Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[markpierce]

People are free to move where living is much less expensive.

Social programs paid by taxpayers subsidize housing, medical care, food, telephones, automobiles. various social and employment services, as well as spending cash for the poor, leastwise here.

Wonder why they're not moving or legitimately working?

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by markpierce

People are free to move where living is much less expensive.

Social programs paid by taxpayers subsidize housing, medical care, food, telephones, automobiles. various social and employment services, as well as spending cash for the poor, leastwise here.

Wonder why they're not moving or legitimately working?

It seems to me that's exactly what liveaboards in RB already did. And now others are trying to push them out. On land it used to be called gentrification. On the water we somehow allowed "free navigation" concept (which incidentally includes the right to anchor outside of an active channel) to be subverted by the wants and aesthetic preferences of the top 1%.

And when the question of "why aren't they working?" is asked I detect a note of envy.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

It seems to me that's exactly what liveaboards in RB already did. And now others are trying to push them out. On land it used to be called gentrification. On the water we somehow allowed "free navigation" concept (which incidentally includes the right to anchor outside of an active channel) to be subverted by the wants and aesthetic preferences of the top 1%.

And when the question of "why aren't they working?" is asked I detect a note of envy.

"Why aren't they working?"

Because they're getting free stuff paid for by others, breaking existing laws laid down for all people, but now somehow the same laws are being ignored by some local bum worshipers, and some boat bums are actually committing local crimes such as burglary.

No, I'm not envious of criminals or squatters.

The problem needs to stop... the bay needs to be cleaned up so that everyone who obeys the laws can enjoy the anchorage.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The problem needs to stop... the bay needs to be cleaned up so that everyone who obeys the laws can enjoy the anchorage.

Originally Posted by Caddy Shack

The city and RBHA has asked Cameron for years to notify these boats they are trespassing on his property. Once done, they could be removed/relocated within 72 hours. It's believed he won't do so simply because of his ongoing quarrel with the city of S.

Sacramento County community prosecutors combat blight in older suburbs | The Sacramento Bee

I think the people anchoring on Chameron's property are doing so with his permission. If you own the property isn't it up to you who you allow there?

I see nothing illegal here.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

I think the people anchoring on Chameron's property are doing so with his permission. If you own the property isn't it up to you who you allow there?

I see nothing illegal here.

This isn't a land-based housing property we're talking about, but even then, local zoning ordinances must be obeyed and if it were zoned commercial, it could not be used for residences and vice-versa.

How is it that Chameron owns the property? That would be a rare/odd thing. It would/should be a long-term lease of public submerged lands since in the USA including California the tidelands and submerged lands can't be owned but rather are public trust lands taken care of by the national government or the state government--considered "state lands" here. While there are international exceptions to public trust lands, in the USA, exception to this norm are only a very few places in Florida where Spain ruled/owned land and sold it before those lands became part of the United States. I'm thinking it's Saint Augustine but could be wrong on that.

Agree that the lessee, Chameron, can give permission for people to use his leasehold. But, if they are using the lands in a way that is not permissible by the lease, Chameron would be harassed by the state and local governments for allowing the improper use of the public trust lands. You see nothing illegal but I see disregard for the public trust doctrine and whatever lease the submerged lands is held with.

That brings us back to remembering that submerged lands in the navigable waterways are not permitted to be used in a way that would be primarily for local benefit and displacing use by "all the public" including mariners who use the navigable waterways. Housing is local benefit of a very few people over the general benefit to the public of the navigable waterways. The use by mariners originally meant fishermen or others engaged in transportation of goods/commerce by water. This definition of public trust use was expanded to include recreational boating in the 20th century but we always must remember that it's all about using the water for activities that are dependent upon the navigable waterways. Housing can take place on land and preferably does so. There is no requirement for housing to be in the navigable waters. That some boats do have people living aboard them as ancillary use only confuses the issue for local people who are desperate to use the navigable waterways as a place to call home.

There is very little difference between someone sleeping in a car that cannot move but is instead permanently parked in a state or national park's parking lot, and a person permanently parked in a spot in the navigable waterways.

The Richardson Bay can provide safe anchorage for mariners including traveling as well as local recreational boaters and if the number of non-functioning/non-moving boats wasn't so huge, it would be able to do so much more easily.

[sailorchic34]

Many of the fine anchorouts do work ashore in RB. It's about the only place with dinghy docks in the central bay which makes it ideal for those who work ashore.

Others are retired with a pension or ss. Some do get food stamps or medicare. Others do not.

Many of the boats have been moored in RB for a long time. Others move around bit. I know of five folks personally who move around and don't spend all their time in RB. At least one engineless diehard sails to the delta and back every summer. That's not me, BTW, as I tend to avoid RB due to all the noise from shore.

Myself I far prefer living aboard then being ashore. Ideally at anchor away from the crowds. But then I work aboard too so it's a win win.

Still tons of space in RB to anchor. Could easily anchor another 200-300 boats there. I should note that the very nice Marin sheriff marine folks, do patrol the harbor and will tag abandoned boats and inform folks of the 72 hour anchoring rule.

Mind you I find 72 hours far too short a time to anchor in one spot. I prefer a week or two before moving about. I guess for folks who live and work ashore 72 hours probably seems reasonable. But then most folk don't seem to know how to really relax any more either.

[newhaul]

I still say that Washington states 30 day then move 5 miles rule is about the best solution to alleviate everyone's discord. ( Every boat in rb can be moved 5 miles. Washington law doesn't say how it has to be moved just that it has to move.) heck I'm sure that people would work together to ( push pull or drag) each other 5 miles )

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I still say that Washington states 30 day then move 5 miles rule is about the best solution to alleviate everyone's discord. ( Every boat in rb can be moved 5 miles. Washington law doesn't say how it has to be moved just that it has to move.) heck I'm sure that people would work together to ( push pull or drag) each other 5 miles )

That 30/5 would be a good solution since when people do move their boats they become aware of what it takes to use a boat and are ever so much more likely to either maintain the boat in a safe and usable fashion or move ashore.

5 miles would definitely get people OUT of RB and that's a good thing, IMO, keeping people coming and going.

72 hours, while on the books, is certainly NOT enforced in RB. Not sure where sailorchic got the idea that it was enforced. If it were, there wouldn't be so many permanent derelicts stuck in RB.

The other huge thing that would make a difference would be just if the USCG would inspect vessels in RB and cite for safety violations. In no time flat, it would seem, there would be not much left except seaworthy vessels. There must be some sticking point to that one (inspecting) that I'm unaware of. We've been inspected while at anchor in other places so I don't know how it would be different in RB.

PS Sailorchic, not to say we cannot shoehorn more boats into RB but rather it would be so much more pleasant to be in an anchorage with other seaworthy vessels rather than being surrounded by too many sinking boats that are essentially floating trash.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

That 30/5 would be a good solution since when people do move their boats they become aware of what it takes to use a boat and are ever so much more likely to either maintain the boat in a safe and usable fashion or move ashore.

5 miles would definitely get people OUT of RB and that's a good thing, IMO, keeping people coming and going. Inflatable

72 hours, while on the books, is certainly NOT enforced in RB. Not sure where sailorchic got the idea that it was enforced. If it were, there wouldn't be so many permanent derelicts stuck in RB.

The other huge thing that would make a difference would be just if the USCG would inspect vessels in RB and cite for safety violations. In no time flat, it would seem, there would be not much left except seaworthy vessels. There must be some sticking point to that one (inspecting) that I'm unaware of. We've been inspected while at anchor in other places so I don't know how it would be different in RB.

PS Sailorchic, not to say we cannot shoehorn more boats into RB but rather it would be so much more pleasant to be in an anchorage with other seaworthy vessels rather than being surrounded by too many sinking boats that are essentially floating trash.

One thing that has not been said and could make a difference is RB a USCG designated special anchorage zone?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

72 hours, while on the books, is certainly NOT enforced in RB. Not sure where sailorchic got the idea that it was enforced. If it were, there wouldn't be so many permanent derelicts stuck in RB.

AH sorry the Marin sheriff is enforcing the 72 hour rule for NEW boats that anchor there. They will issue a ticket after 72 hours. Well more likely a warning and a ticket in a few days after that.

Mind you that does not mean you move the boat, only that they will give you a $25 ticket. Pretty sure the Marin sheriff has talked to all the anchorouts.

Same thing applies to coast guard safety inspections. They could issue a ticket, but that does not mean they will haul away your boat if it fails.

Luckily, even the Marin sheriff folks know that kicking the folks off their boats just creates more of a mess.

While I have no problem at all with the 30/5 idea. For the folks that work ashore that is not a possibility as there are no other dinghy docks and not much in the way of protected anchorages 5 miles away.

As to why they can't just move ashore. Well it's hard to live on $14-$20/hr or $1400/month SS, when rent is $2300/mo for a 1br 500 sf apartment, in the central bay area. Mind you rents 6-8 years ago were 1/2 that. Lord knows I could not afford that.

[Schooner Chandlery]

This is strange, the idea is to give a boater a ticket (because he just showed up) but let a squatter stay forever with no ticket? I certainly hope they're not doing that. I don't think they are.

Sailorchic, do you also advocate for the people who live in cars on the streets and in parks? Just curious about that because it's pretty much the same thing but ever so much cheaper and actually safer than squatting on a boat. It is actually possible to rent for less than you're stating in the central Bay area. It is also possible to share a house or apartment with others. That greatly reduces costs.

Your own advocacy for RB squatters does puzzle me. Each time you explain how you have no income and you can so clearly understand the whole situation. Your income is irrelevant but your description of your income and situation doesn't make any sense. You state you move your boat, stay away from Sausalito (those make sense), and though you (like me) are a mechanical engineer somehow you (unlike me) can't seem to find a way to make more than a few dollars a month. It seems like you share that income information as a way of explaining your advocacy for squatters in RB but each time you state it, it makes less and less sense to me.

Digressing:

Let's say you don't want to work, so you have no income. That's your choice and it's perfectly fine to live on a small budget with very little income -- but you imply that you'd like to have more income but somehow don't and often bring up the economy as your reason. Maybe you don't feel like working with people face-to-face. Sure, I get that, too. My work is remote. On Guru or Upwork you could work remotely quite profitably for a few hours a week with the skills you should have, so every time you say you have such little money it REALLY makes me wonder what's the point. Grasping for straws...Are you, like some people, trying to qualify for disability and need to keep your income low until you do? Are you a deadbeat mom (vs deadbeat dad) avoiding paying child support? Are you trying to make some other boaters that you know feel like you're in their shoes? We each walk in our own path and we hopefully don't need to pretend we're in someone else's shoes in order to be in the same community of boaters. We can read your countless posts on how you live on very little and you talk/walk a thin line between "by choice" or "by the economy" depending on what you're trying to get across, so you really don't need to belabor it any more in this thread. For whatever reason, you live on a very tight budget.

Back on topic:

You are smart to not live in RB and to travel the Delta instead.

The reason to actually live in Sausalito (rather than occasionally visit the anchorage) is because a person works there or has a child in school there. There are very few jobs in Sausalito that don't have identical jobs elsewhere in lower cost of living areas. I don't know any non-boating squatters with kids in school there but perhaps there are some.

If the larger, general case, if one isn't a boater, one doesn't belong living on a boat or even a hunk of trash anchored in the navigable waterways. Go back to square one, just because someone can physically put their unseaworthy craft in RB and sit there doesn't make it OK. It is a selfish action that should be remedied. If there are things that other boaters can do to assist these squatters, great. Examples would be helping them find housing on shore, a better job, or teaching them some boat repair and boater education so they can use a boat rather than squat on it.

Living aboard a boat is a great thing for boaters to do--especially if its the only way to go sailing because the budget is tight and one must choose between housing and boat. It's a no brainer to buy the boat. This all presumes that a boater is going to use their boat as a boat and not simply housing though.

If someone doesn't work at all and is instead living on SS, they're free to go anywhere in the country including much nicer as well as lower cost of living places than Sausalito. The pleasure of living aboard is the ability to move and go places. If a person is camped out on a hunk of junk and isn't interested in boating, it's another matter -- however these retirees or folks on disability are also eligible for the HUD assisted housing in the Bay area -- and while the wait lists are long, some of the housing is excellent.

I know, Sailorchic, that for some reason you advocate for this totally crazy anchor-out of junk situation in RB. It is counter to what is best for you as a boater and for other boaters. If you have deep empathy for the squatters, it would be great if you took action to assist them with finding actual housing or learning how to fix and use their boats.

There are many real boaters out there, retirees on budgets, people with kids, families, a variety of boaters--many on very tight budgets--who are all essentially "displaced" by the squatters in RB. What could be a great resource to the boating community is not--and that's simply because of the selfish acts of the squatters you're advocating for. Why would you prefer to advocate for these non-boaters to use the navigable waterways in a way inconsistent with the public trust doctrine rather than advocating for actual boaters to use the navigable waterways? This is not a rhetorical question.

[The Smokester]

Schooner, I think you make some good points. However, I think you are implicitly ignoring an important cultural tenet of American culture, namely Freedom of Choice.

Freedom to Choose implies having options. In 2014, more than half of households had incomes of less than $50k. More than 75% of individuals had incomes of less than $50k. (I couldn't quickly put my hands on higher resolution data but you get the point.)

Less money means fewer options and there are a lot more people with less money than more...Fewer options than more. Whether one's options are narrowed by circumstance or otherwise, it is still in our nature to allow freedom of choice.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by The Smokester

Schooner, I think you make some good points. However, I think you are implicitly ignoring an important cultural tenet of American culture, namely Freedom of Choice.

Freedom to Choose implies having options. In 2014, more than half of households had incomes of less than $50k. More than 75% of individuals had incomes of less than $50k. (I couldn't quickly put my hands on higher resolution data but you get the point.)

Less money means fewer options and there are a lot more people with less money than more...Fewer options than more. Whether one's options are narrowed by circumstance or otherwise, it is still in our nature to allow freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice is definitely important. It's a broad concept. The public trust lands themselves help support that freedom -- because people can move w/o toll throughout the land and travel on the seas w/o toll. But if squatters crowd out the few free anchorages, they've taken away the freedom of choice of other people.

Even with that freedom of choice, with little money, people choose the less expensive choices. Choosing to plop down, at no cost, in public trust lands (navigable waterways) in an expensive place and expecting every one else you're essentially displacing or taking advantage of to agree with your choice and tell you you're not greedy? That's OK is fantasy land. It's not realistic or reasonable. It is definitely selfish. Some liveaboards and most cruisers live on very little so those free anchorages like RB are important to all boaters -- not just a few non-boaters, in tight circumstances, who are squatters. I am making that distinction because it is important.

I personally know of liveaboard boating families and cruising retirees (all on budgets) who would love to spend more time in RB during their travels but who cannot do so because of the existing group of squatters creating an unsavory environment they either don't want their children exposed to--or, as retirees they worry about their personal safety and the safety of their vessel when they're away from it--as well as unattended derelicts dragging into them-- so they, prudently, avoid RB to avoid those risks. In my book, this is just all wrong. When one's person choice impacts the personal choice of so many other people, it's gone over the edge. That is the situation in RB. Poor and selfish or rich and selfish, it is unfortunately all the same. The average fellow who is neither poor nor rich has his/her freedom of choice taken away by the actions of those who are so selfish.

In other places with a properly set up and enforced anchoring/mooring situation 30/5 or anything else, the general public is better served and I hope at some point the RB is managed in that way or that the existing glut of squatters are removed and free anchoring resumes.

[The Smokester]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Freedom of choice is definitely important. It's a broad concept. The public trust lands themselves help support that freedom -- because people can move w/o toll throughout the land and travel on the seas w/o toll. But if squatters crowd out the few free anchorages, they've taken away the freedom of choice of other people...

Yes. Well said.

Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere in this unbelievably long thread, but we are possibly looking at a real-world example of "The Tradegy of the Commons."

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by The Smokester

Yes. Well said.

Don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere in this unbelievably long thread, but we are possibly looking at a real-world example of "The Tradegy of the Commons."

Absolutely it is exactly that.