Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Hum....there goes the anchorage nuisances. Seems like the local authorities would have to come up with funding to foot the bill to remove the vessels determined to be maritime debris. So that could take a while, a potentially long while...maybe not though... Here's the link to the AB 1323

Ah, not really. That is for unoccupied boats abandoned for 30 days or sunk or beached vessel for more then 10 days. It might get some, 20-25% maybe of the boats, though I think the costs to the state might be higher then they think.

Actually looking at the bill, there isn't any appropriation for the bill. It's not funded. So I'm wondering where the money to remove the vessels will come from. From the boating and waterways budget most likely. But gee, how many boats at $10-$20K or more will really get removed. I'm betting no more then are currently removed each year.

I wish the state well in recovering costs from owners. As with many on the low end of the food chain, most have no funds or other items that can be seized.

[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...

A boat may be used as habitat, but is by no means a house.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Wrong

This message addresses 33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A

[...]

"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.

So how do you reconcile the part above that I bolded with your conclusion? If the "use" of an anchored or moored boat can be controlled, couldn't that authority be used to restrict anchor-out live-aboards?

In a way, I think the discussion of criminal behavior, manifestly unsafe vessels, pollution, etc, is perhaps missing the essential point. Yes, these are no doubt the reasons that some people care about the rules / rulemaking, but shouldn't these issues be dealt with under the existing laws?

To me, the critical issue is if there is a difference between a vessel in transit (be it a day or a month or perhaps a year), and a semi-permanantly anchored or moored vessel. Let's say that there is a permanent live-aboard in Richardson Bay who has a beautiful, well-secured boat, uses the pump-out boat (there is one in Sausalito), and is a gainfully-employed, law-abiding citizen. Is this a valid and legal use of the bay?

Now, what if this boat is not being used as a home, but is permanently moored in-between occasional use? Is this OK, even if the boat sits on the mooring for years?

I honestly don't know how to figure this out, but I do feel that there is a difference between (permanently-moored) live-aboard and everything else.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

So how do you reconcile the part above that I bolded with your conclusion? If the "use" of an anchored or moored boat can be controlled, couldn't that authority be used to restrict anchor-out live-aboards?

There is an Ordinance prohibiting living aboard. Perfectly legitimate since as you suggest it addresses how a boat is used. But, the challenge to enforcement is insurmountable due to the numbers of vessels and people in the Bay. How to prove anyone is living on their boat? How to prevent it? Unrelated to anchoring...

Also, Google search for Bell vs. Boise, a fairly recent court decision involving the Department of Justice. If push comes to shove, I know I'll be using the decision to head off any attempt by the authorities to prevent my living aboard.

In a way, I think the discussion of criminal behavior, manifestly unsafe vessels, pollution, etc, is perhaps missing the essential point. Yes, these are no doubt the reasons that some people care about the rules / rulemaking, but shouldn't these issues be dealt with under the existing laws?

Yep. But the Sausalito law enforcement agencies pretty much turn a blind eye to what may be happening in the Bay. Don't want to be bothered with it.

To me, the critical issue is if there is a difference between a vessel in transit (be it a day or a month or perhaps a year), and a semi-permanantly anchored or moored vessel. Let's say that there is a permanent live-aboard in Richardson Bay who has a beautiful, well-secured boat, uses the pump-out boat (there is one in Sausalito), and is a gainfully-employed, law-abiding citizen. Is this a valid and legal use of the bay?

Having pretty much done what you describe above, except my boat is showing some wear and tear after two near global circumnavigations, I have to say yes. Plus, I am a law abiding citizen (use the pumpout), retired, drawing social security. I have of course, also fallen under your description of a 'transient vessel' uncountable times.

Now, what if this boat is not being used as a home, but is permanently moored in-between occasional use? Is this OK, even if the boat sits on the mooring for years?

I have to say yes, as long as the owner visits the boat frequently and keeps her in good repair. If it's a port mooring however, most rules won't allow it. Same for a 'substitute' boat of low value kept on a mooring in order to keep an otherwise vacant mooring.

I honestly don't know how to figure this out, but I do feel that there is a difference between (permanently-moored) live-aboard and everything else.

Most complaints seem to be related to boats in disrepair, not living aboard. Unless of course, the lived aboard boat is in disrepair.

[Fluer de Mer]

Originally Posted by Wrong

…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...

I’m not a legal or regulatory expert, but believe that both your overall reading of the above cited US Special Anchorage Area Law, and specifically the legal and common definition of the term “use” might be on its face, much less narrow and limiting than you are presenting. Said differently, the above explicitly gives the RBRA and the County the ability to regulate and establish any number of “requirements” related to anchoring, mooring placement, and “use” which could (but is not limited to) include a whole host of things like duration of vessel use, hours of vessel use, vessel fees for use, vessel live-aboard use, etc..

(Mind you, Federal, State, and local laws might supersede or make mute the Federal Special Anchorage Law cited…e.g. Environmental, Public Trust, Public Safety, Coast Guard, Patriot Act, etc.)

PS: Bell v. Boise is interesting…although I don’t know how it might be used as I understand that it was dismissed by the court on standing (i.e. the judge didn’t say whether the Boise law prohibiting homeless from camping in public areas was a good or bad law)…time will tell.

[Schooner Chandlery]

More on the Public Trust Doctrine of California:

What local (on the land) people complain about and what are the true issues underlying the problems in Richardson Bay (or similar anchorages) are not the same thing. It is true that eyesore sites/ugly boats aren't addressed by other than local ordinances that can be put in place to limit such nuisances. Let the locals fight about that. Ugly does not equate to unseaworthiness, as we all know, even though there is a surprisingly high correlation.


There is a sliver of the info about Public Trust Doctrine in California that indicates providing the public views of the water are important public trust use of the public trust lands. That is why we see restaurants on the tidelands as well as many walkways and paths around the Bay providing views of the water. The Doctrine is silent on the aesthetics of those views. My personal thought is the Doctrine started with strong focus on commercial water-dependent activities but facing strong lobbying pressures was interpreted more recently (20th Century) to include both recreational uses (like recreational boating) as well as public-serving facilities like eateries.


Boats that are unseaworthy or hunks of junk that are really debris rather than boats can be addressed by USCG vessel inspection (fined/removed if found unseaworthy) or the new state level authorization for local enforcement to haul away such debris. This is not happening but, in theory, if local agencies had the money, or the USCG had the time, it could happen.

The United States has very strong states' rights and the federal government quickly sheds responsibilities and regulatory authority to the states. The exceptional cases in which the federal government preempts existing state laws / regulations are in cases that impact interstate commerce and the states are refusing to play well together with regulations that make it possible for a commercial entity to comply with all the states they do business in—so the feds come in. You see this with transportation safety regulations, FDA, etc. The states fight tooth and nail to keep the federal government regulations out, so if someone starts pointing to the CFR on issues of land use (and that is what we're talking about here, submerged land, but still land use) they really haven't thought it all through. Until the 1960's the federal government did keep control of many anchorages but in California between the 1960's and 1980's much control was ceded by the federal government to port authorities and the like.


The issues of the Public Trust Doctrine are specific and unique to navigable waterways and the tidelands and there appears no identical public lands parallel though we all try to draw those parallels. It's in the Public Trust Doctrine where the squatting/housing issue raises up. It is also where there are some grounds to remove structures, permanently moored vessels, etc, that are limiting the use of the navigable waterways by those who are intended (by the doctrine) to use them: mariners, fishermen, vessels in transit, recreational boaters...etc, see my previous post on this.


Since the Doctrine itself specifically excludes housing as a public trust use, one can either, with simple minds, say that housing is never OK in the navigable waters and tidelands (and I'd think none of us advocate for THAT) or conclude that when housing is incidental or ancillary to the public trust use, it's OK and coexists/supports the public trust use of a structure (tidelands) or vessel (in the water). A vessel in transit, for example, may also provide housing for its crew and we all can see that as primary public trust use (vessel transiting) and the ancillary use is supporting the public trust use (by providing crew rest for the crew of the vessel in transit). Anchoring a vessel while it waits for parts, cargo, or maintenance activities also follow the same logic path. The vessel is navigating the waterways and the anchoring, maintenance, loading/unloading, etc, are all incidental uses to the primary public trust use. It is pretty clear, to the objective viewer, that when a non-sailor moves aboard a non functioning boat at anchor and doesn't take it anywhere nor does s/he spend a majority of their time preparing themselves and the vessel for actual transit but instead just lives there, that the vessel is functioning primarily as housing—a use that is not water dependent and specifically cited as an example of a use prohibited on public trust lands (tidelands and navigable waterways). If a vessel isn't safe enough to pass USCG inspection or isn't compliant with holding tank and no discharge rules (present in Richardson Bay) then it is not permissible to be used in navigable waters—and doesn't belong there until it is compliant.

If a drop dead gorgeous, USCG compliant and seaworthy boat is also sitting at anchor for an extended period providing housing for a mariner who does not use the vessel for other than housing purposes, then it too would likely be looked upon as housing as primary use and wouldn't be appropriate public trust use of the anchorage. Some local jurisdictions do have requirements for vessels not to be stored at anchor and so it could be a double no-no for the person living aboard that vessel: 1 primary use is not a public trust use, and 2 vessel is in storage. That's a rabbit hole not worth our going down. After all--in theory the Cruisers Forum is a group of cruisers who are engaged in public trust use of the navigable waterways: either using their boats or preparing boats to be used and we shouldn't have an extreme amount of interest or concern about housing-only use that displaces our own public trust use. If any thing, our concerns as cruisers would tend towards the preservation of the navigable waterways for public trust use by all boaters.

There's an important part of the Public Trust Doctrine that it would be good for us to acknowledge—even if some folks don't agree with it—and that is the whole idea that the navigable waters and the adjacent tidelands should support use by and for all the public for uses that are water dependent or related. This is the other shoe that drops for boat-dwellers who do not stray from their single location. Guess what is prohibited by the State of California's Public Trust Doctrine? Let's repeat it:

1. Generally local-serving uses (e.g.grocery store) that are not water dependent, and,
2. Housing


The thing about this is that “local interests” are not to push out/displace the public trust use of the waterways and adjacent tidelands. On the good side, this means that the people of the adjacent towns can't just say “we want our views clear of all boats” because their view of the water has wiggle room as a public trust use whereas boats in navigation are definitely in the public trust usage. It also means that people who want to use boats anchored long term in a local area as housing can't say “this is the only affordable housing” and justify the housing itself as a public trust use. It isn't.


Opposite of the above statement about boats as affordable housing in a single location: It is perfectly within permitted public trust use for a traveling boater to exclusively use anchorages as they travel from place to place and to never use a marina or stay in a hotel, etc. Because the boater is traveling exactly as intended as a use of the navigable waterways, his/her use of the boat as housing is incidental to the public trust use. The bottom line? Keep moving.

[sailorchic34]

The BellvBoise case law is interesting in that the appeals court found that Bell did having standing on appeal. The city changed their enforcement policy due to that so as to not ticket people sleeping in public places at night when there was no where else to go.

Which raises the question of where do the anchor outs go if not in Richardson bay. The next nearest places are 50 odd miles away. As many of the boats are not seaworthly or the owners are not seaworthy, going up or down the coast is not really an option. For the Power boats, most don't have money for the fuel for a 50-100 mile trip. Let alone a 700 or 1500 mile trip.

If you look at the west coast of California there are very few places with protected anchorages. Those that are there, already are full of boats. So really the anchorouts, like folks sleeping in the park, have no where else to go.

So the 8th amendment probably would come into play, were someone to find a good laywer. You can't bar people from sleeping and living somewhere.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

......................
..................................
..................................
Opposite of the above statement about boats as affordable housing in a single location: It is perfectly within permitted public trust use for a traveling boater to exclusively use anchorages as they travel from place to place and to never use a marina or stay in a hotel, etc. Because the boater is traveling exactly as intended as a use of the navigable waterways, his/her use of the boat as housing is incidental to the public trust use. The bottom line? Keep moving.

Very nice analysis, thanks.

This last paragraph: isn't this pretty much what Rose, sailorchic34, is actually doing?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Very nice analysis, thanks.

This last paragraph: isn't this pretty much what Rose, sailorchic34, is actually doing?

Mostly, though as I get older, I find that having the boat in a marina for winter is not too bad. Some of the boats in Richardson bay do move about. But probably only 10 ish or so. THey pop over to clipper cover for a day or two, then china camp for a few days and then back to RB. Other crazies, such as myself, tend to wander a bit further a field.

Still waiting for rainy season to end.... Sigh...

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Very nice analysis, thanks.

This last paragraph: isn't this pretty much what Rose, sailorchic34, is actually doing?

I'm not sure what she's doing. It is what we've done up and down the West Coast since 2009. Works very nicely. Also keeps you moving

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Mostly, though as I get older, I find that having the boat in a marina for winter is not too bad. Some of the boats in Richardson bay do move about. But probably only 10 ish or so. THey pop over to clipper cover for a day or two, then china camp for a few days and then back to RB. Other crazies, such as myself, tend to wander a bit further a field.

Still waiting for rainy season to end.... Sigh...

This has been a strange fall/winter in the Bay area with the rain and cold. Well, strange from my point of view. We've returned to the Bay area and Delta in the fall of 2013, 2014, and 2015. From where ever we were we came back to spend the fall in the Delta and a month or so of the winter in a marina in the Bay before we head out for spring-summer to the north or south depending on year. The WX this year has just been...sucky...and no fun at anchor. 2016 will be a *different* kind of year for us since we're pulling into a Bay area marina and working full time this year. We will probably move off the boat and use the time to do boat projects w/o us aboard and that will be nice too.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

This has been a strange fall/winter in the Bay area with the rain and cold. ............. The WX this year has just been...sucky...and no fun at anchor.

Good luck with your boat projects.

Yup, the weather has been strange.

It's called RAIN, something we haven't seen in four years!!!

I haven't been out since Nov. 20th, and I usually go out for a couple of days every week or so. I got T boned by some bozo while I was at anchor and am awaiting "check's in the mail" from the insurance company to get it fixed. I could still sail the boat, but haven't because of the weather.

That wet stuff is sure welcomed, though.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

More on the Public Trust Doctrine of California:

What local (on the land) people complain about and what are the true issues underlying the problems in Richardson Bay (or similar anchorages) are not the same thing. It is true that eyesore sites/ugly boats aren't addressed by other than local ordinances that can be put in place to limit such nuisances. Let the locals fight about that. Ugly does not equate to unseaworthiness, as we all know, even though there is a surprisingly high correlation.


There is a sliver of the info about Public Trust Doctrine in California that indicates providing the public views of the water are important public trust use of the public trust lands. That is why we see restaurants on the tidelands as well as many walkways and paths around the Bay providing views of the water. The Doctrine is silent on the aesthetics of those views. My personal thought is the Doctrine started with strong focus on commercial water-dependent activities but facing strong lobbying pressures was interpreted more recently (20th Century) to include both recreational uses (like recreational boating) as well as public-serving facilities like eateries.


Boats that are unseaworthy or hunks of junk that are really debris rather than boats can be addressed by USCG vessel inspection (fined/removed if found unseaworthy) or the new state level authorization for local enforcement to haul away such debris. This is not happening but, in theory, if local agencies had the money, or the USCG had the time, it could happen.

The United States has very strong states' rights and the federal government quickly sheds responsibilities and regulatory authority to the states. The exceptional cases in which the federal government preempts existing state laws / regulations are in cases that impact interstate commerce and the states are refusing to play well together with regulations that make it possible for a commercial entity to comply with all the states they do business in—so the feds come in. You see this with transportation safety regulations, FDA, etc. The states fight tooth and nail to keep the federal government regulations out, so if someone starts pointing to the CFR on issues of land use (and that is what we're talking about here, submerged land, but still land use) they really haven't thought it all through. Until the 1960's the federal government did keep control of many anchorages but in California between the 1960's and 1980's much control was ceded by the federal government to port authorities and the like.

Authority and power was delegated to the Richardson Bay Regional Agency by the US Coast Guard. But, it is very limited with all other authorities and powers retained by the Coast Guard. 33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas, as far as I can see, does not say anything about the public trust.

The issues of the Public Trust Doctrine are specific and unique to navigable waterways and the tidelands and there appears no identical public lands parallel though we all try to draw those parallels. It's in the Public Trust Doctrine where the squatting/housing issue raises up. It is also where there are some grounds to remove structures, permanently moored vessels, etc, that are limiting the use of the navigable waterways by those who are intended (by the doctrine) to use them: mariners, fishermen, vessels in transit, recreational boaters...etc, see my previous post on this.

Isn't it a stretch to say a boat is a house, which is what you are saying in this post? We may say a person is living on their boat. But you cannot point at a boat and say its owner is living in a house. Normally in the realm of law, and I ain't no lawyer, words matter and their specific meanings are central to stating one's case.

Since the Doctrine itself specifically excludes housing as a public trust use, one can either, with simple minds, say that housing is never OK in the navigable waters and tidelands (and I'd think none of us advocate for THAT) or conclude that when housing is incidental or ancillary to the public trust use, it's OK and coexists/supports the public trust use of a structure (tidelands) or vessel (in the water). A vessel in transit, for example, may also provide housing for its crew and we all can see that as primary public trust use (vessel transiting) and the ancillary use is supporting the public trust use (by providing crew rest for the crew of the vessel in transit). Anchoring a vessel while it waits for parts, cargo, or maintenance activities also follow the same logic path. The vessel is navigating the waterways and the anchoring, maintenance, loading/unloading, etc, are all incidental uses to the primary public trust use. It is pretty clear, to the objective viewer, that when a non-sailor moves aboard a non functioning boat at anchor and doesn't take it anywhere nor does s/he spend a majority of their time preparing themselves and the vessel for actual transit but instead just lives there, that the vessel is functioning primarily as housing—a use that is not water dependent and specifically cited as an example of a use prohibited on public trust lands (tidelands and navigable waterways). If a vessel isn't safe enough to pass USCG inspection or isn't compliant with holding tank and no discharge rules (present in Richardson Bay) then it is not permissible to be used in navigable waters—and doesn't belong there until it is compliant.

If a drop dead gorgeous, USCG compliant and seaworthy boat is also sitting at anchor for an extended period providing housing for a mariner who does not use the vessel for other than housing purposes, then it too would likely be looked upon as housing as primary use and wouldn't be appropriate public trust use of the anchorage. Some local jurisdictions do have requirements for vessels not to be stored at anchor and so it could be a double no-no for the person living aboard that vessel: 1 primary use is not a public trust use, and 2 vessel is in storage. That's a rabbit hole not worth our going down. After all--in theory the Cruisers Forum is a group of cruisers who are engaged in public trust use of the navigable waterways: either using their boats or preparing boats to be used and we shouldn't have an extreme amount of interest or concern about housing-only use that displaces our own public trust use. If any thing, our concerns as cruisers would tend towards the preservation of the navigable waterways for public trust use by all boaters.

The word "stored" implies something is kept somewhere while it is not being used. So, saying a sailor is living on a stored boat is an oxymoron. And again, a boat ain't a house. You can use just about anything from cardboard to a boat for protection from the elements. But even then, we wouldn't refer to cardboard as something we'd use for a long time. So, it's temporary 'shelter'. Moving along the continuum to a point where we spend considerable amounts of time and engage in cooking, organizing our belongings and other daily activities, the place becomes 'habitat'.

There's an important part of the Public Trust Doctrine that it would be good for us to acknowledge—even if some folks don't agree with it—and that is the whole idea that the navigable waters and the adjacent tidelands should support use by and for all the public for uses that are water dependent or related. This is the other shoe that drops for boat-dwellers who do not stray from their single location. Guess what is prohibited by the State of California's Public Trust Doctrine? Let's repeat it:

1. Generally local-serving uses (e.g.grocery store) that are not water dependent, and,
2. Housing

Housing? Nah.

The thing about this is that “local interests” are not to push out/displace the public trust use of the waterways and adjacent tidelands. On the good side, this means that the people of the adjacent towns can't just say “we want our views clear of all boats” because their view of the water has wiggle room as a public trust use whereas boats in navigation are definitely in the public trust usage. It also means that people who want to use boats anchored long term in a local area as housing can't say “this is the only affordable housing” and justify the housing itself as a public trust use. It isn't.

Housing. Nah.

Opposite of the above statement about boats as affordable housing in a single location: It is perfectly within permitted public trust use for a traveling boater to exclusively use anchorages as they travel from place to place and to never use a marina or stay in a hotel, etc. Because the boater is traveling exactly as intended as a use of the navigable waterways, his/her use of the boat as housing is incidental to the public trust use. The bottom line? Keep moving.

Housing. Nah. Keep moving? Yah. But in order to keep moving there must be other places to go. In the San Francisco Bay area the 'other places' are dwindling in number. SailorChic has a constitution compatible with being alone so can spend lengthy periods in the Delta. I'd go nuts...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Isn't it a stretch to say a boat is a house, which is what you are saying in this post?

He didn't say a boat was a house. He said it was "housing", which is a term that can encompass a lot of things. An apartment isn't a house either, but it is housing. These liveaboard boats in Ricahrdson Bay aren't, bye and large, being used as boats. They're being used as housing.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

He didn't say a boat was a house. He said it was "housing", which is a term that can encompass a lot of things. An apartment isn't a house either, but it is housing. These liveaboard boats in Ricahrdson Bay aren't, bye and large, being used as boats. They're being used as housing.

Public Trust Doctrine specifically uses the word 'housing'. Any reasonable person will understand the literal meaning of the word as typically referring to structures having a foundation and commonly known as a house. If the intent was to broadly include other types of shelter it's reasonable to expect Trust Doctrine to have used the term 'informal housing'. The term informal housing can include any form of shelter or settlement (or lack thereof) which is illegal, falls outside of government control or regulation, or is not afforded protection by the state.