Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by zeehag

i NO ONE suggested swimming in any bays or inland waterways within borders of cali or anywhere. might wanna brush up on your lack of reading skills

What about creatures that have no choice, like fish, birds, sea lions, dolfins?

[zeehag]

liam wald i think you need to wade thru the water and mud there to see what it is..i believe there isnt the bs you declare. you may also wish to let the land based places, homes , corporations, sewage farms, know that their pollution is more than your tolerance level allows.
yes badly anchored items of navigational interest in a bay float away and as they do this they are hazards to b-navigation.
to address the individual stating the wind aint gonna kill ye, tis the seas---please rethink this idealogy, as it is most incorrect.
having been in 200 mph winds, i can truly vouch it IS wind causes much of the bs you will watch fly away. we had no seas, but we did have the full brunt of the winds post eye, which passed over my head as i pumped my boat's bilges. second half of storm the water blew right off my decks--didnt have opportunity to get into bilges. and the boarding ladder was killed in a knockdown of boat against dock. others witnessed these events, post eye, but the whiteout prevented my actually seeing the events occur. i was in a hotel room.
there was evidence that trees were flying, and such was the world. cleats were snapped off docks--yet no seas in the marina..amazing what some bludi wind can do....isnt it. neither did we experience surge from storm--with 200 mph winds blowing it out of the lagoon, we were fairly well protected from that occurrence. so do not underrate wind ....
in san diego , coronado mooring field, protected from seas except in southeast winds--cleats broke off a lafitte 44 in winds, no chop. donot presume wind hasnt the damage capability that water does.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by zeehag

liam wald i think you need to wade thru the water and mud there to see what it is..i believe there isnt the bs you declare. you may also wish to let the land based places, homes , corporations, sewage farms, know that their pollution is more than your tolerance level allows.
yes badly anchored items of navigational interest in a bay float away and as they do this they are hazards to b-navigation.
to address the individual stating the wind aint gonna kill ye, tis the seas---please rethink this idealogy, as it is most incorrect.
having been in 200 mph winds, i can truly vouch it IS wind causes much of the bs you will watch fly away. we had no seas, but we did have the full brunt of the winds post eye, which passed over my head as i pumped my boat's bilges. second half of storm the water blew right off my decks--didnt have opportunity to get into bilges. and the boarding ladder was killed in a knockdown of boat against dock. others witnessed these events, post eye, but the whiteout prevented my actually seeing the events occur. i was in a hotel room.
there was evidence that trees were flying, and such was the world. cleats were snapped off docks--yet no seas in the marina..amazing what some bludi wind can do....isnt it. neither did we experience surge from storm--with 200 mph winds blowing it out of the lagoon, we were fairly well protected from that occurrence. so do not underrate wind ....
in san diego , coronado mooring field, protected from seas except in southeast winds--cleats broke off a lafitte 44 in winds, no chop. donot presume wind hasnt the damage capability that water does.

Can someone please attempt to translate this for me? My poor reading comprehension is not allowing me to fully, or even partially, grasp what is being said here and what points are being made that have anything to do with derelict boats in Richardson Bay.

[The Smokester]

Originally Posted by zeehag

...those wishing the ugliness to disappear. [In San Diego] 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....

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

...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...

...These people literary have no where else to go.

...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.

Right. There is a big social issue here. Real people live in these boats. Probably they are among the most vulnerable in our society. When I'm around there I notice that there is quite a community.

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

All you need is a law that life has to be pretty. / sarc.

/sarc noted. Seems like that is what some are asking for. Let's have a thread about what it takes to be "pretty".

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

Can someone please attempt to translate this for me? My poor reading comprehension is not allowing me to fully, or even partially, grasp what is being said here and what points are being made that have anything to do with derelict boats in Richardson Bay.

And, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Shooting photos, and casting innuendo based solely on them as in some previous posts, is ignorant and heartless.

[zeehag]

liam wald, i invite you to re read the entire thread so you can understand what has been being discussed. you OBVIOUSLY have only been trolling without even reading words posted. as usual.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by The Smokester

Right. There is a big social issue here. Real people live in these boats.

Again- every one of these "real people" are violating regulations regarding the body of water they have chosen to live upon. Regulations that the rest of us are expected to obey, you included.

And again, if this group of "vulnerable" people were to set up camp on the street you live on, in hundreds of beat up vehicles, you would likely not express the same tolerance that you proclaim here.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Again- every one of these "real people" are violating regulations regarding the body of water the have chosen to live upon. Regulations that the rest of us are expected to obey, you included.

And again, if this group of "vulnerable" people were to set up camp on the street you live on, in hundreds of beat up vehicles, you would likely not express the same tolerance that you proclaim here.

Ironically, if you kick them out of the harbor they might be on the street.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Ironically, if you kick them out of the harbor they might be on the street.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they get to stay where they are.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they get to stay where they are.

But they do exist. As to where they exist is still very much their choice barring some "rounding up/ interment policy."

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

But they do exist. As to where they exist is still very much their choice barring some "rounding up/ interment policy."

What ********. They're violating the law. As mentioned somewhere else in this thread, they have no more right to anchor out where they are than you have a right to live in a travel trailer that you towed into a national park.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

What ********. They're violating the law. As mentioned somewhere else in this thread, they have no more right to anchor out where they are than you have a right to live in a travel trailer that you towed into a national park.

Is that really true? They have no right to anchor there?

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Is that really true? They have no right to anchor there?

if they had no privilege to anchor there, if they were actually violating laws by being there, they would have been removed already.
the only laws the inhabitants are violating is in the minds of the bashers--op, fastbttms and liam , all of whom address their own needs and wants, without consideration of anyone else.
i figger if it bothers ye--dont look. let them be--these are folks gonna prolly die soon enough, so why not look out the other windows of your penthouse suites.. rodl

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Is that really true? They have no right to anchor there?

OK, let me rephrase- they have no right to anchor there permanently. Maybe you should have read the thread before commenting. There is a 72-hour anchoring time limit in Richardson Bay. That limit can be extended by permission of the Richardson Bay Authority. Beyond that, they are in vilolation.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

What ********. They're violating the law. As mentioned somewhere else in this thread, they have no more right to anchor out where they are than you have a right to live in a travel trailer that you towed into a national park.

If they were on land they would move from one homeless camp to another. It costs lots for the police and health workers to take care of the homeless. Millions of tax dollars.

Oddly there is a number of folks living full time in RV's all over the country. You'll see them in commercial areas here and there.

The folks on the bay, have no other options. There really is nowhere else for most of them to go. The number of anchorages with shore services are very small in Northern California. Really Richardson Bay is it. There is a small group at china camp now and a number in the delta, though spread out and not in any one place. Good people, with no where to go.

They are living as best they can. So the police write a ticket and or throw them in jail for 30 days. Those out there have very little money and are eating hand to mouth. Life happens and not everyone ends up in a middle class life with a Mcmansion, 2-5 kids and 3 cars.

Myself, I am just one step from being there. You can be sure that were I to hit bottom (alas not so very far away) I would be out there too.

Lots of wild life though. So I don't think the wild life is being hurt so much.

As to violating the laws. When your one step above living in a cardboard box, your really more concerned with just having a dry bed and eating, then laws. Most of the folks out there are just people. Many retired, living in their golden years. If you talk to some of them (I have) they are for the most part like everyone else. Just a whole lot poorer.

So what's the solution. Kick the bums out. Ah now they are on the street and pooping, or in jail costing the tax payer $47k a year each. So the 150 ish folks at anchor would cost $7million per year to jail in california. So spend $7 million a year or do nothing. As the anchoring regs have been on the books for well over 20 years, I'm thinking the approach is do nothing.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by zeehag

liam wald, i invite you to re read the entire thread so you can understand what has been being discussed. you OBVIOUSLY have only been trolling without even reading words posted. as usual.

Well, I guess that you have me all figured out...
I don't agree with you so I am a troll.
I expect people to be responsible for their crap and stop dumping sewage so I am a bully.
And, as usual, I have not read before making comments.