Talk:Rose Harbour, British Columbia

Canada: British Columbia / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

[Untitled]

Original research, following on a Haida Gwaii vacation: If you visit Gwaii Haanas, Rose Harbour is a big deal, it's the only place in the vast park where you can get a meal cooked by someone else, a bed to sleep in, or a hot shower - the shower is wood-fired. It is the only private property in Gwaii Haanas (looking for a cite on that), and the Park administrators - Parks Canada and the Haida Nation - would really like to get rid of it. There are twelve (13?) distinct properties on the freeholding, and a corporation with 14 shares; no property transaction can take place without 75% approval, and there is an anti-speculation clause. The property owners have received two offers for their property (one from Parks Canada/Haida), one for $2M, one for $6M. The BC Archives have lots of fabulous old pictures of the whaling station in operation; I have enquired about including one or two of them here. Tim Bray (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line about the "legal friction between residents and the government". I'm not doubting that there is some friction, but the source that was cited doesn't even slightly support this. The source was legal case Hanisch v. Can.(2004). This was a simple lawsuit where a case of wrongful arrest was confirmed by a Judge. A man was wrongly arrested for allegedly stealing a boat, but it was found that he recovered it abandoned and returned it to the owner (the Park). This legal case doesn't support claims of "legal friction" in regards to the community. --Impreziv (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]