Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[ASD]

So the city has control over the anchorage and is trying to clean it up? You oppose this?


Wrong, I could see your point if it was a bay in the middle of the wilderness, but this is a populated area. Folks are probably getting tired of looking out over the bay and seeing junk and derelicts. A livaboard for 30 years? No problems with livaboards as I am one. However we go places (cruise) and own our dock and pay our taxes. Taking up residence in a bay to avoid taxes, and other things is not something the voters at Sausalito seem to want. The city have control over the anchorage. I do not agree that non-residents should have a say. If you want a say become a resident of Sausalito, then you have a vote.


You are stating this to be unfair? Really? You live in the bay on a derelict(?) and don't contribute to the city, why should the city support you? If you don't like it, then start your boat up and move. Go to the Delta or pay for moorage. Life is not free and you need to stop living off of those of us that pay taxes and/or moorage fees.


Sorry, I support the clean up of the bay and the derelicts and junk need to move. If it can't be moved because of its condition, then the owners need to get it fixed and abide by the rules, like the rest of us.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by ASD

So the city has control over the anchorage and is trying to clean it up? You oppose this?

No, I do not oppose clearing unattended, junk, derelict and boats obtained and stored with resale in mind. The latter practice is what swells the number of people who seek refuge in the Bay. But, once there I'll defend their right to be left alone. Just like I'll defend my own right to be left alone.

Wrong, I could see your point if it was a bay in the middle of the wilderness, but this is a populated area. Folks are probably getting tired of looking out over the bay and seeing junk and derelicts. A livaboard for 30 years? No problems with livaboards as I am one. However we go places (cruise) and own our dock and pay our taxes. Taking up residence in a bay to avoid taxes, and other things is not something the voters at Sausalito seem to want. The city have control over the anchorage. I do not agree that non-residents should have a say. If you want a say become a resident of Sausalito, then you have a vote.

It's a lame claim that people move aboard a boat to avoid paying taxes. Especially among those on boats in Richardson Bay. In reality most are very low income and most likely exempt from paying income tax. But, ya know what, those with expendable income pay sales tax on everything they can afford to buy ashore. And, in case you don't know each county within which a boat is kept most of the time assesses a property tax on the boat. Last I heard, with very few exceptions, every American citizen has a right to vote. Besides, the issue here does not involve an election where residency may be required. It involves a public event being hosted by the Sausalito City Council on behalf of the RBRA. It concerns public business that effects people who are, and are not residents of Sausalito. So, with all undue respect, these people have a legal right to attend and be heard.

you are stating this to be unfair? Really? You live in the bay on a derelict(?) and don't contribute to the city, why should the city support you? If you don't like it, then start your boat up and move. Go to the Delta or pay for moorage. Life is not free and you need to stop living off of those of us that pay taxes and/or moorage fees.

Your loose usage of the word 'you', if you mean to infer what you're saying to me applies in my case, is way off base. But, it does nonetheless reveal your propensity toward buttonholing people you don't know anything about. My gut level response is to suggest you put your attitude where the sun don't shine...

Sorry, I support the clean up of the bay and the derelicts and junk need to move. If it can't be moved because of its condition, then the owners need to get it fixed and abide by the rules, like the rest of us.

Us? Now, who pray tell might that be?

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Wrong

No, I do not oppose clearing unattended, junk, derelict and boats obtained and stored with resale in mind. The latter practice is what swells the number of people who seek refuge in the Bay. But, once there I'll defend their right to be left alone. Just like I'll defend my own right to be left alone.



It's a lame claim that people move aboard a boat to avoid paying taxes. Especially among those on boats in Richardson Bay. In reality most are very low income and most likely exempt from paying income tax. But, ya know what, those with expendable income pay sales tax on everything they can afford to buy ashore. And, in case you don't know each county within which a boat is kept most of the time assesses a property tax on the boat. Last I heard, with very few exceptions, every American citizen has a right to vote. Besides, the issue here does not involve an election where residency may be required. It involves a public event being hosted by the Sausalito City Council on behalf of the RBRA. It concerns public business that effects people who are, and are not residents of Sausalito. So, with all undue respect, these people have a legal right to attend and be heard.



Your loose usage of the word 'you', if you mean to infer what you're saying to me applies in my case, is way off base. But, it does nonetheless reveal your propensity toward buttonholing people you don't know anything about. My gut level response is to suggest you put your attitude where the sun don't shine...




Us? Now, who pray tell might that be?

I can see you are emotionally charged in this issue and disrespectful to boot.

If a lot of folks who are currently anchored in RB are indeed very low income, then owning a boat that can move under its own power seems to be beyond their means. Keeping a boat, sail or power takes money. Your position on these low income boats verifies my position. They are there to avoid paying moorage fees and taxes.

Portland Oregon had the same problem with floating houses and derelicts as in RB. My definition of derelicts may be different than yours. Portland took charge and folks that live in floating houses now pay taxes on their homes, just as the dirt folks do. They also passed laws (Like Sausalito is attempting to do) to keep the derelicts from taking up residence on the river in their boats. They are welcome to stay for a few days, but must move on at least 5 miles away or be cited and possibly having their boat confiscated. Its also a safety issue.

As far as "us" is concerned, my meaning is the rest of us tax payers who are supporting those in RB.

[SunnySky]

I anchored in Richardson Bay a couple years ago and met a number of really great people that were cruisers anchored there in the course of their travels as well as people that lived in the Bay Area on their boats. Nowhere is perfect, but Richardson Bay was one of the most hospitable places I anchored when sailing in California. There are boats anchored there both short and long term that should not be punished by unreasonable restrictions to their lifestyle.

The problem of derelict boats which can be demonstrated to be a hazard to navigation, lacking in legally required USCG safety gear, illegal drug use, or illegally discharging sewage into the bay can be addressed with the laws currently on the books. There is absolutely no need for increased regulations in Richardson Bay, but enforcement of current regulations would be a VERY reasonable approach to take to address all the problems which are currently being leveraged to further a specific agenda which seems to be that only the wealthy should be allowed to enjoy the Bay Area.

In so much as is possible, people should live and let live; spending $650,000 of tax money to try to push people living non-traditionally out of a Federally Designated Anchorage makes absolutely no sense if looked at from the big picture.

People have a right to travel and that right encompasses the right to anchor. Admittedly that guaranteed right to anchor does not include the right to live anchored long-term in a single location but I see no way these regulatory goals will not both infringe upon a sailor's right to anchor and unnecessarily harm people that are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. "Affordable" housing is a big issue in the Bay Area, and historically speaking most of the pressure against sailboats anchoring in the Bay Area has come from Real Estate Developers that want to make as much money as possible and do not appreciate people that can have a great quality of life without working day in and day out to simply pay for a roof over their head. They infiltrate local government and leverage governmental powers (and police force if necessary) to further their own private agendas and people need to stand up against that type of abuse of power.

To the people that feel "everyone needs to pay their fair share" so shouldn't be able to live on a boat in the Bay Area, have you carried that thinking through to what happens when a Veteran loses their boat and does not have the financial means to live anywhere other than a government funded residence or homeless shelter? I actually met an older gentleman that was living on his boat successfully in the Oakland Estuary before everyone anchored there got kicked out and he was just trying to make it until he made it to his next birthday and other Veterans benefits kicked in. After being kicked out of a place he knew and was relatively secure in, despite his boat not being what I would consider seaworthy, there was a concerted effort to provide no safe place for any of the people kicked out of there and he ended up losing his boat before his birthday and likely ending up in a homeless shelter until his age qualified him for additional veterans benefits. As opposed to almost all of the wars the USA has waged in the world for all the wrong reasons, I personally think he paid his fair share putting his life on the line years ago and he wasn't really causing anyone any trouble where he was.

The "Golden Rule" of he that hath the gold makes the rules is not how our society should function (and yes, I am not naive enough to belief that it isn't the primary aspect of government be it local or federal)

Please write a letter in opposition to turning Richardson Bay into an elitist mooring field only usable by a few under a limited and entirely changeable list of rules,
David
sv Sunny Sky Hailing from Cold Bay AK

[Wrong]

Amen! Thanks SunnySky.

[Wrong]

And, in another attempt to derail the RBRA plan to restrict and or eliminate anchoring in Richardson Bay, I've sent this message to "...those with the power to decide, for better or worse." Includes members of the RBRA Board and Sausalito City Council.

Feedback encouraged.

Re: 33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:48 AM
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
From:
wrong
To:
bberto@marincounty.org
Cc:
ttheodores@ci.sausalito.ca.us jhoffman@ci.sausalito.ca.us lpfeifer@ci.sausalito.ca.us hweiner@ci.sausalito.ca.us rwithy@ci.sausalito.ca.us lwhalen@ci.sausalito.ca.us mwinter@cityofbelvedere.org erin2000@hotmail.com herbweiner@ci.sausalito.ca.us kwachtel@krwlaw.net apolitzer@ci.sausalito.ca.us
Bcc:
apolitzer@ci.sausalito.ca.us

Again,
To: People I don't know and most of whom I've never met. But, by virtue of their position have the power to decide. For better or worse.

From: wrong


This message addresses 33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas that bestows limited authority and power to the RBRA. Its language is clear and does not imply any authority and power beyond that specifically noted in the CFR can be exercised by the RBRA.

"§ 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]"

There is nothing in "33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas" that bestows upon the RBRA authority and power to restrict and or prohibit anchoring in Richardson Bay. "These ordinances establish requirements on matters including the anchoring of vessels... This specifically refers to "requirements" established to manage the anchoring of vessels and in no way implies the RBRA has authority to prevent the anchoring of vessels.

Ordinances may "...establish requirements", such as current registration, safety and ground tackle used by anchored boats. Ordinances may also exist to govern the placement of moorings. Ordinances may exist to control the "use" of anchored and moored vessels within the special anchorage area. That's it.

Nothing in "33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas" permits the RBRA to prevent anyone from using their vessel and or anchoring in the special anchorage.
Ordinances promulgated and enacted by the RBRA cannot impose restrictions, prohibitions, penalties or fines in excess of the authority and power explicitly stated in CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas. Ordinances promulgated and enacted by the RBRA without regard to the limited authority explicitly stated in "CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas" must then be void on their face.

Consequently, Richardson Bay Regional Agency Ordinance No. 91-1, is void on its face due to the fact the intent behind the "restriction" is to bar anchoring in Richardson Bay beyond 3 days in a week without a permit. The permit requirement does not change the fact the RBRA has no authority to prevent anchoring in Richardson Bay. For a day, week or any other time.

"An Ordinance of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, State of California, Amending Ordinance 87-1 by adding sections.... Subsection Subsection (a) of section 4 entitled "Permits, anchoring and mooring"...., and section10 "Penalties".

Ordinance_91_1 Section 5(a)

"Any person may temporarily anchor a vessel for a period not more than 72 hours, in any 7 day period, in the designated anchorage areas without a permit" is void on its face and therefore unenforceable.

If the need to take this matter to court matures as a consequence of an attempt by RBRA and or law enforcement personnel to enforce the ordinance upon anyone, thereby giving the person "standing" in court, so be it. I and others will be happy to oblige...

[model 10]

You know what Wrong?, if you don't support my freedom to do a quick bottom job in Sausalito along side an old pier on a very rare high tide, I don't want your nazi mooring field either. You have a major boat yard 1/2 mile away doing hundred's of bottom jobs, a city sewage treatment plant dumping millions of gal and that is OK by you I guess. I don't like your double standard.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Guy

You have a major boat yard 1/2 mile away doing hundred's of bottom jobs, a city sewage treatment plant dumping millions of gal and that is OK by you I guess.

FYI (since you clearly don't know), the boatyard in question, KKMI, is probably the greenest boatyard in the state, certainly in the Bay Area and maybe the whole country. In both of their yards, KKMI have gone far above and beyond what is required of them to ensure that their environmental footprint is minimized. I suspect that any water that enters the Bay from either of those two yards is cleaner than that found in any marina you could name. It is unfair to characterize them as big polluters.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Guy

You know what Wrong?, if you don't support my freedom to do a quick bottom job in Sausalito along side an old pier on a very rare high tide, I don't want your nazi mooring field either.

Two points. If you've actually read this thread from the top you'd know I haven't said I don't "support (your) alleged "freedom" to do anything. But, if you exercise your alleged freedom in contravention to local, state and federal laws - and get caught - thery'll be a pretty stiff price to pay. Your choice.

Second point. I am opposed to "my nazi mooring field" for as long as there will be no local and cruisers anchorages. That's my specific position. Generally though, I'm opposed to ALL moorings. They bestow upon a limited number of people the right to possess a public space below the mooring for as long as they are permitted to stay. This, while untold numbers of boaters are denied access to the moorings and what would otherwise be an open anchorage with equal rights of access and use by all.

You have a major boat yard 1/2 mile away doing hundred's of bottom jobs, a city sewage treatment plant dumping millions of gal and that is OK by you I guess. I don't like your double standard.

Funny. Just illustrates your ignorance of who I am and my involvement in issues affecting Richardson Bay.

[Wrong]

NOTICE!

Apparently the RBRA doesn't have the stomach to risk a big turnout at the November 10 meeting, only two days in advance of the November 12 Spinnaker thing, so they've changed the next RBRA meeting date to December 10 ,2015. What more should we expect of the RBRA?

[Capt.Fred]

Back in the late 1950's Richardson bay was beautiful. Old derelict ocean cargo schooners, brigantines, barges and misc. craft lay rotting along the waterfront. People (happy people) lived all over them and of course the clamoring from the land livers were the same pancreases they are now. The fog over the bay was exhilarating.
Nothing changes much and this battle, will go on for eternity, just as the original Indians were a problem and had to go.
I sailed away to the beautiful semitropical Alabama Gulf Coast 33 years ago and never looked back at the freezing, crowded, expensive and over regulated West Coast.
People just naturally require regulations... The more people the more regulations. However, one does not have to put up with freezing.
Please see Alabama in a 6 minute aerial drone video of the 50' 23 ton cutter rigged yawl, my wife and I designed, built solely by ourselves in Santa Barbara and launched in 1977. You Tube; "Sail the Daedalus".

[markpierce]

Radar's view of anchored boats:

[Wrong]

Last call. Spinnaker Restaurant, 18:00 - 19:30 tomorrow, November 22, 2015. No matter your position on the current state of affairs in the Richardson Bay anchorage, if you want to be able to anchor anywhere in Richardson Bay in the future, you'll show up and say no to the Sausalito City Council authorizing funds for a mooring field being planned by the RBRA.

[tomtom]

[QUOTE=Wrong;1949411]So far, I have seen the Nov. 12 Spinnaker event advertised in only one place. 'The Marin Scope', a newsletter published by none other than Sausalito City Hall. It's by subscription only to Sausalito residents and the final decision with what's included in the Scope rests with the City Manager. Depending on the Scopes source of funding, if nothing but City business and plugs by the RBRA reciting blah blah blah...


First off, getting rid of the floating meth labs in Richardson Bay can only be a good thing.

Second, Marinscope is NOT published by the Sausalito City Hall. From the Marinscope website:

Marinscope Community Newspapers
We are six extensively local, fully adjudicated newspapers linking communities in Marin County.

The Novato Advance, San Rafael News Pointer, Twin Cities Times, Ross Valley Reporter, Mill Valley Herald and the Sausalito Marin Scope provide news coverage with the energy that reflects the vibrancy of the people of Marin.

Distributed weekly on Wednesdays, the newspapers reach about 30,000 households via paid subscriptions, doorstep sample delivery and paid in-store and news vending sales. We also offer a dynamic website featuring our award-winning news coverage.

Readership extends far beyond the press run. Readers love our newspapers and we love our readers.

Our oldest newspaper is the Novato Advance, which has served the community since 1922. The remaining five newspapers have served their respective parts of Marin County since the 1970s.

Battle Born Media, a boutique media group of 12 newspapers in California and Nevada that is owned by journalists who still believe in the power and necessity for great newspapers, powers Marinscope Newspapers.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[ASD]

[QUOTE=tomtom;1960373]

Originally Posted by Wrong

So far, I have seen the Nov. 12 Spinnaker event advertised in only one place. 'The Marin Scope', a newsletter published by none other than Sausalito City Hall. It's by subscription only to Sausalito residents and the final decision with what's included in the Scope rests with the City Manager. Depending on the Scopes source of funding, if nothing but City business and plugs by the RBRA reciting blah blah blah...


First off, getting rid of the floating meth labs in Richardson Bay can only be a good thing.

mmm Go figure. After looking at the radar image posted too, we had the same issue. I am all for the new mooring field....