Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Maggie-K

Lodesman... Seems we got off on the wrong foot...As to your conjecture that the seagulls feed on effluent from the outfalls you could not be further from the truth. The outfall is terminated in a diffuser at on the ocean floor about 200 feet below sea level . The effluent is principally water . It resembles a very diluted milkshake. Most of the year, the effluent plume is dispersed well below sea level. In the winter months, the diluted effluent plume (diluted by 1600 times before it reaches the surface) surfaces only 4.8% of the time at the Macaulay outfall and 1.7% at Clover point. Occasional bacterial tests have detected this diluted plume...

No harm, no foul. Seems you're more of an expert on crap than even Gord May - meant as a compliment
At the risk of continuing thread drift, but now I'm curious - how are the 4.8% and 1.7% figures determined? Periodic testing? Poop-sniffing ODAS? Observing seagull circles?
Also, is all the water in the effluent fresh, or is sea-water mixed in before it's pumped out?

BTW, I used to live in Victoria; sailed and dived in those waters and was (and am now) perfectly satisfied with the sewage treatment system in place.

[FSMike]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Property taxes are the largest source of revenue for municipalities, ---

Unless they pay mooring or habour fees, urban anchored/moored liveaboards contribute virtually nothing towards paying the cost of local services they value and use.

True enough, Gord. I remember arguing about that when I was a full time liveaboard anchored out in St. Augustine, Fl. What services did I receive?

No police protection. The gendarmes were not willing to swim out to my boat if I were attacked or burglarized.
No fire protection. The fire departments hoses couldn't spray that far.
No municipal water or sewer. I couldn't convince them to give me a hookup in the middle of the bay.
Paving the streets? I didn't need or have a car.
Building schools? No kids.
Garbage pickup? That was included in my dinghy dockage fee, which I paid to the municipal marina.

This doesn't leave me much inclined to pay additional fees to a local government. Fees for what? To install a mooring that I don't want to be on anyway?

I don't think so.

[Brent Swain]

Showers and other facilties should be paid for when people use them only, and such use should not be assumed. Coin operated showers do the trick. If one chooses to take showers aboard , they should not be billed for them . That is common fraud . I use catchment rainwater . Who has the right to charge me for that?
I use a composter head, like the natures head or airhead. Its solids can be buried back in the bush, where it composts so quickly it can't be recognised in a few days. The trees love it. Yet the Nanaimo harbour nazis are assuming it goes in the harbour, and what they assume is decreed as fact? So why don't they decree winter illegal ,and thus make it go away ?They say they don't recognize a composter as a legal holding tank, which proves that harrassment is the goal , not solutions. They are trying to herd everyone like cattle into a cookie cutter, standard, consumer lifestyle, which does infinitely more environmental dammage than living aboard a boat would ever do, all in the name of protecting the environment.
Most liveaboards have woodstoves, which means that the garbage per week from one person would not even fill one's pocket. Mine doesn't.
I have no problem with dragging my dinghy up a beach, which has been there since the last ice age, if they hadn't built marinas and walkways over most such beaches. I can think of little that the Nananio harbour nazis have contributed which imporves the lot of anchored out cruisers. We pay GST ( get screwed twice) , PST ( provincial sucker tax) fuel taxes, soon the HST ( hapless sucker tax), and the business taxes of any retailer and wholesaler we buy anything from .Unlike landlubbers, there is no sidewalk maintained to our boats, no one picks up our garbage from off our boats , police don't keep much of an eye on our boats anchored out, the fire department can't drive up and would take a long time to bother. We pay taxes far beyond the services we get except for the harassment, which I would rather not pay for.Taking money for services not provided is comon fraud. Nanaimo provides little for anchored cruisers which wasn't here since the last ice age. So how can they justify charging for services provided by the last ice age? What was their roll in it?
For truely abandoned boats a simple solution would be legislation which allows them to put a plasticised notice on any boat they believe is abandoned, saying "If this is your boat, contact us within six months of the above date. If they do , then they have established ownership, If there is no contact within six months, then it can be legaly considered abandoned ,and auctioned off. This woukd save some from struggling to aquire their first boat, while perfectly useable boats are not being used, nor ownership even being admitted to. Perhaps they could do the same to abandoned boats cluttering up marinas, and thus forcing people to anchor out..
Again , this is simply establishing a precedent to pave the way for charging for anchoring in other BC anchorages, and those who support such restricting of the cruising lifestyle to the rich, are enablers in the dismantling of the future freedom of the cruising lifestyle.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by FSMike

True enough, Gord. I remember arguing about that when I was a full time liveaboard anchored out in St. Augustine, Fl. What services did I receive?

No police protection. The gendarmes were not willing to swim out to my boat if I were attacked or burglarized.
No fire protection. The fire departments hoses couldn't spray that far.
No municipal water or sewer. I couldn't convince them to give me a hookup in the middle of the bay.
Paving the streets? I didn't need or have a car.
Building schools? No kids.
Garbage pickup? That was included in my dinghy dockage fee, which I paid to the municipal marina.

This doesn't leave me much inclined to pay additional fees to a local government. Fees for what? To install a mooring that I don't want to be on anyway?

I don't think so.

I have no kids on land but pay a little of my taxes to provide schools for others.
Many in cities don't have cars and pay for the roads and traffic lights. You do buy goods that travel on the roads to get to the stores that would cost a lot more if the roads weren't there.
Your pump out has to go somewhere unless you are dumping in the bay and that is a whole 'nother topic.
The municipal marina is paid for by tax dollars so they are there to provide you a dingy dock and trash pickup. User fees probably don't pay it all.
You mistaken about police protection. If you were attacked or robbed they would certainly be called to investigate and search for the perp.
Many people in rural areas have no fire protection either but pay taxes, some of which often goes to the towns and cities to provide it to others.
People in the central parts of the country don't benefit from the Coast Guard and don't need a dredge at all and yet their taxes pay to keep our channels deep enough so we don't drag.

I guess my point is that there is really no way for anyone to "pay there own way". We all benefit at others expense in some way. Whether paying to anchor is a good way to pay for these intangibles is debatable but trying to justify everything you pay only by what you receive and ignoring all the general benefits that towns, cities and countries provide that are not directly related to you is folly.

Jim

[FSMike]

Jim -
I agree that we all pay for each other in some way in today's society. My point, which I probably didn't make clear, is that I object to governmental bodies creating or raising fees without a corresponding increase in services, or at least an increase in expenses. To do otherwise smacks of harassment, not wise policy.
Unless they're buying the cops a boat.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by FSMike

Jim -
Unless they're buying the cops a boat.

Don't even give them that idea.

Jim

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Rex Delay

If you fill all the good anchorages with derelict junk, there will be no room for the cruiser. The boats in Nanaimo could not be given away so they will not pay for moorage. There needs to be a way to dispose of junk in an environmentally friendly way.

Nanaimo Junk????

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Showers and other facilties should be paid for when people use them only, and such use should not be assumed. Coin operated showers do the trick. If one chooses to take showers aboard , they should not be billed for them . That is common fraud . I use catchment rainwater . Who has the right to charge me for that?
I use a composter head, like the natures head or airhead. Its solids can be buried back in the bush, where it composts so quickly it can't be recognised in a few days. The trees love it. Yet the Nanaimo harbour nazis are assuming it goes in the harbour, and what they assume is decreed as fact? So why don't they decree winter illegal ,and thus make it go away ?They say they don't recognize a composter as a legal holding tank, which proves that harrassment is the goal , not solutions. They are trying to herd everyone like cattle into a cookie cutter, standard, consumer lifestyle, which does infinitely more environmental dammage than living aboard a boat would ever do, all in the name of protecting the environment.
Most liveaboards have woodstoves, which means that the garbage per week from one person would not even fill one's pocket. Mine doesn't.
I have no problem with dragging my dinghy up a beach, which has been there since the last ice age, if they hadn't built marinas and walkways over most such beaches. I can think of little that the Nananio harbour nazis have contributed which imporves the lot of anchored out cruisers. We pay GST ( get screwed twice) , PST ( provincial sucker tax) fuel taxes, soon the HST ( hapless sucker tax), and the business taxes of any retailer and wholesaler we buy anything from .Unlike landlubbers, there is no sidewalk maintained to our boats, no one picks up our garbage from off our boats , police don't keep much of an eye on our boats anchored out, the fire department can't drive up and would take a long time to bother. We pay taxes far beyond the services we get except for the harassment, which I would rather not pay for.Taking money for services not provided is comon fraud. Nanaimo provides little for anchored cruisers which wasn't here since the last ice age. So how can they justify charging for services provided by the last ice age? What was their roll in it?
For truely abandoned boats a simple solution would be legislation which allows them to put a plasticised notice on any boat they believe is abandoned, saying "If this is your boat, contact us within six months of the above date. If they do , then they have established ownership, If there is no contact within six months, then it can be legaly considered abandoned ,and auctioned off. This woukd save some from struggling to aquire their first boat, while perfectly useable boats are not being used, nor ownership even being admitted to. Perhaps they could do the same to abandoned boats cluttering up marinas, and thus forcing people to anchor out..
Again , this is simply establishing a precedent to pave the way for charging for anchoring in other BC anchorages, and those who support such restricting of the cruising lifestyle to the rich, are enablers in the dismantling of the future freedom of the cruising lifestyle.

You have some good points Brent...If your not using or needing any services or anything man mad then it seems you don't need to be in Nanaimo Harbor...Move

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Stillraining

You have some good points Brent...If your not using or needing any services or anything man made then it seems you don't need to be in Nanaimo Harbor...Move

Exactly, if one doesn’t want the benefits, or to contribute to their cost, which a community provides - then move to the wilderness.

Even the most self-sufficient individual uses municipal services (streets).

As a member of a community, we often contribute towards the cost of services we never use.
ie: Schools, Parks, Libraries, Hospitals, etc

As Brent properly notes, those anchored/moored out, do not receive many of the services that their landbound neighbours take for granted.
This should be reflected in the amount charged as “moorage fees” (replacing the landsman’s property taxes).

[Brent Swain]

I haven't been in Nanaimo since last June. I prefer the wilderness .What is at stake is the abilty to move freely anywhere in Canada, as provided for in the charter of rights. What is at stake is the option. If I am offerd a bit of work there, I don't feel the moral obligation to support harbour Nazi parasites with my meager earnings. Some who scratch out a meager living there don't have the option of leaving town. It's the boat or homelessness.
Cruisers who spend millions there every year don't need to be billed for the priveledge of keeping their economy alive. They have the option of stocking up in Sidney, Ladysmith, Sechelt, Comox, etc. As I pointed out, we do pay the taxes of businesses, fuel taxes, GST, PST, HST, etc etc, much of which goes to subsidising cars, which are subsidied to the tune of $2500 a year per car in BC.
Can any country which exiles its poorest people to the wilderness be called a "Civilised free country?"

[Lodesman]

If you didn't have a boat, would you expect to live in Nanaimo for free? You can't get an apartment for free. You can't have a house for free. You can't pitch a tent for free, except in the wilderness. You can't even park your car for free beyond a short period. Your argument is not helped by your gratuitous use of the term "Nazi", nor is it helped by your exaggerations - the HST will be replacing the PST and GST, not added to them. And yeah I know there will be a net tax increase because of the change - after all there are only two things certain in life

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

I haven't been in Nanaimo since last June. I prefer the wilderness .What is at stake is the abilty to move freely anywhere in Canada, as provided for in the charter of rights. What is at stake is the option. If I am offerd a bit of work there, I don't feel the moral obligation to support harbour Nazi parasites with my meager earnings. Some who scratch out a meager living there don't have the option of leaving town. It's the boat or homelessness.
Cruisers who spend millions there every year don't need to be billed for the priveledge of keeping their economy alive. They have the option of stocking up in Sidney, Ladysmith, Sechelt, Comox, etc. As I pointed out, we do pay the taxes of businesses, fuel taxes, GST, PST, HST, etc etc, much of which goes to subsidising cars, which are subsidied to the tune of $2500 a year per car in BC.
Can any country which exiles its poorest people to the wilderness be called a "Civilised free country?"

Again some very good points Brent...

This is a tough issue as is housing the downtrodden on land...For me it boils down to the mentality of the poor as much as anything else..Being poor is no excuse in being defiant or lazy..and if you are told to keep your craft ship shape and looking nice or vamoose then I see no problem with that..But bums look like bums most of the time and in this day and age there is no need for it...It is a life style choice to look that way for all but the mentally challenged..No they cant afford to buy new things but keeping moderately clean and a small boat clean and respectable is not hard..There is free paint to be had ,,free soap..free..free..free..what is lacking is a work ethic for most and a developed "looks good enough for me attitude"....Well that isnt good enough for society at large...you have to quit thinking of self and think of other regardless of station in life.
I am far from wealthy in the sense of what we consider real wealth to be anymore...but I'm just as aggravated by the poor's defiant habits as I am some rich snobs arrogance....I make no distinction on the difference for lack of courtesy toward there fellow man.

In other words they bring condemnation down upon themselves...Shoot look how nice some of the really poor fishing communities of other countries keep their boats all brightly painted and clean...its a pride thing...something sorely lacking in a lot of people on the fringes of society today... My heart soars when i see it and I am compelled to give to those people..I have a harder time feeling sympathy and giving to a healthy looking individual on a street corner begging while drinking a Starbucks coffee.

I think if all the boats in the harbor made the harbor a wonderfull site to see this would not have ever become an issue.

By the way who's wi-fi are you using..

[Brent Swain]

When you are dealing with the politics of envy , making our boats look nicer would only make them more jealous. There is no mention in the harbour rules about aesthetics . If they pointed that out as the issue it would be dealt with. I haven't seen any boats anchored in Nanaimo which I would call derelict or ugly. As I mentioned, to many of us, a brand new Beneteau is an absoltute eyesore, yet some slighly run down classic is still far more beautiful. Nothing uglier than condos or some of the monster homes we see on the shoreline. If building them made the world a more beautiful place, then we could beautify the parks by cutting down a the trees and building condos and high rises in them ( and far more beautifulr freeways thru them?). A boat at anchor is infinitely more beautiful than condos, strip malls and high rises. That is why people feel the need on their holidays to free the later to enjoy the former.

I use whatever computer is available

[Stillraining]

Point taken ..

It was just a thought...I know nothing of the situation up there right now. We have only been there once.

As someone else mentioned nothing is free anymore..well I guess international waters still are...for how long who knows...If the one world whacko's get there way, say goodbye to that as well.

[michaelmrc]

well coming from someone that has anchored in marks bay several times i can attest to the derelict boats that i have come across in there. boats that are abandoned leaking fluids, boats that never move boats with no power etc.... i understand that npa is trying to clean up the area but i think there must be better ways to go about it. of course any way that these people can try and make an extra buck they will. correct me if im wrong but i was always under the impression that as long as your vessel was seaworthy and you were not blocking a navigation area you were free to anchor anywhere you like for as long as you like. am i mistaken here ?