Liveaboards vs Locals

[JackHinks]

I live near (not on) "Infamous" Marco Island. Yeah, the City that to it's later chagrin, ignored and violated not only the Florida Constitution but also the U.S. Constitution.
That being said, there are no longer any liveaboard marinas in our county. Though I did hear that a local marina is offering liveaboard slips. One thing I will point out, is the amazing number of marina slips that are un-occupied. Having lived her 15 years and visited for another 15, I have never seen it so bad at marinas. The possible upside is that maybe more marinas will consider allowing liveaboards.
One thing that has always struck me as illogical is landowners denigrating liveaboards as "sneakaboards" and "Floating bums" cus they don't pay property taxes, all the while the landowners (and I heard this in restaurants/bars) would "crow" to their northern guests that "us Floridians don't pay income taxes." Well the thing is, yes, property taxes do pay for a lot of services provided by Cities/Counties in FL, but where else does FL get millions and millions from? From sales taxes baby! And liveaboards do pump $ into the local economy BIG-TIME. (and no, I don't liveaboard here (Yet!) Though I did up north for a few years.
We boaters got to stick together! In unity there is strength sailors!

[zeehag]

problem is--we DO pay property tax--just the local yokels donot believe we do.....

[Hudson Force]

I know that there have been conflicts, but I don't think that there is an issue for most live-aboards. My wife and I have lived aboard since 1972, often at marinas, but anchored out for as long as three months in one location and we have never been confronted with anyone's concern with our presence. 'take care and joy, Aythya crew

[jackiepitts]

I love when people hit me with the Property Tax card.
I immediately inform then that I pay more property tax on our boat than we did on our 5 bedroom, 3 bath home in San Diego County. I also let them know that since we are on a boat we do not have Prop 13 to protect us from paying our fair share of property tax (something homeowners do not have to do in California).
It shuts them right up.
Jackie

[sarafina]

The San Francisco Bay Area has stringent rules regarding liveaboards.

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has set a 10% cap on liveaboards in the bay. So marinas that do allow liveaboards are limited in the number of slips they can allow. Needless to say there are many more 'sneakaboards' who are aboard more than 3 nights a week. (the definition of a liveaboard here is more than 3 nights in a 7 day period.)

There are places where you can drop anchor, but there are very few moorings.

Interestingly, San Francisco is perhaps one of the few places where it actually may be cheaper to live aboard. Studios in modest areas go for 1k a month, not including utilities.
You can expect to pay 250.00 (and up) a month for a slip (30') and the same again for liveaboard fees.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by sarafina

You can expect to pay 250.00 (and up) a month for a slip (30') and the same again for liveaboard fees.

In my marina in Sausalito, a 50' slip goes for $800 per month, and a 60' slip goes for $1,000. Liveaboard fee is an additional $250 per month.

[sarafina]

heh. that would be the "up" part I guess, Bash ; -)

[Bash]

Originally Posted by sarafina

heh. that would be the "up" part I guess, Bash ; -)

but that's part of the story, no? I know a lot of liveaboards who are paying $1,250 per month slip/liveaboard fee on top of a $2,500 and up boat mortgage, and are still looked down upon as something just up from a homeless vagabond.

[sarafina]

and we get asked all the time "why are you guys berthed ALL THE WAY DOWN IN South San Francisco?"

we did the math... never mind the bridge toll from the City to Marin...

that IS painful... and we do pay thru the nose for the privilege of living here...

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by jackiepitts

I also let them know that since we are on a boat we do not have Prop 13 to protect us from paying our fair share of property tax (something homeowners do not have to do in California).

This is an incorrect understanding of Proposition 13, passed by California voters in 1978 by a wide margin. What it did was restrict the property tax to 1% of the assessed value of a property. At 1%, a California home assessed at $500,000 pays $5000 in property tax per annum, and there was a time when $500,000 was a very modest home in the Golden State.

So Prop 13 doesn't "protect [anyone] from paying [their] fair share of property tax," it merely caps it at 1% of the assessed valuation.

One side effect of the passage of Prop13 was the requirement that 2/3 of the members of the Assembly and Senate must agree to any bill proposing a tax increase. Needless to say, getting even 50% + 1 to agree to anything in the California legislature is hard enough, but getting 2/3 is impossible - thus the yearly budget battle as California descends into third world chaos.

TaoJones

[GordMay]

This thread title might explain some of the psycology at work.
If liveaboards don’t think of themselves as locals, why should our neighbouring land-dwellers?

[jackiepitts]

I stand corrected on the finer points of Prop 13 but my point is the same. When we owned our home in San Diego County we paid 1% tax on $130K (what we paid for it) just before it was sold it was valued at 500K and that is what we sold for yet we were still paying taxes on 1% of 130K. There are many examples of this on homes that are valued much higher than ours was. In fact there are communities that cannot even afford to pay there local fire dept and police dept the going rate because there property taxes are so low due to large communitities of people that bought there houses 30+ years ago and are still paying the 1% tax on the value back then....(I believe Laguan Niguel is one of these).
When we receive our property bill for the boat the value is reassesed yearly and actually was higher the year after we purchased it than they actually purchase price.
I do not see how it is right for a person in a land home to look down on people on boats when in fact they really do get more breaks as far as taxes go.
Jackie

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by jackiepitts

I stand corrected on the finer points of Prop 13 but my point is the same. When we owned our home in San Diego County we paid 1% tax on $130K (what we paid for it) just before it was sold it was valued at 500K and that is what we sold for yet we were still paying taxes on 1% of 130K. There are many examples of this on homes that are valued much higher than ours was. In fact there are communities that cannot even afford to pay there local fire dept and police dept the going rate because there property taxes are so low due to large communitities of people that bought there houses 30+ years ago and are still paying the 1% tax on the value back then....(I believe Laguan Niguel is one of these).
When we receive our property bill for the boat the value is reassesed yearly and actually was higher the year after we purchased it than they actually purchase price.
I do not see how it is right for a person in a land home to look down on people on boats when in fact they really do get more breaks as far as taxes go.
Jackie

This post accurately reflects the property tax situation in California, Jackie, and it leads me to recall the situation when my then-wife and I purchased our house in the San Fernando Valley in August of '87. Our tax bill was based on 1% of the selling price of the home, so we paid approximately $2300. It only went up from there, over the years.

Meanwhile, my wife's parents were paying property tax on their Westwood home, also at the 1% level, but based on assessments that were years behind the curve. They had bought the home thirty years earlier, so their tax bill was a fraction of our's, yet their home was easily worth twice what our's was.

What's more, when they sold their Westwood home in '89 and paid cash for a new home in Newport Beach, they were able to take advantage of another provision of the California property tax laws (because they were over 55) and keep their ridiculously low property tax payment on the Newport house that was worth five times what our Valley house was worth.

Essentially, the tax burden was lifted from the backs of the aged and placed on the backs of the young. The theory was that there were masses of elderly people who were living on fixed incomes, yet their property taxes kept going up significantly, a reflection of the booming California housing market. That was one of the key triggers of the Prop 13 "tax revolution" - to protect those who were "house-rich and cash-poor."

What you've directly experienced is the numbers game that politics is, Jackie. Land-based property owners have a lot more votes than water-based property owners will ever have. With no power to wield, those on the water will always pay more and get less.

TaoJones

[Chattcatdaddy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

This thread title might explain some of the psycology at work.
If liveaboards don’t think of themselves as locals, why should our neighbouring land-dwellers?

Excellent point!

I have been a liveaboard and a local. Never personally had a problem finding a marina that allowed liveaboards. This was in Marathon, FL and most marinas allowed liveaboards as this was the main source of business. A lot of snowbirds living on boats in the winter months and the economy lived or died by the revenue generated by the cruising/tourist community. Anyplace that the economy doesn`t depend on those dollars are gonna have a different view of the liveaboard.

[sailorboy1]

I agree with Gord! If you really are a livaboard and not a cruiser passing thur, you are a local! The water dellers verse land dellers is just like any other community fight between different neighborhoods.