Time to take the foreshore back

[featfan]

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take and give the foreshore back to the people of the Okanagan.
With the soon to be revised high water mark and the old hwm we the taxpayers and voters of our councils can stand up and demand the foreshore be returned.
Our elected mayor ( by the old boys club) really won`t do anything but we have a chance here people.
The Feds need to be told to start stepping up now.

[featfan]

A linear lake parkway
Contributed - Jun 5, 2017 / 3:00 pm | Story: 198738
The shoreline of the lake up to the (normal) high-water mark , which typically is the entire beach area, is owned by the Province. Not the City of Kelowna and not the lakeshore homeowner. Provincial law states: "Fences/docks that do not maintain public access to Crown foreshore are unauthorized as per Section 60 of the Land Act, and subject to trespass action and removal under Section 59 of the Land Act". (please see https://pihl.ca/real-estate-law/sitting-dock-bay-not/)

This means that docks, fences and walls cannot restrict public access across the foreshore – the beach. They can be built, with special permission, but are required to start near the water leaving the foreshore unrestricted.

Given that many docks are now damaged and will need to be replaced, compliant with current Provincial Law, perhaps it is time that the community of Kelowna tried to ensure access along the Lake Okanagan shoreline for all. Just because individuals have been circumventing the law in the past doesn’t mean it must continue. Docks are OK, just not on “our” beaches. The pathway that currently exists exits to Abbott and Lakeshore, away from the beach. Wouldn’t a Waterfront Linear Park/Walkway from the Grand Waterfront, along City Park, through to Gyro and Rotary beaches and the Eldorado be a wonderful tourist draw?
Pamela Leco

[WalterWhite]

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take and give the foreshore back to the people of the Okanagan.
With the soon to be revised high water mark and the old hwm we the taxpayers and voters of our councils can stand up and demand the foreshore be returned.
Our elected mayor ( by the old boys club) really won`t do anything but we have a chance here people.
The Feds need to be told to start stepping up now.

Are you implying the election was rigged?
For those that think "taking the foreshore back" will be accomplished simply by a stroke of Mayor Sugarplum's pen, you're in for a surprise. The associated ministries and jurisdictions can't even seem to be able to designate who is responsible for removing a derelict sunken boat scattered along the shoreline - can you even imagine the legal wrangling it would involve to start this - not to mention the obvious fight that any lakefront property owner is going to put up.

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with cleaning up the mess created by the legal/illegal structures be it docks or what have you, and no better time than after the flood waters recede. However, to expect to completely redraw the foreshore property lines and then add a public walkway into the mix is pie-in-the-sky hopes.

[Fancy]

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take and give the foreshore back to the people of the Okanagan.
With the soon to be revised high water mark and the old hwm we the taxpayers and voters of our councils can stand up and demand the foreshore be returned.
Our elected mayor ( by the old boys club) really won`t do anything but we have a chance here people.
The Feds need to be told to start stepping up now.

It won't be a revised high water mark. Check out this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72006&start=150

[featfan]

Are you implying the election was rigged?
For those that think "taking the foreshore back" will be accomplished simply by a stroke of Mayor Sugarplum's pen, you're in for a surprise. The associated ministries and jurisdictions can't even seem to be able to designate who is responsible for removing a derelict sunken boat scattered along the shoreline - can you even imagine the legal wrangling it would involve to start this - not to mention the obvious fight that any lakefront property owner is going to put up.

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with cleaning up the mess created by the legal/illegal structures be it docks or what have you, and no better time than after the flood waters recede. However, to expect to completely redraw the foreshore property lines and then add a public walkway into the mix is pie-in-the-sky hopes.


No not rigged, just the same old same old of Kelowna politics.
Time for a change.

[featfan]

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take and give the foreshore back to the people of the Okanagan.
With the soon to be revised high water mark and the old hwm we the taxpayers and voters of our councils can stand up and demand the foreshore be returned.
Our elected mayor ( by the old boys club) really won`t do anything but we have a chance here people.
The Feds need to be told to start stepping up now.

It won't be a revised high water mark. Check out this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72006&start=150

So with a new hwm or the old hwm and minimum floor elevation for building anything under that should be no build no disturb would`nt it?

[LANDM]

So with a new hwm or the old hwm and minimum floor elevation for building anything under that should be no build no disturb would`nt it?

That already exists.

[WalterWhite]

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to take and give the foreshore back to the people of the Okanagan.
With the soon to be revised high water mark and the old hwm we the taxpayers and voters of our councils can stand up and demand the foreshore be returned.
Our elected mayor ( by the old boys club) really won`t do anything but we have a chance here people.
The Feds need to be told to start stepping up now.

It won't be a revised high water mark. Check out this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72006&start=150

So with a new hwm or the old hwm and minimum floor elevation for building anything under that should be no build no disturb would`nt it?

Structures can be below hwm - habitable space can not. Non-habitable space can be below hwm - but cannot contain items such as gas fired appliances with ignition points below hwm. As an example, a home can be constructed with a crawlspace below hwm, but can not contain a gas fired furnace in the crawl space with the ignition point located below the hwm. Horizontal furnaces mounted to the underside of floor systems is not an uncommon installation in this situation.

[featfan]

So with a new hwm or the old hwm and minimum floor elevation for building anything under that should be no build no disturb would`nt it?

That already exists.

But the COK lets that slide for folks to build on the foreshore.
What used to be a 30 meter setback from the hwm is now 15 meters.
WHY?

[Terris]

The 30m setback was usually for septic purposes.

Since the city expanded the sewage system, it seems that some legalities were stretched, likely through a variance.

Either way, all the stretching and varying of the past is now coming back to haunt those concerned.

Can't hide forever...

[fall]

A petition to take back the foreshore with tens and tens of thousands of signatures may be a good start to accountability and action.

[Fancy]

Go for it.

[Terris]

Go for it.

This is how it's done...

http://www.shorewalk.ca/

[Graham Adder]

A petition to take back the foreshore with tens and tens of thousands of signatures may be a good start to accountability and action.

you draft it
I'll sign it

[fall]

Go for it.

Thank you for the encouragement , but no thanks.
I am sure it's just a matter of time regardless.