Nanaimo Harbor for the rich????

[Blue]

People wanting to live beyond their means happens at every level of income earners. Some liveaboards cannot afford the boat lifestyle, but continue to live it because they enjoy the freedoom and nature. That doesn't make it ok for them to pump sewage and oil into the sea, or have rotting boats with no insurance, which is selfish.

Those of us in the thread supporting some of the these regulations are not attacking the poor as some have suggested. We are not rich heartless people trying to push away the poverty problems. We are worried about the SAFETY of the environment and the people around the harbours.

You want equal rights, follow the same rules as the rest of us. How someone can dump sewage straight into the ocean is beyond me...totally selfish if you ask me, especially when dumping close to shore.

[TH2008]

Hey here is a nice picture of a local crab fisherman down at Swy-a-lana pulling in crabs to sell after they have dined on fecal matter pumped overboard by live-aboards. Yummy!

LOL!

That's why I won't eat crab. They are a bottom feeders and eat almost anything that falls to the bottom of the ocean. Dead seagulls, for one thing. And perhaps turds. Ewwwwwwwww........

--
TH

[Smokey©]

Fact is that most food that we eat that comes from living animals, we NEVER want to know what they really eat before we eat them.

OHH, supper is ready. . .. . . . bacon-wrapped filet mignon with potatoes and peas and carrots from our own garden, fertilized with the results from our compost heap and materials unknown.. . . . . hmmm . . . . maybe, I ain't as hungry as I thought I was!

[TH2008]

Fact is that most food that we eat that comes from living animals, we NEVER want to know what they really eat before we eat them.

OHH, supper is ready. . .. . . . bacon-wrapped filet mignon with potatoes and peas and carrots from our own garden, fertilized with the results from our compost heap and materials unknown.. . . . . hmmm . . . . maybe, I ain't as hungry as I thought I was!

I stick mostly to eating grain eaters and grazers But I do like seafood that doesn't crawl along the bottom of the ocean. I wouldn't eat a rat. So I wouldn't eat a crab.

--
TH

[homeless]

There seems to be two issues that have arisen in the discussion of people living in the Harbour. Firstly, since the NPA picked the fight I will go there.

NPA has had and continues to have many tools at their disposal to control the proliferation of derelict vessels in the harbour. If they utilized these tools that we have paid for, such as the New $300 000 Port Security Boat, and simply enforced existing rules and regulations , there would be no problem, a problem they have created by their lack of enforcement. Furthermore, when the Regulator(NPA)allows boats in their area to reach the state of decay that they sink and wash up on Provincial Park foreshore, the NPA should foot the bill, not the Provincial Government. Proper patrols and fostering working relationships with those whom liveaboard, could have easily avoided the whole mess. These liveaboards could have contacted the NPA if the NPA was unable to clearly see( it was in there actual veiwscape) that these boats were low in the water and in need of action. Watching the event and doing nothing to prevent it , to me , makes one just as guilty as the actual delinquent boat owner. Anchor lights are required by law. I have noticed some boats have them and others do not. Although this seems like a little item, it actually speaks to the overall condition of the systems on board any vessel. If you can not maintain a anchor light, chances are you will not have a functioning bilge pump and or other safety items. Again the NPA is not doing their job and they should explain why.

The second issue is the use of the commons and the fact people are upset with having to look at derelict vessels. I can only say that if people want to open of the discussion of esthetics they should be very careful. It is a very slippery slope. As others have mentioned in the media and here on the forum, what one person views as unacceptable, another may view as pristine. Do we want to regulate the size, weight and colour of peoples bodies? Of course not, so why would we attempt to do the same about their residences. It is so simple, if you do not like the appearance of someone, or their things, do not look. I choose not to worship gas guzzling SUV's but I do not feel I can demand everyone think this way. Moreover, as the climate changes and the evidence mounts that there are real consequences to large carbon foot print lifestyles, I wish to use gentle pedagogy, not frontal assaults, to change and grow our lifestyles greener. Before people attack the alternative residential choices made by others, please try to remember that until you have walked(boated) in their shoes, who are you to judge.

You have rights and you do not have to speak to anyone if you chose not to.Read the letter.

http://www.canada.com/nanaimodailyne...a-e4c1fcb47f90

[queen of the waterfront]

For once I am going to make light of it all. The answer to why they are not enforcing the rules and tools that they already have is

THEY ARE TOO BUSY CHASING LICENCED BUSKERS!

AND
BANNING PETITION COLLECTORS !

Hey if they can send six people to remove me and my accoustic guitar, surely they can get out there and do their real job which is managing the harbor.

[Smokey©]

http://www.canada.com/nanaimodailyne...a-e4c1fcb47f90

I read with interest your article on the new harbour regulations.

They clearly violate section six of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which guarantees every Canadian the right to travel freely anywhere in Canada and to pursue a livelihood anywhere in Canada. I, and many of my friends, have often stopped in Nanaimo to do a couple of weeks work, with our boats being the only accommodation we can afford.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the proposal that restricts any type of travel by any type of sea vessel in Nanaimo Harbour so the restriction about 'right to travel freely" is not applicable.
The right to "pursue a livelihood anywhere in Canada" is not included in the proposal and the writer even confirms that he and friends travel to work here.

Their only objection is that they have to pay to stay instead of staying for free. They come to this city from other places and work here, yet they do not want to pay for the accommodation they obviously cannot afford, because they object to pay the fee to dock at a marina or to pay a fee to stay more then 14 days every month.

Anyone living aboard, and in their floating home, has the right to remain silent when asked questions by Port Authorities or anyone else enquiring about holding tanks, insurance or anything else. If anyone knocks on their hatch, they are under absolutely no legal obligation to open it. Entry into their floating home by anyone without a search warrant is illegal.

This seems to answer 'homeless' question on why the NPA has difficulty with those that have derelict boats in the harbour. A process has to be followed and then a result can be achieved.

[homeless]

Security of the person

.. there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000)

I think this right is very applicable to the harbour living situation and that an injunction from the courts would most likely be forthcoming.

[Smokey©]

Security of the person

.. there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual. (Blencoe v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission), 2000).

The issues appealed to the Supreme Court were:
whether the delay violated Blencoe's section 7 rights.
whether the delay violated administrative law rule against undue delay.
The Court in a five to four decision overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, and held that the delay did not violate the Charter or administrative law.

Blencoe v. BC did not result in a violation of section 7 rights but did result in an administrative law against undue delay. This fact shows that section 7 did not apply, so why quote it?

Information we get from sources such as Wikipedia is not always considered to be accurate, because ANYBODY can add to a wikipedia entry.

[homeless]

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

Pay special attention to those which pertain to security of the person and unreasonable search and seizure. Smokey you may not understand that these are the Rights of ALL Canadians and they do offer protection to ALL of us. Attempting to belittle or misdirect peoples understanding of their rights is in my opinion not fair and just. And after all, that is what all of deserve. Fairness and Justice for all. Period. No attempts to attack the messenger can in anyway prevent me from the protection that the rights in our charter guarantees.