How strict are Live Aboard LOA restrictions?

[Vancefish]

I don't remember the name. It was just NW across the entrance from the Aquarium Marina, next to the boat tow yard right there. It was the only Marina I found that in, the others said nothing about length. Might have been just because of WHERE it was, and how easy it was to see from the boardwalk there.

[valhalla360]

Another thing to consider if you can reasonably claim it is...are you a liveaboard or a long term cruiser.

We've found a lot of places let long term cruisers stay for several months but don't allow liveaboards.

[Vancefish]

I thought a lot about that too. It costs a little more to get a slip day to day, but if you are anchoring out a lot it could end up a lot cheaper then a lease. Believe me if I can work it out to spend a season cruising before I find an off season job? I'd go that route yesterday.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Another thing to consider if you can reasonably claim it is...are you a liveaboard or a long term cruiser.

We've found a lot of places let long term cruisers stay for several months but don't allow liveaboards.

Nice tip. Thanks

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oddly enough the land owning folks, be it a house or condo, tend to look down on the poor retched live aboards. Lots O that in Cali. Not to even mention anchor outs...

When I lived in Bradenton, FL (not on a boat), the "normal folks'" arguments seemed to be:

1. A perception that live-aboards weren't "paying their fair share". (somehow they never thought that, even if that were true, live-aboards also aren't using the same amount of municipal resources)

2. There was a large problem locally with derelict boats being moored/anchored, then abandoned to be disposed of at taxpayer expense.

3. They essentially viewed live-aboards as little more than homeless people, gypsies of the sea.

[cburger]

In our area the cost per foot is regularly measured based on LOA rather LWL, I am currently living this issue as my summer marina wised up to the fact that they were only charging us based on a 32" water line and just uped my summer slip fee by $600.00 to reflect the boats true size of 40', ouch.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

When I lived in Bradenton, FL (not on a boat), the "normal folks'" arguments seemed to be:

1. A perception that live-aboards weren't "paying their fair share". (somehow they never thought that, even if that were true, live-aboards also aren't using the same amount of municipal resources)

2. There was a large problem locally with derelict boats being moored/anchored, then abandoned to be disposed of at taxpayer expense.

3. They essentially viewed live-aboards as little more than homeless people, gypsies of the sea.

As to number 2, the derelict boats, the problem really is that there are not good procedures in most places to dispose of them. When? Who? How? It can be a time consuming, expensive and drawn out process.

As to number 3, that's where size, age, seaworthiness often are used. But then it's a difficult matter of judgment. Every live aboard who fits that definition does harm to the thousands of good live aboards.

Live aboards can be the best or worst thing possible security wise. Worst is you get one who steals or has friends who do or gives out the dock code to everyone. Best case is a good live aboard who is much like another level of security. If I was docked at a marina and the vagabond gypsy untrustworthy was next to me, I'd be very unhappy. But if the trustworthy decent live aboard was docked next to my slip I'd be thrilled and definitely become friends. I'd at the very least make sure to take them to dinner, give them gift certificates, and do other things to show my appreciation for them keeping an eye on things. I'd be more than willing to pay them for checks of my boat if they'd accept but most of those would not, which is why the gift certificates.

Unfortunately another situation where the vast majority of good get harmed by the actions of the few bad.

[hellosailor]

There's a lot of internet bilge talk about "laws" but I think you'll find most laws regulating liveaboards are pure myths. And confusion over what a private marina, or the marinas in one area, have decided to do privately. If I was required, or allowed, to rent out 10% of my docks to liveaboards....well, if you charge by the foot you can make twice as much money by "requiring" only bigger boats, can't you?
Ah, the light bulb goes off. Now tell people it is the law, or your insurance, or someone else's fault so you don't have to argue with them.

Yes, most if not all marinas charge by your entire overall length on deck, as measured by a string from the furthest back to the furthest forward, and if your anchor hangs over your bow guess what? You'll pay for that extension too.

So yes, you can always make your boat longer...in fact some yachts have had "falsies" added to their hulls to make them meet race requirements the same way. But you might want to find out if there really are LAWS about length, because a LAW will define how the length is measured, and that might exclude the stuff marinas gladly will charge you for.

If there is a LAW, someone can cite a source for you, and you can look it up and find it on the web these days. On a government web site. No citation? No law, just FUD.

[Dsanduril]

California, AFAIK, doesn't have any statewide laws related to living aboard a boat (in a marina or otherwise). Would love to have someone point me to the code that says otherwise.

There are regional and local restrictions. In the San Francisco area the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) rules with an iron fist. Amongst other things, they pretty much prevent any additional coastal development in the Bay Area. In order to get that fiat they had to restrict liveaboards. All the developers who wanted to build shoreline houses cried foul if a marina could fill itself with people living on boats. The result was a rule that no more than 10% of the slips could be liveaboard within the BCDC jurisdiction. That 10% level was developed on the basis of an estimate of how many people were liveaboards in the 1970s and maintaining the status quo.

In the BCDC the boat also has to be "suitable" for living, that is up to each marina. The Berkeley municipal marina, for instance, says 24 feet. The Richmond muni says 30 feet. Other marinas make their own choices. The BCDC rules do say that the boat has to leave the slip at least once every 180 days, otherwise it is classified as a houseboat, which has its own set of rules.

Outside the BCDC other rules apply. Depending on location the California Coastal Commission may have jurisdiction (or at least a big hammer). They frequently set the number at 5%. But also leave the marinas to determine what is suitable. There are a number of other local and regional restrictions, and you'll find the same thing both in other states in the US and in other places around the world.

[Vancefish]

I see, so again. No actual laws, just rumors, private rules and "ordained laws". Like vaccination "laws".

THAT is also great information. The mobile home park I live in likes to ignore actual laws. They also use false court documents to evict people, and show up demanding you sign over title to your home with no actual legal right to do such a thing. Yet they do get away with it.

A few years ago I had my rent money order stolen out of my car. A few days after telling them I would be late. I get what LOOKS like a legal eviction notice for not paying my rent. I got all angry and worked up. Then start looking at it closely and it's like the 400th copy or a copy of a copy... It's squed at a slight angle. An OBVIOUS fake. NO judge or court involved at all. Just a copy filled out by the park. A few days later I went in and paid it with a $50 late fee (I slid through the door).

Never heard about it again. The whole threat was a scam to see if I'd run and let them HAVE my modular. (Likely illegal!)

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by RainDog

What Marina is that? Almost any marina in Clear Lake will allow you to live aboard on any size boat. ..........

RainDog

Blue Dolphin in Seabrook has a 38' minimum live-aboard rule.
We just left there a month ago to go permanent cruising. Somehow, we were 'overlooked' at only 36'. These people are easy to deal with.

[hellosailor]

"Then start looking at it closely and it's...An OBVIOUS fake."

It is the rare DA who won't put someone in jail for counterfeiting a court order. And when or if they don't...there's always a federal prosecutor who'll be glad to find out why.

Ignore that stuff and you become a professional victim. And, set the rest of us at risk when they do it to someone else the next time.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

California, AFAIK, doesn't have any statewide laws related to living aboard a boat (in a marina or otherwise). Would love to have someone point me to the code that says otherwise.

You did ask. Here you go...

Luckily Google is our friend. The state McAteer-Petris act, established the BCDC. The Act became law in 1969 and has been amended over the years. The McAteer_ Petris Act is part of the California land trust and is how our friends at BCDC came into existence. So yes its actually a state Law. as the BCDC is part of that ACT. It really does have the force of law behind it.

Here's an out take from the bay crossing
Bay Crossings



How was the limit of 10% live-aboards per marina arrived at, and how can it have the force of law?

Sections 66632(f) and 66651(d) of the McAteer-Petris Act require the Commission to issue permits for activities that are consistent with the provisions of the Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. Section 66651(d) also allows the Commission to incorporate special area plans, such as the one for Richardson Bay, into the Bay Plan. Section 66652 allows the Commission to amend the Bay Plan. Thus, the Bay Plan and Richardson Bay Special Area Plan policies have the full force and effect of law.

The Bay Plan policy limiting live-aboard berths to ten percent of the total berths in a marina was adopted after a long public debate and much input from the boating and marina community in the mid 1980s. The Commission concluded that having residents living in a recreational marina would provide additional security for recreational boating, a primary trust use. Therefore, the Commission decided a limited amount of residential use on live-aboard boats could be considered ancillary to a water-oriented use and consistent with the public trust. The Commission decided that the best way to define "ancillary" administratively was to establish a numerical standard for the amount of residential use.

To establish this standard, the Commission’s staff surveyed existing marinas and yacht harbors in the Bay and found that on average less than five percent of the berths in the marinas were used by live-aboard boats. To ensure that no existing live-aboards would have to be evicted, the Commission chose a percentage that was double the existing figure, which was still a percentage that could be reasonably supported as being truly ancillary. The Commission also indicated that it would allow more than the ten percent in certain cases, particularly when the live-aboard boats were existing as of the time the policy was adopted, so as to avoid any existing live-aboard residents being evicted.

The Commission also adopted a regulation (Section 10128) defining a live-aboard boat as "a boat that is not a transient boat, that is capable of being used for active self-propelled navigation, and that is occupied as a residence as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 244." Government Code Section 244 establishes seven criteria for determining place of residence. One of the criteria provides that a person can have only one place of residence at any one time. So if someone lives on a boat during the summer, but has another official residence, the boat would not be considered by BCDC to be a live-aboard boat. Transient boats, sometimes called cruisers which are used as permanent residences by people on extended sailing excursions, are also considered by BCDC to be a type of recreational boat. The vessels covered by the BCDC definition of "live-aboard boat" are those that used as full-time permanent residences, so even with ten percent restriction, harbormasters can allow additional residents if they are on transient boats or are not permanently living on their vessels.

It's California after all, Of course they have a law about it...

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

When I lived in Bradenton, FL (not on a boat), the "normal folks'" arguments seemed to be:

1. A perception that live-aboards weren't "paying their fair share". (somehow they never thought that, even if that were true, live-aboards also aren't using the same amount of municipal resources)

2. There was a large problem locally with derelict boats being moored/anchored, then abandoned to be disposed of at taxpayer expense.

3. They essentially viewed live-aboards as little more than homeless people, gypsies of the sea.

I like being a Gypsie of the Sea!

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

1. A perception that live-aboards weren't "paying their fair share". (somehow they never thought that, even if that were true, live-aboards also aren't using the same amount of municipal resources)

It would be pretty hard to make this argument, unless you claim the same about anyone who lives in an apartment or other rental property.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

2. There was a large problem locally with derelict boats being moored/anchored, then abandoned to be disposed of at taxpayer expense.

moored/anchored is very different from being in a marina. In my area marinas usually are responsible for their derelict boats.