Are Liveaboards Unwanted? Disliked? All over Everywhere?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah that would be trick as Richardson bay is a federal special anchorage governed by 33cfr110 and any infractions would be addressed by the coast guard.. The towns surrounding it don't really have jurisdiction. Even though they think they do.

FYI:

33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
Subpart A Special anchorage areas.

§ 110.126a San Francisco Bay, Calif.
Richardson Bay Anchorage. That portion of Richardson Bay, north of a line bearing 257° from Peninsula Point to the shore at Sausalito, except for federally-maintained channels, and all channels approved for private use therein.
Note:
Mariners anchoring in the special anchorage area should consult applicable ordinances of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency and the County of Marin. These ordinances establish requirements on matters including the anchoring of vessels, placement of moorings, and use of anchored and moored vessels within the special anchorage area. Information on these local agency requirements may be obtained from the Richardson Bay Harbor Administrator.
[CGFR 69-109, 34 FR 17771, Nov. 4, 1969, as amended by CGD 78-126, 45 FR 10760, Feb. 19, 1980; CGD11-99-009, 65 FR 20086, Apr. 14, 2000]


So, you think the RBRA has no enforcement authority when the Federal regulations you cite refer us to the RBRA ordinances? Dream on...

[weavis]

Why has this developed into a political dispute over one area? The question presented is far wider reaching than concentration on Richardson bay.

All the opines are personal and so far have not been taken up by the bodies that can do stuff and choose not to do stuff.

Fix Richardson bay and the question posed will not have been addressed.

The question is far more Global than West Coast America.

For those that sail/travel and have broadened their horizons, it comes as no shock that where prejudice exists, it usually is in an area where wealthy people frequent. For all my years of Florida/Mexico/West Med camping out or long term staying, Never a problem. NEVER.

It would appear for the tidy, careful and considerate boater, there is little reason to worry about things. It doesnt take an Einstein to know when an issue is going to brew up and a slight move usually solves it.

Once a 'community' of unkempt vessels form, then we have a problem. Not one the liveaboard will be party to, but might suffer repercussions from.

I always found it best to not rock boats () and find the least offensive spot to anchor.

After all my experience with Mallorca, it took a friend to show me how and where to stay on the hook and be welcome everywhere....... I really did not know due to my affinity to expensive marinas.

My buddy Kenomac never goes in a marina in 6 months of travel excepting an emergency and he anchors everywhere. Having an Oyster probably precludes him from being labeled a bum though........

In my limited experience, I have always kept away, where I can, from other vessels mooring in the area I choose to. My boat is always fresh of polish and clean of deck, whatever it is. If I hang clothes to dry, they are always on a line and not draped over the rails. I present neat and tidy and respectful.

Its not hard to be seen as a competent Live-aboard. Just a bit of common sense and care.

[sailorchic34]

You know in the last 10 years, I've anchored hither and yon and not once been asked to move along. I've had the coast guard and sheriff's ask for papers and the coasties will do an inspection once in a while.

East coast has south east Florida and the west coast has Richardson bay. It is the last real holdout of the anchor outs on the west coast. Who oddly were there first.

My personal experience has been that liveaboards are looked down on by shore folks. Not always, but more time then not. Anchor-outs are just the low end of the live aboard spectrum.

Anchor outs don't really worry me. Living at anchor on a small old boat is not an easy way to live. Mind you it's easier then living under an overpass, but it comes with tons of its own pitfalls.

Anchoring is one of the least regulated things that folks can do, least wise in the USA. Luckily so few do it that in the vast majority of locations, it's not a problem. As others have mentioned its hard to define who is an anchor-out and who is a cruiser, who sits in one place for six months or years.

[ruby tuesday]

i don't get why this thread got mega personal either but hell i'm english

if people no matter who they see clean, tidy boats with polite and respectful people then they leave you alone - they won't get involved. the only time some one will intervene if it starts getting ugly and thats where the laws need to be applied.

there ought to be a definitive set of rules whereby if your boat looks like a mess and you treat people in an off hand manner then bang the rules get enforced, the majority of people would live by those rules for an easy life.

there's unwritten rules around where i sling a hook and everyone knows that public perception is everything - what people see is what people see and there's nothing you can do to change that.

think of it this way - you drive down a residential street and everything looks neat and tidy apart from one or two houses -- they let the street down so they talked about and more laws are created to deal with those houses to the detriment of everyone else - so in order to keep the lawmakers from riding your butt everyone keeps their houses and yards tidy - again its what people see --- you will always be judged by what people see and nothing more.

the fact that unkempt boats are allowed to be in a certain place to go to rack and ruin is not about the people on board - trust me - its about caring for where you live and if you dont give a stuff about where you live then you need help cos in itself it implies that the person needs help.

it's got nothing to do with where you drop a hook - its got nothing to do with the area you're in - trust me - i anchor in a bay thats got a couple of multi million pound houses on its banks and i've never ever had a problem.

i get more problems from the people that live on their boats than i do from the people living in the houses where i anchor up. the only way to sort your situation is to get a set of rules and form an association whereby the committee gets final say in what happens - the dollar boats would go cos they didnt meet the rules - people would clean up and not discharge waste cos it would break the rules.

what you've created in the bay is a bad situation where there was no situation before - why cos you all allowed it to happen and then you all turn on each other instead of having general consensus to reach an agreement on what is and what is not acceptable.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by ruby tuesday

i don't get why this thread got mega personal either but hell i'm english

if people no matter who they see clean, tidy boats with polite and respectful people then they leave you alone - they won't get involved. the only time some one will intervene if it starts getting ugly and thats where the laws need to be applied.

there ought to be a definitive set of rules whereby if your boat looks like a mess and you treat people in an off hand manner then bang the rules get enforced, the majority of people would live by those rules for an easy life.

there's unwritten rules around where i sling a hook and everyone knows that public perception is everything - what people see is what people see and there's nothing you can do to change that.

think of it this way - you drive down a residential street and everything looks neat and tidy apart from one or two houses -- they let the street down so they talked about and more laws are created to deal with those houses to the detriment of everyone else - so in order to keep the lawmakers from riding your butt everyone keeps their houses and yards tidy - again its what people see --- you will always be judged by what people see and nothing more.

the fact that unkempt boats are allowed to be in a certain place to go to rack and ruin is not about the people on board - trust me - its about caring for where you live and if you dont give a stuff about where you live then you need help cos in itself it implies that the person needs help.

it's got nothing to do with where you drop a hook - its got nothing to do with the area you're in - trust me - i anchor in a bay thats got a couple of multi million pound houses on its banks and i've never ever had a problem.

i get more problems from the people that live on their boats than i do from the people living in the houses where i anchor up. the only way to sort your situation is to get a set of rules and form an association whereby the committee gets final say in what happens - the dollar boats would go cos they didnt meet the rules - people would clean up and not discharge waste cos it would break the rules.

what you've created in the bay is a bad situation where there was no situation before - why cos you all allowed it to happen and then you all turn on each other instead of having general consensus to reach an agreement on what is and what is not acceptable.

Ya know, ruby thursday, maybe you have the right of it, but perhaps not; as to toilet discharge, I don't remember it being part of this discussion..

One of the problems I see--from far away from my SF Bay roots-- is that y'all on the other side of the pond may not totally capiche the impenetrability of Stateside politics.

However, I think we need to get back to the "normal" liveaboard issues, and leave this thread unpolitical, as our rules forbid the political.

Ann

[Kenomac]

I think the entire topic comes down to... Keep your boat (no matter what kind or cost) tidy and neat and then there won't be anyone on shore who could give a rat's behind if you're out there. But allowing a Richardson bay "anything goes" situation to develop (and I'm not just referring to the untreated sewage), and I think the land dwellers have a legitimate right to complain. It's just like having bums move in next door.

Maybe some teaching by the neat and tidy liveaboards is in order?

Example:

Several years ago, the section 8 house next door became occupied by a very nice Dominican family, and within a couple of months there was garbage everywhere... even spewing over to our property. Didn't seem to bother them one bit, beer bottles just chucked everywhere. I quickly tired of looking out my kitchen window at the trash, so I went out and cleaned it up... my side and theirs, required my Bobcat to haul it away. 'Didn't say a word about it other than a friendly "good morning" and the normal neighbor chit chat... they actually helped out when they saw what I was doing. Their side remained neat and tidy for the next three years they lived in the dwelling. I never needed to clean up anything after that day. They were good, friendly neighbors.

Ken

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I think the entire topic comes down to... Keep your boat (no matter what kind or cost) tidy and neat and then there won't be anyone on shore who could give a rat's behind if you're out there. But allowing a Richardson bay "anything goes" situation to develop (and I'm not just referring to the untreated sewage), and I think the land dwellers have a legitimate right to complain. It's just like having bums move in next door.

Maybe some teaching by the neat and tidy liveaboards is in order?

Example:

Several years ago, the section 8 house next door became occupied by a very nice Dominican family, and within a couple of months there was garbage everywhere... even spewing over to our property. Didn't seem to bother them one bit, beer bottles just chucked everywhere. I quickly tired of looking out my kitchen window at the trash, so I went out and cleaned it up... my side and theirs, required my Bobcat to haul it away. 'Didn't say a word about it other than a friendly "good morning" and the normal neighbor chit chat... they actually helped out when they saw what I was doing. Their side remained neat and tidy for the next three years they lived in the dwelling. I never needed to clean up anything after that day. They were good, friendly neighbors.

Ken

Good idea. Oh wait!! Cant use a bobcat on water.



Without peer pressure, the problem will escalate. With escalation comes enforcement. With enforcement come rules for everybody. Then instead of a few, everybody gets pissed and enforced on.

I live in South Wales U.K. We have our own issues, yet it never gets to San Francisco style problems. Given the weather, you would have to have mental issues to want to live out in winter.....

[oldragbaggers]

I'll add one more voice to those that say that problems are rarely encountered by those that keep a tidy ship and don't draw attention to themselves. We lived aboard in the San Diego area for several years, and in two marinas were liveaboards were officially "not allowed." But we kept our boat immaculate, didn't store anything on the docks, were quiet and respectful neighbors, left the facilities the way we found them when we used them, didn't discharge into the water, didn't do unauthorized boat work in our slip, etc. etc.

The people who had difficulties (and no doubt the same type of people who were the source of the no liveaboard policy in the first place) were the ones who had crap stored all over the decks of their dirty boats (not talking about the stuff you would normally see on the decks of a cruising boat, but bags of trash, boxes of god knows what, piles of crap covered by blue tarps, etc.); potted plants, rugs, bicycles, and lawn chairs all over the dock; a barking dog left all day unattended on the boat while they worked; "borrowing" other peoples hoses, cords, carts, etc. without permission and not putting them back where you found them; working on their cars in the parking lot with all their buddies gathered around drinking beer and causing a nuisance. Basically anything that draws attention to the fact that you've set up shop in the marina for purposes other than just boating.

If you conduct yourself and keep your boat in such a way that it's difficult to tell the difference between you and the people who just come down to take their boat out for a sail, except that you happen to be around more often, generally no one will bother you and in fact I think secretly they like having you there keeping an eye on things.

[rassabossa]

don't draw attention to themselves

I think you hit the nail on the head. Quiet and neat people rarely encounter problems on or off the water. I used to know someone who got into at least 2 fistfights a year, which completely baffles me. Life goes a lot smoother when you play by the rules of polite society.

[Wrong]

Politics is loosely defined as the art of compromise. Where you have boaters who are apparently viewed as a source of problems, which has been addressed ad nauseum in this forum in many threads, groups who disagree inevitably form. They're special interest groups, and those who are the most pro-active attract the most attention.

Why even ask the question as to whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere if you are going to avoid a discussion of solutions where regionally or locally, folks can present a cogent review of what they see happening where they are? Invariably where the answer to the question is yes, liveaboards are unwanted and disliked here, it's reasonable to expect someone to say in their view why. Nobody is in the position to answer the question comprehensively. They can only address what's happening where they are.

So, what's the justification for objecting to information presented that addresses the question specifically as it relates to Richardson Bay? Why object to a discussion that reveals why people believe liveaboards are unwanted and disliked by others living in surrounding communities, and why? More importantly, why object to discussion stating what's been proposed or already done to resolve conflict arising between the special interest groups?

I question the accuracy of the assertion that discussion pertaining to Richardson Bay has been political. Questions pertaining to jurisdiction, authority and enforcement are not political in nature. They concern the laws, whether federal, state or local that invariably affect boaters. Once enacted the politics behind the promulgation of a law are inconsequential.

Asking whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere without a discussion of how the problem is being addressed where the answer for some appears to suggest answer is yes, does nothing to positively serve the boating community.

[Kenomac]

I'm in agreement with the Wrong opinion.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Politics is loosely defined as the art of compromise. Where you have boaters who are apparently viewed as a source of problems, which has been addressed ad nauseum in this forum in many threads, groups who disagree inevitably form. They're special interest groups, and those who are the most pro-active attract the most attention.

Why even ask the question as to whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere if you are going to avoid a discussion of solutions where regionally or locally, folks can present a cogent review of what they see happening where they are? Invariably where the answer to the question is yes, liveaboards are unwanted and disliked here, it's reasonable to expect someone to say in their view why. Nobody is in the position to answer the question comprehensively. They can only address what's happening where they are.

So, what's the justification for objecting to information presented that addresses the question specifically as it relates to Richardson Bay? Why object to a discussion that reveals why people believe liveaboards are unwanted and disliked by others living in surrounding communities, and why? More importantly, why object to discussion stating what's been proposed or already done to resolve conflict arising between the special interest groups?

I question the accuracy of the assertion that discussion pertaining to Richardson Bay has been political. Questions pertaining to jurisdiction, authority and enforcement are not political in nature. They concern the laws, whether federal, state or local that invariably affect boaters. Once enacted the politics behind the promulgation of a law are inconsequential.

Asking whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere without a discussion of how the problem is being addressed where the answer for some appears to suggest answer is yes, does nothing to positively serve the boating community.

The West coast American problem do not impact the entire British Isles or Europe in general. It is fairly localised behaviour of a peculiar nature and situation.

the broader answer is that the behaviour of boaters in SF is not representative of the rest of the world. Legislation in the USA affects the USA, or perhaps, just Richardson Bay.... and not the Med for example. You stated "Federal, State or Local". That is USA, not the "all over, everywhere" scenario.

Europe has a different outlook. If this is a predominately America discussion then I defer to the American view.

However, Kenomac spends 6 months in the Med as a liveaboard, no hassles and no issues. Its a different scenario and problems of liveaboards are a non starter. Go to Greece, you wont see ANYONE for weeks in certain areas.

Again I state, dont crap on your own doorstep and take care of the surroundings and be sensitive to local feelings and there should be no issues..Unless you live in Richardsons Bay....... which is heading for a showdown at some stage.

I have no interest in Richardsons Bay-seriously- I dont. The problem is NOT liveaboards, it is vagrants and nasty vessels. No different to a slum area on the land.

Try and discuss the issue NOT related to Richardsons Bay. Move on from the politics of your local situation, this is an international Forum...... I would suggest Your Bay is NOT representative of liveaboards elsewhere........

But then I think I said that already.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Politics is loosely defined as the art of compromise. Where you have boaters who are apparently viewed as a source of problems, which has been addressed ad nauseum in this forum in many threads, groups who disagree inevitably form. They're special interest groups, and those who are the most pro-active attract the most attention.

Why even ask the question as to whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere if you are going to avoid a discussion of solutions where regionally or locally, folks can present a cogent review of what they see happening where they are? Invariably where the answer to the question is yes, liveaboards are unwanted and disliked here, it's reasonable to expect someone to say in their view why. Nobody is in the position to answer the question comprehensively. They can only address what's happening where they are.

So, what's the justification for objecting to information presented that addresses the question specifically as it relates to Richardson Bay? Why object to a discussion that reveals why people believe liveaboards are unwanted and disliked by others living in surrounding communities, and why? More importantly, why object to discussion stating what's been proposed or already done to resolve conflict arising between the special interest groups?

I question the accuracy of the assertion that discussion pertaining to Richardson Bay has been political. Questions pertaining to jurisdiction, authority and enforcement are not political in nature. They concern the laws, whether federal, state or local that invariably affect boaters. Once enacted the politics behind the promulgation of a law are inconsequential.

Asking whether liveaboards are unwanted and disliked everywhere without a discussion of how the problem is being addressed where the answer for some appears to suggest answer is yes, does nothing to positively serve the boating community.

You have crossed into politics in dealing with the Richardson Bay issue simply because it has become locally a political issue. However, that is not my criticism of where the discussion went. Mine is the lack of respect shown for other opinions, the language and words used, the attacks on groups of people, whether liveaboards or homeowners, the stereotyping and just general intolerance.

Yes, these discussions end up political and I don't like that. But they end up ugly and I like that even less.

Now as Weavis pointed out. In the topic of whether liveaboards are disliked everywhere, the Richardson Bay situation merits a couple of mentions, not taking over the thread. Richardson Bay isn't everywhere. This also wasn't a topic about solving the issue or taking sides in the disagreements, but simply are liveaboards disliked. Richardson Bay would be one example of where some portion of the population does dislike some of the liveaboards. It's fine to say which ones and some of the reasons.

However, turning the thread into a political debate on the relative merits of the two sides in Richardson Bay seems to me to have crossed the line and the attitudes expressed toward others crossed the line further.

I'd suggest if you want a debate on Richardson Bay then perhaps start a thread just on it. Then I'd hope there a civil discussion would pursue, although I'd doubt it staying that way long.

Political or not, I do find some of the statements made within this thread offensive.

[ruby tuesday]

judging by the posts after the one i posted above it looks like i hit the nail on the head

i have one rule - "treat everybody the way you want to be treated"

if you live by this rule and make sure that you yourself and your boat as damn near perfect as you get them then no one can have complaint - if everyone did this and your neighbours will copy eventually then everyones gunna be really happy and the tension that is sometimes there will evapourate.

when i'm washing my sails down - i clean my pontoon mooring at the same time --- what is soooo wrong with being neat and tidy and living in a clean environment ????? and if your neighbours are as bad as some suggest then maybe a few quiet words and an offer of some help to get them back on track --- and in many cases you're just looking and pointing and spouting off instead of pitching and just offering outright help like was suggested (ok no bobcats) above ????? why not take the tension out of the bay and out of the authorities hands for an easy life ?????

most of us brits and europeans understand our environments which is why we keep them clean and tidy - if you borrow stuff make sure you give it back !!!!!! (my biggest bugbear)

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by BandB

You have crossed into politics in dealing with the Richardson Bay issue simply because it has become locally a political issue. However, that is not my criticism of where the discussion went. Mine is the lack of respect shown for other opinions, the language and words used, the attacks on groups of people, whether liveaboards or homeowners, the stereotyping and just general intolerance.

Yes, these discussions end up political and I don't like that. But they end up ugly and I like that even less.

Now as Weavis pointed out. In the topic of whether liveaboards are disliked everywhere, the Richardson Bay situation merits a couple of mentions, not taking over the thread. Richardson Bay isn't everywhere. This also wasn't a topic about solving the issue or taking sides in the disagreements, but simply are liveaboards disliked. Richardson Bay would be one example of where some portion of the population does dislike some of the liveaboards. It's fine to say which ones and some of the reasons.

However, turning the thread into a political debate on the relative merits of the two sides in Richardson Bay seems to me to have crossed the line and the attitudes expressed toward others crossed the line further.

I'd suggest if you want a debate on Richardson Bay then perhaps start a thread just on it. Then I'd hope there a civil discussion would pursue, although I'd doubt it staying that way long.

Political or not, I do find some of the statements made within this thread offensive.

Posts filled with exaggeration, unfounded allegations and bias favouring some people's participation but not others serve no purpose but to foment arguments and censor the free flow of viewpoints and information.

Folks always have the option of avoiding conversations they believe are offensive or that do not adhere to their expectations of what should or should not be discussed.