How stable would this 2 story houseboat near San Francisco be?

[mitchgrunes]

San Francisco: Two-storey houseboat towed through bay https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68778690

Even if it's docked, can such a tall structure be stable in storms?

It was situated at the Redwood City Marina:

Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/search/redwood+city+marina/@37.5031789,-122.2126425,10z?entry=ttu

I get that it is in a somewhat sheltered portion of a bay - but wouldn't it still face storms that could tip it?

Also, know coastal Southern California has high housing prices - but would such a boat compete in price with nearby land-based housing?

Especially if you add the extra maintenance costs that boats require.

 

[Blueknarr]

Its stability doesn't matter.
There is nowhere to take it.
The San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Board won't let it be moved to another marina.
For decades marinas have not been allowed to receive house-barges. The existing ones can stay but no new ones.

 

[mitchgrunes]

Its stability doesn't matter.
There is nowhere to take it.
The San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Board won't let it be moved to another marina.
For decades marinas have not been allowed to receive house-barges. The existing ones can stay but no new ones.

The story

A two-storey houseboat - complete with a white picket fence - was towed through San Francisco Bay after the owners were asked to leave Redwood City marina. The floating home took the precarious journey across the bay to San Rafael.

According to local news outlets, Redwood City council told people living in houseboats in the marina to leave because the boats were blocking public access to a state waterway. As part of an ongoing legal battle, the council offered compensation for the move.

says it's moving to San Rafael (and another article says it is moving to Commodore Marina in Sausalito, but maybe that's not the same boat. Another article said 60-80 houseboats had to move). Are marina(s) in those cities also under the control of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Board?

Those cities are also quite a drive away - imagine being forced to move like that.

And this article implies it was an "affordable" way to live in the area.

It's amazing to me that living on a boat, with all the extra maintenance and dock fees that requires, could be "affordable" compared to living on land. Property there must be very expensive.

 

[cluttonfred]

It's amazing to me that living on a boat, with all the extra maintenance and dock fees that requires, could be "affordable" compared to living on land. Property there must be very expensive.

Yes. The median home price in San Francisco is about $1.4 millon and among the highest in the USA. Only San Jose (CA), Honolulu, and Manhattan are higher.

The 15 Most Expensive Housing Markets in the US: Cities with the Highest Average Home Prices

 

[Will Gilmore]

I think that house boat needs a wrap around porch. That way you don't open your front door and step out into the ocean.

"Redwood City council told people living in houseboats in the marina to leave because the boats were blocking public access to a state waterway."
Does that mean those landfill housing projects have to move too? Because once fill has been dumped into a public waterway to build a new neighborhood on, that waterway is permanently blocked.

 

[Blueknarr]

Back in the late 90s I moved onto a sailboat in the Berkeley marina. Even paying the double dockage live-aboard fee my rent was less than 1/4 of a one bedroom apartment.

The BAY water board considers all tidal waters under their control. It seemed to think that viewing the Bay was best. A look but don't touch attitude.

 

[Ike]

According to the Supreme Court in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach it's not a vessel and therefore not a boat. It's a house. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Board may be doing something unconstitutional by requiring them to move their house. ( I am being a bit tongue in cheek here, but I think a good Attorney could make a real case of it.) Would they have the authority to tell someone to remove or move their house because it is blocking access to the water?

 

[Blueknarr]

This issue comes up regularly.

The water board promises to revoke the permit of any marina accepting a floating home. Existing ones can stay but not added to or replaced.

It's the city/marina that wants it gone.

Lawyers usually succeed in keeping it in place.

What we don't know is the real reason it is no longer welcome.

 

[fallguy]

This issue comes up regularly.

The water board promises to revoke the permit of any marina accepting a floating home. Existing ones can stay but not added to or replaced.

It's the city/marina that wants it gone.

Lawyers usually succeed in keeping it in place.

What we don't know is the real reason it is no longer welcome.

I can tell you a few reasons, but noone will like my answer.

Liveaboards are a cultural difference in the marina. Because the marina is their home; they tend to be more comfortable doing as they please. This extends to many things, including the quality of their boat. And since they are in the marina 24/7 versus a recreational boat who boats say 24 weekends, call it 50 days a year; a liveaboard is about 7 times more trouble to mgmt not to mention the subjective I live here part.

 

[clmanges]

This issue comes up regularly.

The water board promises to revoke the permit of any marina accepting a floating home. Existing ones can stay but not added to or replaced.

It's the city/marina that wants it gone.

Lawyers usually succeed in keeping it in place.

What we don't know is the real reason it is no longer welcome.

I'd wonder if some big commercial realtor was pushing the local gov't to clear the area for development.

 

[Ike]

Now that sounds more probable

 

[Blueknarr]

It's house/barges that are being pushed out live-aboards in self propelled boats are allowed.

I'm not familiar with this case
But
Others that I am familiar with involved shore side redevelopment or marina infrastructure (leaking sewer lines)