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.