Stop Unfair Taxation of Nanoose Bay Property Owners!

Never have I been to that pool and never will I go .. This has to stop!!!!

The pool is too far out of my way - Nanaimo is closer

I am 90 years old I have lived in Nanoose Bay since 1972 I can not afford anymore tax increases after last years increase. I said no in 1993 & I say no now to bylaw 899.02. How can you ask us to pay when we have had no input on any of the referendums for the pool so we have had no voice & now you decide you want our money. I have never been to that pool. In 1993 you said fine Nanoose Bay residents can pay more if they used the pool why did you quit doing that? You want us to pay there is only 3.9% usage from Nanoose Bay residents. The pool was first supposed to be built in French Creek , Qualicum said they wanted it. That was when Nanoose said no it was too far. We fought it in 1993 & we will fight it in 2023 Nanoose Residents have always stood united against unfair taxes.

This pool is not in our community ...so why should we be paying for its upgrading when we were not included in the decision to build the pool in the first place ?

This is a blatant tax grab by the RDN, to fund a project that does not benefit the majority of Nanoose property owners.

If I intended to swim, I would travel to Fairwinds or Nanaimo rather than travelling 45 minutes to Qualicum.

For a distant facility which is rarely used by Nanoose property owners (never in 20+ years for me) it is preditory to ask that our small population support Qualicim Beach’s Capital Project.

I am against the proposed Regional District of Nanaimo RND bylaw Amendment 899.02

We already have a pool in the area which my disabled husband and I have used regularly for the past 10 years. If we didn't have this pool it would be faster for us to go to the pool in Nanaimo rather than drive to Qualicum.

The pool is way out of my geographical range.

I’ve never use the pool and I can’t see that I would ever use it in the future.

While I’m not averse to paying my fair share, this models is disproportionately loaded. Its unreasonable and its arbitrary approach sets a dangerous precedent for future RDN funding models.

This is a tax grab and potentially precedent setting. I can see the RDN Directors and their admin support sitting around at a meeting looking at how they can access funds and they have an ahah moment- tax Nanoose Bay residents - easy solution - they can afford it. The proposal is so wrong on so many levels - lack of usage by Nanoose Residents, we have a user pay pool right here, we did not participate in the original referendum, it is simply wrong.

I am happy to pay for essential services including a host of services that I may not utilize However, very few Nanoose residences would take advantage of this Qualicum facility. The project is I’ll conceived to be endorsed without due consideration of neighboring communities asked to pay for something they will never use. Even those without school aged children recognize the need to pay school taxes and do not hesitate to pay those taxes. This is an entirely different circumstance and I am distrustful of the leadership sponsoring this proposal Yours truly Jim Lucas

I do not agree to any tax participation for Ravensong Pool, or being a forced participant in Bylaw 899.02.

Totally unwarranted

The proposed inclusion is unfair, unwarranted and should be defeated

My wife and I live at Fairwinds in a 56+ community. In 20 years we have never been near the Ravensong pool and never will be. We are completely against the taxation on us.

This is so typical of politics in general, these days. We do not seem to get a say in what we pay for with our property taxes. If this motion is passed, it is equivalent to a substantial and ongoing tax increase for something 99.9%- 100% of us DO NOT USE. It is especially ludicrous in light of the fact that Fairwinds has their own Wellness Club (for fitness and aquatics) complete with an indoor POOL that is used by residents of Nanoose Bay and surrounding communities. Their request makes absolutely no sense to Nanoose Bay residents. Bob Rogers needs to take a stand against this proposed bylaw 899.02 amendment as our representative on the RDN.

I have no interest in helping fund a public project that is outside my immediate area of concern and monetary obligation. I was never consulted and find the whole procedure underhanded to say the least.