Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

OK that sounds no better than something like a prison -- round them all up and put 'em on a cruise ship to rot? Used to round them all up and send them to the colonies. To bad, no more colonies? See my above answer to this question. Not to rot, to offer a clean dry private bedroom and services.

The real problem I'm seeing is that the land-based folks are actually thinking, figuratively, of discarding of people into the ocean much as they used to discard trash to the ocean. People are not trash. The homeless don't deserve to be stuck on floating heaps in RB nor do they deserve to be plunked into a prison of a cruise ship. Living on a cruise ship, properly maintained, tied to a dock, with access to land and services is what I found creative. From what I've read here, not witness to it personally, the RB derelict live aboards would have more security, not less.

Don't you remember the cruise ship that came to New Orleans for Katrina and literally nobody would use it? They were afraid to go there, aboard, and there were many problems with the people who DID use it. Bad situation all the way around. I am not familiar with this but i certainly would like to explore information about it.

If the local zoning authorities would get realistic about minimum lot size, minimum apartment size and the rest, it might be possible for people to live more affordably on land rather than being offloaded to the sea. Of course, there's always the option of moving inland to more affordable digs, too.

I agree. But woulda, coulda, shoullda! Going forward that's a great goal. What is existing in reality now? How can we bring immediate relief to such a big problem? There are two problems to solve. The imeadiate and the future.

There's this entire movement going on in USA, in my mind similar to Japan and Asian countries 10-20 years ago, with architecture. The minimal, tiny home, small house movement. It comes about from over population, populations being condensed into profitable urban pockets, people trying to minimize there living expenditures due to stagnant wages. I can actually see this entire project failing because the below $150,000 income crowd would gentrify it in a years time by paying $1000 k monthly for such an opportunity, knocking out the less profitable homeless inhabitants, for the profitable ones! They'd be all over pintrest posting photos of how smartly they've decorated their cabin. And an equal amount of photos of the great views from the deck, the exorcise room, the pool, the restaurants, the ..............Oh never mind, it'd never work for the homeless because who would make money? right?

But if some of the said homeless were offered space to perhaps open a sandwich shop, a computer repair shop, an artist painting portraits, a small grocery store? We could not only offer them a safe dry room but an opportunity for employment! And an opportunity to employ others! And for those not able? They get the dry and safe bed, and the services.

I know, what a stupid idea?

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I agree. But woulda, coulda, shoullda! Going forward that's a great goal. What is existing in reality now? How can we bring immediate relief to such a big problem? There are two problems to solve. The imeadiate and the future.

There's this entire movement going on in USA, in my mind similar to Japan and Asian countries 10-20 years ago, with architecture. The minimal, tiny home, small house movement. It comes about from over population, populations being condensed into profitable urban pockets, people trying to minimize there living expenditures due to stagnant wages. I can actually see this entire project failing because the below $150,000 income crowd would gentrify it in a years time by paying $1000 k monthly for such an opportunity.

OK that was afield, I agree. Now let's see...

Lets not try to solve the world's problems of homelessness and crime etc. Not the forum for it.

How about we just talk about boating-centric things like anchorages and the Bay for use of the boaters? That will bring us back to this topic and RB. And certainly RB liveaboards need to have a head's up because not only are homeless non-boaters squatting on unsafe hunks of junk and making it hard for boaters to use RB but the on-land non-boaters are still trying to call the shots of what happens in the navigable waterways where we, as boaters, have use and need to protect that use by boaters.

Did I bring that back around to the salient topic?

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

OK that was afield, I agree. Now let's see...

Lets not try to solve the world's problems of homelessness and crime etc. Not the forum for it.

How about we just talk about boating-centric things like anchorages and the Bay for use of the boaters? That will bring us back to this topic and RB. And certainly RB liveaboards need to have a head's up because not only are homeless non-boaters squatting on unsafe hunks of junk and making it hard for boaters to use RB but the on-land non-boaters are still trying to call the shots of what happens in the navigable waterways where we, as boaters, have use and need to protect that use by boaters.

Did I bring that back around to the salient topic?

Yeah! Always another dastardly problem to solve! Well perhaps the hoity toities can be marketed to? They'd rather see a permanently parked cruise ship than scattered derelict boats? Perhaps the business on board could become the new art and food market district? Rent the common spaces to high end food, art, cultural events and a percentage goes toward maintaining the homeless. Helllllllll! Have you been to a store inside property owned by Disneyland? Even a seveneleven, miles from the park adds an exorbitant tax to purchases because Disney owns the property. No one complains about that (well, yeah, I do) So the hoity toity end up subsidizing the homeless through their purchases, but they have fun doing so, can brag about the play they saw, the wine they purchased, oohhhh the shoes! The imported cheese! The bay has no more derelicts, everyone enjoys the view. And WHAT!!!!!! Boats start visiting, all kinds of pretty and average, and fishing, and sailing and power! Mega yachts too! Whattt!!!! All anchoring, flying flags. Coming ashore to visit the restaurants and shops and entertainment! A fisherman's wharf opens! People start reading history about their bay and begin to celebrate it. Now the rich have festivals to honor the bay! Rich people love fundraising events, makes them feel good and they get to out dress one another, out bid one another. True. And tourism makes a great accent in the area!

I know, it's an maniacal idea. How could I ever entertain such thoughts?!!!!!

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Yeah! Always another dastardly problem to solve! Well perhaps the hoity toities can be marketed to? They'd rather see a permanently parked cruise ship than scattered derelict boats? Perhaps the business on board could become the new art and food market district? Rent the common spaces to high end food, art, cultural events and a percentage goes toward maintaining the homeless. Helllllllll! Have you been to a store inside property owned by Disneyland? Even a seveneleven, miles from the park adds an exorbitant tax to purchases because Disney owns the property. No one complains about that (well, yeah, I do) So the hoity toity end up subsidizing the homeless through their purchases, but they have fun doing so, can brag about the play they saw, the wine they purchased, oohhhh the shoes! The imported cheese! The bay has no more derelicts, everyone enjoys the view. And WHAT!!!!!! Boats start visiting, all kinds of pretty and average, and fishing, and sailing and power! Mega yachts too! Whattt!!!! All anchoring, flying flags. Coming ashore to visit the restaurants and shops and entertainment! A fisherman's wharf opens! People start reading history about their bay and begin to celebrate it. Now the rich have festivals to honor the bay! Rich people love fundraising events, makes them feel good and they get to out dress one another, out bid one another. True. And tourism makes a great accent in the area!

I know, it's an maniacal idea. How could I ever entertain such thoughts?!!!!!

Well besides the little issue of the homeless people in question probably not really wanting to be corralled into a giant prison (ah hem ship) the real problem with the concept is simply that the idea takes navigable waterways (public trust lands) and uses it for a non-public trust purpose. Housing and other purposes that do not HAVE to be in the water and largely benefit local interests will never be appropriate uses of navigable waterways. Better solution is a public taking or purchase of private lands to provide housing.

What are your boating related interests as associated with this topic?

[a64pilot]

To keep it in a boating perspective, we should think or remember that at least in my opinion, that many of them want to live that way.
They don't have any issue with it, others do. Maybe they don't want "help", maybe they had rather be left alone?

At issue here in my opinion is just how far should we allow the State as in Government at any level to decide your manner you chose to live is improper and you should be removed against your will and your property seized and disposed of?
Specifically your boat to keep this on track.

Similar possibly to the power the USCG has in determining your voyage to be unsafe and requiring you to abandon your vessel, they do have that power.

Now before anyone get too upset about how the State should do this, remember the Fl case of the Woman who was living off grid and it was determined that in the State of Fl, it's illegal to live off of the grid, you must by law be connected to utilities.

So, should the State be allowed to board my vessel and inspect it for seaworthiness, find it non seaworthy and forcibly remove me and seize and dispose of my vessel?

It is I believe very rarely done with houses I think, so there is precedence?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

To keep it in a boating perspective, we should think or remember that at least in my opinion, that many of them want to live that way.
They don't have any issue with it, others do. Maybe they don't want "help", maybe they had rather be left alone?

Myself I'm going to argue no. My boat is older and could stand the topsides and deck to be repainted. But it has never failed a coast guard inspection yet.

It is also the only thing of value I own. So taking that away from me puts me squarely on the street with less then $400 in my pocket. The fine folks anchored in RB are for the most part just like me. They have no where left to go. I'm actually a bit better off as I can "Barely afford a non-liveaboard slip for the winter months.

Being that there is a severe shortage of public housing lease in california. So much so that there was at least one family (man,woman and two under 6 years old children living in a marina restroom. I saw them with my own eyes. That gentle beings is what it is like for public housing in California.

The anchorout issues and the homeless issues are hand in hand. It's really the same issue except the down and outer's in RB at least have a roof over their heads. I agree it should be better. But no one wants to pay anything to fix the issues.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

To keep it in a boating perspective, we should think or remember that at least in my opinion, that many of them want to live that way.
They don't have any issue with it, others do. Maybe they don't want "help", maybe they had rather be left alone?

At issue here in my opinion is just how far should we allow the State as in Government at any level to decide your manner you chose to live is improper and you should be removed against your will and your property seized and disposed of?
Specifically your boat to keep this on track.

Similar possibly to the power the USCG has in determining your voyage to be unsafe and requiring you to abandon your vessel, they do have that power.

Now before anyone get too upset about how the State should do this, remember the Fl case of the Woman who was living off grid and it was determined that in the State of Fl, it's illegal to live off of the grid, you must by law be connected to utilities.

So, should the State be allowed to board my vessel and inspect it for seaworthiness, find it non seaworthy and forcibly remove me and seize and dispose of my vessel?

It is I believe very rarely done with houses I think, so there is precedence?

"Boating Perspective" is not all about whether someone wants to "live that way"

... whether someone, let's say Joe, wants to be left alone, if they decide to set up their home (a non-functioning car) in the middle of a public highway, most people would agree that Joe with his home in the middle of the highway is interfering with the rights of other people to use that highway and Joe probably shouldn't be left alone to "live that way." If Joe set up his home along the paved shoulder of the road, only one Joe, then maybe people would think he was a bit off but hey, they could still park their vehicle if they needed to change a tire, etc. So they'd put up with Joe being there. They might even become friends with this fellow who never drives his vehicle--finding him a peculiar fellow and not really thinking much about Joe's improper use of the public road.

Then when there became a couple hundred Joes with no knowledge of how to drive and no interest in using the road as it was intended but with their tents and non-working cars all set up along the shoulder and sometimes right in the middle of the road, suddenly it would seem that there was no place along that stretch of road for someone to park their car in emergency or when they needed a break. Further, it might seem that the road itself was not usable with the broken down cars in the lanes and all. If all the Joes were not necessarily trustworthy or attracted untrustworthy types to park alongside, then the average fellow who stopped to rest or fix a tire might find himself in danger on that stretch of roadway.

Oh, and why are all the Joes there in that particular stretch of roadway? Perhaps because the other roadways nearby have steep drop-offs and no shoulder for anyone to park on. And perhaps the only way to get to attractions and supplies is to park along this particular shoulder. The plot thickens and I digress, but really there is not much difference between a fellow living in his non-functional vehicle along the shoulder of a public roadway and a fellow with an unseaworthy raft/vessel squatting indefinitely in RB.

While worthwhile discussion can be had on issues of homelessness and USCG safety inspections, what is more important to me in this discussion is that legitimate boaters (liveaboards who sail locally, cruisers who travel through the area, fishermen, racers, and a variety of other boaters) are being forced to face directly a local issue of crime, safety, and variations of homelessness in a way that people on land do not have to. That is because the land-based folks have totally NIMBY'd the situation out: they have pushed the needs of low income/fixed income/ homeless/ mental health/addiction/etc, etc, right off the land and into the Bay. Dastardly deed.

Back to your precedent? Sure, unsafe homes ARE condemned and the occupants forced to move out. It does happen all the time. Typically when a natural disaster strikes, fire or other event but sometimes when there is obvious lack of care of a property and that lack of care spills over into impacting other residences. When a house is condemned after a fire or disaster, can you imagine the owner selling it for a song and a new family moving in to live among the ashes or under the shored-up but unstable rafters? No? that is exactly what happens when boats are stripped of everything that allows them to be safe and move and then a non-boater moves aboard to live. Further, there are huge impacts of zoning ordinances that PREVENT people from living in non-residential zoned properties, too. Plenty of precedent.

In the case of RB, the precedent for not allowing local people to just squat forever there is the state of California's Public Trust Doctrine. Take a moment to learn about it. There are several resources online. One of the reasons the public has access to the beaches and the shoreline is because of the Public Trust Doctrine. Anytime, in any state, that you see homes built on the shoreline (rather than publicly accessible buildings like hotels, eateries, or water-dependent activities like boatyards and marinas...) you are seeing a local entity deciding that local interests are more important the the Public Trust. As boaters, all of us do need to speak up for the use of the waterways and the tidelands for water-centric activities or eventually there will be no more space for boating at all.

https://www.nrpa.com/resources/public-trust-doctrine/
Public Trust Doctrine and History of the Commission

[a64pilot]

I think there is a historical precedent, and of course it's not just California, a place I have no knowledge of, but Fl too.
Hoovervilles - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
There are of course different opinions on whether the Federal government and the "new deal" ended or worsened the depression.
Years ago Georgia outlawed living on a boat, that was how they dealt with the issue, just made it an illegal activity.
I'd just as soon not see other States follow Georgia's example

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I think there is a historical precedent...

You're going down a rabbit hole largely unrelated to boating. I was trying to pull you back to the boating issues per the Public Trust Doctrine which is core to the people's continued and free access to the navigable waterways. Boaters.

[sailorchic34]

You know, not once when I was anchored in Richardson Bay did I ever feel unsafe due to local riff raff or homeless boaters. Really there is space in the bay for another 200-300 boats easy. I generally anchor back near cone rock which places me near about all to myself.

On the highway sleeping in car thingy, oddly BLM does allow folks to park on public land for up to 14 days in any one location, many times thats on a side of a road. There are folks that loop around the BLM, COE and other locations boondocking for free all the time too.

Just as I normally will be in out of the way spots away from the popular anchoring locations in the Delta. RB happens to be the only official anchorage (for yachts and other fine water craft) in the central bay. At least that has room for hundreds of boat. Plus added bonus it has 3 or 4 dinghy docks. Very few other places on the bay or delta have dinghy docks.

As to all the boats anchored in RB being unsafe. While probably 20-30 percent are unsafe. The rest like mine are current with CG safety features but no longer have that new boat smell..... Many head up to the delta for months at the time. Others move around the bay (to clipper cove, china camp, etc) and many actually go to the pump out dock. (OK not many but I have seen some do it)

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

You're going down a rabbit hole largely unrelated to boating. I was trying to pull you back to the boating issues per the Public Trust Doctrine which is core to the people's continued and free access to the navigable waterways. Boaters.

Your probably right there, sorry.

However I do believe the way Georgia chose to deal with the issue is a concern as it could be applied elsewhere.


Spending More Than 30 Days on a Boat in Georgia: ILLEGAL | Janet Altschuler

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Myself I'm going to argue no. My boat is older and could stand the topsides and deck to be repainted. But it has never failed a coast guard inspection yet.

It is also the only thing of value I own. So taking that away from me puts me squarely on the street with less then $400 in my pocket. The fine folks anchored in RB are for the most part just like me. They have no where left to go. I'm actually a bit better off as I can "Barely afford a non-liveaboard slip for the winter months.

Being that there is a severe shortage of public housing lease in california. So much so that there was at least one family (man,woman and two under 6 years old children living in a marina restroom. I saw them with my own eyes. That gentle beings is what it is like for public housing in California.

The anchorout issues and the homeless issues are hand in hand. It's really the same issue except the down and outer's in RB at least have a roof over their heads. I agree it should be better. But no one wants to pay anything to fix the issues.

Why should others have to pay to fix the issue? When you stated in an earlier post, that you only wish to work less than twelve hours per week, don't intend to do anything yourself to help the homeless by volunteering your time, and that you enjoy living the way you do.

Your statements seem to validate the entire opposing opinion. The homeless want to be left alone to live the way they do and don't intend to lift a finger to help themselves.

So why should others be obligated to help? I view cleaning up Richardson Bay as a public safety issue along with applying the rules the same for everyone.

[fstbttms]

I attended a seminar yesterday where one of the speakers was a Sausalito police lieutenant. He described the multi-angency task force that is currently cleaning out the derelict vessels from Richardson Bay. They have removed dozens so far and will remove dozens more (at least) before they re-evaluate the program at the end of the year. He cited statistics showing how crime (both ashore and boat-to-boat) has risen with the increase of anchor-outs, along with the increase in sinkers and adrift boats. If his attitude is typical, the cops are all hot to get these losers out of there and are tackling the problem aggressively. I asked him about the proposed regulated mooring field and he indicated that it was a proposal only and not written in stone by any means.

[KJB]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Why should others have to pay to fix the issue? When you stated in an earlier post, that you only wish to work less than twelve hours per week, don't intend to do anything yourself to help the homeless by volunteering your time, and that you enjoy living the way you do.

Your statements seem to validate the entire opposing opinion. The homeless want to be left alone to live the way they do and don't intend to lift a finger to help themselves.

So why should others be obligated to help? I view cleaning up Richardson Bay as a public safety issue along with applying the rules the same for everyone.

Agreed that those who choose not to work (or work less than they could or should) have no real rights to public waterways, lands, etc. Such are many of those in RB and other areas (tent cities, etc).

On the other side are those that do work very long hours but still can't make ends meet. The SF Bay is the most expensive place in America to live and there are many people that literally do not have enough to live properly though there is nothing wrong with their work ethic. A City Planner for SF told me last year that 24% of those living in SF live below the poverty level.That is in the city with the nations highest rents.

Many of the younger professionals live like they never left the college dorm. They are shacked up 3-6 deep in 1 and 2 bedroom apts running between 3-4.5K per month. Sometimes the rent is even higher. To me it makes good economic sense to live on a boat in the Bay.

The point being that there is a lot of people who have been displaced through gentrification (not that gentrifying doesn't have benefits)and no one seems to have any real solutions or answers to the problems either existing or created through these processes.

My .02 - People should work hard and do the best that they can do. If they choose not to work hard, then it is not our responsibility to shoulder their burdens.

[Caddy Shack]

In related news, the owner of Bridgeway Marine in Sausalito was just busted in Sacramento. He runs the marina in a similar fashion to the properties in the article, and lets to questionable tenants (the cops visit all the time, drug dealing etc).

Overcrowding, disrepair, substandard wiring etc etc etc and has been at loggerheads with the city for years. His property rights extend out from shore and across the channel, and approx 50 of the boats in RB lie within them. The city and RBHA has asked Cameron for years to notify these boats they are trespassing on his property. Once done, they could be removed/relocated within 72 hours. It's believed he won't do so simply because of his ongoing quarrel with the city of S.

Sacramento County community prosecutors combat blight in older suburbs | The Sacramento Bee