Installation of a gate at the wharf was being discussed for the Spring of 2021, as the result of the official vote conducted by email ballot in December 2020, which showed a strong majority in support of a gate. This topic can be revisited at the 2023 AGM, as this plan wasn’t activated and the current community sentiment should therefore be re-assessed. The topic of the gate was in relation to concerns about expanded use by community Air BnB properties, and some of the situation has changed since then.

Comments by GWA members submitted with the above ballot are listed at the bottom of this page.

Proposed gate operation:

• The code to unlock the gate will be available without obligation to all members of the Granthams Landing community (no code is required to exit the wharf)
• The current signs at the entrance to the wharf, next to the new gate, will be amended to clarify that any member of the Granthams Landing community can simply email the GWA to be put on the email list for regular access code distribution  
• The access code may not be implemented during the winter and at other times (Granthams Day), i.e. the gate will remain unlocked
• During the summer, the gate will normally be locked
• The access code may be changed on a regular basis as needed, with the new code being distributed to everyone on the email list ahead of time.

For more information, please see:

GWA Charitable Status & Wharf Gate FAQ – PDF document

2020 AGM – website pages with presentation, comments, chat record, video recording, and vote results

Comments by GWA members submitted with the above ballot (ordered from shortest to longest)

Access to the wharf should exclude access for short term renters.

I think we should review the issues raised around our constitution and charity status before putting this to a vote.

My big concern would be who would police it? So simple just to swim out to the dock from shore. Thus I do not support this initiative.

We are very appreciative of your service.  Some “households” appear to have a large number of extended family all summer? Much like Airbnb or possibly the “Lodge” Wonder if that can be addressed.

The Gate Code should be distributed to ALL Households, whether they have paid or not. with the rider that unpaid users been informed of their irresponsibility in not paying their fair share (in a nice way).

Needs to be paid members. It is only fair due to costs i.e. gate and keeping it to those who care and respect the wharf.  I feel neighbours that pay appreciate what we have and $50 is not a lot of money. Not to mention this may keep it from  “short term rental”  occupant usage.

As a board member, my vote against a gate is a difficult choice, but I feel strongly about the value of community inclusivity and do not have  a problem of being one of the few supporting the many. The goal of providing an asset for the community at large is a worthy one, and has been my motivation for service and is a privilege.

I like the idea of a gate but to use as a symbolic barrier. For now, I don’t support it being locked or coded. I’d prefer the honour system which could be as prone to being ignored as having a coded gate. But my sense is an unlocked gate is a compromise and more in keeping with the rallying spirit around a wharf that has been there for generations, defines our community and that we have all had the benefit of using.

This code should be given to all local neighbours not just anyone. Limiting it to paid members only will only insight vandalism. A small sign at the gate saying we encourage you to pay annual dues might help. ex. “We give this code to all people in Granthams lease help us by paying your SMALL annual dues to maintain this wharf.” During Covid we need to install a gate to reduce our liability should an outbreak happen as a result of too many people on the wharf. The code should be changed at least annually.

I vote no on the gate question. I am in the Bonnie Henry camp in terms of thinking that asking people to do the right thing works better in the long term than ‘legislating’ behaviour, in this case through putting up a gate. I also feel that a gate might unwittingly encourage kids to climb/ damage it in their attempts to get in..they might just treat it like a fun challenge to surmount! Also It feels kind of ‘elitist’ and  flies in the face of encouraging ‘community’ feeling. Just one last point, wondering if you could suggest ( in your newsletter), that partial fee payment is welcome for those who are struggling or just can’t afford the full amount..? Perhaps a few could come up with a smaller amount.

Yay, team!  Thanks for volunteering!!  I think the vote is premature, given the questions raised during the meeting.  I like the gate chosen, etc.  What I am unsure about is whether it is legal, or even if it is a good thing to do. The wharf is located on public land. And we have a constitution that is clearly related to the public nature of this land, in my opinion. You do mention the Constitution above. I did mention during the meeting, but it was not picked up, that the wharf is located on a public right of way. I am not sure if we would be allowed to gate the wharf. If we do, and if we close it to non-payers, we are precluding the people who are poor in our area from having fun.  I saw that almost 80% would like it gated.  I am actually pretty shocked to hear that. I do know there were issues this year from Air BnB people, and that policing that is very problematic.  I was wondering if the new owners of the Granthams PO Lodge could help with the regulation to see if it can be managed this year before we jump to this solution.  Thank you all for your help, all year long.

Gate code for paid-up members: While it’s not an ideal choice, it helps provide the incentive and makes a point to the community: the wharf’s health and longevity is tied to how the community uses and enjoys it. Tiered donation levels would be a great way to reflect that some people may have differing financial situations, or access the wharf / attend events in a range of ways, but still would like to offer their financial support. I’m sure it’s been addressed before, and as a new member I’m not aware of those conversations yet. It’s a welcome practice to recognize that communities are diverse, and that this would allow everyone to participate based on their abilities and interest levels. Security Gate: insurance issues arising from public accidents are my primary concern, and then it’s about controlling general public access. The gate and code are also an effective way to make sure that the presence of short-term renters is reflected in the wharf’s financial support and use.

The idea of a gate is not a friendly one but like many members, I feel it is a needed feature to maintain safety, security and enjoyment of the wharf. The implications of a gate on our legal status should certainly be explored. One thing that comes to mind in that regard is whether there is any legal distinction between installing a gate and the present situation where we say it is a Private wharf for members/households only. It seems to me that the gate merely enforces the position we have taken for some time. Another question about a gate relates to the 808 Marine development and other STR’s in the neighbourhood. One potential approach would be to expand the definition of household to include long term tenants as members as was suggested at the AGM but not include STR’s as households. This would restrict the use of the wharf to people living in our community and preclude the use by short term renters. To be effective the folks at 808 and those households who do have STR’s would have to agree to not share the gate code with their guests. Perhaps that could be made a condition of membership. Thanks again for all your efforts,

Thank you for your work and leadership. I agree with Tony, this would be an incentive for members to pay, and as Mary and others have pointed out it would help eliminate the use of the wharf by individuals who are not active members/neighbours. While the gate is not an absolute barrier it most certainly would be effective as it is in other locations.  It would also help address the issue of use (indirectly) by short term renters (BnBs), i.e. while I don’t think we should police the wharf, I do feel that paid members who share the code with their clients (air BnBs) should be warned and then lose their membership if they do not comply with the GWA policies. This of course requires use to define household and I believe that should be the owner (or long term renter) and his/her immediate family. Further to that, I think that the GWA constitution and policies should be amended to reflect/define membership (paid Granthamites) and catchment area.  The catchment area perhaps could an area that one could easily walk to the wharf (i.e. west to include lower/upper Granthams – below Chamberlain, North to include some of Soames (Feaney?) and east to Harvey.  If these changes impact our chartable status I feel that the changes are more valuable than the status.  Most of our fund raising is by members,  grants when they do come available could be flowed  through other “friendly” charities, as we did with the funding for the hall.  Thanks for listening and acting upon our concerns.