Sooke Public Boat Launch

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DoS paid $635,000, fed/provincial grants were $605,000, and the prestige $700,000 ( which is fair as the developer utilizing the entrance)

This is what the DoS doesn't get, and is alienating non residents. The ramp fees should be universal. Those grants didn't come from sooke taxpayers and the revenue generated by the prestige in taxes and having a convention facility in sooke will far outweigh the outlay by DoS in less than 10 years. If sooke wants fisher-persons to spend money in sooke the DoS need to be reasonable about it.

My 2 cents,
GnB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Our funding formula anticipated a 25% benefit for non-profits, and we gross about $100 on the $120, so we could potentially write a check for $25 to a non-profit for every non-resident permit sold through such a program. The non-profit could split the money with the permit holder as a membership benefit."

Way too complicated and likely to cause tax problems to WE, the non-prof charity, and the permit holders.

If you in fact intend to donate 25% of the gross launch fees to a non-profit, and hopefully one that all fishers can support, how about this: offer to match up to 50% of non-resident permit holder fees , match up to 25% of resident permits, and donate 25% of the daily launchers as donation to the "Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society" that operate our local hatchery. You should gain buy-in from everyone, substantially reduce the non-compliance, and eliminate the need for the Launch Nanny.
 
Well, I guess it was complicated enough that you have already changed it. Members of what non-profit? I didn't realize that under your scheme participants had to become "members."

My suggestion was really that rather than each receiving $12.50 through some sort of 3rd party exchange (which I can't see being enough to resolve the issue,) non-resident pass holders could direct up to 50% of their launch cost to the SSES by making a donation. Given that not everyone would want to participate, your actual cost should be close to the 25% that you intended to pass on. You could cap your cost at the 25% overall. As a resident pass holder I would donate to the SSES, where you are matching as part of the launch program. Seems a win-win.

It will be interesting to see if, and how, the District of Sooke actually goes after the non-paying daily launchers where the DOS is only receiving $1 out of every $10 launch. Is there a bylaw covering fines for parking violations? I couldn't find one and as far as I know Sooke doesn't have any other "pay parking."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't change it, I just restated it. I ran it by the DoS staff and they wont allow it anyhow.

They also wont let me approach the Prestige about parking. They want to have bylaw enforcement go down and issue warning notices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy cow I paid 120.00 for a pass and it sounds like again Prestige is going rule the parking stalls...Terrance is there any way to get some agreement with DOS for somewhere to parking nearby worked out with Prestige....Were going to run out of spaces in summer if that's not figured out...Some days coming in there is was 50% full with hotel parking parked in trailer stalls.... I doubt a bylaw officer will even be around... Why not get DOS to contract Robbins parking a third party vendor to enforce??? I couple of 30.00 tickets/towing might get message across... Works in Vancouver...
 
I suggested the Prestige buy enough non-resident passes to be displayed whenever one of their customers uses the launch parking and the DoS won't even suggest it to them. They could charge the customer for parking and make money on it. At least it wouldn't be a dead loss.

I'm still waiting for a response from MoT about widening the shoulders of the highway.
 
I don't think MoT will do anything. I want to know if they will allow it.
 
SIRA said:
I suggested the Prestige buy enough non-resident passes to be displayed whenever one of their customers uses the launch parking and the DoS won't even suggest it to them. They could charge the customer for parking and make money on it. At least it wouldn't be a dead loss.

I'm still waiting for a response from MoT about widening the shoulders of the highway.
Click to expand...

restated: How would the launch users benefit from the Prestige having launch passes to rent to their patrons?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nimo said:
restated: How would the launch users benefit from the Prestige having launch passes to rent to their patrons?
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The DoS gave the Prestige the launch parking as part of the easement. The only benefit that can be derived for the launch users is to make Prestige parking pay to help fund the facility. Unpaid parking accounts for better than 1/3 of the annual budget.
 
I don't know this is starting to make me wonder if its worth having yearly pass now...I see the point. I am going to call dos today and discuss option with this pass next year.. I may just bail on it. There's nothing wrong with pass you have to pay anyway..I just think if your paying a yearly pass you cant have spaces that people can park in that are assigned parking without paying..They shouldn't be there...Is the ramp dos or hotel property...my understanding was district owns it. So why can the hotel use it as backup spaces?
 
Is this about a facility trying to raise funds no matter where that revenue comes from? Funds to fund unrelated projects.
Or is this about a facility to accommodate fishermen and a boat launch giving people with boats access to the water.
Seems there are too many interests in this facility and the boating/ fishing community is not the main interest.

This should simply be boat and trailer parking only. Hotel overflow can park on the road.
 
Guess I could see how it makes sense that the launch parking would be useful overflow for the hotel after dark, when demand on the ramp parking is low. But dawn til dusk should be ramp parking only.

Does that hotel get enough business that overflow parking is required?
 
I agree that is could work for overflow parking, but who is gonna park there after dark, then come back before dawn to move their car? Certainly not anyone on vacation!


Franko

MILF (Man, I Love Fishing)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpringVelocity said:
So why can the hotel use it as backup spaces?
Click to expand...

The DoS gave up the easement, which includes the parking, as an incentive for the hotel to be built. The easement language states that hotel parking must not interfere with launch operations, however, the DoS has no intention of pursuing a legal remedy. One could argue the launch operation is not parking, and the parking isn't interfering with the launch.

MoT just gave me unofficial notice that they will not permit the shoulders of the highway to be widened to accommodate parking, so it's officially going to stay screwed.
 
"Seems there are too many interests in this facility and the boating/ fishing community is not the main interest."
 
Tips Up said:
"Seems there are too many interests in this facility and the boating/ fishing community is not the main interest."
Click to expand...
I doubt there is a solution to fixing this one in one out Sooke Harbor ramp with insufficient parking.
In my mind the perfect location for a ramp would be Park Isle Marina out a bit on West Coast Rd.
Has anyone ever approached the owners?
 
security cameras

Looking for input as to how security cams would be received on the launch. Someone had their tailgate stolen, trailer rollers went missing, and someone stole one of the hose nozzles off the cleaning station, among other bs.

It's a government facility and the DoS staff have already nixed it because it means work to do a privacy impact assessment to comply with privacy regs, however, they already have them in city hall so I don't see the problem.

One of the things that could be done with it is feed it to our proposed web site so users can take a look at parking before heading out. We're looking at putting one up on the road too.

Comments?
 
Tips Up said:
"Seems there are too many interests in this facility and the boating/ fishing community is not the main interest."
Click to expand...

There is a valid point to be made that the amount the boating/fishing community paid towards the cost of the facility is a trivial fraction of that paid by the general taxpayer base, who don't even use it. The boating/fishing community is in fact not the main interest, and yes, it is about generating a return to the community regardless of where the funds come from. A good example is the Canada Summer Job program, that we intend to use to bring federal $ into the community through payroll. We are also looking at infrastructure grants to fund a parking solution, also external money into the community, and there are lots of other ideas, none originating with the fishing community (unless you want to count me).

Generating a return to the overall taxpayer base is the main interest. To the extent that means dragging money out of the cold dead hands of the fishing community through launch fees, that is only to mitigate unfair competition with private launch operators. Instead of endless bitching about launch fees and parking, the local fishing community should turn its collective mind to how best to develop the potential of the facility to attract outside dollars to the local economy for the benefit of everyone, which is how and why the thing got built in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top