Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[bytownboy]

I would pay $41 per month in a heartbeat, but then I respect our Royal Canadian Mopuntain Police, even although they are not perfect.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by bytownboy

I would pay $41 per month in a heartbeat, but then I respect our Royal Canadian Mopuntain Police, even although they are not perfect.

$41 a month is an introductory fee. Don't expect an introductory fee to be permanent, once it establishes a legal precedent. That would be incredibly naive.

Gord.
The Nanaimo Port Authority is a private corporation charging Canadians for anchoring in out own harbours, for the exercise of our own charter rights.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Gord.
The Nanaimo Port Authority is a private corporation charging Canadians for anchoring in out own harbours, for the exercise of our own charter rights...

WRONG!
The Nanaimo Port Authority is the Canada Port Authority (CPA) established to manage the Port of Nanaimo, effective July 1, 1999, under the new Canada Marine Act. The Act provides the legislative framework to improve the effectiveness of Canada's major ports by creating a National Ports System made up of independently managed CPAs; streamlining the regulatory regime for the new CPAs and other ports currently adm Ministered by Transport Canada; and dissolving the Canada Ports Corporation, thereby significantly reducing overhead costs for major ports.

[hummingway]

We don't allow derelict cars on the road in BC. You can't leave a vehicle any where you would like. I'm anchored at the N. Saanich marina and pass the boats in Tsehum coming and going. There's one fellow with a camper on a barge attached to a mooring ring along with his boat. One corner of the barge is below water. We had gusts to a hundred km/h last night which kept me up on deck assuring the safety of my boat and my neighbors. I don't think anyone broke free last night but it happens and legally they become responsible for damage they do (I believe - more legal speculation). With the derelicts I wonder what chance responsible owners have of collecting? I would suggest if someone wants to leave a boat they're not maintaining somewhere. maybe on the hard is the place. Certainly not somewhere where lack of proper equipment or care puts others at risk. Most of the boats in Tsehum have lights and most look well maintained and if I owned one of those boats it would concern me that others don't.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by hummingway

We don't allow derelict cars on the road in BC. You can't leave a vehicle any where you would like. I'm anchored at the N. Saanich marina and pass the boats in Tsehum coming and going. There's one fellow with a camper on a barge attached to a mooring ring along with his boat. One corner of the barge is below water. We had gusts to a hundred km/h last night which kept me up on deck assuring the safety of my boat and my neighbors. I don't think anyone broke free last night but it happens and legally they become responsible for damage they do (I believe - more legal speculation). With the derelicts I wonder what chance responsible owners have of collecting? I would suggest if someone wants to leave a boat they're not maintaining somewhere. maybe on the hard is the place. Certainly not somewhere where lack of proper equipment or care puts others at risk. Most of the boats in Tsehum have lights and most look well maintained and if I owned one of those boats it would concern me that others don't.

I agree, but the Nanaimo port Authority has be treating well maintained and well kept offshore boats as abandoned derelicts. I think they should differentiate, between the two. And I fully agree that junk belongs ashore, not in anchorages . The use of anchorages by well maintained boats is a charter right. The supreme court of Canada has already ruled that the charging of fees for the exercise of a charter right is unconstitutional , and the Ontario court of appeal has ruled that charging people for anchoring is illegal. BC court of appeal has ruled that the right to whatever shelter one can afford is a charter right.

[hummingway]

[QUOTE=Brent Swain;390862]I agree, but the Nanaimo port Authority has be treating well maintained and well kept offshore boats as abandoned derelicts. QUOTE]

This is tragic behaviour for a maritime city. Sidney seems to understands her economy is built on the sea and all the people who use it.

[Brent Swain]

I remember once, when Sidney Bureaucrats tried to hassle me out of the anchorage, I went to a local supermarket and told the manager that I usually stock up on thousands of dollars worth of food in his store every time I head offshore, as do many cruisers, and we may not be able to next time if we are not allowed to anchor there. He said he was meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and will ask them if this is what he is paying them huge taxes for, to drive his customers away.
Perhaps cruisers should contact the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce to send them the same message.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

... The use of anchorages by well maintained boats is a charter right.
... BC court of appeal has ruled that the right to whatever shelter one can afford is a charter right.

Me-thinks that, once again you are fundamentally wrong; but on the off-chance you’re not, where in the “Charter” does it even suggest such a thing?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
➥ </title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; CHARSET=utf-8"/> <link rel="schema.dc" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" /> <link rel="schema.dcterms" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" /> <meta name="dc.title" content="Department of

[Brent Swain]

Mobility rights are clearly outlined in section six of the charter. Unreasonable search and siezure is illegal under, I believe, either section 7 or 8, I can't remember which , which the Nanaimo Port Authority has declared it will violate, as well as freedom of association. The right to life liberty and security of the person was the right the BC court of appeals ruled on. Rvs cote was the one the Supreme court of Canada ruled on, stating that the charging of a fee for the exercise of a charter right was unconstitutional, and thus illegal.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Unreasonable search and siezure is illegal under, I believe, either section 7 or 8, I can't remember which , which the Nanaimo Port Authority has declared it will violate, as well as freedom of association.

The head Conservation Officer for a particular district in BC - I won't mention which since I'm talking out of school - once told me there is a law which permits CO's to enter your house at anytime. They enforce not only conservation laws but all the laws of the country. In some ways they are the most powerful policing force in Canada. However they don't use the right to enter a house without warrant except under the most extreme of circumstances because they are well aware that the law is illegal under the Charter and they don't wish to defend it in court but prefer to preserve it for circumstances they deem worth the risk.

[Brent Swain]

I think they are well aware that they will lose any challenge in court and will thus lose permanently the ability to use that law as an excuse, and continue the harassment campaign, if any one challenges it. Then the whole harassment campaign gets ruled illegal. That kind of bluff is what the Nanaimo Port Taliban are using in their violations of the charter.
Escondito on the east coast of the Baja used to be booming with cruisers hanging out there. Then they banned anchoring and put in mooring buoys that you can rent, for $30 a night. Friends driving by there last year said the place was deserted , not a boat in sight. The haul out facilities and very expensive infrastructure was abandoned and lifeless, and the local economy was in the toilet. They thought they could cater to the super rich, with many times the money of the average cruiser. They forgot to take into consideration that the super rich, with 100 times the money of the average cruiser, won't do 100 times the number of haul outs, won't buy 100 times the number of beers and buritos, nor other goods and services. And the super rich, for whom they cleared out the riff raff? They haven't shown up either. Lets hope Nanaimo has the same experience. We can make it happen and send a clear warning to the super greedy control freaks, before they screw up cruising freedoms on the entire coast.
Its quite simple. Bypass Nanaimo this summer. Email their Chamber of Commerce and tell them why.

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Its quite simple. Bypass Nanaimo this summer.

Done.

[Brent Swain]

I just thought of another reason to bypass Nanaimo . The Whisky Golf testing range, north of Nanaimo ,where they test nuclear weapons, can be closed to pleasure boats for some great cruising weather, and can be a huge pain in the ass for boats heading north or south. If you bypass Nanaimo and head north from Silva Bay or Vancouver, to Sechelt or Secret cove , you bypass the hassle of crossing Whisky Golf, and pass welll to the east of the closed area.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

I just thought of another reason to bypass Nanaimo . The Whisky Golf testing range, north of Nanaimo ,where they test nuclear weapons,....

If you do go by Nanaimo, always make sure you wear your sun glasses when they are doing nuclear test explosions.

Paul L

[Brent Swain]

Nuclear submarines are nuclear weapons. They and their sytems are often tested there.They never admit to any spills of radioactive materials . They are totally exempt from all environmental laws in Canada.