Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[Brent Swain]

There was never a shortage of space to anchor in Nanaimo. While I object to Albertans coming to the coast, buying a boat anchoring it in the harbour, then heading back to Alberta, or elsewhere, it is an entirely different situation when the boat is someones home , the only thing between them and homelessness. I object to anyone setting the precedent of charging someone to anchor their only affordable home on any harbour. It is the thin edge of the wedge toward charging for anchoring everywhere. It is a clear violation of the charter of rights guarantee of the right to life liberty and security of the person, which was supported in a BC supreme court ruling, when it came to the right of homeless people to pitch a tent in Victoria. I think the same ruling applies to boats.
We don't owe marina operators a living. If they want welfare they should apply at the welfare office , not come to the poor for a mandatory subsidy, forcing them to pay for something they neither want nor need. That is extortion.
It also violates the mobility rights in section six of the charter of rights . The Supreme court of Canada has ruled that charging a fee for the exercise of a charter right violates the charter, as it poses an unreasonable burden on the exercise of ones charter rights.
The suggestion that only those rich enough to pay property taxes have charter rights, or have any more rights than those too poor to owe taxes, or own land, is total elitist ********.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by bangkaboat

Could someone explain what the "Moonglow" incident has to do with anchoring in Nanaimo? The former occured in Juan de Fuca Strait, but Nanaimo is nowhere near this area. The Chilean Sub was sailing out of the Seattle area, not Nanoose Bay. Sounds like more red-herrings.

It points out the dangers of subs in Whisky Golf testing area, which can be easily avoided if one heads north or south, from or to Silva Bay, another good reason to give Nanaimo a miss. Going via Nanaimo puts the testing area right across ones track .
There is talk about expanding Nanaimo transit, which may make cheap transit from Ladysmith easy, which will eliminate another reason to stay in Nanaimo. One can then easily get to the big city, if one absolutely has to, in an emergency, without having to be there.
This can drastically decrease the amount of money cruisers and liveaboards spend in Nanaimo.

[Capt Phil]

Gee, Brent sounds like someone struck a nerve! As I understand this thread, it was a discussion about the practice of a branch of civil government, the NPA, in this case, formulating and enforcing a policy directed at those individuals who abuse the right everyone has to anchor within the Nanaimo anchorage. Those vessels which have clearly been abandoned or do not meet the colregs are subject to fines and/or removal. Those vessels anchoring within a set time limit, say 2 weeks, stay free. It isn't a question of denying some destitute soul aboard a relic that barely floats a place to stay. There are many, many spots on the BC coast that someone with limited means can anchor in solitude without any hassle whatsoever. There may not be a pub or LCB store close by or it may mean a journey for supplies, but opting for the live aboard lifestyle doesn't mean an automatic guarantee to to do what you want, where you want, without regard to the rights of others. Personally, I lean towards simple, permissive regulations providing the greatest good to the greatest number affected administered with compassion and flexibility. Not having to put up with sewage from over board pump outs during my morning swim isn't my idea of an unreasonable burden to place on other boaters.

[Brent Swain]

They have treated sound, well kept , offshore circumnavigators as derelict boats.
Liveaboards in sound vessels are not exempt. They are equally harrassed.
Section six of the charter of rights guarantees anyone to live "ANYWHERE" in Canada, not forced off in some remote leper colony only , unless you are rich.
Nanaimo doesn't have any secondary sewage treatment, for a city of around 100,000, which dumps it sewage in what are relatively calm, stagnant waters , compared to Victoria.
So why haven't you lobied to force Nanaimo to install secondary sewage treatment?

[Capt Phil]

I haven't lobbied the City of Nanaimo on their sewage issue because I left Canada in 1981 because I was tired of government over-regulation, high taxes and 8 months of rainy weather. Things have changed a lot since I worked the waters off the BC coast commercial fishing and towing logs and barges so I don't profess to be an expert on current local affairs there. There are several points which you have made for which you have my support, respect and my agreement. First you appear very knowledgable about the NPA and their alleged treatment of live aboards. It sounds like you have tried to make your position known to them, perhaps in not the most polite way, however you made your position on the issue clearly. Secondly, you are an experienced mariner, having spent some time at sea and passage making to Tahiti is no small feat. For that you have my respect, having spent many years at sea myself. I also agree on your position regarding live aboards. It has been my experience (many years of living aboard) that, generally, marinas and harbors that encourage responsible and respectful live aboards receive security, a feeling of community where each looks after them selves and their neighbors and support the reasonable rules that are enforced for the good of all, in return. The cruising community is thousands of miles long but only a mile wide so word get around through vehicles like CF which serves a wonderful purpose. It also keeps us 'old salts' in touch with the real world although we may be landlocked, hopefully temporarily. I would like to hear from other visitors from offshore about their treatment by the NPA. The one replier to this thread on the subject had nothing but good to say. Are there similar rules for False Creek? I remember pulling a boom of peckerwood into the creasote (sp?) plant at the head of the creek back in the 50's and throwing a match overboard only to see a pool of ? light up briefly! Things have certainly improved since those days, and today it is a showpiece of an inner harbor adjacent to a large city. they must have done something right. I guess I'm a little skeptical about your observation that a 'sound, well kept, offshore vessel would be singled out as a derelict. Unless the vessel has clearly not been lived aboard for months, is down on her lines or filthy dirty with no apparent care for a long time, why would the NPA single that boat out for attention? It sounds like you may have gotten off on the wrong foot with these folks. I took the time to read back through the 16 pages of this thread and while it drifted around a bit, the thrust of your argument as I read it was as much about a concern that this practice of the NPA could and perhaps was spreading to other anchorages with similar 'derelict vessel' problems. Sounds like an opportunity for someone to approach the proper authorities, which I understand has been delegated under the CMA to individual ports and suggest a solution to a troubling problem on the whole BC coast. Good Luck!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

... Section six of the charter of rights guarantees anyone to live "ANYWHERE" in Canada ...

I want to live on your boat.

Under the heading "Mobility Rights," Section 6 reads:

“ 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

See ➥ http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collectio.../CIR/904-e.htm

[rallyman1122]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I want to live on your boat.

Under the heading "Mobility Rights," Section 6 reads:

“ 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

See ➥ Mobility rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (90-4E)

Or in simple english for you, you have the right to live anywhere in Canada as a Canadian citizen, subject to local laws.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by rallyman1122

Or in simple english for you, you have the right to live anywhere in Canada as a Canadian citizen, subject to local laws.

Not exactly "anywhere", so much as any in Province or Municipality. This does not mean you can live at any particular place.

[rallyman1122]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not exactly "anywhere", so much as any in Province or Municipality. This does not mean you can live at any particular place.

Correct, I was trying to dumb it down for Brent Swain. You actually did it better.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by rallyman1122

Correct, I was trying to dumb it down for Brent Swain. You actually did it better.

This thread has been open since June of 2009. 15 months is a long time to be hashing something out on our forum that is largely a local political matter. Further it doesn't seem that there has been any new useful information for cruisers and sailors.

We are wondering if the thread as any further use than to provide a ranting board for some and a way to keep all the Canadians rounded up in one place (Just kidding )

However, taking a swipe at Brent leads to a slippery slope of "not nice" and is a sure way to get this thread closed.

Let's play nice...

[Viking 1]

Here is hoping the moderators will keep this thread alive, and yes it may appear to be a local matter but feel it is a valuable thread and only a small part of the overall forum so lets "keep it nice".

I am one of the boaters that watched it all from the beginning and became involved. Like many other popular anchoring sites, it became used more and more during the "off season" by BC boaters fed up with the high cost of moorage at marinas as well as by people like myself that prefer to be out on the hook with something to look at than wedged between other boats at a marina. The past few years saw more and more boats choosing this anchorage and some of us knew that at the rate the harbour was "filling in" something would probably have to be done. It was unfortunate that a few of the less responsible boaters that did not look after their vessels caused them to blow ashore in the strong SE winds of the winter and create a problem for BC Parks on Newcastle Island that resulted in a $60,000 clean up bill. I had thought the original intent of the regulations was to curb the irresponsible boaters by implementing a proof of ownership and an operable engine to name a few. Unfortunately it now appears to be little more than a MONEY GRAB by the Nanaimo Port Authourity as the focus by them has been on collecting money and not on seeing that the boat owners are responsible boaters. I tend to agree with people like Brent Swain who has indicated that the fees charged is just the beginning. Why could they not have free permits if money was not the issue with them? Right now some pay some don't. Some are responsible some are not.

[IdoraKeeper]

All I can say after reading all this is God Bless Canada and all Canadians in Her. Nanaimo is a very special place and you are lucky (privleged) to have such a place to argue about. I look forward to visiting and if I could I would pay Brents' mooring fee just so he could stay in town and fight city hall. Gotta love you guys.

Todd

[sundown]

I support Brent in his concern of Nanaimo Port Authority's motives, and that their actions can set dangerous precedent. I recall very well when the Nanaimo Port Authority decided that the money was in Pleasure Boats and raised their wharf age rates to onerous levels for Commercial boats.
The upshot of NPA's actions was the Commercial Vessel owners in Comox said in effect "that will not happen at our docks" and now ONLY Commercial Vessel Owners are eligible to sit on the Comox Harbour Authority board of directors.

Saying derelict vessels are an environmental hazard is a no-brainer: but who gets to decide which boats are derelict? Just because a boat needs a coat of paint does not make it derelict.
Just because a boat does not move off its mooring does not make it "abandoned" either. If that is the case then my boat is a hunk of junk because I only manage to get out on it for short periods each year.
If hull value is going to be the criteria for who gets to be desireable then what is the threshold? My boat cost me $50K that does not make me any better of a harbour patron than the guy tied up next to me who got his boat for $6K or any worse than folk who paid multiples more than I.

I also would take umbrage at any "official" giving themselves the right to board my boat and inspect it without my permission, and I suspect that 'right' would have sever limitations. (For example it was in our local paper this weekend that a supreme court decision found the police violated a car owner's rights when they searched his car, based simply on suspicion that he may be doing something wrong, even though they subseqently found 34 lbs of marijuana.)

I would like to make one other observation: Am I the only one who have found that several reply's to Brent's posts seem to tread very close to character malignant, particularly by frequent posters that one would expect better of?

[sundown]

Opps - meant to say "Character malignment"

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by sundown

Opps - meant to say "Character malignment"

whatever you said...Ill still have to look it up..

I have been behind Brent on this from the beginning...yes he can get a little fervent about some of his beliefs on things...but I hope to some day meet the guy and get a hands on look at his boat building system.

Lets all have a group hug and remember we share a common bond...boats and the sea....with out the ability to pursue our choice of ships or destinations the lure of it all is lost.

Death to the landlubbers...Arrrr!.............................. ..Just kidding..