Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[cv23]

I think they will

I doubt it as they don't have a pot to pee in or a pocket to keep a penny in.
They expect the government to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on something to benefit only their extremely small group.

[Fancy]

I can see why they don't have a pocket but do they help maintain the property?

[Merry]

It is interesting that 18 acres with 850' of beach is only assessed at $30k

I agree that this is the larger question here. It would appear that this landowner has been underpaying his fair share of property taxes for years.

I wonder how many other such cases of underpayment there are out there? Keeping in mind that for every person who pays less than their fair share, the rest of us are paying more than we would otherwise be required to.

[daria]

I can see why they don't have a pocket but do they help maintain the property?

It seems that the people in this article respect this region of the lake. I can't vouch for this particular stretch of beachfront area, but if it's anything like other naturist/nudist areas my partner and I have visited, it is no doubt lovingly maintained.

[Dawnland]

Not only have the bathers maintained upkeep of the beach, there were a number of hazardous areas on the terraces that were reinforced to ensure users safety as well as to increase usable space.
A number of steps have been taken to remove fire hazards to the area as well. Over the years there has been dead fall from storms and driftwood piling up. The users of the area used the scrap to shore up the terrace areas and make sure that unstable trails were reinforced, rather than left to erode.
I can't say what the owner has done to the area now though. He had a backhoe in there to put that fence in and I don't know what the security guard has been instructed to do to make the area unfavorable to 'trespassers'.

[LTD]

who cares what they did its PRIVATE PROPERTY go find another section of beach to roast your wieners on cant believe the attitude of some people just because you have been trespassing there for along time doesn't make it yours

[LANDM]

If the land owner sold only the one area "terraces" that the bathers use, then it would be affordable and we might be able to purchase the property. The owner will not subdivide his property to allow for that because the main selling feature is the 850 feet of waterfront. The naturalists and bathers are not interested in getting into the vineyard market.

I don't know the size or composition....if it is ALR, then it is "impossible" to subdivide. If it is on septic, then it would have to be over 5 ac, and there could be loads of other reasons.
Rather than claiming the owner "will not" subdivide it, the reality is he probably cannot. Even if it were possible, it would be a hassle, and possibly costly to the owner in terms of both money and time.
It may not be the highest and best use to subdivide so, once again, should the owner subsidize someone else?
I think not. Those who want it should just buck up and buy it....very simple.

[daria]

who cares what they did its PRIVATE PROPERTY go find another section of beach to roast your wieners on cant believe the attitude of some people just because you have been trespassing there for along time doesn't make it yours

Do you realize that the land is public property up to the high-water mark?

[Dawnland]

LTD & LANDM
It is the hope of the naturalists in the area to be guaranteed unobstructed access to the area which was blocked off by the owner. If you had kept up with the discussion, you would know that the foreshore to the high water mark is public property. This owner had damaged public property with bringing that backhoe in, blocked off public access and harmed sensitive riparian area. He doesn't own the beach.
So many people get caught up with the nude debate they lose sight of the liberties this absentee owner is taking with what he incorrectly believes is his right.
The owner can't do anything like develop that area, why not have the city buy it for public use and market it. It shouldn't belong to anyone and should be protected.

[LANDM]

LTD & LANDM
It is the hope of the naturalists in the area to be guaranteed unobstructed access to the area which was blocked off by the owner. If you had kept up with the discussion, you would know that the foreshore to the high water mark is public property. This owner had damaged public property with bringing that backhoe in, blocked off public access and harmed sensitive riparian area. He doesn't own the beach.
So many people get caught up with the nude debate they lose sight of the liberties this absentee owner is taking with what he incorrectly believes is his right.
The owner can't do anything like develop that area, why not have the city buy it for public use and market it. It shouldn't belong to anyone and should be protected.

I have kept up with the discussion and have very precise knowledge of foreshore and riparian areas. I do not believe you know what the term "high water mark" means, from what you have said. What are you expecting the owner to sell and how do you expect him to sever it?
You are mixing up the wrong usage of private property by the naturists with possible incorrect things done on the foreshore by the owner. Two totally separate things. We are discussing the usage of the private property, not whether he has also done something wrong on the foreshore. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[LANDM]

quote="cv23"]It is interesting that 18 acres with 850' of beach is only assessed at $30k[/quote

I agree that this is the larger question here. It would appear that this landowner has been underpaying his fair share of property taxes for years.

I wonder how many other such cases of underpayment there are out there? Keeping in mind that for every person who pays less than their fair share, the rest of us are paying more than we would otherwise be required to.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

He has farm status and that is NOT a case of underpaying the taxes. Once the owner, or anyone else on property that is of a certain qualifying size, satisfies the requirements to obtain farm status, the taxes are reduced appropriately by the reduction of the land component of the assessment. In cases of farm status, the land assessment is reduced artificially so the taxes are reduced. To say you will buy at assessed value, or 10x or 100x assessed value is silly because it no longer has a relationship to market value.

Do not point fingers at owners of farmland, whether it is this owner or any other, and blame them for following long standing allowances by the provincial government for the reduction of taxes. If you have an issue with farms having reduced taxes, then lobby the government to kill off the ALR and allow farmers to do what others are able to do with their property.

And, I suppose the next thing will be the claim that the owner is not really farming it.......he is satisfying the requirements like anyone else. He has earned the reduction.
Funny that one person has already said that they only want the beach and "not the vineyard". Gee, the farming part is so easy and fun!

[Dawnland]

LANDM;
If you were keeping up with the discussion you would know that we've had permission to use the beach and beyond the foreshore and high water mark areas. Last week the signs went up. There was some discussion by beach goers that the signs must not be 'official' because there was no name or phone number indicating who to contact. As well we had no notification from the owner that he was revoking permission.
If you know where the high water mark area is, how about you go to the site and city hall and point it out specifically because a number of people, including myself, agreed we don't know specifically where the high water mark area is.
I hope you look into this further and read some more articles as you will discover that the beach goers are trying to find ways to respect the property owners rights and maybe illicit the support of the city to protect the area.
IF, there is an opportunity to increase the usable area legally, we are hoping that will happen as well. We are looking for options, we are not trying to encroach on anyone's right to their land. What is so damn awful about that?!
So much for a progressive BE BOLD Penticton!

[LANDM]

LANDM;
If you were keeping up with the discussion you would know that we've had permission to use the beach and beyond the foreshore and high water mark areas. Last week the signs went up. There was some discussion by beach goers that the signs must not be 'official' because there was no name or phone number indicating who to contact. As well we had no notification from the owner that he was revoking permission.
If you know where the high water mark area is, how about you go to the site and city hall and point it out specifically because a number of people, including myself, agreed we don't know specifically where the high water mark area is.
I hope you look into this further and read some more articles as you will discover that the beach goers are trying to find ways to respect the property owners rights and maybe illicit the support of the city to protect the area.
IF, there is an opportunity to increase the usable area legally, we are hoping that will happen as well. We are looking for options, we are not trying to encroach on anyone's right to their land. What is so damn awful about that?!
So much for a progressive BE BOLD Penticton!

And if you were keeping up with the discussion, you would know that some of the statements being made are ridiculous and outlandishly disrespectful of property rights.
That's great that you had permission. I don't know if it was permission or lack of eviction but let's say it was explicit permission. You obviously don't have permission now. There is really nothing else to discuss. The landowner doesn't want you on his land. You have every right to be on the foreshore but it has become exceedingly clear that there is zero knowledge as to what that means....or the lack of will to acknowledge what it is. The lake will reach the high water mark soon. It will be near that point for quite a while. Considering nude sunbathing weather will most comfortably be at the same time as when the usable public foreshore is at its minimum, it seems like a better option to either buy the property or go elsewhere.

Stop trying to talk around the issue and pretend it is hazy. It isn't. This talk about "reading articles about the beach goers trying to respect the property owners rights" is, frankly, silly. You don't have to try and find ways. You just have to stay off the private property as instructed. What options are you looking for? Once again, buy it or go elsewhere. Those are petty clear options. As for anything else, then yes, you are in fact trying to encroach on their land. If you don't know what is so "damn awful" about that, I assume you are not a property owner. If you are, think about someone refusing to respect your private property.

Pretty soon, the only way you can get to the property legally would be to walk through the water, and then sunbathe by standing at waters edge, in the water, or on a few inches of exposed beach. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

[fluffy]

Pretty soon, the only way you can get to the property legally would be to walk through the water, and then sunbathe by standing at waters edge, in the water, or on a few inches of exposed beach. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I suspect that's the meat of it right there. Though none of the beach users want to come right out and say it, without the private property portion there just isn't enough room.

[Dawnland]

Thank you all for participating.
The mayor and council have done an indepth analysis on the situation, sought legal advice and have made the following statement with regard to 3 mile beach:

From *bleep* news
Mayor Garry Litke says he has no issue with nudists using public property.

“Things can carry on the way they always have,” he says.

When the private property owner raised concerns about the public disrespecting his land, the city worked with the provincial government to instill property designations on the beach.

Now, Litke says, there is no other resolution necessary.

“(The nudists) haven’t been hurting anyone,” Litke says.

The lakeshore is public, he says, so as long as they aren’t getting into trouble, people can continue to use the beach as a clothing optional area, like they always have.

End quote

Thank-you to Mayor Garry Litke with a special shout out to Councilman, John Vassilaki for championing this cause.
I would also like to thank those good folks down at 3 Mile beach who got together and took action. Woohoo!