Lakeshore Property with illegal fences & walls on beach

[LANDM]

I've owned lakefront property; the taxation was always federal.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/key_enviro_topi ... gable.html

[/quote]

If you have owned lakefront property in the Okanagan, you would know that what you have said is not accurate in the context of this thread.
What taxation? Property taxes? Docks are now under a separate PID for provincial property taxes.
As for your link, it is a provincial government link. For residential property docks, you simply deal with Front Counter BC and it is a provincial matter.

[Terris]

If you have owned lakefront property in the Okanagan, you would know that what you have said is not accurate in the context of this thread.
What taxation? Property taxes? Docks are now under a separate PID for provincial property taxes.
As for your link, it is a provincial government link. For residential property docks, you simply deal with Front Counter BC and it is a provincial matter.

I owned the remote property first as a crown lease than as deeded freehold (private) property between 2001 and 2014.

For tax purposes, the affixed dock was assessed by CRA (because navigable waters were/are under federal control), at 9% of property value and several floating docks were initially assessed a the same rate until I protested the assessment.

After several years of legal wrangling and land surveys, the "lake", in 2006, was actually determined to be a widening of a river which changed the taxation altogether and which also changed the public accessibility to the lake through my property.

I could now restrict public access to the "lake" and my dock because now it was classified as riverfront which can be held privately.

During this time I dealt with the province for the crown lease and reversion to private land, and the Federal government for the lakefront taxations as was determined, at the time, under the federal Navigable Waters Act which, as has been stated several times, was changed in 2012.

I will check with several relatives here (one of whom was your deceased uncles tennis partner), who currently own lakefront on Okanagan Lake to determine how their taxation is structured; but in the meantime, for the purposes of my original statement, I stand by what transpired and I have the documentation to prove it.

[LANDM]

If you have owned lakefront property in the Okanagan, you would know that what you have said is not accurate in the context of this thread.
What taxation? Property taxes? Docks are now under a separate PID for provincial property taxes.
As for your link, it is a provincial government link. For residential property docks, you simply deal with Front Counter BC and it is a provincial matter.

I owned the remote property first as a crown lease than as deeded freehold (private) property between 2001 and 2014.

For tax purposes, the affixed dock was assessed by CRA (because navigable waters were/are under federal control), at 9% of property value and several floating docks were initially assessed a the same rate until I protested the assessment.

After several years of legal wrangling and land surveys, the "lake", in 2006, was actually determined to be a widening of a river which changed the taxation altogether and which also changed the public accessibility to the lake through my property.

I could now restrict public access to the "lake" and my dock because now it was classified as riverfront which can be held privately.

During this time I dealt with the province for the crown lease and reversion to private land, and the Federal government for the lakefront taxations as was determined, at the time, under the federal Navigable Waters Act which, as has been stated several times, was changed in 2012.

I will check with several relatives here (one of whom was your deceased uncles tennis partner), who currently own lakefront on Okanagan Lake to determine how their taxation is structured; but in the meantime, for the purposes of my original statement, I stand by what transpired and I have the documentation to prove it.

Still trying to figure out who I am, eh? Kind of sad.

When you check back with your information, you can confirm that I am correct.
I have no idea how your remote lake situation was but you are totally wrong on how you are representing the topic of the thread, which is Okanagan lake docks and structures.
There must have been nice rainbows up at that remote property of yours. I know it must have been tough for you to see them though, what with your difficulties with them.
Well, off to Orchard Park.....perhaps to do a happy dance, for no particular reason.

[Terris]

I agree.

The public access should be established ASAP like in Hawaii, California or Mexico..

The foreshore between high and low water should be returned to the First Nations.

This could then be leased back to the Regional District for the public access.

The current lakefront property owners would then be taxed accordingly and pay fees to the City to so they may access their docks.

Win Win the way I see it.

Would really like to wander the foreshore of Gellatly Bay to see how well the land barons have fared here by claiming the prime lands in our quaint little burg.

[Fancy]

What about the ones that own the foreshore rights?

[Terris]

In my experience with mining and recreational tenures and crown leases and in simplistic terms...

These "rights" would be under a tenure with fixed terms of occupancy, which you can own, allowing you access to any docks you have, but doesn't allow you to restrict public access to the foreshore unless there are safety issues (ie. mining or forestry). Theoretically the public could access the foreshore through your private property if that is the only access.

The crown, thus the public, owns the foreshore in perpetuum and all tenures whether, recreational, forestry, cattle range, mining, trapping etc. are now subject to consultation with First nations.

Exceptions to this include restricting public access for lakefront lands within First nations reserves. An example of this is on the Westside Road in the North Okanagan.

The biggest concern for property owners with a foreshore, would be trespassing onto their actual private property (their land or affixed docks).

The tenure permits must be openly displayed by signage with all the license numbers visible or available for inspection.

The public can also apply for mooring buoys which can be placed anywhere off the shoreline whether or not they own lakefront property. So anyone could then legally place a mooring buoy in front of the fiefdoms of Gellatly Bay or Lakeshore Road.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/indus ... te-moorage

This also applies, and always has applied, to those entitled ones who own lakefront property, and who may have been lucky enough to be born into a billionaire family with a long political influence in the Okanagan, no matter how deep their pockets are.

All this issue represents is a reassertion of these crown/public rights which has, for too long, been unaddressed.

The wealthy ones here are no doubt going to dispute this...

[Lisasydneysophia]

I recently bought a piece of property that backs onto a beautiful city park. I just love the view and green space it affords me. What really bothers me is that I notice people using the park just behind my house and I find this annoying. i mean, how am I able to fully enjoy my back yard when other people's kids are playing in the park? I've solved this problem by putting up a secondary fence behind my house with no trespassing signs. Some park users have suggested that this is unreasonable and that I have no right to do so because it is not my property. Well, what about the taxes I pay? What about my property values? They respond by telling me I was aware of the park when I bought and the property and the taxes were made clear to me before I committed. And then they have the audacity to suggest that I don't pay for the maintenance of the grass I have fenced off! Sound familiar?

[Fancy]

Would sound familiar if you added that the park users were using your own property as a garbage can.

[Terris]

I recently bought a piece of property that backs onto a beautiful city park. I just love the view and green space it affords me. What really bothers me is that I notice people using the park just behind my house and I find this annoying. i mean, how am I able to fully enjoy my back yard when other people's kids are playing in the park? I've solved this problem by putting up a secondary fence behind my house with no trespassing signs. Some park users have suggested that this is unreasonable and that I have no right to do so because it is not my property. Well, what about the taxes I pay? What about my property values? They respond by telling me I was aware of the park when I bought and the property and the taxes were made clear to me before I committed. And then they have the audacity to suggest that I don't pay for the maintenance of the grass I have fenced off! Sound familiar?

Yes it does...

It sounds just like the city folk who bought properties in the Coldstream and Lumby area, and who then complained about all the farm activity that has existed there for over a century.

Buyer beware...

[LANDM]

In my experience with mining and recreational tenures and crown leases and in simplistic terms...

These "rights" would be under a tenure with fixed terms of occupancy, which you can own, allowing you access to any docks you have, but doesn't allow you to restrict public access to the foreshore unless there are safety issues (ie. mining or forestry). Theoretically the public could access the foreshore through your private property if that is the only access.

The crown, thus the public, owns the foreshore in perpetuum and all tenures whether, recreational, forestry, cattle range, mining, trapping etc. are now subject to consultation with First nations.

Exceptions to this include restricting public access for lakefront lands within First nations reserves. An example of this is on the Westside Road in the North Okanagan.

The biggest concern for property owners with a foreshore, would be trespassing onto their actual private property (their land or affixed docks).

The tenure permits must be openly displayed by signage with all the license numbers visible or available for inspection.

The public can also apply for mooring buoys which can be placed anywhere off the shoreline whether or not they own lakefront property. So anyone could then legally place a mooring buoy in front of the fiefdoms of Gellatly Bay or Lakeshore Road.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/indus ... te-moorage

This also applies, and always has applied, to those entitled ones who own lakefront property, and who may have been lucky enough to be born into a billionaire family with a long political influence in the Okanagan, no matter how deep their pockets are.

All this issue represents is a reassertion of these crown/public rights which has, for too long, been unaddressed.

The wealthy ones here are no doubt going to dispute this...

Once again, your experience, and some of your comments above, do not align with the context of the thread. It is not for fixed terms any longer. Read your own link if you have no experience with the subject.

Where is the "federal taxation" that you claimed?

Permits do not have to be displayed openly.

Finally, "The public does enjoy a privilege or bare licence to use the foreshore and other aquatic lands held by the Crown. The only rights that exist, however, are the right to land boats and to embark from the foreshore in cases of emergency, and the rights of navigation, anchoring, mooring, and fishing over those lands covered by water." Not quite your public access through private lands.

Your obsession with "barons" and "fiefdoms" apparently clouds your ability to interpret clear regulations vis a vis the topic of this thread.
Good try though!

[Terris]

I agree.

This could be a great opportunity to create a 100 foot easement beyond the high water mark under First Nations control, for public access, under lease to the Regional District, along the entire shoreline as an extension of the new rail trail.

The business opportunities could be endless and we could create some seasonal camps for the homeless.

Win win.

The foreshore isn't private property anyways, and just as the easements along the properties on Curtis road are being challenged and bled to death, by the shark puppies running UBCO, it's time these landowners give back what has never been rightfully theirs to take in the first place.

[Ccrider]

The foreshore between high and low water should be returned to the First Nations

My goodness, what a ridiculous idea!

Look at the track record of WFN. If you gave them the land they would just 100 year lease it to the adjacent property owners, and we would loose access for good. Crazy or insane? I'm not sure which category' this idea fits into.

[voice of reason]

ya lets give the foreshore to the first nations so the lake can be surrounded with a ring of billboards and access can be denied to anyone not of first nations decent.worst idea ever

[LTD]

not to mention the casinos and hotels they would pound up on that 100 feet lol ya brilliant thinking there

[WalterWhite]

I agree.

This could be a great opportunity to create a 100 foot easement beyond the high water mark under First Nations control, for public access, under lease to the Regional District, along the entire shoreline as an extension of the new rail trail.

The business opportunities could be endless and we could create some seasonal camps for the homeless.

Win win.

The foreshore isn't private property anyways, and just as the easements along the properties on Curtis road are being challenged and bled to death, by the shark puppies running UBCO, it's time these landowners give back what has never been rightfully theirs to take in the first place.

April Fool's was two weeks ago - but thanks for the chuckle.