. 

 

You can't just freely institute restrictions on what the owner of private property can do with their land, especially when they have a contract with the very property in question. 

[smbt1]

11 minutes ago, D C said:

Not even close. 

The city has a perpetual contract with Pier B. 

Pier B is also privately owned. 

The city attorney has said multiple times that any attempt to breach the contract and limit ships would result in a lawsuit that would bring up Constitutional issues, and would be extremely expensive for the city to settle. 

 

You can't just freely institute restrictions on what the owner of private property can do with their land, especially when they have a contract with the very property in question. 

If you will note the city attorney made that statement within the context of the city limiting cruise ship traffic by ordinance, after the state passed the law preventing the referendum.

 

There was no such issue if cruise ship traffic had been limited by the original referendum, and the state had not eliminated that option.

 

if you go back and check all of the information you will see that the cities attorney advice concerning potential law suite was when dealing with the discussion of the city limiting sock b by ordinance 

 

No such problem with the original referendum, so if the state had not eliminated the referendum the city would not have faced the potential of a law suite. 

 

As I stated above the owners of dock B contributed a million dollars, 3 days before the language preventing the referendum from being executed was written into a bill.

 

There are lots of cases where referendums at city or state level that modifies a city charter or a state constitutions makes previous law or contracts invalid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by smbt1

[smbt1]

46 minutes ago, D C said:

Not even close. 

The city has a perpetual contract with Pier B. 

Pier B is also privately owned. 

The city attorney has said multiple times that any attempt to breach the contract and limit ships would result in a lawsuit that would bring up Constitutional issues, and would be extremely expensive for the city to settle. 

 

You can't just freely institute restrictions on what the owner of private property can do with their land, especially when they have a contract with the very property in question. 

To demonstrate further let m show a couple of bits of data

 

Nov 3 2020 the referendums had been approved

 

The referendums had been approved.  Prior to this point the Dock B owner had tried to stop the referendums by legal action which had been denied in federal court and rebuffed in Monroe County court

 

Then in April 26, 2021 the owner of Dock B contributes almost 1 million to the Governors Pac

 

https://www.wlrn.org/news/2021-04-26/pier-operator-fighting-key-west-cruise-referendum-gives-desantis-committee-1-million

 

Then a few days later on April 28 you get 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/04/28/not-dead-yet-senate-revives-key-west-preemption/

 

In July 2021 the city asks the city attorney to draft ordinances to do what the referendum would have done

 

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-key-west-cruise-restrictions-reviewed-20210713-n5vubkikkrcxxhwo7wosnav5km-story.html

 

It was at this time that the city attorney raised the issue about the potential of legal action from those impacted by any such ordinance.  About 8 months after the referendum.

 

In December 2021 more than a year after the referendum that the City attorney made the recommendation about modifying the contract

 

https://keysweekly.com/42/attorney-advises-key-west-to-renegotiate-cruise-ship-contract-with-pier-b/

 

The most recent instructions from the city was as stated in this article

 

The commission ultimately directed their attorneys, Shawn Smith and Ed Pozzouli, to start drafting an ordinance that comes as close as possible to the voter-approved limits while limiting the city’s legal liability, and to start negotiating with Pier B to change the agreement.

 

Since that time the city has not taken any action concerning Dock B, but has limited ships using the two ports they directly control.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by smbt1

[chengkp75]

On 2/11/2022 at 10:45 PM, miaminative0853 said:

Not quite how it works in America. Locals do not have exclusive, superior rights to all other citizens.

Ah, now I understand the law.  Since my town has a 35 mile an hour speed limit, and yours has a 25 limit, I'm allowed to go 35 because that's the way it is in my town.  Good to know.  And, I can build the 100 story building to block your ocean view, regardless of what your local zoning board says, because it is allowed somewhere else.  Good to know.

[D C]

On 2/13/2022 at 7:13 AM, chengkp75 said:

Ah, now I understand the law.  Since my town has a 35 mile an hour speed limit, and yours has a 25 limit, I'm allowed to go 35 because that's the way it is in my town.  Good to know.  And, I can build the 100 story building to block your ocean view, regardless of what your local zoning board says, because it is allowed somewhere else.  Good to know.

Correct, to an extent.  Local municipalities are not sovereign states. 

The state likely issues requirements for setting those speed limits that the local municipality is required to follow.  The local municipality does not have exclusive rights.  Likewise with the zoning, as litigation pertaining to local zoning is quite common.    

 

Would it fly if Key West decided to have a local drinking age of 16?

[Big_G]

Dock workers be like...

[D C]

On 2/12/2022 at 11:21 PM, smbt1 said:

To demonstrate further let m show a couple of bits of data

 

Nov 3 2020 the referendums had been approved

 

The referendums had been approved.  Prior to this point the Dock B owner had tried to stop the referendums by legal action which had been denied in federal court and rebuffed in Monroe County court

 

This is where your point goes astray.  

The federal-court challenge was an attempt to prevent the referendum via a complaint about the verbiage of the referendum.  The federal court did not issue any sort of decision on that topic.  Nor did the proceedings before the Monroe County Circuit Court result in any decision.  Pier B's opposition to the referendum was dropped in late Jan 2021, which is not a surprise as it was intended to prevent the referendum from happening in the first place.

 

At that point, Pier B could either file suit or seek other routes for relief.  They found other routes, which is arguably a faster and perhaps less expensive route.  The issues publicly cited by the city attorney did not simply materialize at that point. They existed all along and were central to Pier B's argument.  

 

On 2/12/2022 at 11:21 PM, smbt1 said:

Then in April 26, 2021 the owner of Dock B contributes almost 1 million to the Governors Pac

 

https://www.wlrn.org/news/2021-04-26/pier-operator-fighting-key-west-cruise-referendum-gives-desantis-committee-1-million

 

Then a few days later on April 28 you get 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/04/28/not-dead-yet-senate-revives-key-west-preemption/

 

In July 2021 the city asks the city attorney to draft ordinances to do what the referendum would have done

 

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-key-west-cruise-restrictions-reviewed-20210713-n5vubkikkrcxxhwo7wosnav5km-story.html

 

It was at this time that the city attorney raised the issue about the potential of legal action from those impacted by any such ordinance.  About 8 months after the referendum.

 

In December 2021 more than a year after the referendum that the City attorney made the recommendation about modifying the contract

 

https://keysweekly.com/42/attorney-advises-key-west-to-renegotiate-cruise-ship-contract-with-pier-b/

 

The most recent instructions from the city was as stated in this article

 

The commission ultimately directed their attorneys, Shawn Smith and Ed Pozzouli, to start drafting an ordinance that comes as close as possible to the voter-approved limits while limiting the city’s legal liability, and to start negotiating with Pier B to change the agreement.

 

Since that time the city has not taken any action concerning Dock B, but has limited ships using the two ports they directly control.

 

 

 

Tomorrow should be interesting as they're reading the draft ordinance pertaining to cruise ships in the KW City Commission meeting.  Interesting to note that it doesn't include any restrictions on size or frequency of ship visits. 

It's available here if you download the 15-Feb agenda and click the link in the pdf:  http://keywest.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

[leaveitallbehind]

On 2/12/2022 at 12:36 AM, smbt1 said:

Shows what a million dollar contribution from the owners of pier B to the Governors  Committee (PAC) will get you  which apparently is how it works in FLorida.

And you are limiting this practice to Florida?  It of course never happens at the Federal level.....

[smbt1]

21 minutes ago, D C said:

 

This is where your point goes astray.  

The federal-court challenge was an attempt to prevent the referendum via a complaint about the verbiage of the referendum.  The federal court did not issue any sort of decision on that topic.  Nor did the proceedings before the Monroe County Circuit Court result in any decision.  Pier B's opposition to the referendum was dropped in late Jan 2021, which is not a surprise as it was intended to prevent the referendum from happening in the first place.

 

At that point, Pier B could either file suit or seek other routes for relief.  They found other routes, which is arguably a faster and perhaps less expensive route.  The issues publicly cited by the city attorney did not simply materialize at that point. They existed all along and were central to Pier B's argument.  

 

Tomorrow should be interesting as they're reading the draft ordinance pertaining to cruise ships in the KW City Commission meeting.  Interesting to note that it doesn't include any restrictions on size or frequency of ship visits. 

It's available here if you download the 15-Feb agenda and click the link in the pdf:  http://keywest.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

The owners of Dock B spent another million dollars campaigning against the referendum.

 

When a referendum is passed it pretty much gives immunity to the city. About the only legal action one can take is to try and over turn the referendum on technical grounds. Once they were unable to stop the referendum from going forward and once they out the vote. They did not proceed with those cases because their chance of winning was miniscule. Votes by the cpublic that modify state constitutions and city charters that invalidate existing law and contracts, that effect businesses and property values occur all of the time. The only outlet is to overturn the referendum on technical grounds and thst seldom works.

 

Counter to your comment that the state saved the city from expensive legal action. The cases were dead until the state stepped in and over turned the referendum. Creating the opening for action if the city went the ordinance route.

[smbt1]

22 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

And you are limiting this practice to Florida?  It of course never happens at the Federal level.....

This discussion just happens to be about Florida and a pretty clear example with 3 days between donation and bill change.

 

Nothing at the federal level concerning Key West.

[leaveitallbehind]

16 minutes ago, smbt1 said:

This discussion just happens to be about Florida and a pretty clear example with 3 days between donation and bill change.

 

Nothing at the federal level concerning Key West.

I realize that - was just adding a tongue in cheek comment on the reality of these things at all government levels.  This example may be Florida, but it happens everywhere at all levels.  Thought that would be understood.

Edited February 14, 2022 by leaveitallbehind

[smbt1]

1 hour ago, leaveitallbehind said:

I realize that - was just adding a tongue in cheek comment on the reality of these things at all government levels.  This example may be Florida, but it happens everywhere at all levels.  Thought that would be understood.

Have not seen anything as blatant as a bill that was considered to be dead getting revived, the language inserted into a bill certain to pass, all within 3 days of a million dollar contribution to a PAC supporting the Governor.  Usually it takes far more spread out lobbying and  far less visible.

[PTC DAWG]

IF Key West doesn't want my money, I'll take them at their word.  I'll gladly never spend another dime there.  

[leaveitallbehind]

40 minutes ago, smbt1 said:

 Usually it takes far more spread out lobbying and  far less visible.

Whatever.  But as you acknowledge, it is a common occurrence.  This one maybe was just a bit more obvious to you.  It is the world of politics in which we live.

Edited February 14, 2022 by leaveitallbehind

[D C]

2 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

IF Key West doesn't want my money, I'll take them at their word.  I'll gladly never spend another dime there.  

and I'll happily visit because there are plenty people there who do want my money and are happy to have ships in port.  The trick is to tell the difference between them.

[smbt1]

14 minutes ago, D C said:

and I'll happily visit because there are plenty people there who do want my money and are happy to have ships in port.  The trick is to tell the difference between them.

Its easy to tell the difference those that follow cruise ships and have similar stores in every port want your money and want cruise ships in port.  Most of the unique businesses and stores not so much.

[smbt1]

2 hours ago, leaveitallbehind said:

Whatever.  But as you acknowledge, it is a common occurrence.  This one maybe was just a bit more obvious to you.  It is the world of politics in which we live.

yes and no.  I will agree that there are lobbying efforts, and contributions the combination of which may influence a politicians positions.

 

As far as this blatant of a relationship and an action with an appearance of a quid pro quo not really.

In this case the major prevention is that the contribution was made to the governors campaign and the action for the bill was taken by a different politician of the same party.  Would have been  interesting to see what discussions took place between the individuals involved. during those three days.

 

Kind of reminds me of the Edward days in Louisiana.

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by smbt1