The mayor of West Kelowna has recently decreed that owners of houseboats anchored in Gellatly Bay in Okanagan Lake have to remove the houseboats. When he spoke recently on C.B.C. radio, two reasons he cited were they were an eyesore and the owners weren't paying property taxes. I say the money they are not paying on taxes is likely spent in other ways supporting business in the local community. Sewage was also expressed as a concern, but I've heard the owners are disposing of sewage in a responsible manner. Do you think the mayor is just making a "mountain out of a molehill" and trying to stir up trouble?
As for the 'eyesore' argument, that is pure subjectivity.
Taxation? What? They don't pay income tax? They don't pay GST?
As for sewage, that could be a valuable argument indeed. But then the question is, are they in fact dumping the sewage into the river or disposing of it appropriately or recycling it appropriately? Certainly they ought to pay severe fines if they dump sewage into the river. But that is a separate issue from whether they are mooring on the river. But it certainly ought to be investigated.
From what I'd read about wilderness survival, sewage ought never to be dumped closer than 100 metres from the water supply out of respect for others who may be downstream. In an urban environment, obviously the rules might need to be stricter than that. It would seem to me that that mayor was shooting from the hip with his arguments and by chance came across a valid one. Sure it shows his unfounded prejudices from the start and so weakens his credibility here, but the question of sewage is certainly one worth investigating at least.
As for taxes, all he has to do is propose that the province or federal government raise income taxes or resource taxes, etc. and transfer some of that money to the local community. That's not a taxation issue anymore but rather intergovernmental disputes over the distribution of that tax money.
This has happened in several parts of the coast with float houses. The real problem was that the towns had no taxing authority over them and as we all know those in authority will eliminate anything they cannot tax.
I am not very familiar with the area but as I recall they are docked. This means that they could have pump out facilities like every where else.
I would have a look see what kind of foreshore lease they have, who owns the upland adjacent and who stands to gain financially by their removal.My bet is there is a developer that wants to put in high priced housing in the upland area and wants the foreshore for a private marina for his development.
Brilliant. Legislate them into homelessness and then sell them houses they can't afford, force them into debt, and then cry about Canadians being financially irresponsible and putting a burden on future generations.:lol:
Personally, the government ought to look at areas it can deregulate precisely to help the poor. We cry foul when they ask for help from the government, and then cry foul when they try to live within their means. Something's got to give.
If we legislate them into a lifestyle they can't afford or into dependence, then we have no right to then cry foul when they can't find work because of too much red tape, or can't find an affordable home because of too much red tape, etc.
I don't consider myself to be particularly socialist, but on the other hand, when we legislate the poor out of a home, we're asking for it.
You may recall Taxslave that, that happened right here in Nanaimo a year or so ago. The boat owners were really un-happy of course but the people in the City were not un-happy with the decision. Those people do live on their boats to avoid taxes, hydro etc. There are not enough of them to say they bring any revenue to the city. What would happen if a whole bunch of us (or the people in the Okanagan) bought a boat and moved into it - permanently? It's not the way most of us want to live but they do live that way and they do not maintain their boats. They do become an eyesore. The Okanagan thrives on tourism just like Vancouver Island does. At least we did until David Hahn destroyed our tourist industry with the horrid cost of riding on his boats.
The people love to visit the beaches in the Okanagan and the beaches there are lovely. I wouldn't want things ruined by a bunch of (even a few) old run down boats on the dock.
TENPENNY - Houseboats are not the norm here. The Shuswap has a number of houseboats they rent out to people who want to spend a few days out on the lake. It is less common in other areas.
To legislate against 'eyesores' is a pretty flimsy argument to make a law.
As for taxes, that's a little more legitimate. But again, are you saying we couldn't find a way to tax them? Raise income tax. Raise resource taxes. Bingo. Also, if that water is within the city's jurisdiction, then either sell it or charge rent on it.
So ... it boils down to the old "I-am-better-than-you" syndrome. Isn't it funny how the Laws come out only AFTER someone is offended that his view is hampered.
Exactly. Who owns the view? Can sue an airline for having a plane pass by a mountain just as I was looking at it, for having hampered my view?
