Are Liveaboards Unwanted? Disliked? All over Everywhere?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I have lived and cruised from Mexico to Alaska and the same types seem to gravitate to positions of power through local agencies.
As long as there are no safety or health issues let them be.
I, for one, have had enough! Phil

Phil,

Would that be the same "types" who gravitate towards being on condo committees?

We call them "behavior Nazis" - worse than the soup nazi!

Wrong - I continue to understand your posts. I continue to wonder why you simply don't answer my basic questions:

--- Your proposal (or the ones you claim are before the RB-whatchamacallit) about the type of anchor rode doesn't appear to include a mix of rode and chain for anchoring in 12 feet of water. 50 feet of chain on a 5:1 scope ain't gonna make the "criteria" if one include the height of the bow above the water, right? So, an exemption would have to be granted. Yet I would venture to guess that a mixed rode is what 90% of "qualified" skippers use here. Those of us who are NOT circumnavigators, but qualified nonetheless.

--- You keep mentioning the 72 hour limit. I am unclear on whether or not the anchor nazis come out to check your "gear" before, after or during your initial anchor set. This is another REAL WORLD question that I believe I asked before but remained unanswered. I also mentioned that I had asked this same question about the Clipper Cove nonsense. If the limit is 72 hours, who keeps track of the time limits? In my letter to the TIA re Clipper Cove, I noted this, while somewhat different that the Sausalito issue, the concepts remain similar:

Enforcement: While we understand that your process is in its development stage, a basic question related to any “permitting” is: Who “polices” the activity and enforces the permits? There would be evident costs associated with this, all of which would most likely be used to justify the eventual application of “fees” which is not your stated goal. We have seen altogether too many incidents of “law enforcement” boats zooming through a quiet morning anchorage. More wakes are the last thing that are needed at Clipper Cove.

I look out at the anchorage here from cockpit at Schoonmaker's guest dock. There would have to be at least two "officials" with dependable boats. Two, of course, since only one "anchor nazi" couldn't be expected to be awake 24/7/365. Maybe three, right? So, even at minimum wage, that's some serious bread we're talking about, to say nothing about the cost of the boat, engine, maintenance and fuel.

I know one of the crew members of the Alameda sheriff's boat. Since the city bought the fancy-dan boat with Homeland Security $$ back in 2002, the budget has been slashed, so the boat only gets to out one day a week, Mondays - probably the very LAST day of the week that boaters are out and about! And the ONLY reason they get to go out at all is because if they didn't their "captain's license" wouldn't be able to be kept current.

So, continuing in that vein, here's more of what I wrote to the TIA in 2009:

Fees: Eventual bureaucratic “justification” for managing any permitting process is inevitable. There has rarely been a governmental “solution” that eventually does not involve fees. Whether this is for enforcement, paperwork, website production and access or anything else, even if it starts out for free, we are certain that eventually fees will be imposed. Please think in the long term and recognize that sooner or later fess will be part of the process. Then, your handsome goal of removing the derelict boats will be borne by future “responsible boaters” who, if you are successful, will have never seen nor heard of those derelicts. This is patently unfair and counter to your original goals.

and

Visitors: You must consider how strangers to the area will know about permit requirements. The cost for installing signage would become just another excuse for fees. We have friends who are sailing down from British Columbia. We could tell them, but what about folks who are coming through from the Delta, or just moving here and don’t know? These visitors would appear to be the first ones who would end up paying fines, another unforeseen consequence, and another fancy word for fees.

"Permitting" of free anchorage space is a solution looking for a non-existent problem.

Permitting of an anchorage is an oxymoron if one thinks about it a bit.

Unforeseen circumstances crop up all over in this discussion. Rarely do govt agencies think things all the way through.

Your thoughts?

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Unsubscribed due to over-moderation of my posts.

Were you being ugly?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Were you being ugly?

Perhaps just rational.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Phil,

Would that be the same "types" who gravitate towards being on condo committees?

We call them "behavior Nazis" - worse than the soup nazi!

Wrong - I continue to understand your posts. I continue to wonder why you simply don't answer my basic questions:

--- Your proposal (or the ones you claim are before the RB-whatchamacallit) about the type of anchor rode doesn't appear to include a mix of rode and chain for anchoring in 12 feet of water. 50 feet of chain on a 5:1 scope ain't gonna make the "criteria" if one include the height of the bow above the water, right? So, an exemption would have to be granted. Yet I would venture to guess that a mixed rode is what 90% of "qualified" skippers use here. Those of us who are NOT circumnavigators, but qualified nonetheless.

Take your concerns and ideas to the RBRA. Attend meetings, right letters and contact Bill Price to arrange a meeting.

--- You keep mentioning the 72 hour limit. I am unclear on whether or not the anchor nazis come out to check your "gear" before, after or during your initial anchor set. This is another REAL WORLD question that I believe I asked before but remained unanswered.

Question was answered. Go back & find it.

I also mentioned that I had asked this same question about the Clipper Cove nonsense. If the limit is 72 hours, who keeps track of the time limits? In my letter to the TIA re Clipper Cove, I noted this, while somewhat different that the Sausalito issue, the concepts remain similar:

Enforcement: While we understand that your process is in its development stage, a basic question related to any “permitting” is: Who “polices” the activity and enforces the permits? There would be evident costs associated with this, all of which would most likely be used to justify the eventual application of “fees” which is not your stated goal. We have seen altogether too many incidents of “law enforcement” boats zooming through a quiet morning anchorage. More wakes are the last thing that are needed at Clipper Cove.

Did the fees you refer to ever appear at Clipper Cove? No. Have you ever anchored in Clipper Cove and had to endure law enforcement boats zooming through creating wakes?

I look out at the anchorage here from cockpit at Schoonmaker's guest dock. There would have to be at least two "officials" with dependable boats. Two, of course, since only one "anchor nazi" couldn't be expected to be awake 24/7/365. Maybe three, right? So, even at minimum wage, that's some serious bread we're talking about, to say nothing about the cost of the boat, engine, maintenance and fuel.

I know one of the crew members of the Alameda sheriff's boat. Since the city bought the fancy-dan boat with Homeland Security $$ back in 2002, the budget has been slashed, so the boat only gets to out one day a week, Mondays - probably the very LAST day of the week that boaters are out and about! And the ONLY reason they get to go out at all is because if they didn't their "captain's license" wouldn't be able to be kept current.

If you'd attended recent RBRA meetings, you'd know there's both an acknowelegment funding for enforcement in the past has been woefully inadequate, and current requests for funding aim to address this problem.

So, continuing in that vein, here's more of what I wrote to the TIA in 2009:

Fees: Eventual bureaucratic “justification” for managing any permitting process is inevitable. There has rarely been a governmental “solution” that eventually does not involve fees. Whether this is for enforcement, paperwork, website production and access or anything else, even if it starts out for free, we are certain that eventually fees will be imposed. Please think in the long term and recognize that sooner or later fess will be part of the process. Then, your handsome goal of removing the derelict boats will be borne by future “responsible boaters” who, if you are successful, will have never seen nor heard of those derelicts. This is patently unfair and counter to your original goals.

and

Visitors: You must consider how strangers to the area will know about permit requirements. The cost for installing signage would become just another excuse for fees. We have friends who are sailing down from British Columbia. We could tell them, but what about folks who are coming through from the Delta, or just moving here and don’t know? These visitors would appear to be the first ones who would end up paying fines, another unforeseen consequence, and another fancy word for fees.

"Permitting" of free anchorage space is a solution looking for a non-existent problem.

Permitting of an anchorage is an oxymoron if one thinks about it a bit.

Unforeseen circumstances crop up all over in this discussion. Rarely do govt agencies think things all the way through.

Your thoughts?

Your evidence the concerns expressed by you above have come to past?

[oldragbaggers]

The title of this thread should be changed to Problems In Richardson Bay or something similar as there seems to be no way to steer the discussion back to the original topic without it getting derailed back to Richardson Bay again. Perhaps then a separate thread could be created to discuss the liveaboard situation in the REST OF THE WORLD if anyone is still interested in actually ascertaining that situation. (I think the OP was originally asking about Florida.)

[onestepcsy37]

Oldragbaggers, thanks for reminding me.

To the OP. 99.9% of Florida waters are free for anchoring. I've been doing just that since the 1970's. Welcome to Florida and have a nice stay.

To the left coasters. How can you stand to live there?

Sent from my SCH-I200PP using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

The title of this thread should be changed to Problems In Richardson Bay or something similar as there seems to be no way to steer the discussion back to the original topic without it getting derailed back to Richardson Bay again.

Actually, I thought providing the link to the RBRA web site with recommendations for folks to use the contact and other information there as a means to get involved would put the discussion here to rest. Nope.

Perhaps then a separate thread could be created to discuss the liveaboard situation in the REST OF THE WORLD if anyone is still interested in actually ascertaining that situation. (I think the OP was originally asking about Florida.)

Ideally there'd be separate liveaboard forums for each country, region, state and locality so overlap that annoys some can be avoided.

Forgot. The thread title is Are Liveaboards Unwanted? Disliked? All over Everywhere? Not only in Florida...

[oldragbaggers]

Well, this concerns the left coast, but not Richardson Bay. Actually it is about both coasts and may seem to be all over the place, but bear with me.

We were out in Orange County, CA last week visiting our daughter and grandchildren who live in Seal Beach. We lived in San Diego and Long Beach ourselves for 16 years, 5 years of that aboard a boat....and never had a problem with it although I will say that we did see things getting a bit stricter by the time we left in 2003 to move to Baltimore. (Yes, you can live aboard in Baltimore...we know a few people who do it and did ourselves for a bit. Note for thread....liveaboards not hated here.)

We had come to the point over the past several years of thinking we would probably never return to California and were thinking that we would home base out of Florida with our primary cruising grounds being the ICW and the Bahamas. To that end we have contacted a number of marinas in Florida and were greeted warmly about our liveaboard plans. As a matter of fact we receive a newsletter by email every single week from Regatta Pointe in Palmetto informing us of their activities for their liveaboards. This weeks' newsletter had a video attached done by the liveaboard community talking about how much they love living there. (Note for thread...liveaboards not hated in Palmetto, Florida.)

BUT, last week in California we were glorying in being with our family, loving the temperate weather, the ever present sunshine, the crystal blue water, the TOTAL ABSENCE of biting flies, gnats, and mosquitos, the cool evenings....you get the picture..... Our daughter's boyfriend lives aboard a boat in Huntington Beach and we had spent a couple of evenings aboard sitting outside in the cool evening breeze. You can't do that here in Baltimore without getting eaten alive by the bugs, and we start wondering why we didn't appreciate it all more when we had it. To be honest, I have never loved sailing quite as much in the Chesapeake as I did in Socal. The Chesapeake has it's advantages (free and numerous anchorages, little towns and villages to visit, crab cakes....oh wait, I don't eat those anymore....anyway) But it's not all rosey here, and there is something about the blue Pacific that is just mesmerizing.

Since we have heard so much about how impossible it is to liveaboard there now we decided we would check in at a few marinas, be open about the fact that we would be liveaboards, and see what kind of response we got. We checked into 5 places, 3 in San Diego (one company owns all three, 2 in Mission Bay and 1 in San Diego Bay) and 2 in San Pedro. We would have checked into Alamitos Marina in Seal Beach but they are rebuilding all of the docks and half the boats have been moved out so I figured that would be a waste of time right now. Likely the moved boats are in their sister marina in Long Beach so we didn't waste time with that either. I wish we would have had more time in San Diego. I would have loved to visit Shelter Island and Harbor Island as well. We lived aboard for a short time at Harbor Island West years ago and had no problems but it could have changed drastically since then.

In San Diego we were greated very warmly. We were told that living aboard is not allowed at all in Mission Bay, HOWEVER, you can berth as a transient cruiser which of course implies you are living aboard. The interesting part is that you can berth by the month under that status and they did not mention any time limits. The only downside is that you pay more for the privilege, $16 per foot per month instead of $12. But there was no mention of a liveaboard fee either which is usually an additional expense. The marina in San Diego has a waiting list, and cannot have over 10% liveaboards. The liveaboard fee is $300 a month. In order to get on the list for a permanent liveaboard slip you need to submit photos of the boat and a current survey. In other words, they don't want junk boats coming in and never moving. By the time we had returned home we had a nice email waiting for us telling us how much they enjoyed meeting us, hoped they had been able to answer all our questions, and were looking forward to seeing us again in the future. Note for thread.....liveaboards apparently not hated in San Diego, just charged and regulated.

In San Pedro we were also treated very kindly, shown the facilities, given an application to get on the waiting list (which they assured us wasn't terribly long, 7 people I think in one place) and given pointers on how to cruise from place to place as a transient cruiser until a permanent liveaboard slip becomes available. Liveboards not hated there either.

So far, in my very limited experience and going by just this very small sampling, I have not been treated anywhere as if I would be hated as a liveaboard and have gotten the impression that within regulation, with payment of associated costs, and assurances that we are not bringing in a derelict boat, our business would be most welcome pretty much anyplace. Even the idea of cruising from marina to marina as a transient doesn't sound too bad as sitting full time in one place isn't what we're looking for anyway. Once we take off the dock line we can do without any permanent contracts for a long time.

Free living aboard at an anchorage does not look do-able in Socal, but living aboard in a marina seems like it can be managed if you are willing to work the system and/or pay the price.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

Well, this concerns the left coast, but not Richardson Bay. Actually it is about both coasts and may seem to be all over the place, but bear with me.

We were out in Orange County, CA last week visiting our daughter and grandchildren who live in Seal Beach. We lived in San Diego and Long Beach ourselves for 16 years, 5 years of that aboard a boat....and never had a problem with it although I will say that we did see things getting a bit stricter by the time we left in 2003 to move to Baltimore. (Yes, you can live aboard in Baltimore...we know a few people who do it and did ourselves for a bit. Note for thread....liveaboards not hated here.)

We had come to the point over the past several years of thinking we would probably never return to California and were thinking that we would home base out of Florida with our primary cruising grounds being the ICW and the Bahamas. To that end we have contacted a number of marinas in Florida and were greeted warmly about our liveaboard plans. As a matter of fact we receive a newsletter by email every single week from Regatta Pointe in Palmetto informing us of their activities for their liveaboards. This weeks' newsletter had a video attached done by the liveaboard community talking about how much they love living there. (Note for thread...liveaboards not hated in Palmetto, Florida.)

BUT, last week in California we were glorying in being with our family, loving the temperate weather, the ever present sunshine, the crystal blue water, the TOTAL ABSENCE of biting flies, gnats, and mosquitos, the cool evenings....you get the picture..... Our daughter's boyfriend lives aboard a boat in Huntington Beach and we had spent a couple of evenings aboard sitting outside in the cool evening breeze. You can't do that here in Baltimore without getting eaten alive by the bugs, and we start wondering why we didn't appreciate it all more when we had it. To be honest, I have never loved sailing quite as much in the Chesapeake as I did in Socal. The Chesapeake has it's advantages (free and numerous anchorages, little towns and villages to visit, crab cakes....oh wait, I don't eat those anymore....anyway) But it's not all rosey here, and there is something about the blue Pacific that is just mesmerizing.

Since we have heard so much about how impossible it is to liveaboard there now we decided we would check in at a few marinas, be open about the fact that we would be liveaboards, and see what kind of response we got. We checked into 5 places, 3 in San Diego (one company owns all three, 2 in Mission Bay and 1 in San Diego Bay) and 2 in San Pedro. We would have checked into Alamitos Marina in Seal Beach but they are rebuilding all of the docks and half the boats have been moved out so I figured that would be a waste of time right now. Likely the moved boats are in their sister marina in Long Beach so we didn't waste time with that either. I wish we would have had more time in San Diego. I would have loved to visit Shelter Island and Harbor Island as well. We lived aboard for a short time at Harbor Island West years ago and had no problems but it could have changed drastically since then.

In San Diego we were greated very warmly. We were told that living aboard is not allowed at all in Mission Bay, HOWEVER, you can berth as a transient cruiser which of course implies you are living aboard. The interesting part is that you can berth by the month under that status and they did not mention any time limits. The only downside is that you pay more for the privilege, $16 per foot per month instead of $12. But there was no mention of a liveaboard fee either which is usually an additional expense. The marina in San Diego has a waiting list, and cannot have over 10% liveaboards. The liveaboard fee is $300 a month. In order to get on the list for a permanent liveaboard slip you need to submit photos of the boat and a current survey. In other words, they don't want junk boats coming in and never moving. By the time we had returned home we had a nice email waiting for us telling us how much they enjoyed meeting us, hoped they had been able to answer all our questions, and were looking forward to seeing us again in the future. Note for thread.....liveaboards apparently not hated in San Diego, just charged and regulated.

In San Pedro we were also treated very kindly, shown the facilities, given an application to get on the waiting list (which they assured us wasn't terribly long, 7 people I think in one place) and given pointers on how to cruise from place to place as a transient cruiser until a permanent liveaboard slip becomes available. Liveboards not hated there either.

So far, in my very limited experience and going by just this very small sampling, I have not been treated anywhere as if I would be hated as a liveaboard and have gotten the impression that within regulation, with payment of associated costs, and assurances that we are not bringing in a derelict boat, our business would be most welcome pretty much anyplace. Even the idea of cruising from marina to marina as a transient doesn't sound too bad as sitting full time in one place isn't what we're looking for anyway. Once we take off the dock line we can do without any permanent contracts for a long time.

Free living aboard at an anchorage does not look do-able in Socal, but living aboard in a marina seems like it can be managed if you are willing to work the system and/or pay the price.

One important thing in addition to the cost incurred living aboard in a marina you left out. Private and public marinas have paperwork, rules and regulations tenants must abide by. Woe be the anchorage that requires registration if staying longer than 72 hours, has rules, regulations, fees to use port moorings and minimum standards related to boat condition and ground tackle. No recent survey required!

[Hudson Force]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

..................
...............................
So far, in my very limited experience and going by just this very small sampling, I have not been treated anywhere as if I would be hated as a liveaboard and have gotten the impression that within regulation, with payment of associated costs, and assurances that we are not bringing in a derelict boat, our business would be most welcome pretty much anyplace. Even the idea of cruising from marina to marina as a transient doesn't sound too bad as sitting full time in one place isn't what we're looking for anyway. Once we take off the dock line we can do without any permanent contracts for a long time.

Free living aboard at an anchorage does not look do-able in Socal, but living aboard in a marina seems like it can be managed if you are willing to work the system and/or pay the price.

'nice summation. We have visited California a made some similar conclusions, but were entrenched in our freedoms on the US East Coast. We are soon to be in Baltimore, but just passing through.

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by Hudson Force

'nice summation. We have visited California a made some similar conclusions, but were entrenched in our freedoms on the US East Coast. We are soon to be in Baltimore, but just passing through.

Freedom is a good thing.

I hope we can manage to meet while you're here. We would really enjoy that.

[sparrowhawk1]

Over the weekend Miami beach put up signs all along the shoreline(sea walls) that sea tow would tow away all vessels attached to shoreline (sorry not exact wording) and it was done. Now there is no access to land but a 20min loading dock.

[mstrebe]

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

So far, in my very limited experience and going by just this very small sampling, I have not been treated anywhere as if I would be hated as a liveaboard and have gotten the impression that within regulation, with payment of associated costs, and assurances that we are not bringing in a derelict boat, our business would be most welcome pretty much anyplace. Even the idea of cruising from marina to marina as a transient doesn't sound too bad as sitting full time in one place isn't what we're looking for anyway. Once we take off the dock line we can do without any permanent contracts for a long time.

Free living aboard at an anchorage does not look do-able in Socal, but living aboard in a marina seems like it can be managed if you are willing to work the system and/or pay the price.

This is a good summary of my experience as well. That said, it IS possible to live on the hook outside of San Diego bay in the semi-protected Coronado/Zuniga bight, and come into the bay during infrequent storms. You can also live on the hook on the backside of coronado very easily; When last we went around the back-side there was a gentleman who'd been living in little harbor for five months. He was "generous" with anchoring "advice" because he was double-ended and wanted to make sure we were too.

There are other shallow, calm, but unprotected anchorages that are completely unregulated as well, and close to safe harbor, but nothing inside any bay or harbor that I know of.

It is true that you won't be able to anchor anywhere close to a dinghy dock or without a seaworthy vessel. If you intend to come into town frequently and are treating your boat as a free apartment, the cheapest way to live is on a $200 mooring ball, and there are hundreds of those in San Diego Bay (although now a wait list). They require an annual coast-guard inspection. I kept my Columbia Sabre on a mooring ball for five years and never had any trouble with it, but didn't live aboard.

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

This is a good summary of my experience as well. That said, it IS possible to live on the hook outside of San Diego bay in the semi-protected Coronado/Zuniga bight, and come into the bay during infrequent storms. You can also live on the hook on the backside of coronado very easily; When last we went around the back-side there was a gentleman who'd been living in little harbor for five months. He was "generous" with anchoring "advice" because he was double-ended and wanted to make sure we were too.

There are other shallow, calm, but unprotected anchorages that are completely unregulated as well, and close to safe harbor, but nothing inside any bay or harbor that I know of.

It is true that you won't be able to anchor anywhere close to a dinghy dock or without a seaworthy vessel. If you intend to come into town frequently and are treating your boat as a free apartment, the cheapest way to live is on a $200 mooring ball, and there are hundreds of those in San Diego Bay (although now a wait list). They require an annual coast-guard inspection. I kept my Columbia Sabre on a mooring ball for five years and never had any trouble with it, but didn't live aboard.

I'm glad you mentioned the anchorage on the backside of Corornado Island. We lived about at the Naval Amphibious Base Marina on Coronado in the '80's and I remember now that there we a lot of boats anchored there back then too. I don't really remember taking notice whether they were occupied by liveaboards. It's a beautiful spot though.

The mooring balls downtown near the Star of India always seemed to me that they might be a fun place to be for a little while just to be close to where everything is happening but I don't think I would like it for too long. A little bit of that kind of atmosphere goes a long way with us and then we have to seek out peace and quiet.

[BandB]

Zoning laws on land.....
Community rules on land....
City ordinances on land....

None of us can just do whatever we want to wherever we want to whenever we want to. There are areas in which everything is allowed, just not universally. There are places you can feel free to park a pop up tent and live in it and other areas where nothing under 3,000 sq ft will be allowed. Also, all sort of restrictions on things like docks. Some places you can't get permits. And so much talk about sewage on boats but on land you have to hook into the city system and in most of those areas you cannot build a septic tank. Same with water. In most cities you have to hook to their water, can't dig a well.

Like the water, some of the land restrictions are inadequate and some may go too far. Some of the rules against various vehicles in condo associations have been sources of great litigation.

If I want to have a few chickens and a couple of horses, I can't do it where I live, I'd have to do it elsewhere. Now, you can have dogs, but you have to keep them on your property or on a leash and you have to clean up after them.

Ultimately I like responsible liveaboards. Now, I don't think they like the irresponsible any more than I do, those who not only give them a bad name but who make their own enjoyment less.

I want there to be places for liveaboards, but I don't insist they should be able to live aboard in all places. I like the vast majority of them. I'm in favor of reasonable rules, but the problem is getting a concensus on reasonable. Last, I don't think it has to be free, but I do think, just as housing on land, we should provide some that is "affordable" to those wanting to use it.

If you parked your RV in front of our house intending to spend the night, while it might not bother us, community security would have you leave. If you anchored a reasonable distance from our home, then no one would bother you and we'd probably say hello to you.

I hate that people turn discussions like this into very personal attacks or that these discussions can't remain civil. But nothing here that you wouldn't see in zoning board meetings. Ultimately, like most things in life, it's a compromise. It's how to allow some freedom without unduly hurting others chance.