1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

San Francisco Bay

Home Forums Archive Infrastructure San Francisco Bay

This topic contains 18 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Eelco Eelco 7 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • Author
  • #446
    Profile photo of Joep

    A new topic for discussing the birth place of the first Seastead.

    One of the important things is of course the legal status of Seastead. It’s not the High Seas yet.

    IANAL, but in the Health & Safety Code § 18075.55 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=18001-19000&file=18075-18079 ) is this text:

    (d) “Floating home,” as used in this section, means a floating structure which is all of the following:
    (1) It is designed and built to be used, or is modified to be used, as a stationary waterborne residential dwelling.
    (2) It has no mode of power of its own.
    (3) It is dependent for utilities upon a continuous utility linkage to a source originating on shore.
    (4) It has a permanent continuous hookup to a shoreside sewage system.

    Would Seastead qualify as a floating home? What would be the advantages and disadvantages? A cruiseship apparantly does not belong to “floating homes”, would you be allowed to live on a cruiseship that is simply moored in the middle of the SF Bay? One advantage may be that you can step on board easier (though Seastead would look like a fortress).

    See http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/localres/floating_homes_tour.html for a tour Patri took in 2004. I wonder what the current status is of the “anchor-outs” described. The “Bay Conservation and Development Commission” seems to want to get rid of them. http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2001/07_August/barging_in.htm

    Profile photo of

    As far as I can tell you need to qualify for all four points above. A seastead (baystead) as far as I understand it certainly wouldn´t qualify for (4) and perhaps not even (3). So according to that text, it is not a floating home. Does that mean that it´s a boat?

    Profile photo of greyraven_r

    Look, out in the bay,

    it’s a boat,

    it’s a home,

    it’s Super Cork!

    Profile photo of Eelco


    I suppose ‘permanent continuous’ for the time it wishes to qualify as a floating home only?

    That could be managable in the bay area phase.

    Or does it imply that there should be no intent of ever not being in that exact same location?

    Profile photo of

    Permanent is permanent. I think you´re unlikely to convince the bureaucrats who wrote that stuff (or a jury) that the opposite is true :-). What are the benefits of getting classified as a floating home?

    Profile photo of dewanand

    I think that it must be possible to buy a home on a seastead for people who want to build a lving on it. This means that a seastead will need a bank, a government and a administration. People must be able to possess property and to buy mortgages.

    On a boat no one can buy a piece from it legally, because nothing of a boat is for sale. But on a seastead it is possible to own a part of it legally, just simply by buying it, just like on land. This is the big difference legally between a seastead and a boat. Of course the rules and limitations on a seastead are bigger than on land, because you are on sea.

    Only when a seastead will get a government, it will be possible to built a sort of unique society, who owns the whole country on sea. For me this is very interesting to investigate, because I like the idea of seasteads on sea, which will become real cities.


    Profile photo of thebastidge

    Pardon me if it has been addressed: but why would you want to construct this in one of the most expensive and over-regulated places on either coast of the United States?

    It seems you would do far better to construct and station it anywhere in Northern CA, OR, or WA. Particularly in someplace where some other industry has taken a hit and you might be able to get good deals on moorage and labour. Check out Astoria, Newport, Depot Bay etc.

    Profile photo of

    Currently, the only reason why is because all of the principles of the seasteading institute hang out in the SF bay area. That is not a very compelling reason is it? I expect that over time, the whole enterprise will migrate somewhere else.

    Profile photo of thebastidge

    Is TSI going to be a full time occupation for the principals, or is it a hobby in that gets indulged after work hours? There are a lot of places where office space, mooring fees, rent, housing, etc are all a fraction of the cost of San Francisco.

    • They don’t all have the public exposure of SF Bay
    • SF may have some facilities and institutions which provide valuable time, resources, or knowledge
    • On the other hand other places have less restrictive environmental regulation. While we will surely strive to be ecologically sound, legislation is far more likely to hobble innovation than to protect us from ourselves.
    • Other places probably have cheaper manufacturing costs, particularly for one-off proto-typing.
    Profile photo of Saeble

    I’d call it a ship.

    who cares if it can only do 0.0005kts. May introduce registration and flagging fees and subsequent seaworthyness testing and compliance but atleast it gets you out of the sewerage and fixed to a land base issues.

    getting it out from under all that legal red tape attached to land development would be a good idea too

    Profile photo of Sundiver
    • I had the same question. This being a long-term development project, it makes sense to locate the prototype where access by decision makers, investors, and other potential stakeholders is easy and quick.
    • As for environmental regulations, a zero discharge system, based on a constructed wetlands type system is the sustainable, conscious way to go anyway.
    • A good text to start with- “Constructed Wetlands in the Sustainable Landscape”, Ogden, Campbell, ISBN 0471107204

    Profile photo of

    I thought I had already posted a response to this one… (I really have taken a dislike to the Drupal forums.)

    Patri will be full time at the end of the year approximately when we get our non-profit status.

    Wayne (me) will probably never go full time. I am basically a computer programmer and this project does not really need that much computer programming.

    We are actively trying to hire a full time chief scientist and full time chief engineer. These will be full time positions.

    Other people will be hired as full time, part time, consultants as needed. The initial focus is on the actual structure, not the sub-systems that go inside (water, electricity, sewage, lighting, etc.)

    Profile photo of vincecate

    I have heard of a number of startup companies where non-programmers had an idea for some software and hired some programmers to make the product/service. They all failed (the ones I know of). I’m not sure exactly why. I worry that we might be some non-marine-engineers hiring a marine-engineer to run with our idea and headed for a failure.

    Makes me wonder why those non-programmer startups failed. Was it a bad idea? Was it not possible to implement it? Were there too many decisions along the way where management messed things up? Were the hired guns just after their paychecks? Did the non-programmers have trouble figuring out which job aplicants were the best programmers? (I seem to remember something on this).

    I don’t even have a statistically significant sampling of software startups founded by non-programmers, but I remember others noticing the same thing. Not sure what the solution is but a bit worried.

    Profile photo of Eelco

    What we have is at least two people (Patri&Wayne) willing to put their time and credibility on the line to advance the cause of liberty. If more people put in even half the effort, yeah thatd be even better. But untill then, the least we could do is be supportive, and have our criticisms be constructive, no?

    Profile photo of Joep

    Most companies I know that failed, all failed because the people who started it knew a lot about programming (and the way the software world should be in general), but nothing about doing business itself. And I know a couple of really successful businesses that started by getting funds, hiring the right people, and making things people want to pay for. A list of future clients is here: http://www.seasteading.org/profile/profile_interest_level/Definitely+want+to+move+someday and it is long enough for a niche market like Seasteading. Maybe a convincing example is Peter Thiel, who studied 20th century philosophy, and happens to be really good at startups. I’m sure he wasn’t mistaken investing in TSI.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)

The forum ‘Infrastructure’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Posted on at


Written by