Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Caddy Shack]

Incorrect - the " marine debris " law is new as of 2016 and has been enacted in order to deal with an RB type scenario. Enforcement in Sausalito waters is new and where it will start. 60+ boats is not a small portion - in point of fact, it's about 25% of the total in the bay. They're starting with voluntary compliance and then moving on from there - the abandoned junk, and then the occupied junk not meeting regs and qualifying as marine debris.

The RBHA is not in the equation since they have proven useless and rather than continue to fund them, Saus is taking the matter in its own waters into its own hands.

True - some of the occupied boats will likely just move east (and further south due to current crowding), but that will simply force Belvedere and Marin to get their respective acts together and follow suit. Agreed, a cleaned up RB is likely still a couple of years away, but it's beginning. And the corresponding drop in crime and drunks/tweakers on the waterfront will be very well welcomed. It's a shame for the many decent folk out there now, but as with all things it's only a matter of time before those abusing something screw it up for the rest.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

To clarify, the sausolito water ways are to the west of the channel. The east side where the majority of the anchor outs are located are not effected but the new regs. Really it's the same laws that have been on the books for ages. Nothing new really.

I've been there several dozens of times over the years and never once had an issue with a fowled anchor.

For further clarification. See the attached image showing the limits of the 'west' anchorage. Even though it is within Sausalito City Limits it is an RBRA anchorage where RBRA and not Sausalito Ordinances apply. Still, Sausalito Police are empowered to ruin your day, and issue citations. Your reference for this information is exhibit A in RBRA Ordinance 87-1 toward the document's end. The attached image was plotted in OpenCPN using the provided coordinates in exhibit A.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

Incorrect - the " marine debris " law is new as of 2016 and has been enacted in order to deal with an RB type scenario. Enforcement in Sausalito waters is new and where it will start. 60+ boats is not a small portion - in point of fact, it's about 25% of the total in the bay.

Ah, Your assuming that all 60 boats are not in compliance. I suspect the vast majority are in compliance. Well over 2/3's in any case. So not many boats will be removed.

[Caddy Shack]

I'm not assuming anything. If most were complying, than this would not be an issue in the first place. Many have not moved in months/years. That is non compliance in and of itself - expired tags, and classification as marine debris notwithstanding.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

I'm not assuming anything. If most were complying, than this would not be an issue in the first place. Many have not moved in months/years. That is non compliance in and of itself - expired tags, and classification as marine debris notwithstanding.

That also means that they are not making regular visits to a pump out station.
This is my main concern. If someone is living aboard and discharging raw sewage day after day, month after month, etc...that is a problem.

[Fog Bank]

I see this thread remains a grab bag of happiness and tranquility....

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

Many have not moved in months/years. That is non compliance in and of itself - expired tags, and classification as marine debris notwithstanding.

The coast guard allows the RBRA to set and enforce laws in the special anchorage that is Richardson Bay. Not sure Sausolito has the legal standing.

Myself most of the boats anchored on the west side are seaworthy. No not all, but well more then 1/2 are.

May I ask why I assume a golfer who has only posted on this thread is concerned about a few boats on the bay...

BTW being a special anchorage, boats anchored in the bay do not need to have an anchor light on at night. That's a federal classification.

Mind you when I bring my "marine debris" of a boat there I always have my anchor light on. But I'm weird that way.

[Caddy Shack]

Since you asked, I'm concerned because:

1) I live on the water and recreate in it.
2) My kids play in it and so do those of my neighbours.
3) I work on the water and the numerous unlit boats west of the channel are not fun to weave through at 2 am.
4) We were recently robbed by anchor-outs and so were two of my clients (subsequently caught red handed and now in jail).
5) Perhaps one day I won't live here and it would be nice to visit for a few days without worrying about all of the above.

Sufficient to meet your judgement?

Your idea of seaworthy is different than mine, which is fair. In my mind, a boat needs to operable (under sail or power) to meet that requirement.

And as I've said, I have no issue with adequately maintained, operable boats - just the rest, and that, is certainly far more than " a few ". At least in the eyes of the general (and boating) public - hence, to reiterate, the reason for the coming changes. My post re city news was simply meant to provide an update - not get into a circular argument with you. .There are facts, and then there are opinions. Soon we will see what actually comes to fruition.

Certainly I agree with you that you are weird. But then, so I am.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

3) I work on the water and the numerous unlit boats west of the channel are not fun to weave through at 2 am.

Again Richardson bay is a special anchorage and anchor lights are not required at night, per coast guard regs in special anchorages. You must know that working on the water and all. Mind you, it's always fun dodging unlit boats in the dark. Sure gets the old heart a racing.

So by "live on the water", just to clarify, does that mean you liveaboard, or have a house on or overlooking the water. It's Richardson Bay so it can be either. Could be a house boat too.

There are a few bad fellows in the anchorage or so I've been told. Most seem pretty normal though. Well as normal as me. That may not be saying much.

I think seaworthy means the boat can take to sea with sails and or working engine with all the prudent safety gear and equipment. So we probably have almost the same definition. Mind you if the boat looks a little salty, it can still be quite seaworthy.

I know my little 44 year old boat is not much to look at. But she's a solid old thing. I put about a 1000 miles on its keel every year. Many of the boats on the bay are seaworthy. Though yes there are quite a number that are not. Lost dreams, or the down and out.

[Caddy Shack]

Congrats, your boat's newer than mine. Why does it matter to you where I live? I'll leave you to work it out, but as you're likely aware, those of us that earn a living on the water aren't typically able to afford Sausalito's million dollar houses.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

Congrats, your boat's newer than mine. Why does it matter to you where I live? I'll leave you to work it out, but as you're likely aware, those of us that earn a living on the water aren't typically able to afford Sausalito's million dollar houses.

Someone could be a water sports businessman with a nice house, doing day charters for fun.

[Caddy Shack]

Sure, but you still haven't clarified how where one lives is relevant to the discussion? You seem to be implying that your opinion trumps those of people living in houses.

I liveaboard, and just like my dock neighbours, my friends living ashore all share the same opinion. The worst 10% need to go, and have subsequently cocked it up for all the rest.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

Sure, but you still haven't clarified how where one lives is relevant to the discussion? You seem to be implying that your opinion trumps those of people living in houses.

I liveaboard, and just like my dock neighbours, my friends living ashore all share the same opinion. The worst 10% need to go, and have subsequently cocked it up for all the rest.

So folks who live aboard in a slip are fine but people living aboard at anchor need to go? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just think that if some people wish to live at anchor, then let then. Sure get rid of the thiefs. But most of the folks anchored in the bay are good folks. Beats them living on the sidewalks.

Myself, I think living at anchor is far superior the living at a dock. I've done both. But then living on a boat sure beats a house any day in my book.

[Caddy Shack]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

So folks who live aboard in a slip are fine but people living aboard at anchor need to go? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just think that if some people wish to live at anchor, then let then. Sure get rid of the thiefs. But most of the folks anchored in the bay are good folks. Beats them living on the sidewalks.

Myself, I think living at anchor is far superior the living at a dock. I've done both. But then living on a boat sure beats a house any day in my book.

That's not what I wrote. It seems you like to argue just for the sake of it. I'm done, since it's pointless to discuss something with people like you. Putting words in another's mouth makes for poor psychology and takes away any credibility you may have had.

Nothing wrong with living on anchor, but one should be held to the same standards as those who live in marinas are. Or for that matter, the rest of society.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

Nothing wrong with living on anchor, but one should be held to the same standards as those who live in marinas are. Or for that matter, the rest of society.

Ah, myself I think current society or even marina rules and regulations is not something all need to emulated. It's far to restrictive.

I've been know to varnish and paint my boat at anchor and that would not be allowed at some marinas. One persons society might be another's hell.