I am both a waterfront…

I am both a waterfront resident, and an active boater (frequently overnight) so I believe I can fairly comment on these proposals with a balanced view.

The use of floating accommodations for long term living is for sure a problem that needs to be solved, the points made in the "Background" section of your summary are all valid. This proposed legislation however fails to address the real problem of people "squatting" on our public waterways. Rather it seems to just make it a bit more awkward for them, while actually interfering with the use and enjoyment of the natural environs by the legitimate recreational boater. The boater who, by the way, has supported the development of our recreational boating industry by paying registrations, buying marine fuel, buying charts, paying luxury taxes on their boats and supporting marinas and other aspects of the boating industry.

Many communities on our great lakes owe much of their economies to this supportive group who has no choice but to pay their own way.

Reducing the length of stay from 21 to 7 days will not deter the pseudo-boater, come water dweller. The water dweller is calculated and planned. They are getting a massive benefit from being able to access infrastructure without paying any land tax. Moving weekly instead of monthly will not be an impediment.

Increasing the distance required to move from 100 m to 1 Km will have only a trivial impact.

Of the three proposed changes, the 300 metre buffer from shoreline developments is by far the worst idea. Many ramps, docks and shore facilities are actually placed with the intent of facilitating overnight boating stays, which would become illegal . Georgian bay for instance has many terrific industries which exist due to their ability to provide service to recreational boaters anchored nearby. Many natural anchorages have shoreline features that nicely accommodate boat anchoring and land accommodations alike. The presence of an erosion control structure is hardly a reason to prohibit anchoring if it is a safe and non-destructive location. It is a common practice for waterfront property owners to moor a vessel at their residence. Is this now not allowed? The list goes on.

I believe this proposal should be re-evaluated with careful consideration to the real problem , that of improperly located and serviced long term floating residences, placed by people who wish to pay less than their fair share by finding loopholes in planning and zoning legislation. The legitimate recreational boaters, some of whom have been the staunchest and most steadfast protectors of our natural coastlines, should not be punished in the process.