Stop Unfair Taxation of Nanoose Bay Property Owners!

Distance is far to great to be of use to most home owners in Nanoose

We are opposed to the proposed amendment to Bylaw 899 to include Nanoose Bay in the taxation formula for the operating and capital costs of the Ravensong pool facility. The regional benefit to Nanoose is limited, as evidenced by the small percentage of residents who actually use this facility. User fees are appropriate for these residents, as well as anyone who uses the facility but are not part of the current funding model. It is wrong for the RDN to arbitrarily determine that Nanoose Bay should now be taxed to fund the facility. Residents of the other electoral districts were given the opportunity to have their say in the original decision on the facility. It is only fair that the residents of Nanoose Bay should be afforded the same opportunity to decide if they wish to support this facility with their taxes.

We have never used the pool in Qualicum since it was built.

Raising taxes in my district to fund an amenity that we did not vote for in the first place is an incredible abuse of power. We oppose this Bylaw Amendment.

We do not go to the Pool in Qualicum. If we did, I would expect to have to pay to use it at the facility, not on my taxes. I do not like being forced to pay for something that we would never use.

We currently have a pool at the local activity centre and would never have a reason to travel to use the Parksville centre

We live in Fairwinds and would not use the Ravensong facility. It should be user pay.

Tax grab ! Ravensong is far away no one in this community would ever use it

No benefit whatsoever for fairwinds residence no one here would ever use that facility when we have one here that is not Rdn supported

Why would we be taxed for a pool that is half an hour away and we have one here

No to taxation for Ravensong pool

Qualicum and Parksville voted for the pool they can continue to fund it. Now those who voted for the pool want help paying renos and maintenance. I say" No" to including Area E contributing, we were never asked. Those who do use the pool, stats say very few do can pay an additional fee at the pool.

I am saying no to being forced a tax increase for something myself or my kids will never use. Would rather see a pool built here for that kind of tax and money

Rescind bylaw 899.02 We do not agree to any taxation for Ravensong pool

This would be very unfair to Nanoose residents

We live in Fairwinds and use the nearby Wellness Centre, and would never use the Ravensong Pool. If there are Nanoose Bay residents using this faculty, these owners should pay more in user fees and not subject the rest of us to this tax. Please do the right thing and take this unfair tax off the table for Nanoose Bay residents.

Due to the distance/impracticality/appeal I have never visited this facility and never plan to going forward as I suspect is the case for the vast majority of Nanoose residents. As such I support this petition.

I do not agree to any tax participation for Ravensong Pool nor do I agree with a forced participation in bylaw 899.02

I do not agree with any tax participation for Ravensong Pool. I do not support a forced participation in bylaw 899.02

We should not be charged for the pool on our taxes.