Nanaimo Harbor for the rich????

[queen of the waterfront]

You might just have to do that . I hope you are a very big person. You have insulted three people at least on this forum.

I hope that the respect I had for you before is not unwarranted.

[kickidee]

Tee Pee mabey you are the infamous dilligaf? Anyways you have some swagger and some down to earthy type expressions to bend and offend but it seems not to matter to you much if you stay on the forum or get cut off. I predict we will not get to read many more of your comments. This is unfortunate as you may have something worthwhile to say and you are full of....conviction so best to you, and Im sorry that the more civilized modes of expression prized on this forum do not suit you.

[homeless]

"They live a fairly simple life with little or minimal impact on the environment and do not ask anything of the landlubbers except to be left alone."


I also could not leave this statement alone...

They would like to be left alone, until they need something from us "landlubbers", you know things like food, water, clothing, medical help, dumping facilities (garbage/sewage), etc.

So us landlubbers should make sure we have the proper facilities for you to use when needed, and also be there when your vessel sinks, including paying for the cleanup.

What about the responsible boaters who do have insurance and are run into by those without? Shouldn't those boaters be protected? How can they recover damages from someone without insurance? Not fair at all!

These new regulations proposed are for the safety of all. I'm glad the NPA is not just looking after the wants and needs of a few boaters, but looking at the safety of the public as a whole. It seems like the boaters want to have their cake and eat it too.

I fail to see the logic in your argument. First you criticize boaters for wanting "us" to supply food? Then you say responsible boaters blah blah blah..and then you go back to painting everyone with the same brush. Do you want cake or not?

[Viking]

I fail to see the logic in your argument. First you criticize boaters for wanting "us" to supply food? Then you say responsible boaters blah blah blah..and then you go back to painting everyone with the same brush. Do you want cake or not?

Right on homeless, did you get any free water from the city? Apparently you need to own land to drink the water now!

[Viking]

Of course it their vessel ends up doing damage to other ships or sink or end up grounded on Newcastle Island or other places, the landlubbers are faced with the expenses if the owner walks away which is exactly what at least 3 boaters did in the last year alone!

The new proposal by the NPA addresses this issue, requiring permit holders to show proof of ownership. No more claiming "not my boat" when the chips are down. That should solve the problem with the few boaters that have skipped out in the past and left us that mess on the beach we had last year.

[Blue]

I'm not sure that will solve the problem, but will help address it. Even if the boaters must show proof of ownership, they could still walk away from a vessel if the expense was to high for them. This would still leave the taxpayer with the cleanup bill.

[homeless]

I'm not sure that will solve the problem, but will help address it. Even if the boaters must show proof of ownership, they could still walk away from a vessel if the expense was to high for them. This would still leave the taxpayer with the cleanup bill.

So when the private company millennium takes some $3 million of OUR dollars, who pays that bill?

So when the city enters into property management agreements for the not new convention center and it remains empty who pays that bill?

So when the city is littered with abandoned car wrecks and other junk, who pays?

And when Harmac fills the waters and air with deadly dioxins and other noxious pollutants, who pays the bill?

And when the NPA builds a $18 million dollar cruise ship terminal for the 4 ships that might, may or could come here, who pays the bill.

All the arguments about the cost of keeping our harbour safe look like chicken scratch compared to the bills we are paying now, even if you do not look at bank bailouts and P3's.

Just do the right thing and use the present laws to keep our harbour safe! More rules and regulations will not be cost effective especially if they are enforced by the Non-Performance -Authority (NPA)

[Smokey©]

Interesting story in today's paper.

Norm and Brenda Brook have lived rent-free on their boat in the Nanaimo harbour for more than a decade, but that could soon end because they say they can't find a company willing to insure their vessel.

"We're concerned about the harbour being cleared out and actually turning some of our neighbours into homeless people," said Ewan Cameron, spokesman for the Nanaimo Boat Owners Community (an ad-hoc group of 55 boat owners, including 22 live-aboards, are watching nervously to see the decision). He said it's especially difficult for live-aboards. "It's like sitting in your apartment and expecting to be kicked out right now."

If you don't pay any rent in your apartment or pay taxes on the land you reside on you deserve to be kicked out right NOW!

If a person cannot afford the insurance, can they afford to have the vessel taken off the rocks if it drags anchor and ends up on Newcastle Island?

[Blue]

It almost seems as if SOME of the boaters are only looking out for their rights and avoiding questions about the rights of the taxpayer. Live-aboards are not the majority of boaters and speak for only a small segment of the boating community. Many of the other boaters out there would love it if insurance was mandatory, which would be safer for all, including the taxpayers who usually end up paying for other irresponsible actions.

Yes other industries costs tax payers' money, but they also do bring in a lot of tax dollars. That is not the issue here. The issue is about Nanaimo boating community and how to address the safety and cost issues.

The NPA could just "do the right thing and use the present laws to keep our harbour safe" but that still wouldn't address a major issue of sunken vessels or uninsured boats causing other trouble both financial and physical. NPA would not be doing their job if they didn't address an issue that was costing tens of thousands of dollars a year or more. Just because they may not doing everything they can now, doesn't mean we should keep improving the regulations boaters live by to protect the harbours and other boaters.

[homeless]

It almost seems as if SOME of the boaters are only looking out for their rights and avoiding questions about the rights of the taxpayer. Live-aboards are not the majority of boaters and speak for only a small segment of the boating community. Many of the other boaters out there would love it if insurance was mandatory, which would be safer for all, including the taxpayers who usually end up paying for other irresponsible actions.

Yes other industries costs tax payers' money, but they also do bring in a lot of tax dollars. That is not the issue here. The issue is about Nanaimo boating community and how to address the safety and cost issues.

The NPA could just "do the right thing and use the present laws to keep our harbour safe" but that still wouldn't address a major issue of sunken vessels or uninsured boats causing other trouble both financial and physical. NPA would not be doing their job if they didn't address an issue that was costing tens of thousands of dollars a year or more. Just because they may not doing everything they can now, doesn't mean we should keep improving the regulations boaters live by to protect the harbours and other boaters.

Sunken boats? Being abandoned? Like the Queen of the North?

Do you really want the boaters who can not get insurance to come to the city and start collecting social assistance? Do you think if they are kicked off their boats that they will "dispose" of them prior to coming to live ashore? Hello, is their any intelligent life out there?