|
live aboard slips
I;ve noticed that in some threads, there has been discussion of how
some marinas won't allow aboard living. Why is that? because people junk up the marina? or is it the extra expense of shore power and utilities? I thought that if you rented a slip it was yours to do with (that is..with discression) I've seen some houseboats turn into some class A party barges and never leave the slip. just wondering. Tim |
"Tim" wrote in message oups.com... I;ve noticed that in some threads, there has been discussion of how some marinas won't allow aboard living. Why is that? Hard to say. Liveaboards run the gammit from very responsible folks that just like to live aboard (most of my friends) to absolute deadbeats that can't afford anything else. Unfortunately, the deadbeats sometimes make the bigger impression. because people junk up the marina? Some do, and ruin it for those of us that are responsible. or is it the extra expense of shore power and utilities? One normally pays for power via a meter. In the marinas I have lived aboard, an extra charge is paid to compensate for water usage, trash removal, etc. The charge has varied from $15/mo to $85/mo. I thought that if you rented a slip it was yours to do with (that is..with discression) That would be wrong. Just as with anything one rents. Even if you buy a slip, you are still constrained by various covenants. I've seen some houseboats turn into some class A party barges and never leave the slip. No doubt. Some states stipulate that a boat has to act like a boat and not a barge. I think FL has such laws. just wondering. It's really a load of crap, but liveaboards are an easy target. The marina I am in welcomes liveaboards (at a $85/mo extra fee). A great asset. We have caught many a vandal. Tim |
On 12 Jan 2005 19:51:34 -0800, "Tim" wrote:
I;ve noticed that in some threads, there has been discussion of how some marinas won't allow aboard living. Why is that? because people junk up the marina? or is it the extra expense of shore power and utilities? I thought that if you rented a slip it was yours to do with (that is..with discression) I've seen some houseboats turn into some class A party barges and never leave the slip. In some places (SF BAY, for one) environmental controls forbid. Marinal allow at their peril. May be the same where you are. Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a Ask not with whom the buck stops . . . |
"Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2005 19:51:34 -0800, "Tim" wrote: I;ve noticed that in some threads, there has been discussion of how some marinas won't allow aboard living. Why is that? because people junk up the marina? or is it the extra expense of shore power and utilities? I thought that if you rented a slip it was yours to do with (that is..with discression) I've seen some houseboats turn into some class A party barges and never leave the slip. In some places (SF BAY, for one) environmental controls forbid. What environmental controls? Marinal allow at their peril. May be the same where you are. Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a Ask not with whom the buck stops . . . |
|
Most of the reasons for "No Live Aboards" have been well covered already,
here and elsewhere. One of the main reasons in Calif. and most other areas is because the Marina operates on a lease from the local port authority or the docks are in water ways that are controlled by the Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR). They forbid or set limits on how many marina residense may live aboard. If live aboard were allowed without restrictions the marina would have to install more power, pumpout facility, parking, head/showers, etc. Speaking of parking, most live aboards I have known, are families and that mean multiple vehicules/parking spaces, everyday, not just weekends. Often they will have an extra van just for storage.. Myself, I love living aboard and try not to abuse the privilege. However, if I look at it objectly, I could compare it to parking my RV at the curb in front of someones house and claiming it is my right as long as I don't violate any parking code limitations and pay my license fees. (hey! just pay someone to let me plug into their electric and hook up to the outside water faucet. To hell with the rest of the neighborhood..) Send my 6 kids to the local school... Now back to the marina question. I have known of people who purchase a large boat for a home at the dock. No intentions of using it for a recreational boating or if they do plan to do some future cruising, these noble intentions are soon diminished by the realization of the realities of boat care and repair. (too much boat for the budget or the abilities) My opinion and experience, FWIW. Steve s/v Good Intentions |
"Steve" wrote:
Most of the reasons for "No Live Aboards" have been well covered already, here and elsewhere. One of the main reasons in Calif. and most other areas is because the Marina operates on a lease from the local port authority or the docks are in water ways that are controlled by the Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR). They forbid or set limits on how many marina residense may live aboard. If live aboard were allowed without restrictions the marina would have to install more power, pumpout facility, parking, head/showers, etc. In Maryland, and on the Chesapeake, and in the Keys, marinas are required to have pumpout facilities whether they have live aboards or not. This is NOT a live-aboard issue regardless of how people try to make it into one. Speaking of parking, most live aboards I have known, are families and that mean multiple vehicules/parking spaces, everyday, not just weekends. Often they will have an extra van just for storage.. I do not think multiple vehicles are restricted to live-aboards. We own 20 cars at our home, and while we don't take all of them down to the marina at once (because there are only 2 of us, and some of them don't run), if we go out in the boat with other people, mostly they have their own transportation. There are also commercial fishing boats in our marina (and many other marinas) and every time they go out, all the people that hire the boat come by car and park at the marina. At the Marathon City marina where they rent moorings out, the people that have moorings have available a certain number of bike and parking places with the mooring. So the extra parking is not really a live-aboard related issue. Myself, I love living aboard and try not to abuse the privilege. However, if I look at it objectly, I could compare it to parking my RV at the curb in front of someones house and claiming it is my right as long as I don't violate any parking code limitations and pay my license fees. (hey! just pay someone to let me plug into their electric and hook up to the outside water faucet. To hell with the rest of the neighborhood..) Send my 6 kids to the local school... It is not comparable to that at all. Live-aboards pay for the marina slip (and through their payments they pay taxes in the same way any other rental unit pays taxes) and usually for the electricity, the pumpouts and sometimes for the water. The question of property taxes to support the schools isn't really relevant either because many cruiser's home school. It's more comparable to living in a trailer park and sending your kids to public school. No - the business about not allowing live-aboards is purely NIMBY Now back to the marina question. I have known of people who purchase a large boat for a home at the dock. No intentions of using it for a recreational boating or if they do plan to do some future cruising, these noble intentions are soon diminished by the realization of the realities of boat care and repair. (too much boat for the budget or the abilities) My opinion and experience, FWIW. Steve s/v Good Intentions grandma Rosalie |
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:48:13 GMT, Rosalie B.
wrote: It's more comparable to living in a trailer park and sending your kids to public school. =================================== That comparison is a little too close for comfort. All to many areas with a large liveaboard population come to resemble a floating trailer park, and that is what inspires the restrictions. Tell people you are a cruiser instead, and actually use the boat once in awhile. |
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:26:55 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: "Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote in message .. . On 12 Jan 2005 19:51:34 -0800, "Tim" wrote: I;ve noticed that in some threads, there has been discussion of how some marinas won't allow aboard living. Why is that? because people junk up the marina? or is it the extra expense of shore power and utilities? I thought that if you rented a slip it was yours to do with (that is..with discression) I've seen some houseboats turn into some class A party barges and never leave the slip. In some places (SF BAY, for one) environmental controls forbid. What environmental controls? I forget the name of the agency, but it has the power to forbid all kinds of things, defined as "bay fill." Forbes Island, for example, was ejected from the bay after several years off Sausalito. For those who don't know, Forbes Island looked like an island, with a house, beach, and palm tree. It was actually a moored barge. Of course such an agency provides an excuse if a marina just doesn't want liveaboards, but the zeal with which South Beach Yacht Basin enforces its rule suggests real concern. I was always happy to have lots of liveaboards around. It is cheap security. Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a Ask not with whom the buck stops . . . |
It's more comparable to living in a trailer
park and sending your kids to public school...... That comparison is a little too close for comfort. All to many areas with a large liveaboard population come to resemble a floating trailer park, and that is what inspires the restrictions. Tell people you are a cruiser instead, and actually use the boat once in awhile. Turning the place into a "floating trailer park? good enough reason that wouldn't make the place very attractive at any rate. Tim |
Well, that's a bunch of crap!
"Tim" wrote in message oups.com... It's more comparable to living in a trailer park and sending your kids to public school...... That comparison is a little too close for comfort. All to many areas with a large liveaboard population come to resemble a floating trailer park, and that is what inspires the restrictions. Tell people you are a cruiser instead, and actually use the boat once in awhile. Turning the place into a "floating trailer park? good enough reason that wouldn't make the place very attractive at any rate. Tim |
On 14 Jan 2005 13:09:16 -0800, "Tim" wrote:
Turning the place into a "floating trailer park? good enough reason that wouldn't make the place very attractive at any rate. ================================== It's not attractive at all and it ties up dock space and harbor space from people who actually use their boats. |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:15:42 -0500,
Wayne.B wrote: On 14 Jan 2005 13:09:16 -0800, "Tim" wrote: Turning the place into a "floating trailer park? good enough reason that wouldn't make the place very attractive at any rate. ================================== It's not attractive at all and it ties up dock space and harbor space from people who actually use their boats. You think someone that's living aboard 24x7 isn't "using" their boat? -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Reality continues to ruin my life. -- Calvin |
"Tim" wrote:
It's more comparable to living in a trailer park and sending your kids to public school...... My original point was that there are many types of rental units. Apartments, houses, marina slips, and trailer park pad rentals are some of them. Renters do not pay real estate taxes directly, and they often have children and do send those children to the schools. This is not irresponsible for those people to do, and no one should feel superior because they live in a house that they own. That comparison is a little too close for comfort. All to many areas with a large liveaboard population come to resemble a floating trailer park, and that is what inspires the restrictions. Tell people you are a cruiser instead, and actually use the boat once in awhile. Turning the place into a "floating trailer park? good enough reason that wouldn't make the place very attractive at any rate. I think some marinas with a large live-aboard population are more attractive than some trailer parks and less attractive than others. There are some nice trailer parks with well kept up attractive units. There are some that are slums. There are some marinas which are attractively landscaped, and some where the docks are ready to fall down and are in a dangerous state of disrepair and no one cares. In some areas (such as Florida) there is a large transient live-aboard population. Snowbirds come from the colder climates, and live on board during the winter on a boat. These boats have - by definition- been used, as they have to be sailed (or more rarely trailered) to and from the northern areas. IMO this is more attractive and responsible use of the region than the RVers, or other types of snowbirds who clog up the roads. There are many boats in marinas that are never used, but are not lived aboard either. I find these boats much less attractive and often a great deal more of an eyesore than boats that are being lived aboard even if the live-aboards never move their boats. There are some boats in marinas where the people come down and spend time on the boats - even overnight sometimes - but never take the boat out for one reason or another. Sometimes there are boats that the people come down and go out and sail, come back and put the boat into the slip and leave. I think the PO of our boat mostly used it as a party boat - sometimes at the dock and sometimes just sailing out to the bay and back. He went very few places (one trip to NYC and the rest in the Chesapeake on some weekends), but he spent a lot of money on upkeep (he didn't do much work himself). This made it an attractive boat to buy, but I don't know that he would have made a particularly good neighbor. In his case, the slips in the marina were owned as a condo, so presumably he could have used his boat as he wished. I find most objectionable the type of person who takes his boat out (most often sports fishers) and then comes back and washes the boat down using a great deal of water while drinking beer - often they have big spotlights which they leave on after they leave the boat. A nice quiet live-aboard is much preferable. grandma Rosalie |
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:07:57 -0800, Jim Richardson
wrote: You think someone that's living aboard 24x7 isn't "using" their boat? =================================== Don't take offense unless the shoe fits. If a boat never moves under its own power, it is not being used as a boat, it is being used as a floating house trailer. Ditto for boats that have all of their spare supplys piled on deck, and ditto for boats with 5 years of barnacles growing on the bottom. THAT is the sort of thing which inspires anti-liveaboard regulation. Please don't say it doesn't happen, I can provide pictures. |
wrote in It's not really big enough even for it's present level of use, so they are forced to rent a couple of port-o-lets to make up the difference. Sounds like a nice marina you're at there, Bill. SV |
"Jim Richardson" wrote ================================== It's not attractive at all and it ties up dock space and harbor space from people who actually use their boats. You think someone that's living aboard 24x7 isn't "using" their boat? He meant use them according to *his* definition of use. Everyone else be damned Must be a liberal, eh? SV |
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:42:15 -0500,
Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:07:57 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: You think someone that's living aboard 24x7 isn't "using" their boat? =================================== Don't take offense unless the shoe fits. If a boat never moves under its own power, it is not being used as a boat, it is being used as a floating house trailer. Ditto for boats that have all of their spare supplys piled on deck, and ditto for boats with 5 years of barnacles growing on the bottom. THAT is the sort of thing which inspires anti-liveaboard regulation. Please don't say it doesn't happen, I can provide pictures. I live in a marina with about 30% or more, liveaboards. Sure, if a boat looks like a trashheap, there will be friction. But whether the boat leaves the dock or not, is irrelevent to that. There are several boats here that look like crap, yet have no one living aboard, and are used from time to time, as "boats" The anti-liveaboard factions, are like most any other anti faction, they don't like something, for whatever reason, and they are small minded enough to try and push their choices, on others, irrespective of actual facts. Case in point here in Seattle a couple of years ago, was the then head of DNR, pushing an anti-liveaboard agenda, complete with pictures of garbage littering the bottom of the bay, implication being that the liveaboards were throwing all this trash overboard. Turns out, the pics were from the bottom, outside the navy's shipyard, and were the results of 40+ years of navy trash... which said head of DNR knew, but she had an agenda so... Me, I don't care how often a boat goes out, I know we don't go out any where near as often as I would like. I care what the dock, parking, etc looks like a lot more, and at least here, the main "culprits" of mess and mayhem, are the weekend sailors. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password. |
Good points. We have far more boats in our marina that have never
left their slip since I have been here than liveaboard boats of the same status. "Jim Richardson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:42:15 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:07:57 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: You think someone that's living aboard 24x7 isn't "using" their boat? =================================== Don't take offense unless the shoe fits. If a boat never moves under its own power, it is not being used as a boat, it is being used as a floating house trailer. Ditto for boats that have all of their spare supplys piled on deck, and ditto for boats with 5 years of barnacles growing on the bottom. THAT is the sort of thing which inspires anti-liveaboard regulation. Please don't say it doesn't happen, I can provide pictures. I live in a marina with about 30% or more, liveaboards. Sure, if a boat looks like a trashheap, there will be friction. But whether the boat leaves the dock or not, is irrelevent to that. There are several boats here that look like crap, yet have no one living aboard, and are used from time to time, as "boats" The anti-liveaboard factions, are like most any other anti faction, they don't like something, for whatever reason, and they are small minded enough to try and push their choices, on others, irrespective of actual facts. Case in point here in Seattle a couple of years ago, was the then head of DNR, pushing an anti-liveaboard agenda, complete with pictures of garbage littering the bottom of the bay, implication being that the liveaboards were throwing all this trash overboard. Turns out, the pics were from the bottom, outside the navy's shipyard, and were the results of 40+ years of navy trash... which said head of DNR knew, but she had an agenda so... Me, I don't care how often a boat goes out, I know we don't go out any where near as often as I would like. I care what the dock, parking, etc looks like a lot more, and at least here, the main "culprits" of mess and mayhem, are the weekend sailors. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password. |
wrote
even for it's present level of use, so they are forced to rent a couple of port-o-lets to make up the difference. Sounds like a nice marina you're at there, Bill. SV There is a very long waiting list to get in. The port-o-lets? It's more like a park or private estate than a commercial marina. Yup, a private estate with port-o-lets. SV |
|
"Texan" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:01:50 GMT, wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:20:09 -0500, "Scott Vernon" wrote: wrote even for it's present level of use, so they are forced to rent a couple of port-o-lets to make up the difference. Sounds like a nice marina you're at there, Bill. SV There is a very long waiting list to get in. The port-o-lets? It's more like a park or private estate than a commercial marina. Yup, a private estate with port-o-lets. SV The enclosure for the port-o-lets is nicer than your house. I don't even have to see your house to be absolutely sure of that. This is not the sort of place that would allow a dork like you on the property unless you were disguised as a waiter. BB I'm sure your "yacht" is just as nice too. as the port-o-lets? prolly knot. SV |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com