The Anchoring War Chronicles...
SB 594: A Political Favor in Disguise?
In the murky waters of Florida politics, one bill stands out as a blatant conflict of interest: Senate Bill 594. A piece of legislation that, if passed, will conveniently kill Riviera Beach's proposed mooring fields—an outcome that just so happens to favor the interests of Palm Beach and its legal muscle, Akerman LLP. And who is the largest donor to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez? Akerman LLP.
Coincidence? I don't think so. There are no coincidences in politics. What is the likelihood of Palm Beach hiring Senator Rodriguez’ largest donor to represent them, when she isn’t the senator for that region? Why wasn’t this bill filed instead by Palm Beach’s Senator Lori Berman? And curiously enough, Senator Berman is not a recipient of Akerman’s largesse. I know, it’s shocking - but true.
Add to this the fact that the Port of Palm Beach is being represented by someone who works for Akerman LLP. The opposition is piling on, and Riviera Beach is at third and one with the game on the line.
Let’s call this what it is: a carefully orchestrated political maneuver to benefit those with deep pockets. SB 594, championed by its sponsor, effectively hands a victory to Palm Beach and its powerful backers, all while masquerading as necessary maritime legislation
So, here’s the question that demands an answer: How is this not a conflict of interest? A bill written, sponsored, and aggressively pushed forward by someone whose financial benefactors stand to gain the most—this is governance at its worst.
But the story doesn’t end there. According to high-ranking sources in the maritime industry, SB 594 isn’t even a priority for Florida’s seaports. In fact, it’s been labeled “a Palm Beach thing.” If that’s true, then why is this bill being sold as a statewide necessity? The facts don’t add up.
The bill’s origins raise further red flags. Apparently drafted by Mr. Pinsky, a lobbyist working for Akerman LLP on behalf of the Port of Palm Beach, it appears to be less about maritime safety and more about eliminating an inconvenience for Palm Beach’s elite. If SB 594 is truly about statewide maritime policy, then let’s see the evidence. Where are the statements from Florida’s seaport executives endorsing this bill? Who are these officials, and what exactly are they saying? It’s time for transparency—because right now, this looks like legislation driven by one well-connected municipality at the expense of others.
And let’s talk about Mr. Pinsky. Since he seems to be operating as an unofficial spokesperson for this bill, he should provide answers to some critical questions:
Where are the documented law enforcement or Coast Guard reports from the last five years proving that anchored boats pose a problem near seaports? If they exist, let’s see them. We didn’t find any evidence of them.
What legal analysis has been conducted to ensure SB 594 does not conflict with federal regulations? If none has been done, why not? This would include analysis of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 403), § 165.760 Security Zones; Port of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Port of Miami, Florida and of United States v. Locke (2000) at an absolute minimum.
Does SB 594 creates undue burdens on interstate commerce or maritime operations? Where is the analysis of that aspect of this proposal?
How does SB 594 align with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and existing Coast Guard regulations governing anchorages?
These are fundamental questions that should have been addressed before this bill was drafted—yet, no clear answers have been provided.
Then there’s the Great White Shark in the room: where will the displaced boats go? SB 594 threatens to displace 250-300 vessels, yet there has been no viable plan presented for relocation. If these boats can’t stay, then where, precisely, do state officials expect them to anchor?
Let’s see specifics:
Exact latitude and longitude of alternative anchorages.
An analysis of depth, shore access, and environmental conditions of these locations.
Current boat occupancy in these proposed areas.
As an expert in this field, I can tell you now—these alternatives don’t exist. There are no available anchorages within 50 miles of Palm Beach that can accommodate this influx.
So, what happens when hundreds of boats are forcibly displaced? Chaos. Municipalities to the north and south of Palm Beach will face an influx of vessels, exacerbating their own anchorage issues. Local governments will revolt against this forced redistribution of the so-called "problem" boats. The state will have created a crisis so large in one of Florida’s largest industries that Governor DeSantis himself may have to intervene.
Is that really the endgame here?
If no one can present a real solution to this massive displacement problem, then why push forward with SB 594 at all? Why champion a bill that creates more problems than it solves? Why were these critical issues not addressed before this bill was introduced?
The proponents of SB 594 owe the public answers—not empty rhetoric or political doublespeak, but actual, evidence-based explanations. Until then, this bill remains what it appears to be: a thinly veiled attempt to use state law for the benefit of a privileged few at the expense of Florida’s maritime community.
So we ask again: Why does this bill exist? And more importantly, who does it really serve
Senator Rodriguez, this is your baby, complete with a dirty diaper. Florida's boating community is demanding some answers. Why are you not providing them?