Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Best you avoid Sausalito altogether since you find so much fault here.

Now wait just a minute there. A condescending attitude probably fits in quite well in Sausolito.

Though I must agree with you and admit my 35 gallon water tankage and 3CF fridge does not lend itself to a months long cruise. They probably have 8 times the space of my little 34 foot boat.

[Liam Wald]

FYI...
Postings on internet forums are like newspaper articles. Anything more than 300-400 words and you are wasting your time typing. Very few readers will go beyond that unless it is super compelling, earth shattering, highly scandalous, or bloody.
So spice it up or trim it down.
But stand by because I am working on my new expose...
Just a teaser, one of the Richardson Bay live aboards is a very famous Hollywood celebrity!
Stay tuned.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Now wait just a minute there. A condescending attitude probably fits in quite well in Sausolito.

Though I must agree with you and admit my 35 gallon water tankage and 3CF fridge does not lend itself to a months long cruise. They probably have 8 times the space of my little 34 foot boat.

Now who's being condescending and making assumptions? We don't even have a fridge and our drinking water tankage is 25 gallons (well, closer to 30 if we count the 2 liter bottles I keep stored in the bilge...). We also don't have many of the other niceties that some folks may consider absolute *musts* for living aboard. But, let's not make this personal--because it isn't. How big or small, fast or slow, expensive or cheap, well appointed or basic that a particular seaworthy boat is is NOT the point.

Here's to beating a dead horse in far more than 400 words for those with short attention spans, don't bother reading:

The bottom line in the RB anchorage is really (really) the Public Trust Doctrine. No matter what I think, or Wrong thinks, or Sailorchic thinks, it doesn't matter. All that matters is what the State's position (that regulations and public policy is based upon) is. In all of my posts here and on CF elsewhere I have not stated my own stance on the issue but rather what the well-communicated position of the State of California is and how I deal with California's stance while I live aboard a cruising sailboat. The position of the state is communicated by the State via the SLC that housing is not a Public Trust use.

The State's stance is that housing (or other local-serving uses) is only permissible if it is incidental or ancillary to an actual Public Trust use. In the case of the anchor-outs/squatters/whatever one wishes to call them, their vessels aren't engaged in a (primary) Public Trust use for their housing to be ancillary or incidental to. Therefore, no matter how we feel about it, they don't belong in the navigable waterways of California (according to the State of California's Public Trust Doctrine).

Different states take different stances on these same issues. If someone, like Wrong, wishes to stake out a single spot and stay there for a long time, California itself and especially the Bay isn't the place to do it in compliance with the State itself. OTOH, if he were in Alaska, he could easily find places to anchor indefinitely where nobody would care. And further, in some places he could put down a deposit ($600 or so) to get a couple hundred (or was it a couple thousand thousand?) board feet of wood from the national forests and he could take a portable sawmill to a location (agreed upon by him and the State of Alaska and the forest service) where he'd cut the trees that were marked for his use, he'd mill them into what he needed to make himself a float house to be used in a location agreed up by him, the State, and the forest service. Seriously. I was amazed when I heard about it while up there.

And then he'd be able to live there for, well, as long as his float house floated. Free. No pretending that it's a boat. Just a plain float house. Oh--and he'd be eligible for the Alaska state payment (varies in amount from year to year) and he'd be eligible as a senior citizen for other benefits as well. While we were there, in the middle of nowhere at a small fish processing plant, we tied up to a state float (free) and chatted with the local liveaboards for a few days and learned alot. We distilled it down to mainly that a squatter, who can survive the conditions, is welcomed in AK Different policies for different states. Remember that state's rights thing I brought up a few posts ago? That's part of it...don't like the State of California? go to OR, WA, AK or down to MX where one can squat for an awfully long time very inexpensively--and with good yet inexpensive healthcare, too

Update on other local info:

Sailorchic you're right about Mare Island Strait --though we didn't get a ticket or a "move along" shove when there, we shouldn't have been there. I got a call back from the USCG regarding Mare Island Strait--it is not a designated anchorage and while in the past boaters just anchored outside of the marked channel and everyone was OK with it, there was, unfortunately, an incident with a liveaboard boater who refused to leave the area (for months) and refused the USCG boarding and inspecting the vessel--that combined with some other...squatters...forced the issue (they'd been nice and ignored it until then) and now NO boaters are allowed to anchor there. None. Boaters are stuck with Benicia or elsewhere. And, yes I knew about the 96/30 days LA thing because they mentioned it.

This is exactly the sort of thing that will ultimately happen in RB, there will be an unfortunate staking out of positions by squatters and others and the results will likely be...unfortunate... for all boaters not just the people who forced the issue and created problems.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I'm having a problem with your deliberate and vindictive constant posting of these vessels. You've made your point.
Why would anyone request these pictures when they can go to one of your many earlier posts of these pictures. We know where you stand on the issue...fine! Let go already. Do you think badgering everyone else here is going to "win" you in some sort of self-absorbed poll?
Frankly, I could care less one way or another. They're not bothering me. I'm sure they pollute. But I don't see any city controlling their storm drains. I have to watch used condoms and syringes float by after a rain storm. I call them until I'm blue in the face. Oh wait...you don't have a view of the estuary. So you don't have see it...just the liveaboards from your room with a view.

I disagree. Keep showing the pictures exposing the trash in RB.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Now who's being condescending and making assumptions? We don't even have a fridge and our drinking water tankage is 25 gallons (well, closer to 30 if we count the 2 liter bottles I keep stored in the bilge...). We also don't have many of the other niceties that some folks may consider absolute *musts* for living aboard. But, let's not make this personal--because it isn't. How big or small, fast or slow, expensive or cheap, well appointed or basic that a particular seaworthy boat is is NOT the point.

THE POINT is you can range near and far, between Alaska and Southern California while taking a lot less time and effort than someone else with a smaller boat, single handing at that. And if you want to compare bare bones simplicity on a cruising boat, happy to oblige you any time. Oh, SailorChic is right, your condescending attitude toward the folks on boats in Richardson Bay would be welcome IN Sausalito, among certain circles. You could join up with the anti-showers coalition. But, if I were you I'd be careful what I say anywhere near the waterfront. You'd be greatly outnumbered by 'squatters' and 'old cruisers on social security".

Here's to beating a dead horse in far more than 400 words for those with short attention spans, don't bother reading:

Your long posts won't be forgotten due to peoples short attention spans, it's the overwhelming repetiveness and boring subject matter. Talk about beatjng a dead horse. One more word about the public trust and I'm going to vomit.

The bottom line in the RB anchorage is really (really) the Public Trust Doctrine. No matter what I think, or Wrong thinks, or Sailorchic thinks, it doesn't matter.

Brrrruuuggghh! (sound of vomit). Speak for yourself. What SailorChic and I think matters a lot. You however.

All that matters is what the State's position (that regulations and public policy is based upon) is. In all of my posts here and on CF elsewhere I have not stated my own stance on the issue but rather what the well-communicated position of the State of California is and how I deal with California's stance while I live aboard a cruising sailboat. The position of the state is communicated by the State via the SLC that housing is not a Public Trust use.

Except for you, nobody else cares. Especially we squatters in the SF Bay area.

The State's stance is that housing (or other local-serving uses) is only permissible if it is incidental or ancillary to an actual Public Trust use.

Which part of we don't care don't you understand?

In the case of the anchor-outs/squatters/whatever one wishes to call them, their vessels aren't engaged in a (primary) Public Trust use for their housing to be ancillary or incidental to. Therefore, no matter how we feel about it, they don't belong in the navigable waterways of California (according to the State of California's Public Trust Doctrine).

On and on and on...

Different states take different stances on these same issues. If someone, like Wrong, wishes to stake out a single spot and stay there for a long time, California itself and especially the Bay isn't the place to do it in compliance with the State itself.

I suggest you find some other 'squatter' to use as you 'fer instance' whipping boy. Because I have a tendency to respond in the most predictable way. And I don't believe you'd like it.

OTOH, if he were in Alaska, he could easily find places to anchor indefinitely where nobody would care. And further, in some places he could put down a deposit ($600 or so) to get a couple hundred (or was it a couple thousand thousand?) board feet of wood from the national forests and he could take a portable sawmill to a location (agreed upon by him and the State of Alaska and the forest service) where he'd cut the trees that were marked for his use, he'd mill them into what he needed to make himself a float house to be used in a location agreed up by him, the State, and the forest service. Seriously. I was amazed when I heard about it while up there.

"Amazing" is your ability to beat a dead horse to death.

And then he'd be able to live there for, well, as long as his float house floated. Free. No pretending that it's a boat. Just a plain float house. Oh--and he'd be eligible for the Alaska state payment (varies in amount from year to year) and he'd be eligible as a senior citizen for other benefits as well. While we were there, in the middle of nowhere at a small fish processing plant, we tied up to a state float (free) and chatted with the local liveaboards for a few days and learned alot. We distilled it down to mainly that a squatter, who can survive the conditions, is welcomed in AK Different policies for different states. Remember that state's rights thing I brought up a few posts ago? That's part of it...don't like the State of California? go to OR, WA, AK or down to MX where one can squat for an awfully long time very inexpensively--and with good yet inexpensive healthcare, too

Nah. Stopped remembering anything you've said long ago.

Update on other local info:

Sailorchic you're right about Mare Island Strait --though we didn't get a ticket or a "move along" shove when there, we shouldn't have been there. I got a call back from the USCG regarding Mare Island Strait--it is not a designated anchorage and while in the past boaters just anchored outside of the marked channel and everyone was OK with it, there was, unfortunately, an incident with a liveaboard boater who refused to leave the area (for months) and refused the USCG boarding and inspecting the vessel--that combined with some other...squatters...forced the issue (they'd been nice and ignored it until then) and now NO boaters are allowed to anchor there. None. Boaters are stuck with Benicia or elsewhere. And, yes I knew about the 96/30 days LA thing because they mentioned it.

This is exactly the sort of thing that will ultimately happen in RB, there will be an unfortunate staking out of positions by squatters and others and the results will likely be...unfortunate... for all boaters not just the people who forced the issue and created problems.

It's folks like you and NOT "the squatters" who force the issues and cause problems.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by ASD

I disagree. Keep showing the pictures exposing the trash in RB.

Poll time?

[Schooner Chandlery]

Thanks, Wrong, for your confirmation of my success: I've succeeded in repeating the specifics of the State of California's Public Trust Doctrine -- and housing as incidental or ancillary to Public Trust use -- enough times that you may now recall it at will. Hopefully you'll not only recall it, you'll reflect on your stance, your choices, and the situation in RB as it impacts all boaters rather than just a few.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Your long posts won't be forgotten due to peoples short attention spans, it's the overwhelming repetiveness and boring subject matter. Talk about beatjng a dead horse.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Poll time?

Why not!!

[markpierce]

Richardson Bay? It's not too early to leave!

[markpierce]

Speaking of anchoring in Mare Island Strait (southern end of the Napa River and opposite the former naval base), this boat was anchored there for years near the Vallejo marina until recent months. If one approached within 30 yards, the boat's dog would bark.

[robert644]

markpierce, I don't understand. What is the issue with the boat in your post ? I understand, every insecure loser out there has to have at least three wolf hybrids on their boat that **** up and down the dock, but at least this one has a moat around it.

[Fluer de Mer]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

...Why would anyone request these pictures when they can go to one of your many earlier posts of these pictures...

In the spirit of 'a picture is worth more than a 1,000 words', I posted the photos initially in response to post #108, which was very helpful in highlighting the lack of up-to-date images available via Google search. I posted them a second time at the request of several interested parties (private and public who are not currently members of this forum) who could not find them with a Google search because they were not tagged/named such that Google could find and index them. The second posting remedied the tagging/naming/indexing issue. Eventually they all will now be located and indexed by Google so that they will come up in searches. Hope this helps

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Fluer de Mer

In the spirit of 'a picture is worth more than a 1,000 words', I posted the photos initially in response to post #108, which was very helpful in highlighting the lack of up-to-date images available via Google search. I posted them a second time at the request of several interested parties (private and public who are not currently members of this forum) who could not find them with a Google search because they were not tagged/named such that Google could find and index them. The second posting remedied the tagging/naming/indexing issue. Eventually they all will now be located and indexed by Google so that they will come up in searches. Hope this helps

Here's a news flash...you could have simply copy and paste the page of this thread that had the pictures to your "interested parties". Nor do you need to be a member to view this forum...No...I think it was more than that and you know it. It was your way of making a point over and over.
It's clear you have an agenda.

[Fluer de Mer]

Today's update...encountered this sinking derelict adrift in the wind with 4 'boaters' today (two of whom were without PFDs yelling out that they could not swim). Unfortunately the 8 knot winds blew them hard into a cruiser leaving a 2 foot indent in the cored midship hull of that boat's side before bouncing off towards the catamaran in the photo...fortunately the cat's gelcoat was only repeatedly gouged and scraped by the sharp paddle that the 'boater's' were able to deploy. BTW, the fellow on the back was babbling that the motor/s (inboard and outboard) hadn't worked in years. I hope that they left their contact and insurance information...don't know, your guess is as good as mine.