Liveaboards at the gate

[Buzzman]

That is so patently ridiculous it almost isn't worth challenging. But sure, if there was an endless supply of 'new' anchorages; and your boat was capable of reaching them; then yeah, *theoretically*, as long as your boat can move, it's able to reach them.


But this is clearly NOT the problem in Richardson Bay. Even if some of the vessels are not capable of being moved under their own power, the problem is that, even if they could do so, there is nowhwere else for them to go.


This is happening all over the world where envy fuels the distaste and removes the empathy for the disadvantaged, turning them into the undeserving.


As a classic example of this over-reach, where I live in NSW, Australia, living aboard a boat, for any purpose, is forbidden. Totally. Anywhere in the State. rivers, estuaries, harbours. Nowhere. Zip. Nada.



If you own a boat, and don't have a permanent mooring for it, you *may* anchor out for not more than seven days in any given anchorage. but then you MUST change anchorages.



The State boating authorities view the entirety of Sydney Harbour as 'one anchorage'. The ridiculousness of this is brought home to west coast sailors if you imagine the whole of San Fransisco Bay, from Palo Alto to Vallejo, as a 'single anchorage'.

As the shorebound population continues to increase, the pressures for access increase, and those with the wherewithal purchase freehold title to the waterfront, and act to restrict accessibility to those same benefits to anyone 'non-deserving'.


What's needed is a dock or alternate anchorage the boats can be moved to and the residents allowed to continue with their lives.

But NIMBY syndrome probably means there is no prospect of this ever happening.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

That is so patently ridiculous it almost isn't worth challenging. But sure, if there was an endless supply of 'new' anchorages; and your boat was capable of reaching them; then yeah, *theoretically*, as long as your boat can move, it's able to reach them.


But this is clearly NOT the problem in Richardson Bay. Even if some of the vessels are not capable of being moved under their own power, the problem is that, even if they could do so, there is nowhwere else for them to go.


This is happening all over the world where envy fuels the distaste and removes the empathy for the disadvantaged, turning them into the undeserving.


As a classic example of this over-reach, where I live in NSW, Australia, living aboard a boat, for any purpose, is forbidden. Totally. Anywhere in the State. rivers, estuaries, harbours. Nowhere. Zip. Nada.



If you own a boat, and don't have a permanent mooring for it, you *may* anchor out for not more than seven days in any given anchorage. but then you MUST change anchorages.



The State boating authorities view the entirety of Sydney Harbour as 'one anchorage'. The ridiculousness of this is brought home to west coast sailors if you imagine the whole of San Fransisco Bay, from Palo Alto to Vallejo, as a 'single anchorage'.

As the shorebound population continues to increase, the pressures for access increase, and those with the wherewithal purchase freehold title to the waterfront, and act to restrict accessibility to those same benefits to anyone 'non-deserving'.


What's needed is a dock or alternate anchorage the boats can be moved to and the residents allowed to continue with their lives.

But NIMBY syndrome probably means there is no prospect of this ever happening.

Well then, NSW Australia sounds like an incredibly Authoritarian Governing Body.

This is what needs changing, and that revolves around uppity, wealth, inequality!
It's what we're fighting for, here in America. The Progressives at least.

The Democractic Party sells out, I'm a democrat,but I don't like what they have become,and absolutely Gag at the Republican Dogma, so I could Never Vote for them.

Those that agree with the in-equality, and promote it, are the Authoritarians.
We're Not having it in a democracy!

Boatyarddog

[Buzzman]

Boatyarddog.... I hear ya!


We have a similar problem here in that the party of the right, the so-called Liberals (yeah I know it's confusing for Americans...) and the party of the left, the so-called Labor party, appear equally keen to be as authoritarian as each other.


The 'progressives' (Labor) have rubber-stamped every anti-privacy excess of the so-called Liberals for the past 10 years, and were just as keen on adding to the anti-privacy, pro-govt agenda when it was their 'turn' in govt.


The latest 'State atrocity' are statements by the Australian Federal govt that journalists reporting on the AUKUS/French submarine deals had the audacity to ask questions of the French President that incurred from him a frank (and frankly embarassing) accusation that the Australian Prime Minister had knowingly lied to him over the French/Australian contract.


But the govt is going after the journalist who asked the question, not the person who made the accusation....

Everywhere, govts seek to 'silence' the Press - the Fourth Estate - who "we, the people", need to have as our backstop against the excesses of tyrannical governments.


The ONLY freedom we truly all aspire to and require is that - the freedom from tyranny....

Yet our own "representatives" seek to reduce our freedoms, curtail and diminish our privacy, demonise those who speak out against the tyrannical, and lead us ever downward towards the loss of those very hard-won freedoms we cherish.


What we NEED is another revolution. Against the tyrannies of elected governments.


[And for the record I am expressly NOT talking about the so-called freedoms given up voluntarily for the purposes of mass vaccinations in the event of a pandemic. I am talking about surveillance measures; Police and LEO powers; State powers and other similar excesses of the bureacrats and already powerful, in the name of 'protection', or 'law enforcement'. And I don't wish to get into a debate about their merits or otherwise...]

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

As a classic example of this over-reach, where I live in NSW, Australia, living aboard a boat, for any purpose, is forbidden. Totally. Anywhere in the State. rivers, estuaries, harbours. Nowhere. Zip. Nada.

If you own a boat, and don't have a permanent mooring for it, you *may* anchor out for not more than seven days in any given anchorage. but then you MUST change anchorages.

The State boating authorities view the entirety of Sydney Harbour as 'one anchorage'. The ridiculousness of this is brought home to west coast sailors if you imagine the whole of San Fransisco Bay, from Palo Alto to Vallejo, as a 'single anchorage'.

although your comments above may be technically correct, we are full time live aboards and know that there is a lot more to it than this. there are hundreds...if not thousands...of folk living abroad in nsw right now. we know many of them.

we have spent months anchored in one location - even in eg pittwater, with maritime going past frequently, and never any interference

sure these laws do exist but even maritime BSO's admit they cannot be enforced. there can be issues in a few high profile areas of sydney harbour, but apart from these, it's fine

of course the lack of enforcement does not justify bad laws, but does put it into perspective.

cheers,

[Buzzman]

Hey, Chris, yes, I too am aware of several, but suspect the actual total is probably only one or two hundred at best, spread over the entire State.

I am also aware of people being moved on by Maritime in Sydney Harbour.

There's even a few marinas that allow it, even if not approved specifically by their local Council.

But anything that looks anything like Richardson Bay would soon get very short shrift.


And as to that very point, a similar 'been there for years' anchor-out community in Surfers PAradise Boradwater, just over the northern border into Queensland, is at present being 'moved on' by the QLD authorities, much as the Richardson Bay community is being targetted in San Fransisco.



So my basic point remains - it is about the nature of those who 'deserve' and those who do not. And the price of the waterfront real estate.

Don't make yourself too obvious, keep the decks clean and well maintained, no parties, etc etc, and you will *largely* go unnoticed by Maritime. Until you get a zealous LEO in charge of your local area, and watch it all go to ****....


Be safe out there!

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Hey, Chris, yes, I too am aware of several, but suspect the actual total is probably only one or two hundred at best, spread over the entire State.

I am also aware of people being moved on by Maritime in Sydney Harbour.

There's even a few marinas that allow it, even if not approved specifically by their local Council.

But anything that looks anything like Richardson Bay would soon get very short shrift.


And as to that very point, a similar 'been there for years' anchor-out community in Surfers PAradise Boradwater, just over the northern border into Queensland, is at present being 'moved on' by the QLD authorities, much as the Richardson Bay community is being targetted in San Fransisco.

hmmm

i think once you have your boat finished and are out there on the water you may develop a different understanding of how many there are. time will tell

but if you are referring to Bums Bay, browns bay etc : don't be sucked in by the rumours of msq clearing boats out. these rumours have been doing the rounds for years. despite this, we were there recently and nothing at all has changed. full of long term residents...

no idea where is richardson bay, but think i've heard of san fransisco - it's in brasil isn't it ?

cheers,

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by chrisr

hmmm

i think once you have your boat finished and are out there on the water you may develop a different understanding of how many there are. time will tell

but if you are referring to Bums Bay, browns bay etc : don't be sucked in by the rumours of msq clearing boats out. these rumours have been doing the rounds for years. despite this, we were there recently and nothing at all has changed. full of long term residents...

no idea where is richardson bay, but think i've heard of san fransisco - it's in brasil isn't it ?

cheers,

Seems like it sometimes I hear.

Good to hear countrymen speaking of rebellion for the good of the disenfranchised.

Our True Patriots are with you, they help the truly needy.
Takes lots of resources to enforce these laws.

Boatyarddog

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

That is so patently ridiculous it almost isn't worth challenging. But sure, if there was an endless supply of 'new' anchorages; and your boat was capable of reaching them; then yeah, *theoretically*, as long as your boat can move, it's able to reach them.


But this is clearly NOT the problem in Richardson Bay. Even if some of the vessels are not capable of being moved under their own power, the problem is that, even if they could do so, there is nowhwere else for them to go.


This is happening all over the world where envy fuels the distaste and removes the empathy for the disadvantaged, turning them into the undeserving.


As a classic example of this over-reach, where I live in NSW, Australia, living aboard a boat, for any purpose, is forbidden. Totally. Anywhere in the State. rivers, estuaries, harbours. Nowhere. Zip. Nada.



If you own a boat, and don't have a permanent mooring for it, you *may* anchor out for not more than seven days in any given anchorage. but then you MUST change anchorages.



The State boating authorities view the entirety of Sydney Harbour as 'one anchorage'. The ridiculousness of this is brought home to west coast sailors if you imagine the whole of San Fransisco Bay, from Palo Alto to Vallejo, as a 'single anchorage'.

As the shorebound population continues to increase, the pressures for access increase, and those with the wherewithal purchase freehold title to the waterfront, and act to restrict accessibility to those same benefits to anyone 'non-deserving'.


What's needed is a dock or alternate anchorage the boats can be moved to and the residents allowed to continue with their lives.

But NIMBY syndrome probably means there is no prospect of this ever happening.

17A***Restrictions on time at anchor
(1)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in NSW waters for more than 90 days in any calendar year.
(2)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in any one place in NSW waters for more than 28 days in any calendar year.

Mate, I don't like it either but as you can see from the copy of the legislation it is 28 days not 7 and I have read on a maritime site that each bay or estuary is now considered to be one place.
Please get it right before you post.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

17A***Restrictions on time at anchor
(1)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in NSW waters for more than 90 days in any calendar year.
(2)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in any one place in NSW waters for more than 28 days in any calendar year.

Mate, I don't like it either but as you can see from the copy of the legislation it is 28 days not 7 and I have read on a maritime site that each bay or estuary is now considered to be one place.
Please get it right before you post.

you make a good point uncle...thanks

but there are 2 sides to this issue

the first is 'are these good laws' ? imho definitely not, and if somebody wants to stage a demo, i'll be one of the first there throwing rocks at waterways

but the second is 'are these laws something that anyone (including live-aboards) in nsw need to worry about' ? again, the answer is definitely not...they are so unenforceable that the BSO's don't even try in 99.9% of the state (who counts your 28/90 days ?? how ??)

cheers,

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by chrisr

you make a good point uncle...thanks

but there are 2 sides to this issue

the first is 'are these good laws' ? imho definitely not, and if somebody wants to stage a demo, i'll be one of the first there throwing rocks at waterways

but the second is 'are these laws something that anyone (including live-aboards) in nsw need to worry about' ? again, the answer is definitely not...they are so unenforceable that the BSO's don't even try in 99.9% of the state (who counts your 28/90 days ?? how ??)

cheers,

Agree whole heartedly, my solution has been to not log on to marine rescue, as have a number of others, not the best from a safety aspect but there is no record of when and where and I just know that if they were asked the information would be supplied.

Managed to find the page that has this

Transport for NSW considers 'at anchor' to include a vessel made fast to the shore, and 'any place’ is considered to be a single bay or section of a waterway where the river is clearly recognised in sections.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

17A***Restrictions on time at anchor
(1)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in NSW waters for more than 90 days in any calendar year.
(2)* The operator of a vessel must not allow a vessel to be at anchor in any one place in NSW waters for more than 28 days in any calendar year.

Mate, I don't like it either but as you can see from the copy of the legislation it is 28 days not 7 and I have read on a maritime site that each bay or estuary is now considered to be one place.
Please get it right before you post.

OK, so I got the 7 days / 28 days wrong - was obviously going off older info, but it seems you are agreeing with me that the whole of Sydney Harbour or the whole of Pittwater is to be considered one 'place'.


"A bay" OR "an estuary" is your quote. Sydney Harbour is 'an estuary'. Pittwater is 'an estuary'.


And I too read this discussion on a local site, which IIRC was AFLOAT magazine, but don't quote me. In the discussion I read previously people commentated that this meant you had to move from Port Hacking to Botany Bay to Sydney Harbour to Pittwater every 7 days in order to be legal (so, OK, that is clearly 28 days, but still...).

So if they length of time is incorrect, wonder how the interpretation of the term "an estuary" holds up...??? Seems from lived experience it's not being rigidly enforced?



But it's clear it's designed to prevent the whole 'Richardson Bay' type of issue, with homeless people 'anchored out'. It gives LEOs the 'teeth' to move people on, as Sausalito has recently done by enforcing the 2 day rule.

It's a bit like the whole Schengen drama in Europe. Legislation designed to achieve one thing inadvertently makes life serioulsly awkward for others.


And while you can appreciate the original intent of the rules, it doesn't make the having to comply with them any less arduous.


My guess is if the Richardsons Bay anchor outs didn't look like a hobo encampment, then no-one would be bothering them.


As this seems to be how Aussies are getting around the rules over here.


But the 'houseless' issue in CA is another story altogether, that is mereley compounding the issue. Clearing out Richardson Bay won't fix that, that's for certain.