Stop Unfair Taxation of Nanoose Bay Property Owners!
305 Comments
S
Sheila Warren
3 years ago
Featured
I strongly disagree with the unethical and unfair process of attempted gerrymandering. I've been to meetings and read the information. It's not a transparent process but pure manipulation to access funds from people who do not use or want the pool. I call for a process audit.
B
Brian Freestone
3 years ago
Absolutely dead set against the imposition of any taxation regarding the support of the Ravensong Pool facility expansion, and, therefore, support the amendment of Bylaw 899.02 to exclude Electoral Area E in any future funding of the facility! Have not and will never use the facility!
S
Sheila Warren
3 years ago
I strongly object to the corrupt and manipulative gerrymandering of boundaries to take unfair and unethical advantage of an area that does not or rarely uses the facility in question. I've attended meetings and read the materials. This process lacks transparency and requires a process audit. In this time of financial crisis for so many, it seems tone deaf to be spending taxpayer's money on a pool expansion!
B
Bruce Davidson
3 years ago
This proposal to include Nanoose Bay residents is totally unfair and we do not use Ravensong pool as we have our own pool in Fairwinds.
B
Blair Mccoll
3 years ago
I have no interest in supporting the Ravensong Pool and want to see bylaw 889.02 rescinded. I never go to Qualicum Beach and it is not fair that I am forced to pay for something I would not ever use and also the proportionate share of the expense being assigned to Nanoose Bay is way out of line with the % of Nanoose Bay residents who use the facility. I do not think this is reasonable at all.
S
Sheila Cruikshank
3 years ago
Please refer to our letter sent to CAO, Doug Holmes & Dean Banman on Jan 29, 2023 where we strongly against the proposed bylaw amendment.
R
Rhonda Watson
3 years ago
My property taxes went up 17% last year.
W
Wilfrid Mueller
3 years ago
We do not use nor forsee using the facilities in Qualicum Beach. It's grossly unfair to assume people outside the Qualicum area should be forced to pay the expense being proposed. No Thanks!
R
Richard Marshall
3 years ago
Would agree with a proportionate share but this % is ridiculous
B
Blanka Dunville
3 years ago
I support this petition, I never used this pool or planning to use it in the future.
we have our own pool in Fairwinds.
U
Ursula Allan
3 years ago
Due to very little use of the Qualicum Beach Ravensong Pool I do not feel that residents of Nanoose Bay should be included in this taxation.
M
Mike Moore
3 years ago
This amounts to a ridiculous tax grab for a facility that would only be used by a minute % of Nanoose Bay residents. Pay per use is the only sensible way to go, and we have better alternatives both locally and in Nanaimo.
G
Garth Paterson
3 years ago
This is nonsense, highest cost, lowest usage. Area E has almost no facilities as it is, I suggest that all homeowners disabled or over 55 defer their property taxes so we pay our share when we sell our homes. Of course we will pay eventually when we sell. This will be paid in TAX FREE money as there is no tax on capital gains on principal residence, the Province can pay the RDN for us. The intelligence of our representatives is suspect in the least!
I
Ian and Pauline Maxwell
3 years ago
Totally against Nanoose residents contributing to renovations to a pool we have never used...too far away. Have those who use the pool pay for the renovations as they will be the beneficiaries.
A
Allen Deckert
3 years ago
I support the petition because the Ravensong Pool is of very limited benefit to Area E residents. Unlike a levy for education there is no broader benefit for our residents.
J
John gibson
3 years ago
How is this a benefit to Nanoose residents? This is a con job. Give your heads a shake.
P
Patricia Clark
3 years ago
I have not, nor will I ever, travel the distance to QB to use this pool.
N
Nancy J Henderson
3 years ago
This should have always been a user pay funded expense. Adds nothing to property values here but certainly does in QB. QB residents obviously will use it more and can certainly afford to pay for that privilege. Did they factor in the environmental costs of a higher level of Nanoose Bay use? Doubtful.
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
Pool is outside of my community. Have never used that facility and do not plan to in the future. Do not agree with funding a facility that this community will not use or benefit from.
M
Marie Emery
3 years ago
In the 30 years that I have lived in Nanoose Bay I have been to Ravensong only once. This community voted against contributing for a good reason, Ravensong is too far away to be useful to most of us. User pay!
I strongly disagree with the unethical and unfair process of attempted gerrymandering. I've been to meetings and read the information. It's not a transparent process but pure manipulation to access funds from people who do not use or want the pool. I call for a process audit.
Absolutely dead set against the imposition of any taxation regarding the support of the Ravensong Pool facility expansion, and, therefore, support the amendment of Bylaw 899.02 to exclude Electoral Area E in any future funding of the facility! Have not and will never use the facility!
I strongly object to the corrupt and manipulative gerrymandering of boundaries to take unfair and unethical advantage of an area that does not or rarely uses the facility in question. I've attended meetings and read the materials. This process lacks transparency and requires a process audit. In this time of financial crisis for so many, it seems tone deaf to be spending taxpayer's money on a pool expansion!
This proposal to include Nanoose Bay residents is totally unfair and we do not use Ravensong pool as we have our own pool in Fairwinds.
I have no interest in supporting the Ravensong Pool and want to see bylaw 889.02 rescinded. I never go to Qualicum Beach and it is not fair that I am forced to pay for something I would not ever use and also the proportionate share of the expense being assigned to Nanoose Bay is way out of line with the % of Nanoose Bay residents who use the facility. I do not think this is reasonable at all.
Please refer to our letter sent to CAO, Doug Holmes & Dean Banman on Jan 29, 2023 where we strongly against the proposed bylaw amendment.
My property taxes went up 17% last year.
We do not use nor forsee using the facilities in Qualicum Beach. It's grossly unfair to assume people outside the Qualicum area should be forced to pay the expense being proposed. No Thanks!
Would agree with a proportionate share but this % is ridiculous
I support this petition, I never used this pool or planning to use it in the future. we have our own pool in Fairwinds.
Due to very little use of the Qualicum Beach Ravensong Pool I do not feel that residents of Nanoose Bay should be included in this taxation.
This amounts to a ridiculous tax grab for a facility that would only be used by a minute % of Nanoose Bay residents. Pay per use is the only sensible way to go, and we have better alternatives both locally and in Nanaimo.
This is nonsense, highest cost, lowest usage. Area E has almost no facilities as it is, I suggest that all homeowners disabled or over 55 defer their property taxes so we pay our share when we sell our homes. Of course we will pay eventually when we sell. This will be paid in TAX FREE money as there is no tax on capital gains on principal residence, the Province can pay the RDN for us. The intelligence of our representatives is suspect in the least!
Totally against Nanoose residents contributing to renovations to a pool we have never used...too far away. Have those who use the pool pay for the renovations as they will be the beneficiaries.
I support the petition because the Ravensong Pool is of very limited benefit to Area E residents. Unlike a levy for education there is no broader benefit for our residents.
How is this a benefit to Nanoose residents? This is a con job. Give your heads a shake.
I have not, nor will I ever, travel the distance to QB to use this pool.
This should have always been a user pay funded expense. Adds nothing to property values here but certainly does in QB. QB residents obviously will use it more and can certainly afford to pay for that privilege. Did they factor in the environmental costs of a higher level of Nanoose Bay use? Doubtful.
Pool is outside of my community. Have never used that facility and do not plan to in the future. Do not agree with funding a facility that this community will not use or benefit from.
In the 30 years that I have lived in Nanoose Bay I have been to Ravensong only once. This community voted against contributing for a good reason, Ravensong is too far away to be useful to most of us. User pay!