Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Fluer de Mer]

I wonder if the 'boats' in this 12/31/15 photo are just stopping over before they head out within 72 hours for Cobo or Hawaii? ... a garbage dump of derelict and abandoned boats...

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Fluer de Mer

...and even more 12/31/15 snapshots of the 80+ and growing number of derelict 'boats' on Richardson bay...
.

One mans derelict is another mans home. Don't you feel lucky that it's not you living on a Derelict. I know I do. So not an easy life out there. Specially in the winter rainy season.

The sailboat with the halyards bungeed (back a few posts) looks pretty ship shape, though the tri in the same photo, might make good firewood.

Mind you the big 80 foot 1940's motor vessel looks quite spiffy. Lovely old boat. Worth a bit of elbow grease. I'd call that not a derelict.

Looks like someone has cornered the market on old Johnson outboards too. Capitalism at it's finest.

There are some trashy boats. They are not the majority. There are quite a few nicer looking older vessels out there too. Well nice to me anyway.

[Hudson Force]

I'm far from Richardson Bay, but I've seen boats similar to these on the US East Coast. I think it's important to distinguish between "derelict" and "ugly". A stained topsides, hanging laundry, equipment stored on deck or added plywood structures can be unsightly, but they do not identify a boat as a derelict vessel. I do agree that "ugly" and "derelict" are often related.

[zeehag]

ugly is not derelict. one judgementalist's point of view is another soul's--perhaps a us veteran's- home.
jumping to conclusions is a hobby not specific to the wealthy homeowner on the icw of florida.
in the pix, i saw restorations underway. the johnson dealer has a nice selection , doesnt he?
i would say these are merely in need of new tarps, as wind happens mightily in sf bay, especially in winter, when storms happen.. i know it whistles from the shallows of richardson bay over the freeway nearby--i used to drive those roads, years ago, when derelict meant on its side in shallows for weeks. these are not in shallows nor on sides.
as we casually drive by these apparently ugly boats, we do no t get to see the veterans of foreign wars who who reside on boats in richardson bay and other locales.
it must be absolutely lovely to be able to spend time griping on other folks boats instead of guaranteeing ones own boat (or desk) is ship shape. place self into the shoes of the veteran residing in his lil boat with his prolly gonna be ditched subsidy he is able to receive despite the political incorrectness of his service.
place self into the insecure area wherein many of these souls exist.
personally, i think many of the boats manufactured and bought today are ugly as dirt, and need to be redesigned. but that doesnot make em derelict, does it?
restoring and refitting a hull and deck is expensive. some folks run out of dough due to changes in corporate structuring.
to label every boat in an anchorage as derelict is a judgementalist call and reflects badly on the speaker/typoer.
what does op desire to have done with this alleged situation??
i have seen many ugly stained and sad looking boats that are actively cruising. what would you say to the sight of these souls who have been cruising long enough to sustain water damages to the bows of their boats?? canal damaged boats from panama canal--hull and deck connection rubbed through... would you declare these active cruisers in derelict boats??
what about those souls who are cruising and refitting simultaneously? would you diss the appearance of their boats??
what is it that gives you the RIGHT to badmouth the boats of other folks??
yes boats become ugly in and over time. yes some even appear derelict.
but, are you the chosen one to decide and declare what is and is not to be junked arbitrarily?? according to the captions of the pix, it seems you are the self chosen judge and jury for the continuation of some folks lives.
just because you have a comfortable and financially approved allegedly normal life and regulated lifestyle doesnt mean everyone in planet shares that ability.
those privileged with and blessed with the ability to continue to make income doesnt mean you have the RIGHT to diss other folks situations and living conditions.
first walk a mile in their shoes, then bitch.
your ranting against these boats sounds like the organized ranting in san diego put forth by the yacht club membership against the small craft in the anchorage 8 in san diego, home of doctors, anesthesiologists, phsychologists and other professionals (as well as some without good incomes and some into drug oriented trading) before its disappearance by those wishing the ugliness to disappear. it disappeared into the more obvious downtown area--so these same boats get to be seen by more folks than before. mebbe this is the conclusion you desire???? FORCE the inhabitants to pay rent to clean up their acts?? but then rent makes the ability to repair somewhat more limited....

i figgered out what you want!!!! you want all boat owners to be richie rich and no one else own a boat for residence!!!!!
just like san diego, where it is a crime to own a boat while disabled.(income too low)
if you disbelieve, try it. when i left, i was witness to the harrassment of the disabled on boats by harbies for no other reason than low income.
isnt usa still land of the free and home of the brave?? or has that been changed by the judgementalists of the nation??

[Ryan H]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but I have to say there are a couple bays along the New England coastline where boats that look like a few of your pictures go out almost every day to fish. In fairness though, few pleasure boats tend to look as ugly as a well worked fishing boat.

Gotta say a few of those boats don't look pretty to my eye. Although I've never minded seeing any view of the ocean I could get to see so far.

I don't see a reason for my aesthetics to be a reason to cause anyone else in the world extra problems. I was raised to see all parts of the ocean as beautiful, from the ugly rough cut fishing boats found in every bay you can sail into, to the varnished yachts of Mystic and Newport, to the rust stained trawlers of Pt Judith and Glouchester. If the concern is safety, or the environmental concern is properly studied and of notable severity I'd jump aboard the cause I suppose, although you would have to have a plan that wouldn't just displace the people who are there. However, an argument of "they're ruining my view and they might be pooping overboard" isn't anything I personally could feel serious about.

Sent from my N9130 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Ryan H

I don't really have a dog in this fight but I have to say there are a couple bays along the New England coastline where boats that look like a few of your pictures go out almost every day to fish. In fairness though, few pleasure boats tend to look as ugly as a well worked fishing boat.

Gotta say a few of those boats don't look pretty to my eye. Although I've never minded seeing any view of the ocean I could get to see so far.

I don't see a reason for my aesthetics to be a reason to cause anyone else in the world extra problems. I was raised to see all parts of the ocean as beautiful, from the ugly rough cut fishing boats found in every bay you can sail into, to the varnished yachts of Mystic and Newport, to the rust stained trawlers of Pt Judith and Glouchester. If the concern is safety, or the environmental concern is properly studied and of notable severity I'd jump aboard the cause I suppose, although you would have to have a plan that wouldn't just displace the people who are there. However, an argument of "they're ruining my view and they might be pooping overboard" isn't anything I personally could feel serious about.

Sent from my N9130 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Totally agree with Ryan's statements.

IMO, setting aside obvious safety issues and risk of derelicts sinking, it is not what a boat (or cluster/group) looks like but rather (since the object of concern, be it boat or raft of debris) is taking up space in the navigable waters that are part of the public commons, is it actually something that is supposed to be there in the navigable waters? Is it an operable boat that actually is being used as a BOAT (not only a home) so there's no question that it belongs in the navigable waterway? or at least one making enough headway towards that end that it can be said it's a restoration, a work in progress? Is it (an individual non-operating boat that isn't being restored) or they (a cluster of boats that never are used as boats but rather are floating homes, or anchored boats being stored indefinitely in one place) displacing the intended users of the navigable waterways (e.g. anchoring of boats being used by fishermen, cruisers, day sailors, or people actively restoring boats)?

It's almost impossible for anyone to answer the questions I just raised and trying to answer them usually just upsets all concerned. We can only opine about it and perhaps come up with general statements. Clearly a vessel that hasn't moved in decades is suspect of squatting in the public commons of the navigable waterways even if it is a downright beautiful and safe boat.

It is just easier to define a hunk of junk that doesn't move as not belonging there in the commons than it is to do so with a well maintained vessel that never leaves it's spot.

[sailorchic34]

There are some pretty ratty trashy boats at anchor in Richardson bay. Though the photo of the woman with the laundry on the lifeline is not one of them. Lordy, I'll have laundry on the lifeline once and a while too. It's part of livingaboard and cruising.

[zeehag]

navigable waters meaans a yot club wants to run racing in the area. same with anchorage 8 in san diego. removed for racing by snotty yotties from coronado cays yot club who used to release unanchored boats, catalina 22s, and then call in drifting boat.... wonderful idea--
so your desired race grounds is a federally designated anchorage???? fone false complaints to police about drug dealing and thefts and other fake calls so the powers that be dismiss the anchorage on local govt override just like san diego. make anchoring illegal. make all anchorages 72 hours only. make sure the permission for free anchoring is done via police who havent a clue as to what constitutes seaworthiness, and go from there, as did san diego. it only took 10 years or so to close the anchorage due to false calls to police and calls on land about problems in the area on land wherein the anchor-outs were allowed to dock their dinghies when provisioning their homes.
one mans **** is another's sacred home.
yes i do agree that boats must be able to propel in some manner for anchoring--is only a safety precaution for dragging anchor and the 72 hour demands for moving boats...
HOWEVER, the assignment of dereliction by a casual observer is a shameful way to denigrate someone else's property. you, the casual observer , have no clue as to what nor whom you are bashing with your judgemental spew. could be a congressional medal winner from nam. could be your brother you not spoken with in 10 years due to your judgementalisms.
the depth of water i observed casually in richardson bay is shallow and mucky with sea grass and goo . and ye want to deny these folks the privilege of anchoring next to a freeway??? in muck and grass?? with noise and traffic??
mebbe the property value went up a lot since i last saw it, but , seems to me, these folks should be left alone. perhaps with the water so skinny, folks wish to build a condo or hotel or some complex there, so therefore must yell and spew about the anchor outs in their way.
is perfect for landfill development.
perhaps this is the real issue......

[SV THIRD DAY]

Many of those objects in the photos are not boats by any logical definition, they are simply floating islands waiting to rest on the bottom and then needing to be removed at the taxpayers expense.

[ASD]

Good Post SC.

Thanks for the pictures! They do tend to show a lot and I mean a lot of boats that could be deemed unsafe for any kind of Navigation. Don't blame the folks of Sausalito wanting to clean it up.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

. Clearly a vessel that hasn't moved in decades is suspect of squatting in the public commons of the navigable waterways even if it is a downright beautiful and safe boat.

I can't find where a person anchoring for a year or two or ten, is against the public trust. Public trust, means it's open to all and can not be regulated by government to limit access. Perhaps you can point me to the section of the public trust code that limits anchoring.

As to fishing and boating in Richardson bay, there are tons of kayaks, runabounds and sailboats that travel about the bay every day. Some at quite fast speeds. The vast majority of the bay is open to all types of water activities. Lord knows I never have a problem finding a place the drop the hook the few times a year I visit there.

[Fluer de Mer]

‘It can’t be regulated by the government!’ is an oxymoron. Regardless of 'the public trust', the Coast Guard – aka ‘the government’ - can board and confiscate any boat for nothing more than a suspicion that a crime might have been committed (i.e., any crime at all – of any type - that might be committed). Said differently, boaters are required by law to open up their vessel to inspection for any reason or no reason at all, and without any need for a showing of cause or restraint. Perhaps one of the reasons that boaters have little legal protection is exactly because a tiny minority within the boating community have an unreasonable zeal in their defense of an even tinier minority of folks who, by their abusive actions and/or inactions, encourage Landlubbers to regulate even more. When Landlubbers in power look out on Richardson Bay from the shore and are [in my view justifiably] outraged at what they see (just read the local newspaper editorials), they will eventually act. If something is not sustainable, it won’t be sustained….whether in San Diego or in Richardson Bay.

[Liam Wald]

I really don't know how this situation can be tolerated or defended.
If a number of old broken down Winnebago motor homes with piles of junk on their roofs began parking on a neighborhood street, dumping their sewage into the gutter very few people would say, "Oh look at those colorful free-spirits. Gee honey, isn't that a romantic lifestyle?"

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

I really don't know how this situation can be tolerated or defended.
If a number of old broken down Winnebago motor homes with piles of junk on their roofs began parking on a neighborhood street, dumping their sewage into the gutter very few people would say, "Oh look at those colorful free-spirits. Gee honey, isn't that a romantic lifestyle?"

Bingo. And anybody arguing in favor of these squatters either does not live here or is one of them.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Fluer de Mer

‘It can’t be regulated by the government!’ is an oxymoron. Regardless of 'the public trust', the Coast Guard – aka ‘the government’ - can board and confiscate any boat for nothing more than a suspicion that a crime might have been committed (i.e., any crime at all – of any type - that might be committed). Said differently, boaters are required by law to open up their vessel to inspection for any reason or no reason at all, and without any need for a showing of cause or restraint.

The coast guard boarding thingy has been on the books for well over 200 years. It was put on the books to enforce tarriffs and taxes. Your right that the coast guard can board a vessel for any reason. That so many boats remain in Richardson bay, must mean that no crimes are being committed.

The reason the cities and county's allow this to remain is two fold. First it costs lots of money in california to haul a boat. Second remove someone from a boat who is more or less self supporting, and now there is a cost to house and or feed them. Or they are sleeping on the sidewalks. So for the city there is no net gain.

Mind you the City does remove abandoned vessels each year. But there is only so much money in any year.

These people literary have no where else to go. They are considered homeless. That they are visible homeless in an area where the average home price is ranges from 1 million to 15 million. and rents are $3500+/month is indicative of some the issues.

Yes there are some very trashy boats out there. But most, well over 70 percent, by my eye, are not trashy. That includes the one with the lady aboard with laundry on the lifelines. Though obviously there is a difference of opinion there as well.

No there is nothing romantic about living on a boat in Richardson bay. It's cold, windy and a very hard lifestyle in winter rainy season. It's a hard life. Though less hard then living in a cardboard box on the street.