State evicting liveaboards in Washington

[Phil Herring]

I promise not to beat this to death, but it is an important issue to boaters in and out of Washington. Liveaboards have already been evicted from marinas in Washington due to legal action by the state. The Commissioner of the state Department of Natural Resources, JenniferBelcher, has referred to us as "shanty town people", "squatters", and "trespassers on state property". this includes, incidentally, residents of a marina with the cleanest water in America, which has a liberal liveaboard policy.They have threatened to spread this action throughout Washington. As you all know, states watch each other carefully, and this kind of idiocy spreads. Please check out tis web site for more information:http://www.liveaboards.org/The effort to stop this needs your help and support. Next year, it might be in your state.

 

[Chris Fox]

It could be your state next!

To those inclined to write this off as a Washington thing, remember that things spread. (Starbucks? Who woulda thought!) Sentiment similar to that expressed by Washington DNR officials is commonplace. Here in Maine, legislation is in front of the US Supreme Court regarding the right of the state to regulate tidal waters differently from the regulation mandated by the federal government. If the state wins, it could do largely what it likes not only with state water but with some federal water!Write an email, at least, against this travesty.Chris FoxLiving aboard in Portland

 

[Bob Knott]

Phil, What's the problem?

Phil,Why are they evicting liveaboards? What do they do that weekenders don't? Do you demand decent services for your money? God forbid! Why should the state care whether you spend 1 night a season on your boat, or 20, or 300 for that matter. If the slips paid for, and your boats in it, why can't you use it? Just curious what the governmental response would be.Bob KnottH380

 

[Greg Stebbins]

Could we get some facts here please...

If the intent of the law is to remove the shantytowns, squatters, mountain man wana-bes, survivalist and ‘grass” farmers from my park system then I for it. If the marinas have been accidentally caught in the net then political action is called for. Like I said more facts please.

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMIstress]

A few facts...

LIve-aboards have been against the law on all Corps of Engineers lakes since the the first one was built. And technically, that does include marinas. However, it's seldom if ever enforced in marinas because live-aboards provide additional security on the docks during the week and off-seasons. Marina managers love 'em and the Corps always takes a "don't ask, don't tell" position when it comes live-aboards in marinas. Why? Because the intent of the law to prevent just those floating "shanty towns" that Greg mentioned, so that the rest of us can't ever come into our favorite cove one day and find it's been "homesteaded." More and more shoreline is being developed, but the homeowner doesn't own the shoreline OR the water in his "back yard." If your house were on property that adjoined a public park, would you want a bunch of RVs "homesteading" your back yard? The owners of waterfront properties pay huge amounts in property taxes...the "squatters" pay nothing--AND most have little regard for anyone else's property...pollution is always the driving force behind legislation to ban them.Many of the inland lakes and rivers are populated with permanently moored floating shanty towns...the water around most of them can best described as a cesspool, because permanently moored floating structures aren't vessels, and therefored aren't subject to marine sanitation laws. Several years ago, GA enacted legislation banning them, and no one but their owners objected.While it's important to keep a weather eye out for proposed legislation that negatively impacts the boating community as a whole, it's even more important to avoid having a knee-jerk emotional over-reaction to anything and everything that only appears to trying to keep you from doing anything damn thing you feel like doing, regardless of its impact on others. Some of you may argue that the waters are public. They certainly are...and that means EVERYone, not just a few whose actions negatively impact the rest of the boating community as well as the community at large.

 

[Tom M.]

What's the status on Lake Washington

How can the justify the status of the floating homes/ boat community like the one on Lake Washington, the place is beautiful and pristeen, a "Shanty town. the other boat communities to the north, and up towards Belingham, in my oppinoin are also pristeen. On Biscane bay, boater's on the hook, have been harrased, for dumping raw sewerage, now that can be justifiable, but in a well maintained marina, the land lubbers are just plain jellous, for 35 years, most of rhe sailboaters i've met and known are 100% pro eccology. If the NRA can get clout, it's time for us to unite and get some mussle.

 

[Patrick Ewing]

Slipless in Seattle or green with envy

The liveaboards in question are being evicted because of a new and strange interpretation of an old law - not new legislation. THE DNR HAS DECIDED THAT LIVING IN A BOAT DOES NOT REQUIRE WATER.These people are not "squatters". The marinas are not "shanty towns". They are adjacent to some of the most expensive restaurants in the state. These are nice boats some upwards of $200k value. They are not "trespassers" either. They pay $600 per month space rent to the marina and that includes the monthly DNR fee. The marinas are nice and clean and are in the middle of the city. If you saw Sleepless in Seattle, you may have seen the very boats and marinas in question. This new "ruling" apparently does not affect houseboats but does involve marinas just a few blocks from the "Sleepless in Seattle" houseboat. Peggy - the issue is not sewage because these owners have used a pumping service and have receipts to proove it. Sewage is a specious argument often used in the absence of something meaningful which addresses the real and true desire by some to have the government take actions which are simply unconstitional. The weekend boaters are probably far worse about sewage than the liveaboards are. Most liveaboards I know have shore facilities and use them as a matter of preference over convenience. The city of Seattle dumps millions of gallons of so called "treated" sewage into Puget Sound daily. Our boats sewage is likely to be far more "treated" than the city sewage is. The city has an accident and it spills millions of gallons at one time - more than all of the boats here could produce in several years - perhaps decades. The lake is far more affected by pollution from the city streets and storm water runnoff than by boats. I think that the land lubbers are just jealous and think that boaters are "getting away with something".We pay some of the highest taxes and "fees" in the world to have a boat registered in Washington state. We also have an initiative (695) which recently passed and the politicians are busy "getting even" with the voters who approved it.For the DNR commissioner to call us boaters the names she has is not just inaccurate, it is a slanderous outrage and she should appologize for it.There are places where problems exist with liveaboards at anchor but they are minor and they are not being evicted because it would be against the law. This particular action is being used to "raise the issue" simply so the government can have or gain more control.Check out the website http://www.liveaboards.org/Write to someone who can do something about this. Take some action before we loose another freedom to the busy bodies who have nothing better to do than envy and worry about someone who may have something that they don't have.Patrick

 

[Phil Herring]

How to write a legislator

You can now send email to any or all WA state legislators and key newspapers at:http://www.c-2.com/liveaboard/write.tpl

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMIstress]

One question:

Can you produce, in writing, from a reliable source (i.e. a copy of the proposed legislation), evidence that WA plans to ban live-aboards in marinas? 'Cuz in every other state that's attacked this problem, the target has been the floating "shanty towns" on the lakes and rivers--the same ones mentioned in an earlier post.. It's also important to remember that legislation may be appear to be all encompassing...but when it comes to enforcement, THOSE "targets" are the only ones they go after.As has also been suggested in an earlier post, avoid "knee jerk" emotional response until you have ALL the facts...and those facts may include more than what's on the surface. Talk to your marina managers...find out what they've been told. Don't just fire off an angry letter to your state legislator...TALK to him/her! Ask questions...'cuz if what's happening in the rest of country is any indication, live-aboards in marinas have nothing to worry about.

 

[ted jensen]

shoes on a different foot

this is going to get interesting, what i cant wait to see is how many people that think this regulation is wrong, also think its ok to ban pwc.remember we can go back and cross check names. just a thought.

 

[Bill Sheehy]

TV

I can not get you the bill but it has been on TV. One of the couples that they had on TV live on a Passage 42. I talked to the Port of Everett and they said that they owned the land so we would not have a problem in my marinia. Sorry to say but this is just the begining of things to come. I know who I won't be voting for this year.

 

[Phil Herring]

Peggie

The problem isn't proposed legislation, it is interpretation of existing law.The DNR claims that that their lease of shoreline to marinas does not provide for "housing." Since it is not an acceptable use for the land under their control, the DNR threated to terminate leases they have granted to the marinas which are "out of compliance," i.e., accept liveaboards. Eviction notices have already been received by liveaboards on Lake Union, and the DNR says they will be enforcing this new interpretation with more marinas as their leases come up for renewal.The people receiving the evictions are not living on the hook in waterways, they are in marinas. While some of the liveaboards in Lake Union are in grungy old boats that might sink if tried to move 'em... most of them are not. My state senator, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, sent me this email yesterday: "I support the live-aboards and spoke attheir rally last night at Gas Works Park. Sen. Pat Thibaudeau and I met with Jennifer Belcher last Monday in Olympia. We have clear philosophical differences with her as well as different interpretations of the language in the statute."

 

[Patrick Ewing]

IT IS NOT NEW LEGISLATION

It is a new and novel interpretation of an old law by the DNR commissioner Belcher.What are the basics of the DNR argument?The DNR is arguing that liveaboards fall under the residential use portion of the 1984 Aquatic Lands Act. That section states that residential use is a non-water dependent use and as such is not an appropriate use of state owned waters. When leases with the state are renewed or transferred the DNR is not allowing any liveaboards on the state owned portion of the marinas.What is the flaw in this argument?The Act was enacted primarily to deal with the sprawl of houseboats and other more permanent construction over state owned lands. The legislature went to great lengths in the Act to describe residential use including hotels, motels, condominiums, houseboats (defined as "floating homes" with no means of propulsion and not readily moved), boatels, and other single and multi family housing. Nowhere are boats mentioned and it would have been very easy for them to do. What could be more water dependent than a boat?Don & Joanne Stonehill have lived on board their 42' Hunter sailboat, "Shiloh" since moving here from Oregon. They are into their 8th year as a liveaboard and have been moored at the same marina on Lake Union since locating in Seattle.Why not ask them about this eviction issue since you do not seem to find me to be credible? Do you think we live in a "shanty town"? I don't think so. Are they "trespassers"? Hardly. I am not either and I would have to be comotose to not be angry at a government official calling me these names and attempting to evict me from my home and a lifestyle I have earned and paid for just as much as any home owner.I have a 37.5 Legend and have worked hard to pay for it. I am a veteran and I can proove that. Peggy - it seems that I am always fighting to protect other peoples rights as well as my own and they do not even seem to believe it or care. I could just move and let them do this to you next but I won't.I hope that maybe you will reread my previous post and visit the liveaboard web site for more specifics.This is about all I have to say about this subject for now so I will just say Fair Winds and Politics, Patrick

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMIstress]

You're missing my point, Pat...

Where is it written that liveaboards IN MARINAS (except for state owned marinas in public parks) are targeted? They've never been anywhere else, because the boats are already IN the slips whether anyone is living aboard or only using on weekends. "When leases with the state are renewed or transferred the DNR is not allowing any liveaboards on the state owned portion of the marinas." That certainly sounds like marinas in state parks to me...the keywords are "state owned portion of the marinas." When for-profit enterprises lease water and easements for marinas, those marinas become essentially private property...the state may own the water and the land, but they don't own any of the marina facilities. I'm not taking a political stand...unless you're moored in public waters outside any marina, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Although I can cite half a dozen states that have banned or are in the process of banning liveaboards on public waters, not a single one has ever removed liveaboards from any marinas not actually operated by the state...that's always remained at the discretion of the owner/operator of any marina, and I will be VERY surprised if it turns out to be different in WA.

 

[Peggie Hall/HeadMIstress]

How are they defining "liveaboards," Phil?

'Cuz if it's the same way it's defined in the Corps of Engineers regs, there's an easy way around it: Their regs prohibit remaining aboard in the marina longer than 14 consecutive days in any 30 consecutive day period...all you have to do is either move the boat out of the marina for a couple of days or leave the boat for a long weekend once a month, and you're no longer considered a "liveaboard."As I said to Pat, I've seen this happen in several states. The only marina managers who don't find work-arounds (including just denying that there are any liveaboards) are those who are looking for an excuse to get rid of 'em anyway. Meanwhile, the marinas have gotten rid of the all derelicts and eye-sores...and once that's been accomplished, the DNR (or other agency charged with making it happen) loses interest...'cuz they're understaffed, under-funded, and didn't want to mess with it anyway. However, there's no way to get rid of the shanty towns and derelicts without making the law apply to all vessels...'cuz "derelict" and "shanty" are VERY subjective terms, especially to their owners! Unless they appear to target everyone, the derelict owners will start screaming about "discrmination against the poor in favor of the 'rich fat cat yacht' owners." It's prob'ly gonna be a tough few months for the liveaboards, but I wonder how many of the eviction notices will actually be enforced if workarounds under the definition of "liveaboard" can be used. And, how many eviction notices will be served by any marinas whose leases aren't up for renewal for a few years yet.

 

[Bill Sheehy]

Whats a Liveaboard

That is part of the problem. What is a Liveaboard? We now Liveaboard but the way our marina looks at it anyone who uses their boat for a certain amount of days each month is a liveaboard. The state leases the marinas the land. For some reason they will let you keep your boat there but you can't stay on it. These are not state parks.

 

[Greg Stebbins]

On the lighter side ,Peggie....

Not being in the business, I'd think a boat company named "Rich Fat-Cat yachts" would need a lot of Prozac just to keep the Marketing Dept. from hanging themselves in the restroom."I can't help it, I like Peggie"Greg

 

[Patrick Ewing]

It is written in the eviction notices given to

the tenants who are being evicted and it is contained in the lease renewals. I do not have personal copies but I believe that it is true. I have heard Commisar Belcher speak on the TV news just last friday. She said the things which I mentioned before. "I will be VERY surprised if it turns out to be different in WA."I got your point but I guess you haven't read what we have been telling you. I do not know any other way to say it. People like you and me who own nice boats moored in nice privately owned marinas are being slandered and evicted and more evictions are planned just as soon as the DNR gets around to it. Supposedly this is to make room for more transient space.The DNR was asked to define a "liveaboard" and to answer several other simple questions and they have refused to do it.I realize that there are places where the rules are simply ignored and there is an underlying state of "benign neglect" regarding enforcement or else a sort of unspecific enforcement which leaves everyone in a state of uncertainty. Say the wrong thing and you are out of there. I would like it if just once the government would be honest and allow me to be honest as well. Lots of people lie about living aboard and avoid the fees and hassles which they would have to pay if they ever admitted to what they were doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to define liveaboard but the DNR has refused to do so. Like I said before, look at the web site or read Phils original post if you do not believe me.Patrick

 

[JMowery]

My Two Cents

Ok, I've read the previous responses and visited the live-aboard web site (btw the history section is not ready yet). It does sound as if this is a problem.I don't understand the term "state owned" portion of the marina. It seems to me that a marina consists of the man-made part, the walkways, docks etc. When the term "state owned" is used are they referring to a dock that is owned by the state? It doesn't sound like it if they are enacting this rule interpetation as leases come up. It sounds like they are using "state owned" in reference to the lakeshore that the marina is attached to. If this latter is right, then I'd say everyone in Washington needs to be concerned.Not to belittle the problem but I doubt that this will spread to other states as it certainly seems to be pushed by your state's DNR Commissioner. Judging by your website reports, your attornies seem to have the matter well in hand, and since you reacted quickly and correctly, I think the problem will be solved before it spreads. After all politicians don't want a fight they want statements that everyone agrees to. I think she underestimated the willingness of liveaboards to fight back.That being said if it does show signs of spreading I'll certainly be on the band wagon writing congress critters as fast as I can. No offense Peggy but as a federal regulator myself (nothing to do with boating) I can definately say that letting the regulator judge who to apply the law to is asking for trouble.As stated, just my two cents, good luck in Washington!

 

[Craig Cody]

Living aboard in Santa Barbara

When the state of California turned over the marina to the city of Santa Barbara, the grand jury seated to write the municipal code covering the marina wanted to evict all live-aboards. Their reasoning was similar to WA's. "Residential use is a non-water dependent use and as such is not an appropriate use of state owned waters."They attempted to eliminate ALL live-aboards, but their was a near riot, and all of the existing live-aboards (some 250 of them) were allowed to remain. A cap of 100 (in a 1100 slip marina) was set on the number allowed after attrition eliminated some of the original 250. They wait to get onto the list varies (it took me 18 months). I feel, it is my boat, I pay rent, and this is an unfair restriction on my use of my personal property. I don't pump overboard, and provide security. While the Santa Barbara harbor patrol has been busy tracking down those "sneak aboard" felons, I have spotted and reported boat burglaries in progress, notified the city of boats sinking in their slips, and helped pull a developmentally disabled man from the water. But the harbor patrol is keeping a close eye on the liveaboard situation, making sure we don't try anything "funny".Protect your live-aboard rights, write your legislators and representatives in congress. Don't let some smart-ass with a $1.00 degree from an out of state college ruin our lifestyle because they don't understand boaters and what life on a boat represents.