From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: What is your marina like?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 03:03:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <l7b72nINNet@cronkite> billc@sextant.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.  
>
>I'll comment on South Beach Harbor in San Francisco, a facility ...
>that's about 5 years old and is run by the City.  The marina is 
>located 1/2 mile south of the Bay Bridge in a once-funky area of 
>rotting piers and warehouses that is being redeveloped.  It is a 
>premier location:  usually sunny, sheltered, close to the west bay 
>(the slot between Marin and SF where most sailing is done).  It has 
>superb protection in all weather, and virtually no surge.  
 
Interestingly, this area (prior to the earthquake) was the first 
high-class neighborhood in San Francisco. Why? Well, it seems that
the Rincon Hill/China Basin area is about the warmest spot in
San Francisco (and the sun does shine there when it's foggy both
north and south).

>>1)price/foot/year
>The rate is progressive; you pay more per foot for a bigger
>slip.  Example:  $185/mo for 30 feet ($6.17), $225/month
>for 34 feet ($6.62).  Although I have a small slip, I find
>the attitude mildly annoying and _suspect_ it to be
>politically motivated (soak the better off). 
 
Then again, the longer slips are much wider, as well...

>                                             Worse, there
>is a hidden cost.  Because the City owns the property, but
>is providing it to the tenants, the tenants are assessed
>for property taxes.  That's right, you don't own anything
>but you get to pay taxes anyway.  Seems to me that my bill
>was $84 for my 34-foot slip.  Not a lot of money, but it
>seems sneaky to me--I surely don't recall being advised of
>this tax when I rented the slip.  (I recognize that a
>private marina would pass its taxes to the tenants, but not
>as a separate unmentioned item.)
 
This seems to be the practice throughout California, and the
failure to advise of it seems to be rampant. One could, I 
suppose, claim that the contract with the City is to pay
so much to the City for the tenancy.

>>2)quality of management
>More indifferent than incompetent.  If you have a problem, little 
>is done.  For example, there is a ship repair facility to the north.  
 
Yes, Pier 38, the site of the "Bloody Thursday" riot back in the
1930's when Harry Bridges' longshoremen's union did battle with
the SFPD.

>Ships there sometimes clear their stacks sending what I believe 
>are bits of rusty water into the air.  In the winter the prevailing 
>wind is north, and decks of some boats are dotted with rust stains.  
>The harbormaster writes a letter, the practice continues.
 
Legally, the yard is responsible for consequential damages of
their pollution. At Oyster Cove, the Harbormaster helped force
a construction company to pay for the dust which they embedded
in peoples' ropes. Again, writing the letter is a weak response.
A truly proactive harbormaster would say to these guys "you're
going to get sued, and I'll be there to testify."

>                                                          Another
>example:  each year during herring season empty slips are taken 
>by commercial fishermen.  During their stay there is a rash of 
>thefts, principally electronics from powerboats.
 
Actually, this year's suspect was a recreational sailor, so we're
told. But the guys do make a mess.

>                                                 The harbormaster's 
>idea of how to deal with this problem was to padlock all gates 
>but one and install a TV camera at that gate.  Fortunately, this 
>idea, insane if one considers a fire in the marina, was squelched.  
 
Actually, it wasn't. All the gates but the center one were locked, at
9 PM, although the capital expenditure for the camera didn't (of
course) get made.

>The fisherman left, the thefts stopped.  BTW, liveaboards are not 
>allowed at South Beach, though many tenants feel that they would 
>be the best protection against theft.  

This is an interesting contradiction, isn't it? When liveaboards are
denied, the response is "this is a RECREATIONAL marina." On the other
hand the herring fleet crews often virtually live on their boats, and
they aren't RECREATIONAL. In contrast, Fisherman's Wharf, which is
supposed to be COMMERCIAL, is a city facility which is chock full
of vessels which are fishing boats only in that someone managed
to by them with an intact fishing license. They are, in fact,
liveaboards, recreational, or abandoned. Go figure.
 
On the other hand, the condition of the heads would sort of put
liveaboards off. By the way, it was this which has made me vow
that my next boat, if over 25 feet, will be FULLY self-contained
as regards sanitary and shower facilities. Never again will I 
depend on a harbor for same. This will entail some compromise,
I know.

>>4) other...
>That's about it.  The harbor has a lot going for it (location 
>and protection, principally), enough to keep me there.  But there's 
>no feeling of service from the staff--even though the place has 
>a lot of empty slips.
 
With two exceptions. Olinda, the office manager is a real winner,
as is Peter, one of the assistant harbormasters. I think that if
they ran the place, it might be a lot more fun to be there.

>                       They seem to be immune from competition, 
>which I suppose they are, drawing their pay no matter what happens.  
>(Though the idea of losing money on empty slips in a city with 
>great budget problems seems strange.) 
 
Yes, indeed. I'd say they ignore competition. There is no reason 
on earth why South Beach should not have a waiting list as long as
your arm to get in at all. However, while the 28- and 30-foot
slips are full, there's always a 34 to rent at the lower rate
while you await your permanent location (about a year). And 
above that size there're lots of spaces. Again, it's arguably
the best location on the Bay, and the rent isn't even too 
exhorbitant, considering that you are walking distance to some
really fine dining, and a stone's throw from great sailing. All
they have to do is clean up their act and they'll have it made.
By the way, the way it's supposed to work is that the facility
is supposed to be sold to some private owner; however I think 
that the appeal isn't there until the slips are full enough 
to justify a rent hike, and the facilities are in (the permit
process for private business on the waterfront is onerous). I
wonder if the management, of which there are at least four 
levels, is intentionally hindering the process to preserve
their jobs?

>                                      I'm not happy, but I can't 
>think of anywhere better overall to move to.    
 
This is, I think, the feeling of most of the tenants I've spoken
to, and was my feeling as well. All in all, that's a real drag,
isn't it? I mean, this is something we do for pleasure. Putting
up with all kinds of s*** kind of ruins it. It least it does for
me. It seems to me that folks in the various recreation-oriented
businesses could really take a page from the better travel-related
services organizations, as far as realizing that their customer's
pleasure *IS* their business.
 
Greg
Newsgroups: rec.boats