Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

So why not hunt down the owners of the junk, send them a notice, if they don't remove it in say 30 days, then remove it for them and send them the bill for the cost, salvage the vessel if possible. There is tons of small hardware on any vessel that could be removed and resold to the cost conscious cruiser that is trying to refit their boats.

I agree with you, this is an easy problem to rectify. In San Diego the Port Authority has been slowly closing down mooring areas, because of irresponsible owners of those junks left to rot in the water. Why the Port Authority can't get the junks out without closing the whole mooring field down is beyond me.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

IIn San Diego the Port Authority has been slowly closing down mooring areas, because of irresponsible owners of those junks left to rot in the water. Why the Port Authority can't get the junks out without closing the whole mooring field down is beyond me.

I thought they resolved that already back in the 80's. Right there close to downtown the CG had to re-raise a couple old wood tuna boats and clear out some of the tarp covered transients for the 'Star of India' sailing. After that restrictions were put into place, which must have been forgotten.

I suppose Nanaimo is just another case of San Diego and Eagle Harbor in the making. Here in Seattle we have one port (Eagle Harbor) where there has been an on going build up of live-a-boards moving in. Some of which are just small barges (house boats) anchored out. But that's all changing now.

Seattle PostGlobe | News | Maritime: Three Sheets Northwest | Maritime: Eagle Harbor to get state’s first open-water marina (Three Sheets Northwest)

Local News | Bainbridge Island vote likely means end of live-aboards | Seattle Times Newspaper

So, we've had the same fight here as in Nanaimo and it's lost to progress due to abuse, which brings to mind a couple clichés; "It only takes one match to burn down a whole forest" & "The straw that broke the camels back". Progress makes life less free and more socialistic. One has to get use to it or move on to less developed areas, and that's what part of cruising is all about.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

I thought they resolved that already back in the 80's. Right there close to downtown the CG had to re-raise a couple old wood tuna boats and clear out some of the tarp covered transients for the 'Star of India' sailing. After that restrictions were put into place, which must have been forgotten.

They might have resolved what they were going to do, but they're still working on the situation. Everytime we cruise by the boats moored by the CG area, there are still boats that surprise me that they're still floating.

Originally Posted by delmarrey

I suppose Nanaimo is just another case of San Diego and Eagle Harbor in the making. Here in Seattle we have one port (Eagle Harbor) where there has been an on going build up of live-a-boards moving in. Some of which are just small barges (house boats) anchored out. But that's all changing now.

Seattle PostGlobe | News | Maritime: Three Sheets Northwest | Maritime: Eagle Harbor to get state’s first open-water marina (Three Sheets Northwest)

Local News | Bainbridge Island vote likely means end of live-aboards | Seattle Times Newspaper

So, we've had the same fight here as in Nanaimo and it's lost to progress due to abuse, which brings to mind a couple clichés; "It only takes one match to burn down a whole forest" & "The straw that broke the camels back". Progress makes life less free and more socialistic. One has to get use to it or move on to less developed areas, and that's what part of cruising is all about.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by JiffyLube

I agree with you, this is an easy problem to rectify. In San Diego the Port Authority has been slowly closing down mooring areas, because of irresponsible owners of those junks left to rot in the water. Why the Port Authority can't get the junks out without closing the whole mooring field down is beyond me.

30 days is a bit brief. I once broke my pelvis and had to leave my boat anchored for far longer than that. If a plasticised poster asking the owners to contact them, and establish who owns it within 90 days were posted on the vessel , then ownership could be established ,and thus responsibility , or what is truly abandoned, could be easily established.
Socialism is looking after the poor , not clearing the poor out, and increasing their poverty and desperation, to make way for the rich, such as this situation is developing into. That is what Mussolini defined as fascism " The alliance of big business with government for the benefit of business" ,the exact opposite of socialism.
Usanians often use such terms, without the foggiest understanding of their meaning.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

30 days is a bit brief. I once broke my pelvis and had to leave my boat anchored for far longer than that. If a plasticised poster asking the owners to contact them, and establish who owns it within 90 days were posted on the vessel , then ownership could be established ,and thus responsibility , or what is truly abandoned, could be easily established.
Socialism is looking after the poor , not clearing the poor out, and increasing their poverty and desperation, to make way for the rich, such as this situation is developing into. That is what Mussolini defined as fascism " The alliance of big business with government for the benefit of business" ,the exact opposite of socialism.
Usanians often use such terms, without the foggiest understanding of their meaning.

What has all of that got to do with junkers on the verge of sinking at their moorings because of unresponsable owners? Why do the responsible ones have to wet nurse and clean up the other guys mess?

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Usanians often use such terms, without the foggiest understanding of their meaning.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't mean to make this political BUT this is what's been happening in the US of A for the past year. Do the words "Spread the wealth" ring a bell (Obama)?
It may not have to do with anchorages but it is becoming a major concern among "Usanians". I can agree with you Brent on a lot of your comments but as a Usanian I believe in power by the people, for the people and BY the people, not the government, as you a Canadian would also too but unfortunately has gone the other way. But you elect your own officials so it's your choice.

It all comes down to population. The more people/boats one shoves into a small area, the populace get upset and try to create less of an eye sore. Which I could agree, providing it doesn't violate the rights of individuals. But that's what city councils and governments are for. And if one doesn't communicate with them, then one has little say.

Just like BoatsUS, who are active in boating regulations for the boaters. e.g. Florida! You should put your energy into an org. like BoatsUS rather then here. Arguing on the net is a bit useless, the politicians don't read the CF. People just ruffle each others feathers. But it's fun, A.

[Brent Swain]

When they asked for public input, I sent them many pages of suggestions, which many of my friends also did. As the only reason they asked for public input was so they could say they had asked for public input. All suggestions were completely ignored, probably thrown in the shredder without even being read, and they did exactly what they had decided to do before any public input.
So now the only option is a boycott. They have zero credibility when it comes to any hope of communicating with them.( I tried to tell those deaf people , but they just wouldn't listen)
The goal of any private corporation, like the Nanaimo Port Authority, is to concentrate the wealth, and power in their hands, not spread it.
I keep telling doctor friends' What you guys need to develop is either a retroactive vasectomy, or a fifteen years after pill.
Yes, the larger the population, the less our freedom.

[Brent Swain]

I've just learned that the Nanaimo port Authority has banned, not only buskers along the waterfront, but has also banned musicians performing for free. They may as well decree that fun is now illegal in Nanaimo. Who do they think they are ? Taliban? Any of you want to visit the latest Taliban inspired port this summer?
In the 80s, they never used to charge people tieing up at the park docks after October, and some cruisers used to live aboard there for the winter. The Nanaimo Yacht club , offended by the thought of anyone having a good life without making money a priority , complained, and the night the last boat left , someone broke into the house and tried to steal the bathtub. Liveaboards are free security guards.
When a boat caught fire there, it was the liveaboards who put the fire out and saved the boat. The fire department never showed up, and if they were depended on, the boat would have burned to the waterline, as would much of the dock.
When a young lady I know slid down a government dock and knocked herself out before falling into ice covered water , it was a liveaboard who saved her life . If there had been no liveaboards allowed there, she would have died.
When a neighbour, anchored off a marina , heard a splash and ice breaking, he looked out to see a guy who had fallen thru the ice, and was semi conscious. Had there been no liveaboard anchored nearby, the guy would have died.
This story repeats itself far more often than these examples I've given.
They say we should pay for police and fire service . Police, and firemen don't cruise the harbour at all hours of the night, and are not the first on the scene when there are problems . Liveaboards do, and are.
Deserted harbours are far less secure.
A friend, who was running a marina with liveaboards ,was harassed by the city of New Westminster to ban liveaboards . He said ' Liveaboards are my security guards . I moor them strategically, so they will notice anyone on the docks. Does the city plan to hire people at their expense, to do the same if I ban liveaboards?"
This is the case anywhere people live aboard boats, either moored or at anchor.
Its a complete oxymoron for the Nanaimo port Authority to name their new boat the George Bush inspired name "Port Security " when it's main objective is to discourage the security that liveaboards provide for free.
Forcing people off the water reduces security . People who are forced to spend a huge portion of their lives locked away in condos and houses concentrating on their TV screens or computer screens, are not exactly the eyes and ears of the community that liveaboards are.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

The Nananimo Port Authority is now taking applications for permission to anchor there , at a dollar a foot.

$1/Ft per day, week, month, or what?

[Brent Swain]

Don't know, but one can safely assume it is simply a toe in the door, to be raised drastically, and spread to other anchorages , once the legal precedent has been set. As such, the amount becomes irrelevant. It is the precedent that counts.

[FrankZ]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Don't know, but one can safely assume it is simply a toe in the door, to be raised drastically, and spread to other anchorages , once the legal precedent has been set. As such, the amount becomes irrelevant. It is the precedent that counts.

You are railing against an anchoring fee and you don't know what the actual fee is? That is like saying the put "things" in the food and you shouldn't eat it without knowing what the "thing" is.

[Brent Swain]

There was never any fee for anchoring anywhere in BC , now a private company wants to start charging us for anchoring in our own harbours, and you want to nit pick the details?.

[ahnutts!]

I spent a few days anchored in Nanaimo This past summer. There were a few junkers out there but most of the ones that appeared to be lived aboard looked seaworthy, some a little shabby but hardly eyesores. I wonder if the problem has been solved and perhaps these are precautions to prevent it happening again? The conspiracy theorist in me is inclined to agree with Brent's slippery slope theory, but on the other hand a buck (don't really know, someone told me thats what it costs) a foot to live downtown doesn't sound so unreasonable. I think if you want to live outside the rules of society you need to go where society isn't. The problem is most of us make our living in these places so leaving isn't easy or possible. The next best think might be living within commuting distance.

There are lots of people telling us what to do these days and we don't always like it, but its not going to change. I think that if you show up prepared to play by their rules you will find it tolerable. Maybe an experiment, move in for a month or two and see how it goes.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Originally Posted by GordMay

$1/Ft per day, week, month, or what?

It is $1/ft per month.


Paul

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

There was never any fee for anchoring anywhere in BC , now a private company wants to start charging us for anchoring in our own harbours, and you want to nit pick the details?.

If one can't be bothered by details, why should he/she be trusted on the broad concepts?

Which private company wants to charge for anchoring?