In his March 25th letter, Duane Tresnich, representing his pro-growth group “Move Kelowna Forward” expressed deep disappointment that the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans won’t allow Lawson Landing to proceed because of threats to fish and aquatic life. How can there be disappointment when the dedicated DFO acted for the maximum good of this community, province and the nation? Obviously, Tresnich and his laissez-faire group refuse to accept the universal reality that environmental sustainability takes precedence over growth and commercialism.
Who is Tresnich trying to fool by saying that, Lawson Landing would have revitalized the downtown core? Since when do intrusive high-rises revitalize anything? Indeed, how has the concentration of high-rises revitalized Vancouver’s downtown core? This concrete jungle area is one of the Province and the Nation’s biggest cesspool of crime, congestion, homelessness, alienation, despair and social disease. What proof does Tresnich and his group have that their high-rise densification fantasy wouldn’t turn Kelowna’s downtown into another dehumanized dysfunctional Vancouver downtown ghetto?
There are better ways than Lawson Landing monstrosities to revitalize the downtown core. For example, Nelson B.C.’s downtown has become world famous with no buildings over three stories. Nelson B.C. wisely used a pioneer heritage theme and restored their buildings to their original look of the 1800’s. Likewise, Kimberly B.C. revitalized its downtown using a Bavarian theme. Kelowna, was once known as the orchard city, being famous for its apple industry. Also, Kelowna’s origin was based on water transportation using paddle wheelers like the Sicamous. So, why not use these unique historic themes to revitalize downtown. And, why not use the brilliant Simpson Covenant to enshrine the waterfront in a natural state free of crass commercialism for maximum public use and environmental protection.
Tresnich stated Lawson Landing would provide a boardwalk. What good is a puny boardwalk? This community needs a proper sandy beach from City Park to the Yacht Club brought back to its original natural state. Simply, remove the existing concrete retaining walls and remove the backfill, then let the waves of the Okanagan Lake roll in to restore the sandy beach that originally existed.
The DFO should be congratulated for helping this community move forward to protect the lake and waterfront from the view-destroying Lawson Landing monstrosity.
Robert Cichocki
March 7, 2006 - Slow Growth to Prevent a Waste Water Effluent Disaster
Judie Steeves should be congratulated for her excellent articles on February 4th and February 9th exposing the health threats to Okanagan Lake and residents.
Experts warn that pharmaceuticals excreted from human bodies and other chemicals are entering Okanagan Lake via the city’s sewage treatment facility, also pollutants from storm drains. UBC chemistry professor, Dr. Ken Hall, stated the bad news is that the population here is rapidly increasing which makes the pollution worse.
Many chemicals are soluble in water and can molecularly bind together, forming stronger compounds. So, what kind of a witch’s chemical brew is rampant growth dumping into the big mixing bowl of Okanagan Lake?
Already there is scientific evidence that compounds in waste water can feminize male fish. So does this mean with estrogen, testosterone and birth control pills entering Okanagan Lake, and thereby our drinking water, that residents are gradually becoming sterile? Likewise, what about anti-depressants overdosing the neurotransmitters in human brains causing mass mental dysfunction? Also, what about water-borne chemicals triggering or worsening all manner of illness such as cancer, heart disease, liver damage etc?
Antibiotics and anti-bacterial soaps can kill natural beneficial bacteria. And if stronger deadly bacteria strains circulate in the human chain forcing health authorities to shut down water facilities to prevent epidemics, what do we do then- move away?
UBCO chemist, Dr. Rob O’Brien, describes the situation as a large-scale experiment with no controls. So citizens, why not simply have growth slowed down before an irreversible disaster occurs?
Unfortunately, as long as the profit-hungry growth machine of the Chamber of Commerce, developers and big business dominates by flashing cash and snapping their fingers and if our weak-willed business types on city council continue to obediently stand at attention to the growth machine, then Okanagan Lake and the community’s health will ultimately be doomed.
Hopefully, the excellent environmental information Judie Steeves gives to the community will motivate citizens to prod, demand and force malingering City Hall to slow and control growth so Okanagan Lake doesn’t become a harmful chemical cesspool unfit for aquatic life and human use.
Robert Cichocki
December 13, 2006 - Lack Of Leadership
I would like to commend Judie Steeves and the Capital News on their excellent coverage of the outstanding Building Sustainable Communities conference. In particular, I was thrilled to see the extensive reporting of what was said by Dr. William Rees of UBC as his presentation went to the heart of what sustainability is.
Dr. Rees said that we cannot have economic sustainability without first having ecological sustainability as the latter is a necessary condition for the former. This contrasts with some views that were expressed at the conference and elsewhere that sustainability is a balance between economic, social and ecological interests. However, I think it becomes immediately apparent to any thinking person that one cannot have an economy if we don’t have a livable planet.
In recent years numerous articles have been written distinguishing between “strong” and “weak” sustainability. Strong sustainability would recognize that our environment must take priority and that sustainability is a meaningless proposition if we sacrifice our environment in the interest of furthering economic growth. Weak sustainability maintains that it is both possible and desirable to achieve a balance between environmental, social, and economic objectives.
Of the few members of city council who have expressed any interest in the matter of sustainability at all such as Mayor Shepherd and Councillors Hobson and Rule, none could be called advocates of strong sustainability. They are all advocates of “balance” and “efficiency gains” such as “smart growth” and “green” buildings, solutions which Dr. Rees said “are not enough.” Until we elect some people to city council who would move the city in the direction of strong sustainability, Kelowna will continue to drift towards unsustainability, albeit more efficiently.
John Zeger
December 13, 2006 - Inclusionary Housing, a Remedy Needed For the Affordable Housing Crisis
This community is headed for a big crisis in affordable housing. As the costs of rampant growth increase faster than incomes, growing numbers of citizens won't be able to purchase, own or maintain a residence. The prognosis is poor, because the privileged class of wealthy developers is behaving as uncaring scrooges.
Indeed, it was revealed during City Hall's Task Force on affordable housing, that there are many opportunities for developers to voluntarily contribute affordable housing as part of new development, but they have refused. Instead, developers seek high end developments to maximum profits. However, the increasing high end developments drive up property values, which drive up everyone's property taxes, worsening affordability.
One effective way to provide affordable housing is through inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing is where a percentage of new units in a development (suggested amount of 20%) are included for low income working people. There is no real cost to developers, they can simply pass the discounted amounts onto the purchase price of the regular priced units, which wealthier buyers can afford.
Since inclusionary housing can be a remedy for the affordable housing crisis, and it increases social justice, developers should be obligated to provide it in their developments. Unfortunately, City Hall lacks the moral integrity, desire and fortitude to make developers contribute inclusionary housing. So the public must put pressure on developers. One way, is to demand the Provincial Government, out of necessity to avert an inhumane homeless disaster, amend the Local Government Act forcing developers to contribute inclusionary low cost housing forthwith.
Also, for the sake of social justice, citizens should demand City Hall stop spoiling developers with all manner of perks, bonuses, variances, zoning concessions, etc. Where is the common sense to reward developers with all this subsidization for their selfish profit maximization, when they give nothing in return for seniors and hard working citizens on low incomes slipping toward homelessness, poverty and despair?
Clearly, social justice demands that it is time to make the developer scrooges finally show compassion, by contributing inclusionary housing in their developments for the greater good of this community.
Robert Cichocki
October 14, 2006 - Lack Of Leadership
The recent use of the alternative approval process for the Mission Aquatic Centre in Kelowna is a reminder that leadership is a critical issue in a democracy.
First of all, it is important to underscore what leadership is not.
It is not leadership to presume that a project will go ahead and allow the contractor to place signs on the project fence long before it is approved. That is arrogance.
It is not leadership to advance the interests of one area of the community without simultaneously balancing the interests of the other parts. That is favoritism and catering to special interest groups.
It is not leadership to promise a referendum, and then refuse to keep that promise because it is "too risky." That is contempt for public input.
It is not leadership to vote in favor of and use a process with which you fundamentally disagree. That is hypocrisy.
In general, it is not leadership to presume that, because you were elected, you have the right to do as you wish, especially when there is clearly a significant level of opposition.
In the case of the Aquatic Centre, the city of Kelowna's own surveys contained a sufficient margin of error that any claim of majority support is meaningless. Council has now left the door open for Glenmore and other areas of the city to rightfully complain that they are being disadvantaged in this process. Council has ignored the recommendations of city staff to scale back the project, and has so far only recommended that the project be funded through a tax increase, despite all the other alternatives available. None of these are indications of leadership.
Leadership in a democracy requires that elected officials act as deputies for the electorate, not as dictators. Yes, leadership may require making quick and tough decisions in times of necessity. One example may be the need to upgrade the water system after the cryptosporidium problems in the past decade.
But democratic leadership involves clearly identifying and articulating a shared public vision, then advancing that vision. That, apparently, is an idea that is beyond the grasp of at least some members of our city council.
Rick Shea
October 7, 2006
If Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) has brought confusion to the significance of signing the Alternative Approval Process forms as the Capital News claims in its editorial "What a no vote vote on the pool means," (Wed., Oct. 4) then the paper has only muddied the waters further. Their stating that "What the CRCP folks want you to believe is a no vote is a statement of opposition to the Alternate Approval Process (AAP)" is not completely correct.
Signing the AAP form is not a "no vote" on the pool as it is not a vote at all and therein lies the rub. Kelowna taxpayers have been denied their democratic right to vote on the Mission Aquatic Centre. Our city council had the opportunity to allow taxpayers to exercise this right and even talked about doing exactly that but in the end they determined that democracy was too risky.
Instead they chose the AAP as they wanted to shut the voters out and to make this decision all by themselves, knowing full well that getting 10% of the electorate to sign was next to impossible in a city where the turnout in the last civic election was a paltry 31%. So they chose the AAP process, knowing that voter apathy was on their side.
CRCP is urging residents to sign the AAP form to show city council that they reject city council's proceeding with this and any other expensive and non-essential project which will result in the borrowing of tens of millions of dollars and a significant tax increase without council bringing it to the taxpayers for their consent through a fair and proper referendum.
Will enough signatures kill the project? No. Only city council can kill the 50 metre pool if that requirement is met. Council's alternative and the one that CRCP hopes that they choose is to send the matter to a public referendum.
Will the extra time spent cause construction costs to increase? Not necessarily and in fact they may even decline given recent economic projections. Rising global interest rates are having a depressing effect on the economy evidenced by plummeting housing prices in the U.S. and declining commodity prices world-wide which one major brokerage firm thinks are still 60 percent overvalued. Can a drop in local construction costs be far behind?
John Zeger
October 3, 2006 - According to Kelowna City Council, the sky is falling...soon.
The claim is that, if we don’t approve the new Mission Aquatic Centre, the price will skyrocket and it may not get built at all. Council has decided that we need this centre, and that it would be “too risky” to take it to a referendum. So, if the alternative approval process fails to gather the required minimum number of signatures, council will proceed with borrowing $29,500,000.00 and all taxpayers in Kelowna will be faced with a substantial tax increase to pay for it.
It’s interesting to note that Kelowna Council hasn’t seemed to be open to options. When city staff recommended that the pool project be scaled back in order to keep costs down, council ignored the advice and decided to proceed with the 50 metre pool and all the frills to go with it. Council has given no indication that they have considered even more options.
The City of Airdrie, Alberta, with less than a quarter of the population of Kelowna, has already built a similar facility, and has two further expansion phases planned, at no direct cost to taxpayers at all. The Airdrie Regional Recreation Enhancement Society, which raises funds for this project, “is a charitable organization established specifically to support the continued development of the East Lake Recreation and Wellness Centre.” This society has received donations from service clubs, developers, the Alberta lottery fund, and numerous other sources.
The first completed phase is 72,000 square feet, and includes 5 pools, a waterpark, a weight room, gyms, a dance studio, and a host of other amenities. The expansion plans include trade and convention facilities, soccer pitches, multipurpose facilities, and more. Again, this is all being accomplished through fundraising in a much, much smaller community.
Private sector involvement is not a new idea in Kelowna. When a referendum in the last decade rejected the new Kelowna arena proposal, private interests stepped in and built the arena with minimal cost to the taxpayer (there are always hidden costs though), and we now have Prospera Place. Yet the current council appears not to have even considered this possibility, stating that we must approve the current proposal by October or the prices will escalate considerably - that the financial sky will fall.
The stick they’re trying to wield looks something like this: “if you don’t approve the project and take the tax hit, then we’re just going to go ahead with an even more expensive project in the future and it will cost you even more.”
Council is keeping very quiet about city staff’s projection that the Mission proposal will apparently cause the Parkinson Recreation Centre to incur an annual deficit of approximately $100,000.00 due to lost business. As well, we are hearing little in public about the note on the city brochure for the Aquatic Centre, which states that “taxation may be further impacted to maintain or improve existing and/or new services.”
Does anyone truly believe that 44.1 million dollars and the current proposed tax increase represent the final costs of this project? Are people aware that $8,500,000.00 of the difference between the 29.5 million to be borrowed and the 44.1 million claimed cost will come from our own over-payments for city electrical services and taxes in the past?
The good news is that there is no need to panic. The thousands of Kelowna citizens with low or fixed incomes who can least afford the tax increase from this proposal really don’t have to face any increase at all if they so choose. All City Council has to do is look beyond their current obsession with raising taxes and consider other possibilities.
The so-called urgency surrounding approving the Mission Aquatic centre is therefore just a smokescreen. The people of Kelowna have plenty of time to decide through a referendum where the funding for this centre should come from. If the democratic decision is to live beyond our means with a resulting tax increase and public ownership, then so be it. But democracy can not and should not be rushed.
There is no alternative to democracy.
Rick Shea
September 29, 2006
The alternative approval process (AAP) is being used by Kelowna City council for the proposed Aquatic Centre in the Mission. Some claim that this process is in a way even more democratic than a referendum. Meanwhile, others have already called the process the "negative option billing" of politics. But it is even worse than that.
Democratic process assumes that informed and involved citizens will exercise their right to vote, and that majority rule will carry the day. The AAP completely subverts this process in several ways.
First of all, and be assured that city council is fully aware of this, very few people will even bother to vote, despite the financial issues involved. That is clear from the turnout for the last municipal election, and is a pattern in elections continent-wide, as voter turnout has declined since the 1960s. The studies show that the reasons for low turnouts are many. Voter apathy and voter satisfaction are only two of the possibilities, and are not necessarily even the most common. Other reasons cited include feelings of disenfranchisement; and economic, demographic, and cultural factors. Given the usual low turnout, the AAP is, by default, skewed in favor of the "yes" side.
Second, this process turns one of the fundamental democratic principles on its head. In a referendum, the majority of those who vote must support an idea, or it is defeated. This is typical as well in parliamentary votes and in votes by our own city council. In contrast, in the AAP, a significant minority of those who have the right to vote must reject an idea -- government by whoever is the most angry at the time -- or it is automatically approved.
The previous Kelowna City Council promised the voters that, given the very circumstances we find today, a referendum would be held. The current Council has ignored this promise.
Negative option billing is no longer allowed in Canada. Given that it is an all-too-convenient perversion of some of the fundamental principles of democracy, the AAP should receive the same fate.
Rick Shea
August 17, 2006 - Alternate Solutions For Aquatic Facilities
City Hall is trying to railroad the Mission Aquatic Centre through. At 44.1 million it is far too expensive and justifies a referendum. To force a referendum, citizens must use City Hall’s alternate approval process petition to turn down the centre.
In order to get a 50 meter pool, why are citizens forced to pay for the extravagant wave pool complex used for luring tourists? It is wrong to waste mega-millions on a Disney type water world, while the growing costs of homelessness, poverty, alienation, despair, and drugs weaken our community. And why drain away tax dollars desperately needed elsewhere, i.e., north-end connector, transit expansion, second crossing contingency fund, more parks, environmental sustainability, health and senior care etc.
For affordable, innovative aquatic solutions, why not follow our practical frugal forefathers who wisely utilized Okanagan Lake? Kelowna had an aquatic centre located in City Park on the lake, until the centre burned down in the late 1960’s.
The popular centre had an excellent big pool with diving towers. Overlooking the pool was a restaurant, public viewing area and a grandstand for major water events as well as a hall for social events. Until the fire, this was Kelowna’s focal point during the paradise of the 1940’s, 50, and 60’s. The community and valley were entertained and inspired by some of the best swimmers and divers across Canada and the World, especially during Kelowna’s famous Regatta.
Citizens, where is there a better location for an aquatic centre than on the shore of Okanagan Lake with panoramic mountain views. And why senselessly waste millions on an artificial wave pool when Okanagan Lake provides voluminous waves free of charge?
Yes, local swim clubs need a 50 meter pool year round. So why not simply extend the Parkinson or Athans diving pool southward?
Having an aquatic centre on the Lake and upgrading Athans or Parkinson’s pool to 50 meters could save mega-millions. And the benefit to the downtown core would be huge. Reclaiming shoreline and park area as a focal point could resuscitate the highrise concrete jungle into the vibrancy of community togetherness as in the wonderful paradise years of Kelowna’s unequalled past.
Robert Cichocki
July 6, 2006
This is written in response to Esther Lauridsen's letter, in your July 5th edition, regarding the supposed need for an AirCare program in Kelowna.
Lauridsen's last paragraph really says it all, where Vancouver, with a long-established AirCare system, still has smog alerts.
Some reports attribute the limited success of Vancouver's system to the coincidental implementation of emission controls by automobile manufacturers. In other words, Vancouver's air would be virtually the same with or without the AirCare program. The sad fact is that Vancouver, and the Fraser Valley airshed (which receives Vancouver's air), still have poor air quality on many, many days of the year, despite the AirCare program.
Lauridsen comments "I've lived here for 17 years, and have never seen (or felt it) this bad."
Well, the bad news is that it's only going to get worse. Sure, there is the occasional blue or black smoke belcher in Kelowna, as there is in other cities. But the demographics of Kelowna lead to a large number of newer vehicles on the road (you know, the Buicks and Camrys that retired people seem to favor) with very low emissions anyway.
The real source of the problem, and the reason why it is so noticeable now, is the sheer number of vehicles in Kelowna, resulting from the rapid growth we've experienced over the past 17 or more years. And that growth is predicted to continue for quite some time.
An AirCare program would be a very expensive bandaid that clearly will do nothing to stop the bleeding anyway. It would be just another way we continue to subsidize developers, who will happily pocket their profits and leave the rest of us to deal with the mess they have created here.
So, Esther, if you wish to fix the problem, then address the real problem.
Rick Shea
July 11, 2006 - Social Capital
Although Kelowna has been experiencing an increase in its economic capital of late as evidenced by rising property values and low levels of unemployment, the city’s social capital is obviously declining. Social capital can be thought of as the potential for social actions or interactions that benefit the community. After a pitifully low 31 percent voter turnout in last fall’s civic election, we have recently seen the cancellation of the Fat Cat Festival and the Kelowna Regatta due to a lack of volunteers. And while all cities need a sound economic foundation to be sustainable entities, they are nothing more than profit-generating geographical areas without the social links that make them true communities.
It should come as no surprise that Kelowna’s social capital is eroding. The city’s population growth rate is the second highest among B.C. cities making the assimilation of newcomers into the community more difficult. Furthermore, as the bulk of those moving here are retirees, these new residents frequently do not have a social stake in the city that goes beyond themselves and their generation. And sadly a significant number of residents live here for only a small part of the year and have no interest in the well-being of the community apart from what it can do for them during their stay.
Maintaining and creating new social capital is just as important as economic capital and can be accomplished in a number of ways. Studies have shown that human interactions can be increased by building compact, mixed-use neighborhoods without erecting alienating high-density, highrise structures. Social capital can be bolstered by approving affordable housing for young families rather than luxury condos for empty nesters or part-time residents. It can also be aided by city hall involving citizens more in decision making. Lastly, social capital can be retained by growing at a rate slow enough to allow for the proper assimilation of newcomers and by limiting our city size.
John Zeger
June 11, 2006 - Re: Courier article “Tax breaks to lure developers” (May 2, 2006)
Kelowna city council recently approved a measure that would exempt property owners in the Lawrence and Leon section of the downtown and in the Rutland town centre from paying taxes for a period of five years in order to encourage the development of those areas. Tax concessions have also been offered there if ten percent of residential units created in a project are deemed to be affordable housing. This proposal was the brain child of the city planning department that has championed similar questionable ideas in the past such as giving developers a reduction in development cost charges for creating high density housing downtown which has primarily benefited developers of highrise luxury condominiums.
Given the attractiveness of Kelowna to developers there really is no need for ordinary tax payers to be subsidizing this group and the latter should be paying their fair share towards offsetting the costs created by growth such as the need for increased policing and an expanded transportation network. By giving developers tax breaks the burden of paying these costs falls disproportionately upon the shoulders of the average property owner who then ends up paying for the costs of growth while the developers reap the benefits. Parenthetically, it is ironic to note that developers are the first to cry foul when governments intervene in the “free market” to their disadvantage but yet are willing to accept any handouts that are offered to them.
The Lawrence and Leon area of the downtown is in need of redevelopment but this can be accomplished through such means as relocating the Gospel Mission. But this is an issue that I’m sure that city council doesn’t want to tackle so soon after its recent controversial decision on the St. Paul Street addictive housing complex. As for offering incentives to developers to create affordable housing, there shouldn’t be any for that objective either. Affordable housing is best created through an inclusionary housing bylaw that makes the creation of affordable housing a requirement in every residential project such has been adopted in Vancouver and some Ontario cities.
John Zeger
May 27, 2006 - Classic Example of Greed
Perhaps I'm just a "fool on the hill" but... With an occasional glance through your letters and those of local newspapers it seems to me that regardless of the topic there is one overriding theme occurring amongst the residents of the nouveau Okanagan Valley. The people who live here are all in a state of frustrated denial about their contribution to the growing list of problems. Our wants are out-pacing our ability to provide for our needs.
A few needles in a park here, a downtown drug culture there closed parks, road rage, property disputes, orchards lost, beavers being trapped, extra water to wash the mechanical baby or the right to have a land shark as a pet. On the surface these things are easy to ignore as individuals. We have this notion of individual rights that seems to be related to the next fad vehicle, electronic device or consumer product that we are told will give us our freedom and individuality. It's easy to dismiss the fact that Kelowna, despite all good intentions, is a classic example of greed gone wrong and we are all being driven to distraction in our bid to grab what we think is ours.
My home is 100 miles east of Kelowna now, in the Monashee Mountains, but having been born and raised here, Kelowna to me today is analogous of the sleepy little town of Hill Valley from the "Back to the Future" series of movies. The wealthy here sit highly and mightily and crow about their hard work ethic and "follow me boys" formulas for success with unwarranted opinions of how the "untermensch" ruin things here.
The lower plebes work hard to keep up by following the rules, try as they might. The societal castoffs have their reasons (and excuses) to rebel against the machinations of an overheated economic windfall but at the end of the day in a city with so much wealth and so many churches there seems to be an overall head- in- the- sand denial of the damages being done as a whole by everyone buying into this "develop the hell out of everything" mentality... Good luck with that!
RF Horkoff - Cherryville
April 9, 2006
In an editorial on March 22 (“Experts take on Kelowna’s development debate”), the Capital News suggests that we should defer to the opinion of the experts on the issue of development and sustainability. But the problem with doing this is that different experts have different opinions. At the recent UBCO sponsored forum on sustainability we heard from a panel comprised of people who almost uniformly spouted the conventional wisdom that population growth is inevitable and desirable and that there is nothing that can be done to control it so let’s just plan on how and where we put it. But not all the “experts” see it this way. It would be refreshing and instructive to invite some academics and planners to our city who have a different point of view on the matter. Only then will a meaningful discussion and debate on the future of our city be possible which should not be decided by the so-called experts but by an informed public that has had the opportunity to reflect on the issues after having heard from a diversity of educated viewpoints.
John Zeger
March 18, 2006
In regards to the recent crisis brought on by a lack of beds at Kelowna General Hospital, much of the blame goes to the government of Gordon Campbell for not adequately funding health care in the province, but our planners and city council shouldn’t be let off the hook either. The latter two groups have been ignoring an important principle of good urban planning for a long time, the principle of concurrency. Concurrency is ensuring that adequate infrastructure and public services are in place in advance of population growth. One should not allow unchecked growth if the roads don’t have the capacity to handle the increased traffic or if hospitals don’t have enough beds to care for the increase in the number of patients. But our planners and politicians are too busy cramming as many people into this valley as possible to be concerned with the impacts that growth is having on our infrastructure or our community services. After all, growth is good for business, isn’t it?
John Zeger
March 18, 2006
I am sorry that the Capital News decided to add its editorial comment to James Mark’s letter of March 3 by giving it the headline “Pull up the draw bridge: too crowded here.” I was hoping that by now the level of commentary about population growth controls in our community had gone beyond inane descriptions such as raising draw bridges, building moats, or erecting barbed wire fences but I continue to be disappointed.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Mark makes a valid point in saying that the quality of life of local residents is being eroded by uncontrolled growth and that isn’t a laughing matter. The suggestion that there be growth controls has been taken seriously elsewhere in North America and should be here as well. In the United States in the state of California alone 32 communities have placed limits on the number of new building permits and 26 have population ceilings. In Canada Brampton, Ontario’s city council approved a bylaw last December that would place a limit on the number of new building permits issued there, and recently a city councillor in Strathcona County, Alberta suggested growth controls for that municipality which lies just east of Edmonton.
It is time that those in our community who think that growth controls are something comical, radical or extreme take note of what is being done elsewhere and learn from the experience of those places while raising the level of their rhetoric to match the seriousness the problem.
John Zeger
Denial of Kelowna becoming a Crime Capital
It’s incredible how members of city council deny that Kelowna has become a crime capital. Recently, councilor Given beat-off a knife wielding robber. And, despite believing he came close to losing his life, he still says Kelowna is safe. Safe compared to where? Iraq?
Unlike myself who was born and raised here, its too bad councilor Given wasn’t here in the real paradise of the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, to witness residents routinely leave their houses unlocked while shopping, working and vacationing. Also, any citizen could walk through City Park at midnight without fear of being attacked and robbed.
In contrast, today, Kelowna is an overdeveloped, overpopulated urban concrete jungle, infested with crime. Growing numbers of stressed residents seek security through locks, surveillance cameras and in gated walled compounds.
Back in the early 1990’s a police superintendent enlightened the public, stating that increasing crime is related to increasing growth. Unfortunately, instead of listening and taking measures to slow growth and thereby slow crime, councils have relentlessly flogged endless growth and development. Adding fuel to the fire, our council gives the Chamber of Commerce $300,000 a year to advertise Kelowna.
Yes, some seasonal tourists show up. However, the glossy enticing promotions lure in many criminals who permanently remain. Canadian Business Magazine reports that Kelowna has the second highest rate of crime in Canada among cities of 100,000 populations. Also, police reports confirm the Hells Angels plan to set up a chapter here.
In conclusion, council’s and the chambers over zealous growth promotions and policies have contributed to a Pandora crime box. The more they promote and accommodate growth and development for the Chamber’s and developer’s profits the more citizens reap crime and related costs. And, the longer council and the Chamber deny the detrimental effects of their growth promotions and policies, the sooner Kelowna becomes unlivable.
Robert Cichocki
Development Doesn't Mean Progress.
I am responding to Pantaleon Itomin's letter of July 20 "Looking forward to further development" where Mr. Itomin equates development with progress. Unfortunately, I've heard this kind of sentiment expressed all too often that development is progress and that "progress is inevitable."
I would like to ask everyone to think of what their goals are for Kelowna. In some cases a development of some sort may become the means for achieving these goals, but in many cases it won't and will actually work against their achievement. But to simply equate development with progress is wrong. Perhaps what those who say that development as progress is inevitable are really trying to say is that over-development is the usual course of events which really isn't progress at all but rather just the way things typically happen. And the reason that over-development is the way things typically happen is because of the apathy and fatalism of residents who yield their control of the development process to the urban growth machine consisting of developers, builders, urban planners, and politicians.
However, we have a choice in determining the character of our community through public involvement such as attending public hearings, lobbying civic politicians, and in casting our ballot. It is ultimately in our hands whether the usual course of events in most communities becomes our course as well.
John Zeger
Chairman
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Sustainability vs. Pro-development
John Skrotzki states July 12th that he feels Mayor Gray and council should push harder for even more development and growth to have progress.
What progress? Lure endless hordes here to maximize profits today for minority developers and the Chamber of Commerce. Then tomorrow, citizens leave Kelowna because the environment can't sustain the overpopulation.
The key to life and progress is water, which is a finite resource. Already, water experts warn that Kelowna and area will likely run out of water in 20-25 years if the current rate of development and growth continues. So, from where will Skrotzki get his endless supply of water to sustain his endless development?
It's highly irresponsible for Skrotzki to seek and flog endless development, without first having City Hall slow it down by limiting development permits to permanent water supplies. Regarding Skrotzki's statement that there is too much negativity against our pro-development Mayor, Council, Development Services Dept, etc. What negativity?
In reality, environment sustainability is supreme and vital to all life. In comparison, endless development and growth is a cancer that destroys environmental sustainability. And, since Skrotzki, the Mayor, Council, and the Development Services Dept. support endless development, then, they are negative and their critics are positive.
Skrotzki wants praise given to the development promoters at City Hall. Praise for what?
- Having Mayor Gray spend years loitering on council without solving any substantial problems
- Having the Council brag about their smart growth policy. Yet, it's really a band-aid fix that fails to have development tied to vital water supplies.
- Have Ron Mattiussi's Development Services Dept. assist developers and wreck Kelowna.
Robert Cichocki
Agenda behind the words
I must respond to John Skrotzki's letter, Kelowna Is A Wonderful Place to Live, in the July 15 Capital News. Mr. Skrotzki is one of the managers of a prodevelopment web site, and makes it clear at that site that he wishes to stifle any dissent regarding the current rape of Kelowna by developers. The stated purpose at that site is "Ensuring the YES has a voice" when it comes to development.
In addition, Mr. Skrotzki is one of the cofounders of a prodevelopment group whose stated purpose is to make sure that developers know that this city will welcome their plans and ideas. There is no evidence at their web site that they truly believe that they want responsible development to happen.
Mr. Skrotzki and his group would have us ignore the very real problems facing Kelowna, put on our rose-coloured glasses, and let the rape continue.
Those of us who are concerned enough to try to preserve some of the things that have made Kelowna beautiful in the past, before they disappear entirely, will continue to voice our concerns, and will not be hoodwinked or bullied by the likes of Mr. Skrotzki. And yes, to be clear, I am a member of a group, and participate in a web-based discussion that would see development restricted in Kelowna. That is because I do believe that we have something worth preserving, at least at present.
The city of Columbia, Missouri, is apparently experiencing exactly the same problems and issues facing Kelowna-relatively rapid growth, infrastructure deficiencies, finding the money to keep up with the problems, and so on. I find the comment about Columbia at http://smartgrowth.missouri.org/Rose_commentry2_08.htm particularly relevant for Kelowna:
"If growth is the whole point of the exercise, we put at risk the quality of life that is a vital part of Columbia's long-term health and prosperity. The object is not to be the biggest city-it's to be the best."
Rick Shea
"Unimpeded Invasion" by Ed Brown Kelowna Capital News July 22, 2005
http://web.bcnewsgroup.com/portals-code/list.cgi?cat=45&paper=113&id=463974
Letter to the Editor, May 26, 2005
I would like to offer a perspective on the subject of the Daily Courier's editorial of May 25, "City Growth Ready to Reclaim Headlines." A key issue leading up to the November civic election will surely be whether Kelowna residents will continue to allow uncontrolled population growth marketed by city officials as "smart growth" destroy their quality of life, the small-town friendliness of our city, and the sustainability of our community within its eco-system.
In his editorial John Harding remarks that we can't build a moat around our city making any attempt to control population growth seem like some reactionary and Draconian measure when in fact growth controls are becoming increasingly adopted by the most progressive cities in North American such as Boulder, Colorado. In the mid-l970's faced with a rapid increase in population growth that threatened the values of their community, residents of Boulder through a public referendum adopted a measure to limit the growth there to 2% annually. That permissible rate of growth has since been lowered to below 1%. Residents also went on to approve an ultimate population ceiling for their city. As Boulder is adjacent to the foothills of the majestic Rocky Mountains, a height restriction of 55' was implemented and was later lowered to 35'. Lastly, in order to maintain an economically diverse community, the city adopted a bylaw requiring that 20% of all residential developments be permanently affordable to low and moderate income families. Boulder presently has a population of 100,000 and is home to the University of Colorado. It frequently makes it on lists of the 10 best places to live in the U.S. and has been cited as one of the most progressively planned communities there.
Because of similar population size and both with beautiful natural surroundings, Boulder can be a model for Kelowna. Instead of "smart growth," a policy of accommodating unlimited population growth through creating ever increasing densities and destroying the quality of life, community, and environment that our city residents cherish, we like the residents of Boulder also have the ability to control our rate of growth. If densifying is "smart growth", then slow growth is smarter.
John Zeger
An Open Letter to Kelowna City Council, June 23, 2005
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Iridian Youth Detox Centre is scheduled to close on June 30 when its federal funding expires. The Iridian Centre has been playing a vital role in our community in providing detox services to young people particularly women who want to stop using crack, crystal meth and other street drugs. If this centre is forced to close, many young women will likely be lured into prostitution in order to finance their drug habit thereby exacerbating the existing crime problem in Kelowna.
The Iridian Centre has been operating for 22 months during which time it has treated 155 people with an 80% success rate. With a four bed transition suite staffed by a resident counsellor, psychiatric nurse and a team leader it is the only centre of its kind in the Okanagan.
Operated by the Okanagan Family Society, a non-profit group, the Centre has scheduled meetings with the Province in early July at which time they feel that the required funding will be provided, according to Dennis Dandeneau, Executive Director. However, they urgently need funding to keep the Centre open until such time. Being closed for even a short period would mean their services would not be available to those who need it and could also result in a loss of staff.
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning is requesting that City Council provide interim funding in order to keep the Centre open until such time as long term funding from senior levels of government becomes available. Such funding would amount to approximately $1000 per day and would probably be required for only a short period of time. As Kelowna City Council has endorsed the Four Pillars approach to dealing with drug-related crime, it is important to provide financial assistance in order to enable the pillars of prevention and rehabilitation to work. Enforcement is an important part of the Four Pillars approach but relying soley on enforcement will not solve social problems. We therefore hope that this issue will appear as an item for discussion on the City Council agenda for the meeting of Monday, June 27 as this is the last date that Council can address the matter before the Centre is scheduled to close.
Yours truly,
John Zeger
Mayor Has Failed Residents of the City
Richard Drinnan is correct in saying, on June 3, that Mayor Walter Gray is doing a poor job and doesn't deserve a pay increase. I'll go further and say, Mayor Gray should resign. His shortcomings are as follows,
- At the couplet hearing, he showed contempt for citizens and the hearing process by arrogantly trying to railroad the dreaded couplets through to 3:15 am, exhausting everyone. He ignored many citizens requesting postponement at 1 am.
- Water experts warn that unless development and growth is rapidly slowed, Kelowna will run out of water in 20-25 years. So, instead of limiting development permits to water sustainability, Mayor Gray stubbornly flogs endless development and caters to developers.
- He displays contempt for environmental and historic values in calling the Lawson Landing monstrosity, which destroys shoreline and the historic landing site of the Sicamous paddle-wheeler with 3 acres of fill, "fantastic and brilliant".
- In trying to bypass the spirit and intent of the Simpson waterfront covenant, he disrespects Stanley Simpson's benevolence, wisdom, and vision. And, Mayor Gray shows contempt for our forefathers referendum and their legacy wishes that the waterfront be park-like forever, without commercial buildings.
- We get a new band-aid bridge without any commitment to a second crossing because Mayor Gray is wimpish in dealing with the Provincial Government.
- He was easily duped into the Campbell Government's politically motivated traffic flow contract. It unprecedentedly downloads traffic flow responsibilities and costs unjustly onto the local taxpayer.
- He is a heritage preservation conservation hypocrite. Kevin Bird engaged flagrant destruction of the Hewetson school house and destruction of trees. Despite this, Mayor Gray, still avoids implementing a protective heritage maintenance bylaw as allowed under the Local Government Act and a protective tree bylaw.
This community desperately needs a mayor with wisdom, foresight, fortitude, and leadership. Therefore, citizens should replace wishy-washy, obsolete Mayor Gray at the municipal election this November.
Robert Cichocki
Re: "Pulling Plug On Pool No Easy Feat," Sunday Okanagan, May 15)
Dear Sir:
Without taking sides on the merits of the proposal, I am disappointed that city council is proceeding with the so-called "alternative approval" approach on the new $33 million aquatic centre. This tactic is about as ethical as negative option billing. As this is a major expenditure by the city which would result in a significant tax increase, the matter should automatically be put before residents through a public referendum. Requiring opponents of the proposed facility to gather more than 8,000 signatures to force a vote on the issue puts an unfair burden on one side of the public on this question.
City council's excuse that a referendum would be too costly is a ruse as this issue could be put on the ballot in the November civic election with little added expense to taxpayers. The real reason that council doesn't want the matter to go to referendum is that it is terrified of real public participation in community planning and jealously wants to make all decisions by itself. It has already decided in favour of the new aquatic centre and doesn't want the public to tamper with its choice. So council is making it as difficult as possible for those opposed to the pool to overturn its will.
I am eagerly awaiting the upcoming civic election at which time the residents of Kelowna will have an opportunity to pull the plug on the present city council which has consistently shown an utter contempt for public participation in community planning from its backroom deals with developers to now ramming expensive projects down the throats of taxpayers without giving them a fair say.
John Zeger
Rebuttal of John Harding's Mar 23/05 Editorial - "Bring on Increasing Population Growth and Development"
In his March 23 editorial, John Harding expressed similar views as the Chamber of Commerce and our popularity craving mayor Walter Gray.
Their basic position is, lets have a huge endless population growth and development party. We will use the jewels of the Okanagan to lure in the hordes and make room by densifying every inch with high-rises. We will even sacrifice the Heritage Conservation Area. Of course, the waterfront is sold off to developers so the rich get the best spots.
The main goal of this extravaganza is on the economic bonanza. Higher paying jobs and more services make everyone rich and famous is the promise. However, before the Chamber, John Harding, and hoopla mayor Gray open the growth and development floodgates, they had better face reality. Approaching is the deadly spectre of water famine.
Already, Dr. Jeff Curtis, head of B.C.'s Freshwater Insitute at OUC, and other renowned water experts warn, that if the current rate of population growth and development continues unrestrained then Kelowna and Valley will run out of water within 20-25 years. Unfortunately, regular conservation methods i.e. rationing, higher prices, fines, more meters, and densification etc. won't stop water depletion. They don't address the root problem of too many people (plague) siphoning a finite water resource.
It's alarming that City Hall fails to consider overpopulation and water famine in its planning and policies. So, in due time, the tsunami of drought will wilt Kelowna. As throats become parched, citizens vacate, businesses fail, and so the party crashes.
Obviously, the key to having limited water supplies lasting forever is to limit growth increases. This could be done by limiting residential and commercial development, to put on the brakes. To this end, City Hall should limit development permits through quotas, moratoriums etc. tying permits to sustainable water supplies.
Will our fearless leader mayor Gray and business councillors do this? Not likely, because they lack foresight, wisdom, and fortitude to the remedial actions. Unfortunately, citizens are on their own regarding vital water sustainability for themselves and their children. So, citizens would be wise to replace the mayor and C.O.C types on council at the November election, before paradise is destroyed.
Robert Cichocki
Re: March 23, 2005 Capital News
To the editor:
In its editorial of March 23 the Capital News states that city council should be applauded for showing "a little foresight" in its ` decision to contribute to a housing opportunities fund for affordable housing in Kelowna. However, as the city's committment is for only $100,000 per year, this foresight is indeed minimal or little. The need for affordable housing in our city is far in excess of that amount which wouldn't even buy a single condominium unit.
Also implicit in city council's action is the idea that taxpayers should be footing the bill for affordable housing here. This is unacceptable and instead this responsibility should be placed squarely on the shoulders of developers who should be required to allocate a fixed percentage of all units in any residential development for affordable housing as is done in other cities such as Vancouver.
Finally, the recommendations which council approved do not address the question of affordable housing for whom. One group that is largely being overlooked in the city's housing policies are families with children. If present demographic trends continue, Kelowna will become a city dominated by retirees which will weaken the social stability of our community as the family is the basic household unit of any meaningful community. In this regard our city council is showing no foresight at all.
John Zeger
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Re: "Critics Misled, Gray Suggests," Sunday Okanagan, March 13, 2005
Dear Sir:
It is Mayor Walter Gray that has misled the public regarding Lawson landing in his pronouncements that he and the majority on city council are still neutral and have not made up their minds on the issue. Following secretive meetings between city council and Edmonton based Westcorp early in 2004, the city signed a letter of intent to sell city owned lands to the latter. Immediately after the project was made public in July of that year, Walter Gray called it "brilliant," "a great vision," and "fantastic." Yet Walter Gray claims that Lawson Landing has not been given pre-approval. Are these the words of a man who is undecided and open-minded?
Deals to sell city owned lands for projects of this size and scope should never be made behind closed doors especially if they are of a nature that would alter the very character of our city. Not having allowed public input on the project prior to signing the letter of intent, our mayor and council should now do the only proper and fitting thing and allow the residents of the city to decide this issue through a public referendum.
John Zeger
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
March 6, 20005
To the editor:
There has been considerable discussion lately regarding the looming water shortage in the Okanagan. Some like Mayor Walter Gray from the "We Must Have Growth At All Costs" camp have suggested that the remedy is to build more highrises. I am appalled at the short-sightedness of this point of view. This is like saying the way to lose weight is to eat more food.
The logical solution to averting a water crisis is to slow population growth and to ultimately cap population size as they have recently done in Brampton, Ontario. By constructing highrises we will only be hastening the exhaustion of our water supply while turning our city into an ugly and congested place. And conservation measures by themselves will not do the job either. This was recognized by Hans Shreier of the Institute for Resources and Environment of UBC at the recent Canadian Water Association Conference who said that "even with the most effective conservation program current growth rates cannot be sustained in the long run." and that we need to address both behavioural changes and the limitations to growth.
John Zeger
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Letter to the editor re: Lawson Landing March 3, 2005
Dear Sir:
When the Lawson Landing project was first presented to the public it was touted by the developer and the Downtown Kelowna Association as a necessary means to revitalize the downtown. We were told that the downtown was stagnating and that it needed more people living there in order to give an economic boost to ailing downtown businesses. We were also told that the downtown needed a facelift and it was suggested (quite erroneously) by some that projects like Lawson Landing would be the solution to the downtown crime problem. Eight months since the project was introduced it appears that all of these needs that made Lawson Landing appear as a sine qua non for downtown revitalization are being satisfied in other ways.
Firstly, as reported by the Daily Courier ("Downtown Population Set to Double", Mar.3), when all the new residential projects that have already been approved are completed, the number of people living downtown will have almost doubled. In addition, there is word that a new 20 storey hotel will be built on the Brandt's Creek Crossing property in the not too distant future. All of these projects should really give downtown businesses a shot in the arm. Secondly, when the streetscape improvements that are part of the present Downtown Plan are completed, the downtown will have an improved appearance and one that is still compatible with its existing character. Lastly, when proposals such as those put forward by the Four Pillars Coalition and Canadians Caring for Canadians for solving the downtown crime and homelessness problems are implemented, the downtown will once again become a safe and welcoming place for residents and tourists alike.
Therefore it appears that all the arguments that have been made for Lawson Landing being a necessary condition for downtown revitalization have become obsolete as the downtown is already well on the path to renewal without having to resort to that infamous project. For the Downtown Kelowna Association to ask for more than what is already being given them would be tantamount to nothing less than greed.
John Zeger
Letter to the editor - February 15, 2005 re: highrises in Rutland
I am saddened and sickened at the thought of increasing the proliferation of highrises in Kelowna to Rutland. This vertical sprawl which has stricken the downtown, North-end, and Springfield and Highway 97 areas now threatens to extend its reach to Rutland like a cancer spreading through our city. I'm not surprised to hear this developer-driven suggestion coming from Councillor Al Horning but Councillor Robert Hobson should know better. Hobson who states that he doesn't know of another community between 25,000 to 30,000 population that doesn't have highrises is ignorant of what is happening outside of B.C. Sizeable coastal California communities such as Santa Barbara, Carlsbad, Encinitas and many others don't allow highrises because they would interfere with residents' enjoyment of ocean and mountain views there. Aesthetics was also a major consideration for the Rocky Mountain city of Boulder, Colorado limiting building heights to 55 feet.
Like Hobson I approve of mixed use development and locating housing within short distances of town centers, but unlike Hobson I recognize that density like every good thing can be overdone and should fall short of creating a situation of urban hypertrophy. But then Hobson, the urban planner turned politician, also refuses to acknowledge that growth has its limits and therefore he like our city planners is constrained in his thinking to only how to accommodate that growth. Sadly, this technocrat who is abundant in intelligence is also seriously lacking in wisdom. Intelligence can help us conquer our environment but will not teach us how to live in harmony with it. Only wisdom can do that and it isn't available as a master's degree.
John Zeger
The Thompson Report "Do We Have Land Problems" January 30, 2005
Having just read the latest Thompson Report "Do We Have Land Problems?" and the comments of Rick Baker of Remax regarding the need for Lawson Landing and more highrise buildings, I would respond by saying what else would you expect from a greedy real estate agent who values money above everything and is willing to sacrifice the valued aspects of our wonderful community in order to stoke the fires of growth.
The truth of the matter is that highrise construction is undesirable for seven basic reasons: 1) Highrises are an affront to natural beauty by obscuring landscapes and blocking views. 2) Highrises are big energy wasters. CMHC has identified that highrises consume three times the energy used by a single-family house per square foot of floor space. 3) Highrises are alienating in that these towers in the sky distance man from nature and man from community and are the breeding ground for social pathologies that arise from human isolation. 4) Highrises increase traffic congestion as they overburden road networks with their large number of inhabitants 90% of who still end up travelling by car. 5) Allowing a few highrises to be built significantly increases nearby land prices by encouraging speculation that more highrises will be built and encouraging the proliferation of even more highrises. 6) Highrises create large shadow zones which eliminate much direct sunlight to ground level thus precluding plant life, light patterns, and much visual perception. 7) Highrises cost the community more in terms of the sum total of services that must be provided to their inhabitants than they contribute in taxes.
The notion that the opposition to highrises is "the thought processes from fifty years ago" is the opinion of someone who obviously isn't up on the New Urbanism which has been developed largely within the last decade and is endorsed by Citizens for Responsible Community Planning. Proponents of the New Urbanism such as Leon Krier, James Howard Kunstler , Nikos Salingaros and Yale professor emeritus Vincent Scully reject highrises as an acceptable architectural form. For more information on the New Urbanism please visit our website at http://saveparadise.tripod.com and click on the Links page where you will find articles by these and other visionary thinkers who, incidentally, don't sell real estate.
John Zeger
Growth Can Kill - Daily Courier, July 20, 1991
There are many proponents of growth who believe growth in the Okanagan Valley will improve everyone's lifestyle and therefore everything must be done to enhance growth.
To have blind faith in unlimited growth is not only illusionary but dangerous. The reality is that Planet Earth is itself finite, or limited. Therefore, unlimited growth is an impossibility, because to have endless growth is to have extinction. If Planet Earth itself cannot handle unlimited growth then contrary to the belief of the growth proponents, the Okanagan likewise cannot survive endless growth.
The most important factor in the equation of growth is carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the balance point, or equilibrium in maintaining life-sustaining air, water, soil, flora and fauna.
Growth may appear to be a positive thing before it equals carrying capacity. However, as growth exceeds carrying capacity, there is a corresponding diminished quality of existence, with increasing costs and dire consequences. Therefore, for every decision regarding growth, carrying capacity must always be the most important factor, above all else. And, should municipal, provincial, or federal governments fail to abide by this constant reality, without having a contingency plan to apply the brakes and preserve carrying capacity, then they are derelict and should be voted out.
It is fine for proponents of growth such as the Chamber of Commerce to remain forever drunk on the opiate of growth and shallow market system values. However, it is highly irresponsible, ignorant and unjust to lead and propel the public on a growth trip faster and faster toward the barrier of carrying capacity, without having a contingency plan to apply the brakes before we all collide with reality.
Let it never be forgotten that if you live for growth you could also die by it and if not, then your children could.
Robert Cichocki
Re: Tony D'Andrea December 8, 2004
Dear Sir:
I wish to respond to Tony D'Andrea's letter of Dec. 8, 2004. Representing a group which is little more than a local mouthpiece for Edmonton developer Phil Milroy, Mr. D'Andrea states that Milroy's reworking of the Lawson Landing project has addressed the public's concerns without ever explaining how these concerns have been mitigated. Just as Milroy is attempting to do, D'Andrea tries to draw attention away from the fundamental issues of the number of highrises in the project, their height and massing, and the proposed sale by the city of Kerry Park with the ruse that this project will create more public space and improve public access to the waterfront.
Seemingly oblivious to the criticisms of the public and the Advisory Planning Commission, Milroy has come back with the same number of towers (four), the same heights (between 16 and 28 storeys), and occupying the same locations with the proposed hotel being where Kerry Park presently is. The form of the existing public space will be changed by dumping tons of fill into the lake with unknown environmental consequences and the amount of green space will be reduced. Most of the public space that Milroy claims to be creating will be hard surfaced. Our grassed and shaded Kerry Park which features Parks Alive concerts will be gone in all but name which the developer plans to use for an untreed and largely ornamental green area around the Sails. The existing bandshell in the center of the park will be replaced by a performance platform out on the lake and listeners will have to seat themselves on the beach or stand on the boardwalk across the water.
Public access to the waterfront will be significantly reduced as there will be new large buildings where there presently is open space. Queensway west of Water Street will be half its present width and as much as 90% of surface parking in the area will be removed to make room for the highrises. Furthermore, a psychological barrier to the waterfront will be erected by the close positioning of the towers which will obscure the present visual expanse of the lake and mountains. Instead of being welcoming to the general public, the waterfront will become the private enclave of the more than 1500 residents and guests of the complex.
No, Phil Milroy has not addressed the public's concerns over the project but is merely trying to distract us from the fundamental issues of height and density and the loss of real park space and public access to the waterfront. This is all becoming like a man who is trying to sell you a pig for your parlour. When you tell him that you don't want a pig in your parlour, he then tries to seduce you by putting some artificial pearls around its neck.
John Zeger, Chairman
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Re: "Downtown Vision November 23, 2004 Daily Courier
Dear Sir:
Regarding your front page article "Downtown Vision" (Nov. 23) about the new plans for the Lawson Landing waterfront project, I would sum up my reaction by saying that nothing significant has changed. In fact I am offended by the callous disregard of the developer for the public's criticisms of the project to which he has responded by giving us back the same basic proposal with some added window dressing. These criticisms were centered around the number of highrises in the project, their height and massing, and the proposed sale by the city of Kerry Park. None of these issues have been addressed as all these components of the original plan remain unchanged. The developer is now trying to draw attention away from these matters using additional public space as the new selling point. But how can he claim to be creating public space when he is merely changing the form of what is already public space i.e., our lake? The new public space that Phil Milroy says he is creating is coming about largely by adding fill to the lake and erecting a large pier on it that will feature a mass market restaurant from a national chain, yet another assault on Kelowna's unique character. This is all becoming like a man who is trying to sell you a pig for your parlour and when you tell him that you don't want a pig in your parlour he tries to seduce you by offering to put a pearl necklace around its neck.
John Zeger, Chairman
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Re: September 17, 2004 Capital News Dear Sir:
I'm trying very hard to follow Ron Seymour's logic in his column of Sept. 17. He cites how the closure of Ellis St. for road work is bad for businesses there and then concludes that the proposed waterfront mega-project is the solution to their problems. I think Seymour is over-dramatizing the flight of downtown businesses and seems eager to use even ordinary occurrences such as road repairs to tug at our heart strings.
But I'm honestly curious to know where the truth lies. One downtown business owner of 24 years who I spoke to recently told me that business was never better. Another wrote in a letter published a few months ago that he was satisfied with his life which included living in a beautiful lakefront home.
If the economy of the downtown needs re-vitalizing, it would seem to me that the responsibility lies first with storeowners and includes improving the appearance of their storefronts. The owners of Doc Willoughby's, Perfect Picture and Perpetual Blooms have come up with imaginative storefronts that enhance the downtown. What are the remaining storeowners doing? I admit that most of the downtown looks drab, but will erecting highrises remedy this? I think the first solution to re-vitalization is to improve streetscapes and storefronts. Cities like Nelson and Penticton have been cited as having model downtowns that Kelowna would be better emulating than Vancouver.
John Zeger, Chairman
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Re: Capital news
Dear Editor:
I would like to commend the Capital News on its excellent article and editorial on the potential for a proliferation of new highrises downtown. Not only will these proposed highrises obscure our natural aesthetics and destroy our viewscapes to which our city owes much of its uniqueness, but it promises to propel Kelowna towards becoming a big city like Vancouver or Edmonton. All this is being done in the naive hope that it will economically revitalize the downtown.
Putting more highrises downtown will no more help revitalize it than the presence of dozens of highrises have saved Edmonton's downtown which is almost totally abandoned evenings and weekends as shoppers with cars still opt for West Edmonton Mall. But that lesson has been lost on our planning director Ron Mattiussi who along with project developer Phil Milroy are both from Edmonton and obviously share the same vision of Kelowna's future. I would suggest that our downtown can be revitalized without creating Edmonton-on-the-Lake by increasing its charm with more appealing store fronts, increased tree planting on sidewalks, and installing milieu enhancing lighting standards. Pentagon and Nelson are examples of two nearby cities that have made their downtowns more attractive in such a manner.
And city council should take firm steps to end land speculation on the part of out of town developers. These developers come to our city and pay top dollar for properties knowing in advance that only by developing them as high density projects will they be able to turn a profit. This is the case for the Centuria high rise project at Bernard and Gordon. I predict that if approved this highrise will pave the way for more highrises between Gordon Ave. and the waterfront adding to the growing problem of vertical sprawl.
But to return to the over-riding point, our mayor and council are seriously out of touch with public sentiment with their constant disregard for the OCP. This council was elected to uphold the provisions of the OCP and has no mandate to turn Kelowna into a big city. Therefore I would suggest a moratorium on all major developments to give the public a chance to reflect on and debate Kelowna's future before the 2005 municipal election.
John Zeger, Chairman
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Open Letter to City Council
As a recent graduate from OUC in Geography, I have had the pleasure of learning about planning principles and concepts and relating them to Kelowna. Therefore, my opposition to the recent new development proposals, specifically, the four-tower downtown development proposal is based on my education and my love for the city of Kelowna.
While I generally employ a pragmatic view to understanding why we must move forward in Kelowna, I do not understand your reasons for creating such a monstrous development on the waterfront of Kelowna's downtown core. Does new development bring increases in revenues from property taxes? Yes. Does new development also bring increases in infrastructure and utility costs? Yes. Will a new development increase downtown business visitations and revenues? Possibly. Does this new development do anything to maintain Kelowna's unique identity from other cities in North America? No. This development will only serve to increase Kelowna's increasing loss of social, cultural and physical identity, or sense of place.
The loss of sense of place in Kelowna will have more even far more reaching impacts upon the city than just economic. Sense of place is defined as: "one of many characteristics which are displayed by people congruent with local identity. A sense of place is a sense of the beauty and the wealth of phenomena that comprise a particular place." Sense of place is one of the primary social functions of residential differentiation for most people in modern societies. Sense of place helps to protect Kelowna's heritage and promote cultural awareness and strong kinship ties.
Another decrease in the feeling of sense of place in Kelowna would be realized with the separation of the downtown core and the visible lakeshore if the new four-tower development was constructed. We should make every effort to maintain visual environments in harmony with Kelowna's defined character during ongoing community development. Studies on people's attachment to place suggest that there are grounds for looking to the physical setting, especially the natural environment available to residents (Okanagan Lake) and access to those resources.
The new four-tower development would also impact our sense of Kelowna as home. Home is both a physical place and a mental sense of belonging to a place. For residents of Kelowna, the downtown core is their home in a mental sense. This explains why we find words like renewal, growth, progress, and redevelopment (all concepts which threaten our view of downtown Kelowna) synonymous with the loss of home. The threat generates intense feelings of panic, anger, and a deep sense of failure. Planning should involve sense of place in three meanings: Psychological responses to designs; Preservation of the past of a place and; Creation of a sense of place for future environments. The accomplishment of these aims requires not only research, but also improved means of involving the residents of Kelowna in the decision and planning process.
Kelowna already lost a major factor in our sense of place with last year's Okanagan Mountain Park fire and a view of the South Hills provides a daily reminder of that sad event. Kelowna city council must not sacrifice our remaining uniqueness in the quest for increases in property tax revenues. Local debates on many issues at city council revolve around "loss of revenue" for the city, for example: the debate over the Kelowna Food Bank property taxes. For our council to say anything other than economics is the basis for their willingness to pass a development like the four-towers development would be a serious stretch and require a complete change in the representatives of our city council and mayoral positions. And no Mr. Mayor, that is not a threat to intimidate council, it is a promise.
Jason Ranchoux
Kelowna
Dangerous Uncontrolled Development
Editor John Harding stated July 9th that last year the community faced the firestorm and we are much better off this year facing the hot issue of rampant development. Unfortunately, he is wrong.
The rare firestorm spread rapidly and ended relatively quickly and despite claiming 238 homes, no one died. In many cases, fires are nature’s way of improving forests and helping wildlife. In comparison, uncontrolled development leaves citizens, the environment and wildlife damaged forever. In most cases, endless development is the mindless markets way of consuming communities like cancer.
Firefighters recognize the deadly force of fire and wisely use retardants to subdue and control it. In contrast, City Hall, like children playing with matches, celebrates, promotes and flogs development’s deadly force, endangering all citizens.
In reality, as development increases, quality of life correspondingly decreases. The costs are air and water pollution, losses of green space, sandy beaches, open views and tranquility. Unbearable gridlock, taxes, bankruptcies, homelessness, crime and stress reducing life expectancy are also huge costs.
The most deadly part of endless development is when it exceeds the balance point of environmental carrying capacity. The breach or imbalance can become so great that no amount of money, effort or time can restore equilibrium, leaving a community permanently disabled and unlivable.
This community is in crisis. We have public relations Mayor Gray and loyal pro development councilors Blanleil, Given, Day and Horning, acting as ambassadors and door openers in the surrender and sell-off of this community’s treasures; particularly waterfront areas to “fat cat” developers and speculators.
It’s scary how the pro developer mayor, councilors, planning and development departments are taking this community on their speeding development trip without a contingency plan preventing us crashing into the barrier and limits of environmental carrying capacity. With reckless abandon, City Hall believes development profits will save us. Yet, what good are these profits when someday there’s no clean water or air available? Or, when development pollution destroys Okanagan Lake from open untreated storm drains.
In conclusion, this community can’t wait until these foolish materialists sober up from their development binge. And, finally realize that communities don’t live by development profits alone, but through the delicate balance of environmental carrying capacity.
So, it’s paramount for citizens to seek out dedicated, knowledgeable people to replace the clueless pro development mayor and councilors at election time. Also, the upper ranks of the Planning and Development Departments need replacing. With these crucial changes at City Hall, the community can then proceed to subdue and control the development firestorm consuming our paradise.
Yours truly,
Robert Cichocki