Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4044
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Anonymous123 »

Save the blue-tailed skink.
We See
We Judge
We Get Muzzled
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by twobits »

Anonymous123 wrote:Save the blue-tailed skink.


OK, ya got me there. Is that a bird or a hooker in need of meds?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Drip_Torch »

As far as I can tell, there are two different development permit areas on the property. Riparian development permit zone, within the red lines, and environmentally protected zone within the green hash.

schedule-h.jpg


Also available on the city web mapping service, but I pulled that from Schedule H (Development Permit Zones) to our OCP.
http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20H-Development%20Permit%20Area%20-%20use.pdf

Another little tid-bit, from an ageing, but commonly cited paper. "Riparian Rights and Public Foreshore Use In the Administration of Aquatic Crown Land."

The Ministry recognizes and respects the
riparian rights of waterfront property owners.
But in special cases it may assert its own right
to protect the public interest or to make
aquatic Crown land available for commercial,
industrial, conservational or recreational
purposes.


I'm not looking for a loophole twobits, for me it's a matter of I can see where this all leads and I don't like the looks of it. Despite the new and popular meme "Wine family values", or whatever it is, Three Mile Beach remains an isolated beach, with a documented history of being relatively quiet and problem free.

When all of this hub bub wears off, it will still be an isolated beach, only with much less people using it.

It's all good as long as the guy that owns the only vehicle in the parking lot, has his shorts on - I guess.

Image

The other thing that annoys me (and perhaps Donald can steer me straight and tell me I just don't understand things) is I don't think our judges and our legal system work for free, and sometimes I get the feeling that the RCMP could be doing bigger and better things with their time.

Teneycke still a fugitive4:04 pm
Gun found at courthouse10:41 am
Man shot near Naramata10:35 am

$65,000, create an area that is child safe (viewable from the parking lot and city's house), promote a little tolerance and actually upgrade an area in our parks...

Compared to what... court, court of appeals, supreme court of canada?

True story from the point:
Couple weeks ago, I spotted something interesting going on across the lake, and was located down at the point, shooting video thru the viewfinder, when one of the coalition, association, or whatever, pulled up in his car out of nowhere, and asked, "what's going on?"

Okay, I've been at this for a little more than a year now, so I can tell you (My dearest Castanet friends) the real answer is: "How the hell would I know? I don't call Red Deer, West Vancouver, or Winter Harbour", but I wanted to be polite, so I lied and said, "oh, nothing."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by twobits »

Drip_Torch wrote:Another little tid-bit, from an ageing, but commonly cited paper. "Riparian Rights and Public Foreshore Use In the Administration of Aquatic Crown Land."

The Ministry recognizes and respects the
riparian rights of waterfront property owners.
But in special cases it may assert its own right
to protect the public interest
or to make
aquatic Crown land available for commercial,
industrial, conservational or recreational

purposes.




Read this again and define how an expropriation would be in the public interest.
Secondly, the Crown may make Crown lands available for commercial recreational use however we are not talking about Crown lands here. The traditional nudist beach is privately owned property and the rest of Three Mile beach is owned by the City of Penticton. Neither is Crown Land by any definition.

IMO, if Picton was smart, he would move to exploit the FN beaches he has secured and provide a screened area of prime beach for the naturalists. He could blend the resort to the more open minded as well as the "prudes". While locals can be dismissed as a niche group, nudism is actually big tourism business.
One only has to google nudist or lifestyle vacation options to find out how big the business really is. One of the most famous resorts in the world that caters to both prude and nude is Hedonism II in Jamaica. Look it up. Been there twice myself and were the best vacations ever. Problem is the cost. Expensive.
So why are these vacations so expensive? Could it be demand?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Donald G »

To Drip_torch ...

I am afraid that the RCMP do not get to pick and choose whch laws they will enforce and which laws they will not enforce. When a complaint is received involving public safety or a law being broken they are REQUIRED BY LAW to respond on a priorized basis.

The fact that a nudity is against the law but the consent of the Attorney General is required to proceed with the charge makes the whole situation painful and a no win situation for the RCMP.

I am sure that the sooner a decision is made (if ever) regarding the Penticton mess the sooner the RCMP will be aware of what course of action the "collective" legal system wants them to take regarding such complaints. In the meantime I expect that they will continue to attend when complaints are received and handle the situation as best they can, largely depending on the cooperaton of those involved to eliminate each individual complaint situaton and taking action only when the situation does not lend itself to an alternative solution. Personally I admire their studiously neutral conduct up to this point.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Drip_Torch »

Read this again and define how an expropriation would be in the public interest.
Secondly, the Crown may make Crown lands available for commercial recreational use however we are not talking about Crown lands here. The traditional nudist beach is privately owned property and the rest of Three Mile beach is owned by the City of Penticton. Neither is Crown Land by any definition.

IMO, if Picton was smart, he would move to exploit the FN beaches he has secured and provide a screened area of prime beach for the naturalists. He could blend the resort to the more open minded as well as the "prudes". While locals can be dismissed as a niche group, nudism is actually big tourism business.
One only has to google nudist or lifestyle vacation options to find out how big the business really is. One of the most famous resorts in the world that caters to both prude and nude is Hedonism II in Jamaica. Look it up. Been there twice myself and were the best vacations ever. Problem is the cost. Expensive.
So why are these vacations so expensive? Could it be demand?


Okay, I know we agreed to go with the bully rules on this forum and stick with the term nudists, but I just have to ask - are you sure we're not getting into another naturalist vs. naturist discussion here? I thought I gave you the link to the city's web mapping with the legal lot lines, so how are we back to this "private beach" thing?

If you were to refer to the land act section 5... hang on a second... (Hmm,... ugh ha... yes... beyond a doubt),,, WHAT?

GET THE TRUCK OUTTA HERE! You been where!?! TWICE!?!

Does Mrs. Twobits know? You know it's not to late to edit that,... oh wait, I quoted you - no, you're totally screwed.

(Personally, I think nothing says; "I'm sorry, I was all wrong about you," or makes problems go away, quite like a few weeks at Hedo - just throwing that out there, you never know who's reading these forums.)

Surely, you understand this isn't that - Right?
Last edited by Drip_Torch on Jul 17th, 2015, 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by fluffy »

Drip_Torch wrote:...I gave you the link to the city's web mapping with the legal lot lines, so how are we back to this "private beach" thing?


It is my understanding that by law the private property terminates at the high water mark, and that in this particular situation when the lake is at it's higher levels there isn't much usable beach between the water and the high water mark. A large degree of the privacy enjoyed by that area came from the ability to sit further away from the water where the visual separation between there and the public area was enhanced by the natural outcropping with the big willow tree, but this meant moving well above the high water mark and thus onto private property. Also the traditional access for that area crossed behind the big willow tree, well onto private property as passable beach area in front of the natural outcropping/big willow is virtually non-existent. Basically, once you take the privately owned area out of the mix there just isn't much left, at least not enough to make the area usable as any sort of recreational area.

When the issue was under active discussion in council chambers the solution that made sense to me was to establish a new visual buffer that would in effect cordon off a section of the public beach, creating a geographic situation similar to the one that had allowed for so many years of peaceful coexistence. Trouble with that was that nobody wanted to foot the bill. Council, in my estimation, did not want to be seen as taking sides and using public funds to support a small, special interest group with questionable legal standing, and the naturists who were the only ones who stood to benefit, were not bringing any money to the table at all.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Drip_Torch »

fluffy wrote:Also the traditional access for that area crossed behind the big willow tree, well onto private property as passable beach area in front of the natural outcropping/big willow is virtually non-existent. Basically, once you take the privately owned area out of the mix there just isn't much left, at least not enough to make the area usable as any sort of recreational area.

When the issue was under active discussion in council chambers the solution that made sense to me was to establish a new visual buffer that would in effect cordon off a section of the public beach, creating a geographic situation similar to the one that had allowed for so many years of peaceful coexistence. Trouble with that was that nobody wanted to foot the bill. Council, in my estimation, did not want to be seen as taking sides and using public funds to support a small, special interest group with questionable legal standing, and the naturists who were the only ones who stood to benefit, were not bringing any money to the table at all.


I don't know, I disagree with you over the natural outcropping - I simply don't see it, in the real world, or on the map above. I know I don't go to the beach to hang out in the trees, and your focus would seem to be geared towards a separate interest group - one that didn't sit at the table.

Personally, I wouldn't be at all interested in the option you find suitable, either. Truth be told, I wouldn't walk out of the driveway to experience something like that, but that's me, and I'm certainly not attaching any judgements, or suggesting that I live on some moral high ground. I believe the area you are describing would be most suitably located in a warehouse club, like the Oasis nightclub location, for example.

In my view, we are using public funds to support a small, special interest group and the questions around the legal standing are going to be answered - one way or another. I suspect the final bill is going to be more than $65,000, and the south side of the point is going to remain a living monument to the resilience of Knapweed. (watch your step)

Lost opportunity that would have benefited the community - IMHO.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by fluffy »

Image

Here's a screenshot from a google earth view of the area in question. Roughly center of the shot is the outcropping I spoke of, with the big willow tree showing in pale yellow, shadows cast into the lake. I'm guessing from the length of shadows and the colours of the vegetation that the time of year is winter, so the water level in the lake is low. After spring runoff the water level is much higher, bringing the lake to the base of the outcropping and making passage on foot difficult enough that the preferred route was on the east side of the willow. The property lines on the drawing you posted show the edge of the private property roughly parallel with the roadway before it rounds the curve where the row of houses start, putting much of the outcropping on private property. But this is all academic, the traditional clothing optional beach is on private property and is no longer available for "public" use. My thought that a "copy" of the outcropping (with all the inherent privacy) could be created on the public beach might have flown had the naturists stepped up to the plate with a little cash in their fists and a more humble attitude, perhaps eliciting a less resentful response from the area residents but that was not to be.

I agree with council in their stance, this is not a place for use of public funds, nor are they likely to win many votes cow-towing to a splinter group who come to the table empty handed.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Drip_Torch »

Roughly center of the shot is the outcropping I spoke of, with the big willow tree showing in pale yellow, shadows cast into the lake


I'm quite familiar with the area and able to see right thru the shadows.

circular-argument-based-on-denial.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by twobits »

Drip_Torch wrote:
If you were to refer to the land act section 5... hang on a second... (Hmm,... ugh ha... yes... beyond a doubt),,, WHAT?

GET THE TRUCK OUTTA HERE! You been where!?! TWICE!?!

Does Mrs. Twobits know? You know it's not to late to edit that,... oh wait, I quoted you - no, you're totally screwed.

(Personally, I think nothing says; "I'm sorry, I was all wrong about you," or makes problems go away, quite like a few weeks at Hedo - just throwing that out there, you never know who's reading these forums.)

Surely, you understand this isn't that - Right?


Mrs twobits should know, she was there with me. When checking out the last time we were there, all of the great new friends we made there came to say goodbye. The Mrs started bawling her eyes out. The band playing in the lobby stopped playing, the lead singer then came over and gave my wife a big hug and Jamaican smile, then said "this song is for you". Bob's "Mama don't cry" filled the lobby. 20 seconds later there were at least 10 gals bawling their eyes out.
So ya, I have some real fond memories of Hedo and am hardly a prude. Just recognize the laws we have to live within here is all. BTW, did Hedo III a cpl times too before it closed. Not nearly as fun as 2.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5373
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Drip_Torch »

I appreciate the bravery in your comment and I guess that we could both agree that it's a good thing this is going to court. It's my opinion, twobits, that the final read of the community tolerance test is going to be a complete 180 degrees from the one you forwarded - all those pages ago.

I believe in looking to the issue of harm, the defence will have affiants that will swear they have lived in the neighbourhood for the last 14 months, and that it hasn't been the beach users that have disrupted their peace. I also suspect one of those affiants is going to swear he hasn't witnessed a single incident of public nudity in the last 11 months.

Hmm... How is that possible?

The other issue, that I suspect will become central to the court case, is the issue of anti social behaviour. Let me ask you this - do you believe the proliferation of anti social behaviour might result in less public use, and more police incidents?

So do I.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by Donald G »

To Drip_torch ...

You are obviously awae of the various "systems" and community forces that have to come together to deal with situations like nude beach issue. You have obviously spent time in Court listening to the "two widely conflicting versions of the truth" as well.

Well stated.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by twobits »

Drip_Torch wrote:I appreciate the bravery in your comment and I guess that we could both agree that it's a good thing this is going to court. It's my opinion, twobits, that the final read of the community tolerance test is going to be a complete 180 degrees from the one you forwarded - all those pages ago.



I hope you are right. What is direly needed is an interpretation from our courts that provides some guidelines or parameters of when simply not having clothes on, is not a lewd or indecent act.
I don't think either one of us should hold our breath however as it is a long haul to the Supreme Court of Canada and it is inevitable that it is that level which will be required before it is accepted as law.
In the mean time we have to suck it up and respect the laws as they stand. Civil disobedience by by disrobing on a public beach with no provision of segregated areas is not the answer. It is actually counter intuitive IMO.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

Post by fluffy »

Drip_Torch wrote:I'm quite familiar with the area and able to see right thru the shadows.


Sorry, I misread your posts. To me you sounded a little unsure of just where the public beach ends and the private property starts.

This little skirmish is being fought on a couple of fronts as far as I can see. As far as the rights of the property owner it's pretty hard to argue with lines on a map, even if some of those lines move a little with changes in lake level. There are rights that come with property ownership and it is totally within the owner's rights to control who can come and go on his property. The other issue of public nudity is a little less black and white. I'm find myself hoping that the woman recently charged on the public beach is hoping to make an issue of this, to encourage the courts into setting putting some real definition to what has to date been an area of some confusion.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.

Return to “North Okanagan”