Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[sailorboy1]

Maybe Richardson's Bay is just a case of "if you don't like the view from your backyard, maybe you should move".

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, yes. But show me please where the CFR states a boat can't anchor in navigable water or there is a time limit in the public trust document. A state powerpoint is actually not the code or legal doc. I really am interested as I can't find a time limit in the public trust. While houses are generally excluded. A boat is not a fixture structure

Though FB is right that the RBRA which was specifically created in the 1985 to deal with the anchor outs, does limit time to 3 days without a permit and over 90 days with a permit. That no one ever gets a permit, is a minor sticky point. Thirty years later, it still looks the same.

It seems you'd like this to be simply an issue about how many days someone can anchor per some federal regulation. It's not that simple. Did you bother to read the powerpoint? Do you understand the Public Trust Doctrine after doing so? If you don't understand the parts about how housing is not a legitimate public trust use, that would be interesting to hear and clarify for you. Not whether you agree with it but whether you understand it.

While keeping boating safety at the federal level with the USCG, the fed's gave actual control of the public lands to the state and lower levels. State and local gov's (and in some cases Port Authorities and other such entities) have their place in making ordinances and regulations to support the Public Trust Doctrine in California. The local government can choose to issue permits--or not--and to enforce their own rules--or not--in order to meet the needs of the public and to deter private and local interests from displacing the public trust use of the navigable waterways.

IMO, in Richardson Bay, the locals should be enforcing the anchoring restrictions put in place so many years back--because if they did so boat-dwellers wouldn't have come to believe that it is their right to be there in one spot forever more. There would at least be much less confusion.

It is the right of all boaters to engage in public trust use of Richardson Bay. Boat-dwellers (those who take up housing on a boat, barge, or other floating object but do not use their vessel as a boat, instead squatting in a single location for months and years) , IMO, are negatively impacting and displacing legitimate boaters from using the navigable waterways in Richardson Bay. That, I believe, is a big problem that needs fixing. That some cruiser comes along and anchors for a couple years while re-filling the cruising kitty, obtaining healthcare, etc, isn't the primary problem. People who buy cheap boats and squat on them never intending to leave the area seem to be the problem. No matter how we slice it, the squatting is not a public trust use of the Bay.

Imposing anchoring time limits is a simplistic approach that appeals to simplistic people. The bottom line, that you seem to be avoiding discussion of, is that housing by itself is not a public trust use of the navigable waterways. Boats and ships can, and do, stay at anchor for months sometimes -- for reasons related to the use and navigation of the vessel, not because some guy wants to make that particular spot of submerged land his home. There is rarely a need for an anchoring time limit for vessels in navigation. They come, they go, anchoring is not their primary navigation activity. The only need for limits seems to come along when people are ABUSING the anchorages and impacting legitimate public trust uses of the navigable waterways.

If you'd like someone to explain the use of the Richardson Bay anchorage to you with great detail, you can get in touch with the state of California's SLC and ask for someone on their legal staff to assist you. www.slc.ca.gov/

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Maybe Richardson's Bay is just a case of "if you don't like the view from your backyard, maybe you should move".

Sailorboy,

I've spent time in Sausalito. The view of the derelict boats is gross from an otherwise very nice, touristy town with excellent marinas. The term "bums on boats" certainly comes to mind. I'm sure that you'd agree if you saw it first hand. It's more like a rag-tag bunch of squatters hogging up the anchorage. I'm surprised Walter White's Bounder motorhome isn't sitting there half submerged.

I'm remembering your similar thread from three years ago regarding the same subject of derelict boats anchored off P-Town in Cape Cod.

[Jason Flare]

Schooner Chandlery wrote:

"That some cruiser comes along and anchors for a couple years while re-filling the cruising kitty, obtaining healthcare, etc, isn't the primary problem. People who buy cheap boats and squat on them never intending to leave the area seem to be the problem. "

A competent attorney would advise those accused of squatting to say that they intend to leave some time in the future.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm remembering your similar thread from three years ago regarding the same subject of derelict boats anchored off P-Town in Cape Cod.

Never said I want to look at them, but that doesn't change the facts and is just like why I don't live next to a slum. But the people in the slums have the right to live and just because rich people run out places doesn't mean others should have to move.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

The bottom line, that you seem to be avoiding discussion of, is that housing by itself is not a public trust use of the navigable waterways. Boats and ships can, and do, stay at anchor for months sometimes -- for reasons related to the use and navigation of the vessel, not because some guy wants to make that particular spot of submerged land his home.

Ah, The thing is a house is a permanent structure, like the ones on the water over at Belvadeer. You're interpretation is it applies to boats. I'm not so sure it does. All I'm asking is where in the public trust documents does it place a time limit on anchoring. A simple question.

Boat's like cardboard boxes are not classified as homes. Looking at admiralty and public trust laws, I don't think there is any mention of anchoring limits. An oversight for sure. Navigation BTW, also allows for anchoring.

RBRA does have a code limiting anchoring,and has for 30 years. But its obviously is not enforced. Got to ask yourself why.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Boat's like cardboard boxes are not classified as homes.

Actually according to the IRS, interest paid on a boat loan is deductable as mortgage interest paid on a second residence. Of course you must own a first residence for this to be the case.
Other than that, I am afraid that I will need to excuse myself at this time as the post has moved into the WADD (whipping a dead dolphin) category.
Ciao Bella.

[Fluer de Mer]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, The thing is a house is a permanent structure, like the ones on the water over at Belvadeer. You're interpretation is it applies to boats. I'm not so sure it does. All I'm asking is where in the public trust documents does it place a time limit on anchoring. A simple question.

Boat's like cardboard boxes are not classified as homes. Looking at admiralty and public trust laws, I don't think there is any mention of anchoring limits. An oversight for sure. Navigation BTW, also allows for anchoring.

RBRA does have a code limiting anchoring,and has for 30 years. But its obviously is not enforced. Got to ask yourself why.

I don't understand why the term 'house' or 'home' are being inserted into the discussion. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that calling a boat a house doesn’t change the fact that it is still only one form of housing … which is explicitly prohibited on Public Trust Doctrine per post #262 citations which use the word housing, and not house. Said differently, a ‘house’ is merely one possible subset of ‘housing’ which refers to a broader category of dwellings in which people live i.e. house, condo, tent, apartment, RV, etc. (check Merriam Webster).

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Fluer de Mer

I don't understand why the term 'house' or 'home' are being inserted into the discussion. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that calling a boat a house doesn’t change the fact that it is still a form of housing … which is explicitly prohibited on Public Trust Doctrine per post #262 citations which use the word housing, and not house. Said differently, a ‘house’ is merely one possible subset of ‘housing’ which refers to a broader category of dwellings in which people live i.e. house, condo, tent, apartment, RV, etc. (check Merriam Webster).

Lacking a salient argument, resorting to parsing words and twisting their intent may be the last resort.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I don't care where they go. It is not my responsibility to relocate these people. As long as it is legal for them to be there and as long as they obey whatever rules exist in that location, I'm fine with it. That I don't have a destination at hand does not justify them staying where they are, however.

Good Post and I agree 100%!!

[Stu Jackson]

1. What the spectators and gripers in this thread seem to forget is that NOBODY can really see anything from shore, and sure as hell can't see anything from up on the hill unless they use binoculars or telescopes. To them I say "If it's so freekin' ugly; STOP looking at it and put down the telescope"

2. The proposal to spend $650k to mess with the anchorage is ridiculous and ill advised. This kind of money would be better placed in services and effective management of a social situation which typically the money on the hill would rather try to abate by out spending it than assist it to improve.

1. Very logical.

2. Makes lotsa sense. Why not do something positive instead of doing what "they" usually do, which is posting even MORE "No" "Don't" "Not here" signs and unenforced or unenforceable laws.

[markpierce]

Where is the location for the "prison" of errant Richardson Bay errant anchor-outs? Perhaps they should be towed out to the Pacific Ocean and the USCG can test the effectiveness of their firepower. Leastwise, that's one solution.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

All I'm asking is where in the public trust documents does it place a time limit on anchoring. A simple question.

Some things are not simple.

Just because you want it to be there doesn't mean it is there, Sailorchic. Do your civic duty (yes, we all have that) and read the information provided. Think about it. Objectively. Call the SLC if you want state interpretation and direction for the parts you don't understand.

[Fluer de Mer]

Originally Posted by Fluer de Mer

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.

READER NOTE: For those who don't care about laws, you can skip to the next post.

More regulations are here. To wit, on 1/1/16 California AB 1323 went into effect. This new law has several regulatory 'thingies' that might apply to this discussion: a) redefines unseaworthy vessels and maritime debris (many things floating in Richardson Bay would, some believe, fall under the new definition), b) grants local, county and other public entities increased/broader powers to deal with it, c) dramatically streamlines the bureaucratic and legal process for eliminating it (legal protections and/or loopholes have been removed), d) when possible, ensures that the costs for any/all enforcement actions are borne by the offending party, and e) allows for all kinds of new intra-agency law enforcement cooperation. Don't know how this will play out vis-à-vis Richardson Bay, but it is an example of how Landlubbers and a host of their powerful supporters will continue to pass regulations when a tiny minority of bad 'boater's' (and those that empower them) misbehave.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Hum....there goes the anchorage nuisances. Seems like the local authorities would have to come up with funding to foot the bill to remove the vessels determined to be maritime debris. So that could take a while, a potentially long while...maybe not though... Here's the link to the AB 1323

On the bright side, "Wrong" should be able to dislodge himself from the public mooring he's attached himself permanently to because he found the anchorage to be unsafe due to these problem boats that could drag onto him. The boats that scared him out of the anchorage will be removed from the anchorage leaving room for "Wrong" to anchor. Win-win for the author of this thread.

If the local government is able to rid themselves of the "marine debris" then they may not be so keen to spend the bucks to put in moorings. Another win for "Wrong" since he doesn't want those moorings. Are we celebrating yet?