Lake Union houseboat owners bracing for a fight
Dec 19 2011 in Currents, Life Afloat by Deborah Bach
Owners of houseboats on Lake Union feel the city is unfairly targeting them with a set of proposed rules.
A group of liveaboards on Seattle’s Lake Union say they will consider taking legal action against the city if it implements a set of regulations that would ban new houseboats and place other restrictions on them.
Members of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association (LULA) say the proposed regulations unfairly target owners of houseboats while allowing unlimited numbers of more conventional liveaboard boats.
“There’s a lot of angry, frustrated, scared people,” association President Kevin Bagley said. “These regulations could be pretty detrimental to them.”
About 90 Lake Union liveaboards turned out to a meeting on Dec. 3 to discuss the proposed regulations, Bagley said, and have consulted with attorneys about possible legal action if the new rules are implemented as drafted.
Among the items the group is most upset about is a requirement that all “house barges” contain their grey water, a provision that does not apply to recreational vessels. The regulations could conceivably create a situation in which a liveaboard on a house barge would be required to contain grey water, while someone living on a recreational vessel in the same marina would not.
Bagley said the requirement would create financial and logistical nightmares for owners of houseboats – as he prefers to call them – who would have to retrofit their vessels to accommodate large holding tanks.
Even if they did that, Bagley said, the boats that provide mobile pumpout services for black water do not have the capacity to handle the volume of grey water being produced.
“It’s not that we don’t want to be grey water-compliant,” he said. “We do, but we want to do it in a reasonable and sensible manner.”
Another issue of contention is the city’s definition of what constitutes a house barge. The proposed regulations define house barges as “any vessel with or without means of self-propulsion and steering equipment or capability that is principally designed as a place of residence.”
The regulations would prohibit any new house barges in Seattle and allow only those that were in city waters before Jan. 1 of this year – which raises issues about what will happen with four or five houseboats Bagley said have moved onto the lake since the start of the year.
Additionally, owners would have to register their house barges with the city, and any house barge that leaves Seattle waters for more than six months would lose its permit.
But the revised regulations do not limit the number of other liveaboard recreational vessels, such as sailboats and more traditional powerboats. Bagley lives on a 72-foot paddlewheeler with his wife, Linda, and objects to the notion that his boat, which he said is registered with the U.S. Coast Guard as a vessel, could be considered a house barge and be subject to the new regulations.
The definition of a house barge, he said, is vague and subject to the whims of city officials.
“They can say, ‘I don’t like you. You’re not going to be allowed,’” he said. “Regulations should not be arbitrary, they should not be capricious and they should not be done without fair notice of what the rules are.”
Maggie Glowacki, senior land use planner for the city’s Department of Planning and Development, said in an earlier interview that liveaboard recreational vessels are treated differently under the draft rules because they are designed primarily for navigation, while house barges are intended for residences. The rules are part of a broader overhaul of the city’s Shoreline Master Program.
The prohibition on new houses barges, she said, is in line with state law that prohibits new overwater residences and treats floating homes and house barges the same.
The Lake Union Liveaboard Association has proposed alternatives to the city’s rules that would establish a three-year implementation period for all liveaboards to contain grey water, allow modest growth of houseboats based on their ability to contain grey water and apply restrictions on liveaboard vessels equally, regardless of vessel type.
Bagley emphasizes that the group would prefer collaboration over legal action.
“We don’t want to go that direction. We would rather work amicably with (the city) and come to a solution that makes sense,” he said. “What they’re proposing is completely contradictory to the things they said they want to do – work with the groups and come up with a solution.
“These regulations don’t do that. They regulations basically attack houseboats and don’t do anything else.”
The public has until Dec. 23 to comment on the rules, which are available on the DPD’s website.
LD Richert said on December 20, 2011
As is usually the case everyone that has written comments thus far has at least a few good points. As a life long “boater” and N.W. marina tenant I do take offense that just because a floating home doesn’t move the floating home owners should have less right to use the moorage space than I as a boat owner do. I can see the attraction to living in a houseboat on the water, they seem to be a fairly tight knit community of non conformists. I feel that the issue really is the city of Seattle trying to conform with the heavy handed Washington State Dept. of Ecology shoreline regulations. As Scott Wilson commented we all as water users should stand together… If they have success with the over regulating the houseboats we as “conventional” boaters will be next.
Scott Wilson said on December 19, 2011
It is unfortunate (at least as is evidenced in comments here) that the issue seems to be driving a wedge in between liveaboards on traditional vessels and liveaboards on housebarges or houseboats or whatever you want to call them. If you want to take Chuck’s perspective, then from that angle any sort of crackdown on any sort of vessel that you don’t personally happen to own is a good thing since it drives down occupancy and therefore moorage rates. I guess that is one way of looking at it.
On the other hand, the city and state aren’t trying to improve your financial position, they are trying to protect (however misguided their approach may be) the environment. And from that perspective, graywater is graywater, shaded shallows are shaded by all hulls, and boats with engines inevitably leak more oil than barges without. If you accept the city’s premise, and realize that the housebarges ultimately comprise a very limited percentage of the total number of folks living aboard, it’s pretty easy to see it’s not going to stop there.
The history of living on the water in Seattle is one of slowly eroding options, and this is just another step to whittle away a few more folks who love our lakes and Sound so much they want to live on them. Don’t make the mistake of thinking they won’t be back to evict the rest of us, no matter how seaworthy our vessels, eventually.
Chuck Gould said on December 19, 2011
Scott;
The critical line of demarcation is not that between power and sail (as Justin inferred with his comment about “ostentatious powerboats tied to the dock 364 days per year”). The line certainly isn’t between people who use a power or sailboat exclusively for recreation and those who additionally use their power or sailboat as their primary residence.
The plain fact is that most of the people living in “house barges” do so because they can exploit a legal technicality, call their barns “boats”, and thereby avoid many of the hassles and restrictions associated with siting a traditional floating home. Most of them are not boaters, at least not in the sense that they will ever cruise away from their permanent moorage. (They could put the same amount of money into a previously owned cruising sailboat or trawler and have a comfortable liveaboard vessel that could additionally function as an actual boat….if they were so inclined- and obviously they are not).
The line of demarcation here is really that between boaters and non-boaters competing for a common and limited inventory of slips. I’m naturally rooting for my fellow boaters. Some guy who just needs a place to live can buy or rent a condo in Greenwood. Boaters, on the other hand, (whether they live aboard or not), don’t have the option of keeping a boat of any size anywhere except in a marina.
Capt. John TAR said on December 19, 2011
Scott you have no idea of how many Housebarges there are .. go on a dinghy ride into all of the marinas and ou will find these housebarges all over the place.. there are hundreds of them.. We have done the tour.. Chuck is right on with his comments
steve said on December 19, 2011
I believe that the big rowing clubhouse below Eastlake on Lake Union is one of those ‘self propelled’ units that have to disconnect utilities and sewer/water and make periodic transits into the lake.They have two large outboards on I imagine hydraulic hoists to lower into the water when they get ‘underway’.
Capt. John TAR said on December 19, 2011
The rowing clubhouse is not a liveaboard vessel.. we are not even talking apples and oranges here more like bananas. Lets not confuss the issue.
Al Hughes said on December 19, 2011
I think the biggest problem house barge owners have is the track record of throwing an outboard on the back, and running lights on the side of the house, getting some WN numbers and calling it a boat. The public perception is it is a houseboat, just like the Sleepless in Seattle image that Kevin pushes. The city tried in 1990 to stop the initial proliferation of then unpowered house barges by grandfathering in those that pushed the moratorium on floating homes. Now the city is proposing a very similar grandfathering of powered house barges and LULA (one might want to check on the legality of that “organization”) objects by trying to claim that it is all the other liveaboards that are the problem. Kevin knows that we sat through numerous meetings with Margaret Glowacki and other liveaboard groups trying to come up with some solutions, including trying to define what is a housebarge, but we were stonewalled with there is no difference between them and regular liveaboards. Now it seems that at least the city doesn’t accept that. I agree it is unfortunate that it will probably end up in court somewhere but it sure wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the city or other liveaboards as Kevin seems to imply.
Thanks, Al Hughes
Capt. John TAR said on December 19, 2011
Kevin is all about Kevin trying to protect his business from lawsuits because he sold housebarges under the adds saying buy your housebarge before the City bans them.This was last spring now the city is proposing to ban the housebarges that where not in the city before January 2011.
Chuck Gould said on December 19, 2011
Not everything afloat is really a boat.
While it’s easier than it has been for a while to find moorage around Seattle, that isn’t always going to be the case. There are people who live on the water, but who are not boaters. Their vessels are incapable of any practical use other than taking up a slip in a marina.
A huge, slab-sided edifice with no keel and a 9.9 Evinrude clamped on the back might technically be “self propelled”. Owners of some of these barges are required to pull them out into the lake once a year or so in order to demonstrate to the marina manager that they are indeed a “boat”, but in nearly every case they have to wait for a day when it is dead calm, and have a few assist dinghies on hand.Should a stiff breeze spring up during the annual 5-minute cruise, the barge will careen sideways down the lake. There is no practical, navigational use for such a structure.
Why should boaters care if non-boaters are plugging up the premium slips in most marinas? Every slip lost to a non-boater increases the demand (and therefore the general rental rates)for those who need a slip for an actual boat. Every space lost to a non-boater represents less revenue for local boatyards and supply services, and these firms are then compelled to cover their fixed costs and overhead by selling to those of us who actually use a boat for something other than a waterfront condo.
To be clear, living aboard an actual, seaworthy boat that is used for traditional recreational boating is fine. You have to admire people who have such a passion for boating that they spend not only their recreational budget but their housing budget as well in pursuit of the pastime (or else are just so absolutely hooked they can’t imagine being away from the water for a moment). Some of the savviest boaters I know are “liveaboards”, the only difference is that they live aboard a boat and use it frequently for cruises away from the dock.
Loss of moorage infrastructure for any reason, including use of a slip by a non-boating tenant, needs to be marked on the negative side of the ledger when considering the future of recreational boating in the Pacific NW.
Justin Russell said on December 19, 2011
Chuck,
I haven’t looked at things this way, but you make a very compelling argument.
My experience suggests something a bit different. I live aboard my sailboat, year round, and love it; I can’t imagine doing anything else. Being able to go cruising at a moment’s notice (well, it takes a while to go from living mode to sailing mode) is great. Likely as a result, I know a few houseboat liveaboards as well, including the owners of my marina. Every one of them is passionate about our waters, and even more about boating, and most have an actual boat (as opposed to a houseboat) tied up alongside.
Personally, I would rather share a marina with people like this than with ostentatious power boats that 364 days of the year tied to the dock.
Capt. John TAR said on December 19, 2011
Well said Chuck, We liveaboard a large recreational vessel that cruises on a regular basis.If we spent our dollars on a house we would have a very small vessel and not spend thousands on boat supplies and maintanence cost.. We Pay takes to the port and we pay a vessel excise tax to the state.. Most of the house barges are not currently registard and are not on public lans there by not paying leasehold taxes as the port and Elliot Bay don’t allow housebarges.