Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by weavis

HI Kenomac
Yes. they needed someone for the time zone difference

I'm available, but then of course we'd all need to wear helmets for protection against all the pig poo falling from the sky.

[lelievre12]

Originally Posted by roverhi

For those of you trying to clean up Richardson. Just be wary. If you evict those people from their boats for dumping in the Bay, you may end up with them dumping on your doorstep and public places in Sausalito.

With the winter storms this last month I make at least 12 Richardson Bay anchor-out boats either sunk or washed up at Tiburon.

As I write I can see 3 yachts and 4 power boats (one at least 50 feet) wrecked on the Tiburon rocks. I can see another 2 power boats sunk in shallow water (only superstructure visible) off Gallilee and another yacht sunk (only mast visible) off SYH.

Add to that a 34 foot power boat I saw sink in shallow water last week off Spinnaker and a 45 foot centre cockpit yacht that sank to the gunwhales but was saved by a Dive boat with pumps and towed off.

That's just what I saw with my own eyes. There is probably more.

So much environmental damage and who pays the cost?

I would recommend NOT TO USE Richardson Bay as an anchorage as there is now so much DEBRIS on the bottom of the bay you will likely lose your anchor and rode snarled on one of the wrecks. Or hole your boat on one of the many wrecks just beneath the surface in the anchorage.

That's what federal management of this anchorage gets. Spoiled not just for the anchor-outs but ruined for transient boaters as well.

[SunnySky]

It has been a few years since I anchored in Richardson Bay in the course of my travels but I seriously doubt a single storm (or group of storms) created so much debris and wrecks that it is now an unsafe anchorage. As always, mariners should navigate with caution and report all hazards to the Coast guard...

I can personally think of "what federal management of this anchorage gets" including:
- A place for cruising boats to anchor short, medium and longer terms when needed (especially multihulls which have very few accommodations available in the Bay Area having been built at a time that multihulls were far less common than they are today...). Almost all these cruising boats are spending money on resupplying their boat's food stores, purchasing boat supplies, and spending money at various restaurants which benefits the local economy (and I acknowledge that the Bay Area is affluent enough that many residents are not likely to notice the difference in any way BUT the small local businesses that many Bay Area residents enjoy definitely do)
- A place for people dreaming of sailing off into the wild blue yonder to begin pursuing their dreams, either on a new to them boat or a friend's boat. This includes working on their sailing skills by both actual experience and from the advice of fellow sailors mentoring them in a much safer environment than many cruising grounds. If the sailing life is not for them they are much more likely to figure that out on their own without it costing them their life or the life of those they love than in harsher environments that are more remote.
- Richardson Bay being an actual body of water which provides numerous environmental and recreational benefits as opposed to simply being filled in to create more land for urban development (which the City of Sausalito historically wanted to do...)
- Historic public shore access being available to ALL local residents being maintained (despite the very strong pressure to turn absolutely everything in the Bay Area to a commodity for a handful of people to profiteer from)
- An affordable place for a handful of the working class that provide needed services to local residents to stay.

Those are just a few of the big things that come to mind, and I think that last point is the one that creates the most debate. There are people that feel a need or strong desire to live in the Bay Area which personally give back to society far more (and take far less...) than many (most?) of the Bay Area's conventional land-based residents; these individuals and families may not have the financial resources to afford to rent (or buy) a conventional a land-based residence OR they simply have different personal priorities which creates a desire to live on a boat in the Bay Area...

Recently I saw the results of a Kona storm which broke one catamaran from its mooring and it ended up taking out a monohull moored nearby. One boat on the beach and one on the reef; both boats were owned by fully-insured non-liveaboards and I would argue IF both boats had been occupied at the time by their owners there is a good chance that both owners could have sailed and/or motored their boats to safety... I can't help but think it's too bad they didn't live on their boats, or at least happen to spend that night on their boats...

Just my two cents..
Dave

(P.S. Speaking of "So much environmental damage and who pays the cost," what are your thoughts on expanding our thinking to deal with solving a bunch of other pressing problems like air pollution and climate change caused by all the gas guzzling SUVs driven in the Bay Area, instituting a full ban on imports of all goods manufactured in China and other countries with inadequate environmental protections, and require 100% of all energy used in the USA to come from renewable energy sources by the year 2018...)

[markpierce]

Lots of anchored boats show up on radar to starboard in Richardson Bay:

[markpierce]

Clear sailing leaving Richardson Bay via the channel:

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SunnySky

It has been a few years since I anchored in Richardson Bay in the course of my travels but I seriously doubt a single storm (or group of storms) created so much debris and wrecks that it is now an unsafe anchorage. As always, mariners should navigate with caution and report all hazards to the Coast guard...

I can personally think of "what federal management of this anchorage gets" including:
- A place for cruising boats to anchor short, medium and longer terms when needed (especially multihulls which have very few accommodations available in the Bay Area having been built at a time that multihulls were far less common than they are today...). Almost all these cruising boats are spending money on resupplying their boat's food stores, purchasing boat supplies, and spending money at various restaurants which benefits the local economy (and I acknowledge that the Bay Area is affluent enough that many residents are not likely to notice the difference in any way BUT the small local businesses that many Bay Area residents enjoy definitely do)
- A place for people dreaming of sailing off into the wild blue yonder to begin pursuing their dreams, either on a new to them boat or a friend's boat. This includes working on their sailing skills by both actual experience and from the advice of fellow sailors mentoring them in a much safer environment than many cruising grounds. If the sailing life is not for them they are much more likely to figure that out on their own without it costing them their life or the life of those they love than in harsher environments that are more remote.
- Richardson Bay being an actual body of water which provides numerous environmental and recreational benefits as opposed to simply being filled in to create more land for urban development (which the City of Sausalito historically wanted to do...)
- Historic public shore access being available to ALL local residents being maintained (despite the very strong pressure to turn absolutely everything in the Bay Area to a commodity for a handful of people to profiteer from)
- An affordable place for a handful of the working class that provide needed services to local residents to stay.

Those are just a few of the big things that come to mind, and I think that last point is the one that creates the most debate. There are people that feel a need or strong desire to live in the Bay Area which personally give back to society far more (and take far less...) than many (most?) of the Bay Area's conventional land-based residents; these individuals and families may not have the financial resources to afford to rent (or buy) a conventional a land-based residence OR they simply have different personal priorities which creates a desire to live on a boat in the Bay Area...

Recently I saw the results of a Kona storm which broke one catamaran from its mooring and it ended up taking out a monohull moored nearby. One boat on the beach and one on the reef; both boats were owned by fully-insured non-liveaboards and I would argue IF both boats had been occupied at the time by their owners there is a good chance that both owners could have sailed and/or motored their boats to safety... I can't help but think it's too bad they didn't live on their boats, or at least happen to spend that night on their boats...

Just my two cents..
Dave

(P.S. Speaking of "So much environmental damage and who pays the cost," what are your thoughts on expanding our thinking to deal with solving a bunch of other pressing problems like air pollution and climate change caused by all the gas guzzling SUVs driven in the Bay Area, instituting a full ban on imports of all goods manufactured in China and other countries with inadequate environmental protections, and require 100% of all energy used in the USA to come from renewable energy sources by the year 2018...)

I seriously doubt the local "conventional land-based residents" and businesses are going to miss having these aspiring sailors "pursue their dream" in their front yard.

Just my two cents..

Ken

[Caddy Shack]

Kenomac nailed it - these are not cruisers or even " boaters ". They are living on illegal permanent moorings with inoperable " boats ". Many have sunk or broken loose this winter - I have counted as many as six (visible) sunk on mooring at one time. Some as big as 50', many heaped with garbage. The agencies (including CG) do not respond or just attend for a look and then leave. My impression is they are only interested if they can levy a big fine. These guys can't rub two nickels together.

RB has been ruined for recreational purposes. The local sailing schools can't teach anymore because it is so cluttered and for fear of smashing into the many hidden sunken heaps. They have to sail in front of Hurricane Gulch instead. Going in with a cruising boat would be really stupid. I dinged a prop cutting across in my skiff - went back to have a look and there was sunken hulk below the surface.

One look at RB in its current state tells you that is nothing but a shame and a disgrace.

Waterfront crime is way up as anchor out #'s have soared, and have fun taking your family to Dunphy Park. Drunken " cruisers " picking fights with each other. At least there's a good chance the police are already there to save you a phone call.

Schoonmaker Marinas had 10 break ins in Dec alone. Smashed companionways, not just grabbing loose items. A number of my wealthy clients with very nice boats are now looking to leave Sausalito as a result, and Schoonmaker is the nicest marina in town.

Having lived on the waterfront almost ten years and making my living on the water, I can say things have changed drastically in the last five years. The new breed of anchor-outs are not the type you want around - on the water or otherwise.

[SunnySky]

Ken,
A picture is truly worth a thousand words and I agree both of the pictures you posted demonstrate a clear issue in need of being addressed.. BUT I contend the issues that caused the situations pictured in your post are not simply a result of people living on their boats in Richardson Bay and do not involve aspiring sailors pursuing their dreams or any of the other primary benefits of my last post.

I doubt anyone wants to have situations like the pictures of your last post occur, whether they are an ongoing basis for years in their backyard or causing them to feel unjustly lumped into a negatively defined group... There are many groups people can self-identify with or be lumped into by others which in the boating world may be jetskiers and other "thrill craft" operators recklessly flying by or lifeguards that regularly save lives and need to avoid the serious risk of a propeller hitting someone they are rescuing, "anchor outs" which if broadly defined include everything from derelict old vessels that are legitimate hazards to navigation to multimillion dollar yachts that simply cannot fit in any of the local marinas with someone living on them, and non-boating examples like an SUV driver in the Bay Area (that on a regular basis may only regularly carry a single person and their briefcase, OR a boat owner/construction worker that regularly has need to tow a trailer), and any number of other "groups" that can be lumped together based on certain criteria.

Homelessness being narrowly avoided by simply obtaining a free boat to live on with minimal if any prior boating experience, or financial/physical ability to provide minimal maintenance required for basic (already legally required) safety PLUS a substantial supply of free/very cheap boats due to NIMBY thinking of marinas PLUS relatively mild climate in Richardson Bay are causing problems. Sinkings due to sheer incompetence or extreme lack of maintenance, or dragging anchor due to some small CQR lunch hook that may come with a free boat can be avoided with appropriate ground tackle that keeps boats from dragging (and the Richardson Bay is pretty soft mud so two Danforth anchors to deal with the tides or big Spade anchor will avoid) and basic maintenance.

At the end of the day I hate to see anchoring rights severely restricted or downright eliminated for everyone because of problems with a few people that could be better addressed in other ways. Neither of us want the people that already demonstrated an inability to keep their boats in a seaworthy condition to start the cycle of free boat to sunk/grounded boat all over again once the spot their boats sank is cleaned up by obtaining another free boat... (as I write this one only need to go to https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/boa/5992246178.html to find an absolutely free to obtain 24' boat which specifically says "Boat must leave our harbor within 24 hours of your taking possession. No trailer. Bring outboard motor or sail it out."). This boat (and many like it) are the start of a dream or a nightmare for whomever takes possession next... Societal support or the lack there of is likely to strongly influence if the above mentioned free boat and the many like it end up as a dream or a nightmare...

No easy answers come to hard questions, but with dialogue of all interest groups hopefully there are meaningful ways to address problems of sinking/grounded boats without taking away sailor's rights to anchor..

Best regards

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SunnySky

Ken,
A picture is truly worth a thousand words and I agree both of the pictures you posted demonstrate a clear issue in need of being addressed.. BUT I contend the issues that caused the situations pictured in your post are not simply a result of people living on their boats in Richardson Bay and do not involve aspiring sailors pursuing their dreams or any of the other primary benefits of my last post.

I doubt anyone wants to have situations like the pictures of your last post occur, whether they are an ongoing basis for years in their backyard or causing them to feel unjustly lumped into a negatively defined group... There are many groups people can self-identify with or be lumped into by others which in the boating world may be jetskiers and other "thrill craft" operators recklessly flying by or lifeguards that regularly save lives and need to avoid the serious risk of a propeller hitting someone they are rescuing, "anchor outs" which if broadly defined include everything from derelict old vessels that are legitimate hazards to navigation to multimillion dollar yachts that simply cannot fit in any of the local marinas with someone living on them, and non-boating examples like an SUV driver in the Bay Area (that on a regular basis may only regularly carry a single person and their briefcase, OR a boat owner/construction worker that regularly has need to tow a trailer), and any number of other "groups" that can be lumped together based on certain criteria.

Homelessness being narrowly avoided by simply obtaining a free boat to live on with minimal if any prior boating experience, or financial/physical ability to provide minimal maintenance required for basic (already legally required) safety PLUS a substantial supply of free/very cheap boats due to NIMBY thinking of marinas PLUS relatively mild climate in Richardson Bay are causing problems. Sinkings due to sheer incompetence or extreme lack of maintenance, or dragging anchor due to some small CQR lunch hook that may come with a free boat can be avoided with appropriate ground tackle that keeps boats from dragging (and the Richardson Bay is pretty soft mud so two Danforth anchors to deal with the tides or big Spade anchor will avoid) and basic maintenance.

At the end of the day I hate to see anchoring rights severely restricted or downright eliminated for everyone because of problems with a few people that could be better addressed in other ways. Neither of us want the people that already demonstrated an inability to keep their boats in a seaworthy condition to start the cycle of free boat to sunk/grounded boat all over again once the spot their boats sank is cleaned up by obtaining another free boat... (as I write this one only need to go to https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/boa/5992246178.html to find an absolutely free to obtain 24' boat which specifically says "Boat must leave our harbor within 24 hours of your taking possession. No trailer. Bring outboard motor or sail it out."). This boat (and many like it) are the start of a dream or a nightmare for whomever takes possession next... Societal support or the lack there of is likely to strongly influence if the above mentioned free boat and the many like it end up as a dream or a nightmare...

No easy answers come to hard questions, but with dialogue of all interest groups hopefully there are meaningful ways to address problems of sinking/grounded boats without taking away sailor's rights to anchor..

Best regards

Bums on boats.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Ken is right...

To try and equate these folks to "Cruisers" is ridiculous.
I have nothing against Bums, but the Cruising Community needs to make it clear that Bums are Not Cruisers, although some cruisers are bums....

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ken is right...

To try and equate these folks to "Cruisers" is ridiculous.
I have nothing against Bums, but the Cruising Community needs to make it clear that Bums are Not Cruisers, although some cruisers are bums....

Good luck, cause I can tell you for shure the people in houses on the shore can't tell the difference and don't see any difference, unless its a Superyacht with a helicopter for a dinghy

How id your deck project coming along?

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Good luck, cause I can tell you for shure the people in houses on the shore can't tell the difference and don't see any difference, unless its a Superyacht with a helicopter for a dinghy

How id your deck project coming along?

Ah... Well... Having previously lived in a home overlooking that Bay, shore side residents can tell and most do appreciate the difference. Unfortunately, the Bay Area has become so costly that more than a few have resorted to living on semi- or complete derelicts for want of affordable housing. Some, of course, are just "boat bums" which has been the case in Richardson Bay as long as I can remember. Frankly, there is so much debris on the bottom there as a consequence, I can't imagine why anyone out cruising would want to anchor there.

[SunnySky]

As far as reasons a cruiser would want to anchor in Richardson Bay, I can only speak personally but there are very few places in the entire Bay Area that have room for my 40' catamaran with a 23' beam to begin with. Combine that scarcity with many marinas having the audacity of only allowing a sailboat OWNER to be on THEIR OWN BOAT 3 days of any given week without being labeled a dreaded "live-aboard" and at best paying a significant and unfair additional fee or more than likely simply being told to leave. Doesn't make much sense for a cruiser to fly all the way back to the east coast for 4 out of every 7 days...
With that said, SFO and OAK are great airports for a cruiser to have distant friends and family fly in to visit and/or crew, or if prudent measures are taken to care for their boat in their absence go home to tend to personal or professional obligations for a window of time.
I had the Treasure Island marina promise me a good deal to stay for a single month in their marina after getting my bearings being anchored at Clipper Cove under a 21 day permit, which would enable my mom to visit for a long weekend and me to have good access to the San Fransisco TechShop to complete some boat projects. Right after the long weekend my mom visited they accused me of "living on my boat" and told me I had to leave NOW. Since I was foolish enough to have paid cash partially towards the promised month as part of a verbal agreement I ended up paying full bay area retail for a long weekend even though I literally had cash in hand for the total previously agreed upon amount. They were kind enough to receive the items they told me I could have shipped to them for my boat for me to pick up later but still far from the best welcome compared to simply letting a cruiser be on their own boat for a single month.. If I knew I would be paying full daily retail rates I would have chosen a marina that took much better care of their existing infrastructure.. Of course now they want to expand and basically push out the sailing school and anchoring space to profiteer out of further developing a PUBLIC resource..
I'm opposed to profiteering marinas that are taking away previously public common resources while not being willing to keep their word (and for the record I am very grateful to numerous absolutely wonderful harbors and marinas I have stayed at over the years..) and likewise I am opposed to derelict boats that are clearly guilty of taking over the same contested public resource, there has to be a middle ground between these two extremes... Unfortunately the very nature of the cruising community's transient nature makes it is difficult to provide a voice in government for what I believe to be the very legitimate interests of cruisers...
Dealing with almost all the derelict boats without passing any new laws can be entirely dealt with by enforcement of existing USCG regulations (registration/documentation, safety equipment, no discharge zone, etc, etc) BUT disposal of those derelict boats is a big challenge and expense that each agency that could actually deal with it either chooses not to or financially is unable to..
Even though it is not a problem from cruisers, it is a problem cruisers need to pay attention to and provide input and ideas to address...

[sailorchic34]

Here just the other day, I was thinking that this winter must have been pretty hard on the Richardson bay folks. There are bum's on boats there, but there are a number, oh somewhere around 50 percent that don't look too bad at all. Quite a number are in quite fair shape. No worst then morro bay or SLO bay. Never had a problem anchoring there. But I tend to anchor away from the herd.

Hate to see boats going ashore. Not at all an easy life in winter and hope no one was injured in all the lovely storms we've had this winter.

Myself I generally avoid Richardson bay. Only went there to visit wm for flares, near clipper cove. With that gone, there really is no redeeming value to sausolito. To expensive and way to busy and noisy for me. It's big draw is 97% of the time the weather is pretty nice. But those suthern storms are bitch. No way I would be caught there in a storm.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ken is right...

To try and equate these folks to "Cruisers" is ridiculous.
I have nothing against Bums, but the Cruising Community needs to make it clear that Bums are Not Cruisers, although some cruisers are bums....

Hey now I resemble that remark .