For Sales...1000 lighthouses

[Topaz]

Anyone interested in one of the 1000 lighthouse Canada has, including Peggy's Cove? I guess with the billion dollar shopping spree the Tories had they have to find way to get some money back, so its summer and its time for the yard sales. I'm not sure if this is a good thing because as we know the fishing fleet as well as need these , don't they? http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

[eyeball]

Anyone interested in one of the 1000 lighthouse Canada has, including Peggy's Cove? I guess with the billion dollar shopping spree the Tories had they have to find way to get some money back, so its summer and its time for the yard sales. I'm not sure if this is a good thing because as we know the fishing fleet as well as need these , don't they? http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

What fishing fleet? They pretty much got rid of all the fishermen too.

[Yesterday]

Are you a Bluenoser? I am. I love Peggy's Cove!!!!!!!I will be sad to see the lighthouse sold, if and when. If I had a billion dollars...

[fellowtraveller]

Do they even operate these lighthouses any more?

Every boat larger than an inner tube has a far more accurate GPS long ago.

[Yesterday]

From my current understanding, no they are not used as they are redundant and expensive in this age of satellite. From a cultural/nostalgic point of view they are museum quality history though and it does sadden me to see this reality passed by the wayside. I suppose from a federal fiscal point of view it makes sense to unload them but I would like to see more of a provincial/municipal interest.

[William Ashley]

Anyone interested in one of the 1000 lighthouse Canada has, including Peggy's Cove? I guess with the billion dollar shopping spree the Tories had they have to find way to get some money back, so its summer and its time for the yard sales. I'm not sure if this is a good thing because as we know the fishing fleet as well as need these , don't they? http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

[William Ashley]

http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

Eh, I've looked into it now at the Federal website.

This is the lowdown -

Some are deemed active, others inactive.

Anyone can petition for any of them to be assessed as a heritage property.

Heritage properties, more than just lighthouses, are protected from demolition etc.., and must be maintained. Different countries have different classification levels for this. Essentially you would need to upkeep it, and in some cases, not modify it as to take away its "signifigant features".

There is an email to contact for more information, additionally, there are regional persons whom you can contact about more specific inquiries.

From my understanding you can levy a petition to take over operations, those active must be accessable to officials for reasons of operations and upkeep.

It is not so much the "lighthouses" being replaced by satalite, but there being newer more effective technologies such as remote operated light systems, that don't require the same size and operational methods - ex. unmanned remote buoys and beacons.

If you sail you'll see these all the time, often just a few hundred meters from the lighthouse.

Lights are still very good for boats for coastline identification at night, especially smaller boats that may only be operating on a simple GPS heading system - if it goes out, then you have to do it visually, or use a handheld that may not be as exact. Knowing where the coast is can be good in an emergency. Even something as simple as your boat sinks, what direction to swim, if you don't have the ERB.

Edited June 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

Anyone interested in one of the 1000 lighthouse Canada has, including Peggy's Cove? I guess with the billion dollar shopping spree the Tories had they have to find way to get some money back...

And there you go, folks. This is just the start. And this is why Stephen Harper is now damaged goods.

Every single time that Harper or Flaherty want to cut the budget, save some money, reduce a ridiculous $30,000 federal subsidy to a cultural group, this $1 billion dollar summit boondoggle in Toronto will rear its ugly head.

"If Harper can spend $1 billion for a summit of politicians in Toronto, then why can't he give $50,000 to a women's shelter in [name place here]... "

Harper has lost all credibility as a fiscal conservative politician for the next year or so or even for his career.

I supported Harper and the Conservatives because I thought that he would have a reputation to spend tax dollars carefully. Harper has utterly lost that reputation now and he is damaged goods.

Cutting government spending is very hard to do and it takes someone with a pristeen reputation to do it. Harper can no longer go before a group and ask credibly for them to tighten their belt and manage with less. Everyone will jeer and throw this boondoggle back in his face.

Edited June 10, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

The government doesn't make all of these decisions directly. DFO has decided this...but they say that no lighthouses will be darkened...and the important ones will find a way to survive anyway.

[August1991]

The government doesn't make all of these decisions directly. DFO has decided this...but they say that no lighthouses will be darkened...and the important ones will find a way to survive anyway.

It doesn't matter, smallc.

Every explanation that I've seen from Harper himself or in the comments of articles to this extravagance (including the correction that the $2 million lake only costs $57,000) entirely misses the point.

Harper has (or had) a reputation for being parsimonious/careful with taxpayers' money. And then he just went and spent $1 billion on a three day party for politicians.

Harper can no longer ask the long line of groups who receive federal largesse to find other sources of financing. Harper can no longer credibly justify federal spending cuts to Canadians.

----

If Harper had spent the $1 billion on military aircraft then he could possibly argue that it was a question of priorities. But $1 billion on a three day party for politicians in Toronto?

IMV, that's a career killer. We'll find out soon enough when the poll numbers come in but I think the oppposition attacks and Harper's attempts to justify this boondoggle tell us where the poll numbers are going.

Maybe we need a federal Wild Rose Party.

Edited June 10, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Harper didin't plan summit security. I don't get the anger. The 2002 G8 was $300M from the latest figure I've seen. Taking into account inflation, location, size, quantity, and the current security environment, the costs aren't at all unreasonable, and from what I've heard, the Parliamentary Budget Officer Agrees.

[August1991]

Harper didin't plan summit security.

He signed off. Harper's responsible. (If Harper hides behind such an argument, he isn't worthy of being PM.)

I don't get the anger. The 2002 G8 was $300M from the latest figure I've seen. Taking into account inflation, location, size, quantity, and the current security environment, the costs aren't at all unreasonable, and from what I've heard, the Parliamentary Budget Officer Agrees.

I saw that number too. But the Canadian dollar was at 65 US cents in 2002 too.

Are we too quibble about such points? 300M, 900M? Why so much money for a three day party of politicians/bureaucrats?

Sorry Smallc, I contributed to the Conservative Party and voted for them because I thought that I was electing a party that would control federal government spending. (BTW, I returned their recent request for a party contribution with a scrawled reference to this $1 Billion Toronto Summit.)

I have a simple voting theory. I vote for a candidate who promises to spend wisely and less, and if the candidate/party does this - I vote again.

If not, I change my choice.

Edited June 10, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

If not, I change my choice.

Yes because I'm sure the costs would have been so much lower under Ignatieff...

[August1991]

Yes because I'm sure the costs would have been so much lower under Ignatieff...

So PM A spends $100 on chewing gum, PM B spends $300 and PM C spends $500.

You urge me to vote for PM A since he "supposedly" spends less than PM C? On chewing gum?

----

I vote for a politician (or a party) who spends less taxpayer money wisely. If the politician/party doesn't do this, I change my vote. Tit-for-tat. As a voter, it's all I can do.

Edited June 10, 2010 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Anyone interested in one of the 1000 lighthouse Canada has, including Peggy's Cove? I guess with the billion dollar shopping spree the Tories had they have to find way to get some money back, so its summer and its time for the yard sales. I'm not sure if this is a good thing because as we know the fishing fleet as well as need these , don't they? http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Canada---World/2010-06-08/article-1236534/Feds-looking-to-unload-country%26rsquo%3Bs-1,000-lighthouses-including-one-at-Peggys-Cove/1

Topaz, I clicked on your link when I first saw it. It brought me to The News from New Glasgow but I couldn't see anything on lighthouses. I tried again this morning and I tried again just now. I tried the paper's 'search' option but again, nothing.

Am I doing something wrong?

[William Ashley]

Harper didin't plan summit security. I don't get the anger. The 2002 G8 was $300M from the latest figure I've seen. Taking into account inflation, location, size, quantity, and the current security environment, the costs aren't at all unreasonable, and from what I've heard, the Parliamentary Budget Officer Agrees.

lighter?

[Bonam]

So PM A spends $100 on chewing gum, PM B spends $300 and PM C spends $500.

You urge me to vote for PM A since he "supposedly" spends less than PM C? On chewing gum?

Of those three choices, if your vote was based on being fiscally conservative, would not A indeed be the best choice?

If the politician/party doesn't do this, I change my vote.

Change it to what? If there was a better option I would too but I fail to see one.

[Oleg Bach]

Sell me one for a dollar...I need a lighthouse.

[William Ashley]

DFO intends to sell them.

In response to a petition for acquisition for use, the response was:

"DFO lighthouses are not being offered for sale on the open market at this time. We were required to post a list of lighthouses that could be made available for ownership by outside interests in the context of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act which came into force on May 29, 2010. If a surplus lighthouse is designated under the Act, a group or body must commit to acquiring the site and preserving it for an ongoing public purpose."

[William Ashley]

BTW The information that is presented online is:

1. Anyone can petition.

2. People don't need to state interest in order to have it deemed a heritage site.

Parks Canada States:

1. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is able to transfer non heritage properties and you have to petition the minister.

2. Parks Canada administers the act.

DFO states:

1. We are not transfering anything but heritage lighthouses, and they arn't for sale currently.

2. Only properties other groups are going to take responsbility for can be deemed heritage properties.

What the situation actually appears to be:

1. THIS SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T ON THE SAME PAGE.

2. The DFO intends to sell them.

3. They are doing it for money and don't want them to be heritage properties unless someone else is on the hook.

Notice also:

The "OPEN MARKET" - what only private sales right now? Hmmm? Little bit of backroom deals off the radar - with the lights out.

What gets me about this is that they arn't even entertaining public use NOW --- they are going to sit on these things and let them rot. If someone has a plan you shouldn't just shut it down, you should inquire into the public benefit of use.

Fact is they don't want them to go to public use, they want to generate income from selling the assets, which is disgusting.

pro tempore Public Use should outstrip vacancy, the ministry's failure to recognize that some public use is better than no public use is a failing.

Edited June 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[ZenOps]

They should convert them into unmanned radar/internet relay stations.

Nice high points over water... Perfect vantage points for naval protection.