Hobos Afloat

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I like people who try to live alternate, but independent lifestyles.
Yet they always seem to inspire more social criticism than is deserved, I guess simply because they somehow threaten the norm.
Is being a Drifter or a Hobo a bad thing, if they have learned to calculate their own Set and Rate?

The quick answer, no. But when one becomes a drain on themselves through mental instability and become a drain on others around them. Lastly, when they become a drain on the taxpayer, the answer becomes not that they should suffer condemnation but they are not contributing to society. This should not be reduced to a cost/benefit analysis because it involves real people who are not commodities.

Your "if" is the qualifier.

[sailorchic34]

It is interesting that in the US anyway, there are lots of unemployed aged 55 and up. No one in their teens or 20's says; "Gee when I'm 55 I'm going to be a bum".

I did not see that coming. My only saving grace was I was already living on a boat many years before I was let go. I shudder to think what would have happened if I owned (well paid mortgage) for a house or lived in an apartment.

Its been over three years since I was let go. If nothing else, I've learned to live small and be happy with what I have. LOL and for what I don't have either. Oddly enough I am far happier now then when I was working 60 hour weeks. I'm not sure I would ever go back to that rat race.

For the most part, the "bums" I've met have been just regular folks. Some have a drug or drinking issue. Some have mental issues. But then that's not confined to just the poor either. Mostly though life happened. Health issues are a biggy. Every one though has a story and not one planned on ending up that way.

[Kettlewell]

For the most part, the "bums" I've met have been just regular folks. Some have a drug or drinking issue. Some have mental issues. But then that's not confined to just the poor either. Mostly though life happened. Health issues are a biggy. Every one though has a story and not one planned on ending up that way.

There but for the grace of God go I...I ran into our high school class salutatorian in a local supermarket, bagging groceries for a living. He went to an Ivy league school, but somehow got involved in drugs. When I saw him he was trying to put his life back together. Another friend's husband got cancer and died in his 40s, leaving her suddenly on her own. Stuff happens to people.

[IdoraKeeper]

Good grief..I need to meet a woman with a 50ft nauticat who will set me up like Minaret does. The only problem is I already have a nice boat and I'm not a bum......yet.

Todd

[sailorboy1]

Thanks for the entertainment

But some of you should revisit this thread in a couple of months to read your preachings to see if you were just all whacked out the day you posted.

[sailorchic34]

Oh Don, you say the nicest things!

For the record, I was born wacked out and I don't even drink.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Poor people only look good in holiday photos........

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

It is interesting that in the US anyway, there are lots of unemployed aged 55 and up. No one in their teens or 20's says; "Gee when I'm 55 I'm going to be a bum".

I did not see that coming. My only saving grace was I was already living on a boat many years before I was let go. I shudder to think what would have happened if I owned (well paid mortgage) for a house or lived in an apartment.

Its been over three years since I was let go. If nothing else, I've learned to live small and be happy with what I have. LOL and for what I don't have either. Oddly enough I am far happier now then when I was working 60 hour weeks. I'm not sure I would ever go back to that rat race.

For the most part, the "bums" I've met have been just regular folks. Some have a drug or drinking issue. Some have mental issues. But then that's not confined to just the poor either. Mostly though life happened. Health issues are a biggy. Every one though has a story and not one planned on ending up that way.

This is a great attitude!

[analogtraveler]

Ok all,
Too much going on here to not chime in. My take is that this was originally about folks who aren't cruisers or even sailors specifically, who happen to live on sailboats at anchor. The discussion seems to have veered toward what makes one a "bum/hobo", and at which point they have paid sufficient dues to society to utilize public anchorages.

Yes, I fully understand that derelict boats are an issue. Same to the floating hulls that some camp on indefinitely, whether by choice or by circumstance. However, I see nothing wrong with someone who wants to live on the hook, on the margins of society, while still being responsible citizens of their country and our planet.

I feel like some posters here would consider me a "hobo" or similar. I served in the US military and received an honourable discharge after completing my contract. At that point, being single and without financial obligation, I didn't feel like buying into the American Dream. Housing is so outrageously priced here in the SF bay area that many working class folk throw the vast majority of their money at rent. I have an off grid place in the so-cal desert, on which I pay property taxes for no services whatsoever. I cut my own road. I truck in water. I could live out there in absolute comfort at minimum wage, paying less that 1 cent per gallon of water at the fill point and running my fridge, lights, and AC for free on solar. This doesn't work in the Bay.

I love the SF bay area, I grew up here, and many of my friends are here. However, it is near impossible to live economically. Studio apartments for 1k/month are a good deal. I pay $300 per month to keep my Triton in a berth in Sausalito, but living aboard wouldn't have the blessing of legitimacy. Would doing so anyways make me one of the untouchables? I pay taxes, (sales, income, and property), own over an acre, and have reliable, legal wheels. I'm also below the poverty line. I work hard to make a living. Why throw away $12,000 a year on rent? I'd rather spend it at west marine and on healthful food.

Am I a "bad guy" if I were to choose to be a sneakaboard at a marina? Would It be worse if I moved 300 yards from my slip, dropped an anchor, and cast my lots with the other folk who do so, saving $3600 a year?

I'm interested in everyone's take on the matter, especially as it applies to the difference between someone who camps on a floating hull because it is better than the lee of a bridge vs. those who live aboard because they love the sea and can't afford to own and maintain a small vessel while paying obscene rent.

Cheers, and if you're around Sausalito let me know so I can get a cocktail ready.
-Christopher

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

For the most part, the "bums" I've met have been just regular folks. Some have a drug or drinking issue. Some have mental issues.

Really?

[Emmalina]

In Malaysia there is a marina thats free if you live aboard as long as your boat looks ok!! so they can sell the condo's overlooking the marina. In Thailand there are a few marinas that actively discourage live aboards as they spoil the view of the perfect marina's condo view by hanging out washing etc Always amuses me why people pay "silly money" to have a condo that overlooks a marina and most of them keep a boat in said marina so they can look at that !!! Tis a strange world

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Really?

Yes, But then maybe I just know a better class of bum. Mind you, they might not be quite up to yacht club standards and a few may not meet sailorchics' cleanliness standards, but many are just people.

There again some think I'm a bit mental.

[Hudson Force]

Wait! I live with this group; I anchor with this group; and I count among the group. I am one who anchors out among many places from Maine to the Keys. We are not all the same. Many are boaters who travel about cruising or remain at one place for a few days or a long season. We display anchor lights at night. We purchase our stores from the local vendors and we carry our trash to shore. We use pump out boats or pump out at the dock and we contract or pay for access to marina facilities for water or showers and dinghy access ashore. We live well at a meager expense; however, we are in compliance with the laws and the sensitivity of the environment. Myself, and many others are often cruising and present for the month and maybe not seen again for a year or two. Do I favor the person aboard a boat who is not in compliance? - 'the person who does not follow the laws that I honor? - the person who trashes the environment and presents a hazzard to navigation? ....of course not! These are not the same people! One set is self reliant and responsible and the other is exploitive. One is a member of the group that is navigating a vessel and the others are finding an opportunity to place their meager stuff and sleep in a place without restriction,- wether that place is on the water, under a bridge or on a park bench. "Live and let live" is a wonderfu ideal, but are they exploitive or are they resonsible? Sure, there is the factor of financial capability that allows the membership among the goup of those that a reliant or the group of those that are the users,- is that wrong to have the distinction? I say no! There should be standards of compliance for the use of the public waterways and they are present. Dispaly a proper anchor light. Comply with the Clean Water Act of 1972. Secure your vessel at anchor so that you are not damaging the neighboring vessels. Do not dump trash in the waterways. Register or document your vessel and do not abandon vessels that become hazards to navigation. Those that can not comply should not remain!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by CaptForce

Wait! I live with this group; I anchor with this group; and I count among the group. I am one who anchors out among many places from Maine to the Keys. We are not all the same. Many are boaters who travel about cruising or remain at one place for a few days or a long season. We display anchor lights at night. We purchase our stores from the local vendors and we carry our trash to shore. We use pump out boats or pump out at the dock and we contract or pay for access to marina facilities for water or showers and dinghy access ashore. We live well at a meager expense; however, we are in compliance with the laws and the sensitivity of the environment. Myself, and many others are often cruising and present for the month and maybe not seen again for a year or two. Do I favor the person aboard a boat who is not in compliance? - 'the person who does not follow the laws that I honor? - the person who trashes the environment and presents a hazzard to navigation? ....of course not! These are not the same people! One set is self reliant and responsible and the other is exploitive. One is a member of the group that is navigating a vessel and the others are finding an opportunity to place their meager stuff and sleep in a place without restriction,- wether that place is on the water, under a bridge or on a park bench. "Live and let live" is a wonderfu ideal, but are they exploitive or are they resonsible? Sure, there is the factor of financial capability that allows the membership among the goup of those that a reliant or the group of those that are the users,- is that wrong to have the distinction? I say no! There should be standards of compliance for the use of the public waterways and they are present. Dispaly a proper anchor light. Comply with the Clean Water Act of 1972. Secure your vessel at anchor so that you are not damaging the neighboring vessels. Do not dump trash in the waterways. Register or document your vessel and do not abandon vessels that become hazards to navigation. Those that can not comply should not remain!

While I hear what your saying, how do we solved the problem. For the bad boat bum where should they go. They are already at the bottom of the social economical ladder. Kick them off the boats and they are ashore, living under bridges, in door ways, etc. The problem just moved from the boat to the shore.

Being poor so far is not a crime and most Law enforcement will not kick someone out of their home for being poor. That's one reason the anchor outs remain in Richardson bay, the keys and other places.


Good lord, as far as the clean water act goes, it would be nice if all the cities in the country were in compliance too. But that has not happened in many major metro areas yet either. So lets not wave that flag when there are a whole lot of cities and towns that also don't meet that act 40 years later. While I support clean water, I have a hard time getting upset with boaters when the cities in many cases do the same thing on a MUCH larger scale. year after year.

Not to mention some of the high end liveaboards who discharge holding tanks into marina's. That happens all the time too. Crazy. So if we ban the bum boat for pumping overboard, lets also ban the liveaboard with the benz and the $200-$300k boat in the marina too.

[Celestialsailor]

You would not believe what floats in the water here in the Alameda estuary after a good rain...It's from the storm drains. So I agree...the cities should be able to control this as setting an example.