Take back the foreshore

[WalterWhite]

Frankly, all I see is a hot button topic used to trigger a response promote a realty company and Castanet's business page. This isn't news - it's the new way of advertising. As I stated earlier - of course a property's value would drop if it no longer has a dock. I don't need a "report" from a realtor to explain that - it's common sense. The docks can, and will be rebuilt.

Nobody has said the docks can’t be rebuilt, but they will be rebuilt in line with the current law. Which a segment of the population, regard as an unfairness.

Theses homeowners have been relying on the principle of “grandfathering”.

There are many cases where grandfathering is reasonable. For example many older homes were built following archaic building codes, with materials, that in some cases are banned from use today. Our laws don’t require that these homes be renovated, but if major changes are undertaken these currently illegal building practices must then be remediated.

This same principle is relied on and allowed when properties actually infringe on the rights of all. A misuse, IMO, of that concession.

Some of these “pillars of the community” are not beyond infringing on the rights of the general public by means of a loophole.

Define "irreplaceable" as used in this so-called news story. No one has said they won't or shouldn't be rebuilt to current guidelines.
The "grandfathering" relates more to the foreshore rights than it does to the structures on them. I'm fully aware of what is referred to as "legally non-conforming" in regards to previous code compliant structures no longer meeting current codes. Grandfathering of any docks does not mean that proper access to the public accessing the foreshore must be in place. That's what the bulk of this dock hub-bub has been about. My point, is that this so-called "report" by Vantage Realty is nothing but advertising posted by Castanet in the guise of actual "news".

[my5cents]

................The "grandfathering" relates more to the foreshore rights than it does to the structures on them. I'm fully aware of what is referred to as "legally non-conforming" in regards to previous code compliant structures no longer meeting current codes. Grandfathering of any docks does not mean that proper access to the public accessing the foreshore must be in place. That's what the bulk of this dock hub-bub has been about. My point, is that this so-called "report" by Vantage Realty is nothing but advertising posted by Castanet in the guise of actual "news".

The "grandfathering" relates more to the foreshore rights than it does to the structures on them.

Not at all. The grandfathering relates to docks that were constructed following the regulations as prescribed at the time they were legally built. The fact that the foreshore is owned by the Province and access by the public is the law is not grandfathered. Structures that now don't comply, but did when built have been allowed to remain as built even though they don't allow public access as required.

I wasn't aware that these docks were allowed through a ten year license from the province, that, once expired relinquished ownership of the docks to the province. That seems to put a huge wrench into the "grandfathered" docks.

Grandfathering of any docks does not mean that proper access to the public accessing the foreshore must be in place.

Exactly the grandfathered dock is the structure that does not afford proper access to the public. Thus the public is hindered from accessing/enjoying public land.

I think this article from Pihl and Associates, pretty much answers all the questions.

Apparently even grandfathering isn't a clear as most thought. ie, if a dock structure didn't comply when built many years ago (and some, I guess didn't) the fact that they've been in place for many decades doesn't "legalize" them.

https://pihl.ca/real-estate-law/sitting-dock-bay-not/

Now, I'm not pointing fingers here, but,,,, the provincial government is the controlling body who's duty it is to police and enforce compliance for these structures to allow the "intrusion" of the public.

It is up to management of the province to insure there is direction given it's employees to police this issue and insure there are enough personnel to achieve the goal of policing.

I expect judging the cost of these properties and the related costs of taxes etc, that generally the owners of these properties are likely many of the same people who are in a position to donate to political parties.

[Hmmm]

The list goes on. But, in your world these wrongs don’t affect me so I shouldn’t be irritated.

I guess I’m irritated because I’m jealous.

At least three others agree with you, sad.

I was commenting on the fact that some people think it’s funny that well off people suffer. PERIOD. Just because someone has money, doesn’t make them less human. It was the “LOL” I took exception to. You think it’s funny when people suffer, as long as they may be wealthy? Haha, the rich guy is suffering. Hahahah.

[WalterWhite]

................The "grandfathering" relates more to the foreshore rights than it does to the structures on them. I'm fully aware of what is referred to as "legally non-conforming" in regards to previous code compliant structures no longer meeting current codes. Grandfathering of any docks does not mean that proper access to the public accessing the foreshore must be in place. That's what the bulk of this dock hub-bub has been about. My point, is that this so-called "report" by Vantage Realty is nothing but advertising posted by Castanet in the guise of actual "news".

The "grandfathering" relates more to the foreshore rights than it does to the structures on them.

Not at all. The grandfathering relates to docks that were constructed following the regulations as prescribed at the time they were legally built. The fact that the foreshore is owned by the Province and access by the public is the law is not grandfathered. Structures that now don't comply, but did when built have been allowed to remain as built even though they don't allow public access as required.

I wasn't aware that these docks were allowed through a ten year license from the province, that, once expired relinquished ownership of the docks to the province. That seems to put a huge wrench into the "grandfathered" docks.

Grandfathering of any docks does not mean that proper access to the public accessing the foreshore must be in place.

Exactly the grandfathered dock is the structure that does not afford proper access to the public. Thus the public is hindered from accessing/enjoying public land.

I think this article from Pihl and Associates, pretty much answers all the questions.

Apparently even grandfathering isn't a clear as most thought. ie, if a dock structure didn't comply when built many years ago (and some, I guess didn't) the fact that they've been in place for many decades doesn't "legalize" them.

https://pihl.ca/real-estate-law/sitting-dock-bay-not/

Now, I'm not pointing fingers here, but,,,, the provincial government is the controlling body who's duty it is to police and enforce compliance for these structures to allow the "intrusion" of the public.

It is up to management of the province to insure there is direction given it's employees to police this issue and insure there are enough personnel to achieve the goal of policing.

I expect judging the cost of these properties and the related costs of taxes etc, that generally the owners of these properties are likely many of the same people who are in a position to donate to political parties.

There are still a handful of properties south of the bridge which have property lines extending past the defined foreshore. These few properties are "grandfathered" with regard to the foreshore and that was what I was referring to. Docks, previously built to out of date and in some cases non-existent codes/guidelines, are considered "legally non-conforming" just as any other structure in similar circumstances. Call it grandfathered if you like. Regardless of whether docks previous, current or future have been built to code - the foreshore access was/is to be accessible. Many people have the mistaken understanding that since a dock is on the foreshore, that it's public property, which is completely false. The licensing and tenure (10 year lease) maintains the structure as private property. That does not mean that access to the foreshore can be denied, but it does not mean the dock is public property. Talk to any lakefront property owner and most will agree - it's not the access to the foreshore for the public that's a problem - it's the public thinking any dock is for public use. The lease after it's expiration can and in most cases is applied for renewal.

[my5cents]

I was commenting on the fact that some people think it’s funny that well off people suffer. PERIOD. Just because someone has money, doesn’t make them less human. It was the “LOL” I took exception to. You think it’s funny when people suffer, as long as they may be wealthy? Haha, the rich guy is suffering. Hahahah.

Suffer is a strange word to use, but, it was...

What constitutes suffering, or great loss differs greatly.

For some, if they are lucky enough to own a home (them and the bank), if the hot water tank packs it in that is a disaster that will set them back months, perhaps alter plans for an upcoming holiday and may involve financial arrangements. For others it's a minor inconvenience that requires a phone call or two and a slight schedule change to let a tradesman in to the house. The cost, barely, if at all, noticed on the monthly VISA or bank statement.

I can understand some of the animosity by some towards the home owners who are perceived to have been thumbing their noses at the general public in leaving these structures in place when felt (in some cases erroneously) they were hindering public access illegally.

It's difficult to know, basically because of Provincial inaction (for whatever reasons) what categories these (pre-flood) structures fell into.

Some have always been illegal (built not conforming to licensing rules and then ignored by authorities)
Some were constructed legally decades ago and could be subject to grandfathering (there is a question here in regards to the expiry of 10 year licensing agreement).

Now because of an act of God, these same home owners have had their "illegal" structures demolished and with the current public pressure likely unable to slip the creation of another illegal structure past authorities.

Thus the sympathy of the general public towards these homeowners is thin, at best.

Do I think that the flooding caused "suffering" ? Inconvenience, expense, yes, suffering ? No.

[GordonH]

Anyone who owns property next to body of water i.e lake, river or creek. Should be prepared to see flooding sooner or later, unless they were already prepared for it to happen.
1) house was raised onto stilts
2) or whole property was raised by adding dirt & rocks.

Added: if they are not prepared well ahead of time with ie proper type of flood insurance. Then they were very foolish.

[WalterWhite]

Anyone who owns property next to body of water i.e lake, river or creek. Should be prepared to see flooding sooner or later, unless they were already prepared for it to happen.
1) house was raised onto stilts
2) or whole property was raised by adding dirt & rocks.

Added: if they are not prepared well ahead of time with ie proper type of flood insurance. Then they were very foolish.

Poppycock. Using that logic the entire downtown and in fact greater Kelowna area should all be on stilts, as the entire area is flood plain. The lake level has been successfully controlled for decades. I still do not believe the statement from those that manage the water system that this was the result of a 200 year event.

[GordonH]

^^^ were did I use the word flood plain in that post.
You need to look at history of this area to see there has been large floods within that 200 year number you used.

[Hmmm]

Suffer is a strange word to use, but, it was...

What constitutes suffering, or great loss differs greatly.


I can understand some of the animosity by some towards the home owners who are perceived to have been thumbing their noses at the general public in leaving these structures in place when felt (in some cases erroneously) they were hindering public access illegally.

It's difficult to know, basically because of Provincial inaction (for whatever reasons) what categories these (pre-flood) structures fell into.

Some have always been illegal (built not conforming to licensing rules and then ignored by authorities)
Some were constructed legally decades ago and could be subject to grandfathering (there is a question here in regards to the expiry of 10 year licensing agreement).

Now because of an act of God, these same home owners have had their "illegal" structures demolished and with the current public pressure likely unable to slip the creation of another illegal structure past authorities.

Thus the sympathy of the general public towards these homeowners is thin, at best.

Do I think that the flooding caused "suffering" ? Inconvenience, expense, yes, suffering ? No.

. The article or somebody mentioned suffering along the way, I’m not sure. I don’t understand the financial loss equals personal pain and suffering either. Again, it was the laughing at the thought of well off people suffering that bugged me.

I can also understand that illegal structures along the shore wear on people. Build your new dock legally or not at all, I would say. Laws are there for a reason. Laughing at others misfortune is childish though. The only point I’ve been trying to make.

[LTD]

^^^ were did I use the word flood plain in that post.
You need to look at history of this area to see there has been large floods within that 200 year number you used.

yes before a system was put in place to control the lake level, this was caused by incompetence plain and simple

[WalterWhite]

Anyone who owns property next to body of water i.e lake, river or creek. Should be prepared to see flooding sooner or later, unless they were already prepared for it to happen.
1) house was raised onto stilts
2) or whole property was raised by adding dirt & rocks.

Added: if they are not prepared well ahead of time with ie proper type of flood insurance. Then they were very foolish.

^^^ were did I use the word flood plain in that post.
You need to look at history of this area to see there has been large floods within that 200 year number you used.

The valley floor on which Kelowna is built is all flood plain Gordon. Maybe you should brush up on the area's history. Your blanket comment emboldened above has been rolled out countless times over the flooding this summer and realistically includes the greater Kelowna area being as it's been developed on the lakeshore - and surrounding flood plain when Father Pandosy first drove stakes in the ground off what is now Benvoulin Rd - beside Mission Creek. Basically you're saying our city's founding father wasn't too bright either. Of course there have been flooding within the last 200 years - but certainly nothing of current consequences however since the controls were implemented - which was necessary in order for the area to continue to develop.

[GordonH]

The valley floor on which Kelowna is built is all flood plain Gordon. Maybe you should brush up on the area's history. Your blanket comment emboldened above has been rolled out countless times over the flooding this summer and realistically includes the greater Kelowna area being as it's been developed on the lakeshore - and surrounding flood plain when Father Pandosy first drove stakes in the ground off what is now Benvoulin Rd - beside Mission Creek. Basically you're saying our city's founding father wasn't too bright either. Of course there have been flooding within the last 200 years - but certainly nothing of current consequences however since the controls were implemented - which was necessary in order for the area to continue to develop.

Oh I'm well aware of floodplain, Father Pondosy was not the problem.
It was those who came behind him & reclaimed the swamp lands. Which covered large portion of both northend inward to Ethel st area if not further inward, as well great deal of lower Mission area south of KLO right up to Swamp Rd.
This is why there are no actual underground parking areas, because water table is so high.
Again look into the history.

[WalterWhite]

The valley floor on which Kelowna is built is all flood plain Gordon. Maybe you should brush up on the area's history. Your blanket comment emboldened above has been rolled out countless times over the flooding this summer and realistically includes the greater Kelowna area being as it's been developed on the lakeshore - and surrounding flood plain when Father Pandosy first drove stakes in the ground off what is now Benvoulin Rd - beside Mission Creek. Basically you're saying our city's founding father wasn't too bright either. Of course there have been flooding within the last 200 years - but certainly nothing of current consequences however since the controls were implemented - which was necessary in order for the area to continue to develop.

Oh I'm well aware of floodplain, Father Pondosy was not the problem.
It was those who came behind him & reclaimed the swamp lands. Which covered large portion of both northend inward to Ethel st area if not further inward, as well great deal of lower Mission area south of KLO right up to Swamp Rd.
This is why there are no actual underground parking areas, because water table is so high.
Again look into the history.

Lol, so you agree. How can you then say anyone living next to a lake stream creek etc should expect flooding and build on stilts or raise the level of their property? I'm curious - what part of town do you live?

[LTD]

The valley floor on which Kelowna is built is all flood plain Gordon. Maybe you should brush up on the area's history. Your blanket comment emboldened above has been rolled out countless times over the flooding this summer and realistically includes the greater Kelowna area being as it's been developed on the lakeshore - and surrounding flood plain when Father Pandosy first drove stakes in the ground off what is now Benvoulin Rd - beside Mission Creek. Basically you're saying our city's founding father wasn't too bright either. Of course there have been flooding within the last 200 years - but certainly nothing of current consequences however since the controls were implemented - which was necessary in order for the area to continue to develop.

Oh I'm well aware of floodplain, Father Pondosy was not the problem.
It was those who came behind him & reclaimed the swamp lands. Which covered large portion of both northend inward to Ethel st area if not further inward, as well great deal of lower Mission area south of KLO right up to Swamp Rd.
This is why there are no actual underground parking areas, because water table is so high.
Again look into the history.

this is also why we have a system in place to control flooding, it only has one minor flaw , you actually have to OPEN IT to let water out other than that it works great

[GordonH]

Lol, so you agree. How can you then say anyone living next to a lake stream creek etc should expect flooding and build on stilts or raise the level of their property? I'm curious - what part of town do you live?

Potential for flooding can happen each Spring at runoff time, it all depends on the amount of a snowpack & how quickly it melts. Fast runoff with more then usual Spring rainfall can = flooding i.e this past Spring.
Knowing the Kelowna area water table is always high, it does not take very much saturate ground to the point were water has nowhere to go but to back up.... hence flooding.

Be my guest on not being prepared in case it happens.