Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[fluffy]

There probably is a "niche market" for a clothing optional beach, the private portion of Three Mile enjoyed a small but loyal following for years. But that's not the real point here. The former clothing optional beach is no longer available, and the recent public outcry has made it plain that there are enough people among the traditional users of the public beach who do not wish to be exposed to nude beach going that "peaceful coexistence" is not among the available options.

[maryjane48]

which is a sad outcome

[fluffy]

which is a sad outcome

For the naturists, yes. But given the situation it really couldn't have played out any differently. The naturists' attempt to simply move on to the public beach was doomed from the start as it basically trampled on the rights of the traditional users of that area. In the big picture the naturists are a small, special interest splinter group and we live in a democracy that says the majority rules.

[jusme3]

First off just to clear things up...to Queen K, It was not a "girl" they arrested, it was a 47 y/o woman who was being disruptive and obstructing justice (read: being a $h!T disturber)
I have personally seen these naturists harassing and bullying the home owners of Three Mile Road, who can prove they pay taxes unlike the claims of some of the naturists who say they do but they can't prove, which they apparently seems allows them elitist rights.
One of my biggest peeves (at the moment) is what gives the naturists the right to go and put up a facebook page and signage on the beach stating " 3 Mile clothing optional Beach"? Really? Where can you go and just designate a public area as "clothing optional" just because it suits you?
I am not against nudity and I appreciate the beauty of the human body...however, when I see the flagrant misuse of the human body used in an exhibitionist manner I must protest. Specifically at some of these "naturists" at Three mile Beach, some, not all of them, are being very rude and wrecking it for the quiet true naturists. I'm talking about the man who swam out to the dock and was waving his junk around in the face of a ten year old girl, The guy who stuck his camcorder into the face of a local resident while he/she was relaxing on the beach. I'm talking about the used condoms, the butt plugs, the *bleep* beads and other paraphernalia that is cleaned up by the resident home owners and locals so they can use the beach as a family friendly beach.
Seriously, to you loud, obnoxious, bullying, harassing, inappropriate, self entitled, lip-service peaceful naturists...the "No Trespassing" sign was put up for a reason and it wasn't because you are as naturalistic as you're pretending to be in a public forum!
Rant over...

[maryjane48]

no it is sad for the city of pentictan was what i ment .

[Donald G]

I do not think that the word "sad" is appropriate to describe the situation at all. The nudists (or elected city officials) can change the situation any time that they want to come up with the money to finance their own place in the sun.

Surely a few bucks or running the risk of being kicked out of office can not be too high of a price to pay if the requirement for nudity is as importan as some pro nudists on this thread would have us believe.

So far it seems to be a "we want it if you pay" and change your lifestyle to do what we, the small minority, want to do situation.

[fluffy]

no it is sad for the city of pentictan was what i ment .

How's that? Because we're off the list of World's Best Nude Beaches ? I expect the negative impact from that to be minimal, given that that particular demographic is tiny and generally clandestine.

[jamapple]

i would if i lived there , if a university can donate land for this use im sure someone there can stand up and do same . no it isnt wreck beach but it also has zero to do with anyone being perverted or the like .

Then why doesn't the WFN Private beach go and do that? Just thnk of the tourism spinoffs like you say about Skaha Beach? At least the WFN Beach is actually "private", and not open to the laws and scrutiny that all these other public beaches are.

[Drip_Torch]

Because we're off the list of World's Best Nude Beaches ? I expect the negative impact from that to be minimal, given that that particular demographic is tiny and generally clandestine

While that may be true, I would point out that the communities inability to deal with the lilliputian banalities of it all is a screaming red flag for anyone that values tolerance, diversity, or truth. Anyone can look at the legal lot lines on the city's webmapping service and yet, we have a mayor that can't even be bothered and would prefer to characterize the beach, clearly outside of Mr. P's property lines, as a private beach.

(Clandestine, in yer face, dang wangling nudists on a public beach in the sunshine vs. upstanding righteous property owners that install cameras in the middle of the night and cut new roads thru development permit areas on Statutory holidays.)

Hardly seems upside down at all.

[maryjane48]

*removed*

[twobits]

Anyone can look at the legal lot lines on the city's webmapping service

Actually, you have just given me pause to think that if the City were truly interested in providing a clothing optional beach, the answer might be say a portion of Sudbury beach on the east. All of Sudubury Beach to the east of the original channel drainage ditch is reserve land. Simple fence screening could easily provide a small private beach area with appropriate signage. And being FN land's, would Federal Laws on nudity be enforceable? I doubt it.

[fluffy]

[I would point out that the communities inability to deal with the lilliputian banalities of it all is a screaming red flag for anyone that values tolerance, diversity, or truth.

I thought they dealt with it quite well. They refused to give a "special use" designation to a pubic beach based on the desires of a mniscule splinter group, and left the private property issue to the courts. What would you have done ?

[Drip_Torch]

.

[onestop67]

*removed*

[twobits]

Longer term, I see the north bay as an ongoing problem and it's my opinion that it would be in the community's best interest to look at acquiring the riparian area at the bottom of the privately held property; with a view to expanding on our parks holdings in the area. I see the opportunity to take some of the pressure off of the neighbourhood, by creating parking above the neighbourhood, perhaps designating the road below that parking as local traffic only and creating a walking trail network - but, I remain an unabashed dreamer that doesn't believe that our democracy is simply based on the premise of majority rules.

So, the short answer is: I wouldn't have done anything differently, and if I had any influence at all in this town, I would have done everything differently.

Interesting. Another loophole. Riparian area.

Is it so designated? I think my idea of loophole using leased native beach at Sudbury would be easier to accomplish than the inevitable legal battle over expropriation from a private land holder of riparian zone. If it is so designated (would like verification of that) the landowner can say he has no plans to develop and disturb the riparian zone so until he submits a plan to do so, there are no grounds for an expropriation in the interest of the public.
Am thinking there are a few readers here googling "riparian zone"