Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[sailorchic34]

Oh dear me. I do not advocate that folks live in cars on the streets and in parks or on boats by the dock on the bay. Though people do, generally from being downsized or other issues no one ever expects to happen to them.

I am not advocating for the "Squatters" as some call them. But they are there and many/most have no where else to go. Yes they live there. It would be nice if there was support for those who live in their cars in parks or on boats in RB. Yet there is little in the way of support or anywhere to put them. What little there is has Huge waiting lists.

I just feel it is better that they have a roof (be it a small boat) over their head, then to be pushed on the street, so someone else with a nicer boat can anchor closer to the docks.

Schooner Chandlery, you worry far too much about who I am. I am not a deadbeat anything, and have never applied for disability, etc, etc.

I actually do freelance work on upwork as well as do a bit of website development for a friend. I found that I could live quite well on $500-$600 a month. That I learned after being laid off from my $90k job for the very first time in 2010. I no longer see 40+ percent of my income going to taxes. I don't own a house, car, tv and have no payments on anything. I don't drink, smoke, never did drugs, not even coffee. I'm also not religious. I do however live with a grumpy cat.

I have few wants or needs and most are covered with my currnet income level. Next year I'll be on SS (Assuming it's still there then) and living the life, high on the hog.

I'm an autodidact and self taught in that engineering thingy. Certified in plumbing engineering in 83 (first year of that cert) and sat and passed the PE exam based on experience, back in 96. I started as a draftswoman in the 70's, read all the codes, Ashrae and ASPE design books NFPA codes, etc, and most manufacturers catalogs, over lunch every day in the 70's and 80's.

I was a department head in the late 90's, working on billion dollar projects in a city in nevada. I disagree with the current working requirements of working 10-12 hours a day and I WILL NOT do that. Life is far too short to put up with that. No Nay Never no more.

Did I mention, I read a bit. I'm also self taught in 4-5 computer languages, including VB, c++ and some assembler. Played with the kim1000 single board computer WAAAAY back. Understand and have built microprosessor control systems from component parts, built a telescope from a photo, among other minor details. I also read a bit (thanks to a kindle unlimited reading subscription), which is the best thing since sliced bread and do that sailing liveaboard thingy.

I studied Shorinji Kempo in the old school for a while, back in the 70's, and did bicycle racing in my crazy youth and was a Bicycle commuter for a really long time. Eccentric?. Perhaps just a tad.

Having met some of the fine folks in RB, most are just average folks with some having a bit of a tough life. Yes some are not nice at all and a few may be crazy. But I might not be the best one to ask about that.

My thought it kicking folks off boats and onto the street where there is no where else they can go easily, is not a civilized thing to do. It would be lovely if there was a place for them and those that live in cars and parks to go. I don't see that happening any time soon.

You know all the times I've anchored in RB, which mind you is only a couple of times a year, I never once felt unsafe or worried. There was always tons of space to anchor too. Though OK, not so much near the dinghy docks. I guess I just don't see the issues other see.

OK, yes there are Junk boats that should be removed, But most of the folks keep their boat fairly clean and more then a few are quite seaworthy. Though yes many are not.

[newhaul]

Someone asked about USCG involvement In RB . Here is food for thought
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/110.126a

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

...
My thought it kicking folks off boats and onto the street where there is no where else they can go easily, is not a civilized thing to do. It would be lovely if there was a place for them and those that live in cars and parks to go. I don't see that happening any time soon.

You know all the times I've anchored in RB, which mind you is only a couple of times a year, I never once felt unsafe or worried. There was always tons of space to anchor too. Though OK, not so much near the dinghy docks. I guess I just don't see the issues other see.

OK, yes there are Junk boats that should be removed, But most of the folks keep their boat fairly clean and more then a few are quite seaworthy. Though yes many are not.

My own advocacy is simply for the boaters using the navigable waterways. All boaters, rich or poor.

Pushing people off the land and into the water for housing is far worse than pushing the non-boating squatters back onto the land where they belong. Local governments have a responsibility to help with low income housing -- especially when they have a need of people in low wage paying jobs. Allowing them to push people off into the water to fend for themselves on a boat rather than truly dealing with the housing issues ON LAND is atrocious and shouldn't be acceptable by anyone who cares about what happens to those who are less fortunate.

If people are on seaworthy vessels, e.g. capable of moving under their own power and capable of meeting USCG safety regs and environmental regs, RB is a fine place for them to anchor, temporarily, like the rest of the boating public who anchor there temporarily. If they feel they can't move away because they have a min wage job, they've got more money in take-home pay than many, many of current cruisers out there sailing. Albeit, to leave RB might mean leaving the theoretical min-wage job and having to pick up one somewhere else. Even so, that uncertainty is no reason for people who are squatting to have rights that others passing through do not have. If someone has more than a minimum wage job, they may wish to put their name onto a wait list for a liveaboard slip in a marina. Nice thing about marinas is they typically require a certain level of seaworthiness among the vessels as well.

As you know, living aboard and moving around can be very low cost -- requiring even less funds than staying in one single high cost of living location. So, do encourage your friends, without locally derived income but instead on remote work, government subsidies, or retirement checks, in RB to be on the move.

Your idea of "tons of space" in the anchorage is definitely a bit different than mine and that of other boaters who have visited RB. This may be because you're including the places with 3' or 4' of water and that works for power boats or smaller sailboats but not for cruising boats with 6' and greater draft. The fact that the visiting cruising boats tend to be way out on the edge of RB because they find no space in the closer in deep waters is telling.

I laughed when I read your statement "more than a few are quite seaworthy" Ha! "more than a few" is far from "most" or "all" which should be seaworthy, and the qualifier of "quite" on "seaworthy" is some undefined smidgen or perhaps a big gap from actually being seaworthy. My observation is that about 1/2 of the boats anchored or moored in RB -- and maybe 3/4 of those permanently stuck there -- are not seaworthy and could not pass USCG inspection or if they are, they are so piled up with junk as to not be able to move anyway.

It would be lovely if the USCG DID do inspections there in RB and encourage people to get their boats in a seaworthy condition. Overall, the boating public would be better off if that were done.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

The reason to actually live in Sausalito (rather than occasionally visit the anchorage) is because a person works there or has a child in school there. There are very few jobs in Sausalito that don't have identical jobs elsewhere in lower cost of living areas. I don't know any non-boating squatters with kids in school there but perhaps there are some.

So you're saying that you know no homeless families with children on land? But perhaps there are? What are squatters? Are they the people that can't afford housing?


I just have empathy. As I think SC does also. I believe people in dire straights dream of migrating to a more affordable domicile. The devil is in the cost of logistics though. These people have zero cash in their pockets by midweek let alone at the end of the month. So, by what means do they buy a bus ticket to move? And supposing they can accomplish a bus ticket? Where do they shelter when they arrive in a strange town/city? Did they buy a ticket to a more affordable town that unfortunately does not have a homeless shelter? No public transportation? How do they, with very limited means, research this great town that's affordable? How can they choose where to move? The working poor can not just skip a shift in order to visit the public library during operating hours. How would/could they transfer there SS payments, bank accounts, if they even have one, to have uninterrupted funds that they depend upon? No new address, no check forwarding. Red tape and forms to be filed but you have no address, no fax machine, and probably little direction on how to maneuver through the system. So you arrive in a new town, broke and have to negotiate your way through a new system. File for benefits in your new town, which can take weeks to months. If you forget to dot an I, cross a T, rejected. But they can't inform you because you have no address to send forms to and it costs you another $2.00 bus ride back to SS ,welfare, employment department (if you have buss money by this time) to wait all day because you don't have an appointment, because you don't have reliable contact information. But they'll try to see you and you haven't eaten in 24 hrs and you would've rather spent your money on a happy meal from McDonald's. It's a very daunting proposition. Add children to the mix? How do you keep them safe and fed in the interim? You take the chance of loosing custody? Having them separated and placed in foster care? These people make impossibly hard choices daily.


So I don't believe it's a RB problem. i believe it's a problem resulting from a bigger issue that needs to be resolved. I agree that people should not be living in unsafe conditions whether that be land or afloat.I believe the current policies have forced a small population to take drastic measures at surviving their current circumstances. It's a more difficult problem than just freeing up the bay, enforcing or creating more restrictive laws regarding derelicts. I believe they need to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with the poor and homeless.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pushing people off the land and into the water for housing is far worse than pushing the non-boating squatters back onto the land where they belong. Local governments have a responsibility to help with low income housing -- especially when they have a need of people in low wage paying jobs. Allowing them to push people off into the water to fend for themselves on a boat rather than truly dealing with the housing issues ON LAND is atrocious and shouldn't be acceptable by anyone who cares about what happens to those who are less fortunate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have followed this thread for a while, having lived and anchored there over the years when I lived in The Bay Area from 1978 to 2016. This thread is so long I may even have contributed to it earlier. I appreciate the civility and discourse.

But I have to say that this paragraph ^^ makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regardless of politics, it is unreasonable, unrealistic and against all experience of local, state and federal government activity since at least 1980. Funding for low income assistance is not increasing. Neither is the minimum wage. The housing prices in the Bay Area are atrocious.

Moving onto a boat may be the ONLY way anyone can stay there (in this situation). Have you read many of the posts from newbies that go: "I can't afford housing in SF, where can I liveaboard a boat that I don't own yet and don't know how to sail?"

Sure, local govts have a responsibility.

But they simply aren't doing it.

Funding is non-existent and with the new administration will only get much, much worse.

I, along with you, truly do care, but suggesting moving people back onto land when there are few if any successful programs doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I also think sailorchick discussed it well, too.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

It would be lovely if the USCG DID do inspections there in RB and encourage people to get their boats in a seaworthy condition. Overall, the boating public would be better off if that were done.

You didnt.read my last post so here it is again
RB is a designated special anchorage
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/110.126a

[Jason Flare]

Been reading a good bit of this. It applies to FL but there are a number of precedents in federal law from other states including CA.

http://www.cityofmarcoisland.com/mod...ocumentid=7465

I haven't been able to figure out what the specific objections are to the anchor outs in RB, although one of them seems to be the discharge of human waste in a no discharge zone.

Here's what FL did about that in Key West.

They wanted to ban permanent liveaboards except it marinas and yacht clubs. It turns out they were worried about illegal discharge. The court said, Regulate the discharge. So now in Key West, when you buy a monthly pass for the dinghy dock you have to have your dinghy inspected and you have to get signed up for a periodic free pumpout. Everybody wins except for people who didn't want them there for other reasons.

So, what are your reasons? Let's solve this.

[The Smokester]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

...I just have empathy.

... I don't believe it's a RB problem. i believe it's a problem resulting from a bigger issue that needs to be resolved...

I agree. I went looking for property up in Grass Valley which is about 120 miles east of SF in the Sierra Nevada foothills. It was January just after one of the large storms we had this winter. I was surprised/shocked to see a lot of homeless wandering the streets.

So, moving a few miles down the road really doesn't seem to be the easy solution.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You didnt.read my last post so here it is again

RB is a designated special anchorage

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/110.126a

My understanding is that no enforcement is being done in RB, special anchorage or not.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

My understanding is that no enforcement is being done in RB, special anchorage or not.

Ah, but I've had the nice boys from Marin come out and ask me how long I was going to stay and told me of the 3 day limit. They were quite pleasant. They do try to enforce for new boats. But all they can do is ticket them and ask them to move. If you don't move, well there we are.

It is a CG special anchorage which means no anchor light need be shown at night. Myself I always have one on when I'm there.

Oddly the RBRA harbourmasters office is in San Rafael about 7 miles away from RB. So a tad hard for them to enforce, though I have heard they sometimes visit the bay via boat.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

My understanding is that no enforcement is being done in RB, special anchorage or not.

You must have not actually read the page I linked to to well.
Here is a partial quote 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.
And if you notice it says the Richardson Bay Harbor regional agency and Marin county are responsible for enforcement. Not the USCG.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I believe they need to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with the poor and homeless.

Agree with you on that.

The state of California has requirements for affordable housing as a % of builds, etc, that local jurisdictions have been ignoring for years.

I DO very well understand the problems of the working poor and homeless. I just don't spend time here in a boating forum focused on my extensive understanding of the working poor or my empathy for people in dire straits. Rather I focus on boating issues and in particular the things that impact boaters.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

It would/should be a long-term lease of public submerged lands since in the USA including California the tidelands and submerged lands can't be owned but rather are public trust lands taken care of by the national government or the state government--considered "state lands" here. While there are international exceptions to public trust lands, in the USA, exception to this norm are only a very few places in Florida where Spain ruled/owned land and sold it before those lands became part of the United States. I'm thinking it's Saint Augustine but could be wrong on that.

Here in New England in most states (Maine I think is somewhat different on that since the 80s) but at least in MA, the waterfront property extends to low tide mark. Which in many communities goes out quite away from high tide point. Only specified incidental use is allowed for general public in such tidal private areas - "fishing, fowling and navigation". Here is a 30 year old NYT article still highly relevant today, as few, if any, then current suggestions of law changes were ever adopted.

MASSACHUSETTS TRIES TO UPDATE BEACH LAWS - NYTimes.com

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Here in New England in most states (Maine I think is somewhat different on that since the 80s) but at least in MA, the waterfront property extends to low tide mark. Which in many communities goes out quite away from high tide point. Only specified incidental use is allowed for general public in such tidal private areas - "fishing, fowling and navigation". Here is a 30 year old NYT article still highly relevant today, as few, if any, then current suggestions of law changes were ever adopted.



MASSACHUSETTS TRIES TO UPDATE BEACH LAWS - NYTimes.com

Yes here it is similar. Surveys are from mean low tide on a particular date in the 1800's. The submerged public lands are always submerged whereas the tidelands ( also in the public trust here) are likely what you're talking about. The leasehold discussed is definitely submerged at all times now and presumed the same in the 1800's as well. Here tides are much smaller range than higher latitudes too.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by markpierce

People are free to move where living is much less expensive.

Social programs paid by taxpayers subsidize housing, medical care, food, telephones, automobiles. various social and employment services, as well as spending cash for the poor, leastwise here.

Wonder why they're not moving or legitimately working?

Too much free stuff available paid for by hard working taxpayers from all income levels. That's why.

Plus... it's just easier to sit around and complain all day than to go out and work or help someone. Just like some people on this form who prefer to complain rather than help solve some of the problems for which they advocate.