Boundary Extension
The council passed the proposed municipal boundary extension for the new sprawling rural golf-course/residential development this week in a "special meeting". Apparently if there had been 650 names on an opposing petition, it could have been blocked and sent to referendum...but how would anyone have known about that? Council defended themselves by saying that there were two notifications posted in the local paper about the boundary extension, but there were no references in the notices to petition requirements. What about people who don't read the paper? I guess what they're saying is that it's up to individuals to seek out this information, which is true.
While I'm venting, isn't it odd that half the council seems to have to excuse themselves from most votes because of apparent conflicts of interest? It's interesting that the council is mostly made up of local businesspeople -- where are the teachers, working parents, farmers and concerned citizens who don't have a vested interest in tripling the population of the town? Have they not been running for office, or are they getting beaten in elections by pro-development candidates?
While I'm venting, isn't it odd that half the council seems to have to excuse themselves from most votes because of apparent conflicts of interest? It's interesting that the council is mostly made up of local businesspeople -- where are the teachers, working parents, farmers and concerned citizens who don't have a vested interest in tripling the population of the town? Have they not been running for office, or are they getting beaten in elections by pro-development candidates?
posted by Jeremy |
Permanent Link
5 Comments:
That's an interesting question -- would the boundary extension have passed a referendum? It would have been fascinating as a true gauge of how most of the town is feeling about this type of development. I don't really have a sense of where most people stand, since you can't really extrapolate from the handful of letters to the paper from the most upset townsfolk.
Although this week's editorial in the paper was disappointing (criticizing opponents for not getting the information they needed to fight the extension in time), it may have a galvanizing effect on people who don't think this golf development is a good idea at all. It may spur more people to action, finding ways to oppose the development.
One of my worries is that this one issue will be so polarized that further collaboration and consensus on smarter kinds of developments would be impossible. I suspect we won't hear from moderates who don't outright oppose the golf course and residential development way outside of town, but those are the people who could make sure that if it does go ahead, we get the best possible deal for Summerland and put in the necessary safeguards.
Why not make it a condition of the development permit that the course will be the most environment-friendly course on the continent? How about setting strict limits on the number of trees that can be removed, and insisting on an appropriate ratio of high-to-low-density housing? How about capping the amount of water they're allowed to draw from the aquifer each year (per resident)? Perhaps the developer should pay for road upgrades and bike lanes between the highway and the development.
I'm rambling, but do you see where I'm going with this concern?
By
Jeremy, at 2:13 p.m.
This is NUTS....This council performed the"letter" of the law but not the spirit of the law. Council knew and were counting on, people being busy busy at christmas time, lots of people go away etc. To add insult to injury, they have a meeting on a Tuesday morning at 8:00 a.m., pass the motion and THEN take "questions" Well I say "bullsssss". I do not believe for a second that this council has the best interest of the people of Summerland in mind. Not one more home should be built in this town UNTIL they have DEALT with the water problem. I am so tired of hearing the words "we are dealing with or looking into" I want to hear" we have dealt with" I also have to wonder what people here would have voted HAD THEY HAD THE CHANCE>
By
Anonymous, at 11:08 a.m.
Hi Anonymous, you wrote: "I do not believe for a second that this council has the best interest of the people of Summerland in mind." I'm not so sure about this, but I don't know any of the council members and haven't attended a meeting yet. Until I have, I'm going to assume that they're not motivated by greed or malice. I do suspect that their collective or majority vision may be quite different than what the "average folks" (whatever that means) want for the future of the town, though...which is why we started the site.
Your note about water is well taken. I was just thinking today about the $6 million (or was it $7 million?) they want to borrow for water system upgrades. Is it possible that we could be well served by a system costing half as much if they weren't planning to triple the population over two decades?
I also share your curiosity about the outcome if there had been a referendum. Perhaps we'll get our chance to see if there's enough opposition to the development itself.
A quick note about comments -- I'd encourage everyone to sign their name to comments in the interest of openness, and an e-mail address would be even better so we can contact each other if we have shared views. I like the fired-up tone of this comment, but I do worry about someone eventually crossing the line and using this space to attack council members. Cooperation and understanding should be the starting point, at least. That said, thanks for writing in -- we're hoping to start discussions about the stuff that matters.
By
Jeremy, at 10:56 p.m.
Apparently very few people do take the time to read the Summerland Review or the Penticton Herald. A number of articles and letters to the editor mentioned the changes that council planned for us. But the majority who did read the items took no action. We, as voters, are an apathetic bunch (and I include myself). We were told in one letter to "trust the Council". I don't believe we can. I have lived here for nearly 40 years and during that time a great number of "pro-development" council members have been elected. Business in Summerland looks after itself, much more efficiently then orchardists or the average resident. To make changes to effect the OCP, borrowing money on our behalf, extending boundaries, etc. we need to have by-laws passed by Council to hold referandums, no matter the cost. And what better way then getting positive thinking people to run for Council. Start now by getting the kind of people involved who will look after the interests of the majority of our residents. And then get out to help them get elected. I personally know most of the Council members. I did not vote for the present mayor or a couple of councilpersons because I knew them from experience. But, I did NOT make a big effort to get out the vote for their opponents either. For you newcomers who put your faith in Council, I'm sorry, but politics, even at this level is a dirty job that few want unless they can see some sort of monetary or future political gain for themselves.
By
Anonymous, at 9:40 a.m.
Thanks for the comment, Frank. I think you're right about the general apathy of the voters, and it is our fault for not informing ourselves earlier -- anyone could have seen the direction things have been going in the past couple of years.
The people who really care about encouraging future development (and have something to gain) are engaged and more organized, and of course they are more likely to be business-oriented. People opposed to specific kinds of development tend to be more reactionary, only taking action when they're personally threatened...which is selfish, too.
I hope you're wrong about the council members being motivated primarily by greed. I tend to think of it more in terms of different visions, and they believe as passionately in their vision of a bigger, brighter Summerland as much as you might believe in protecting what we already have. That said, what I've been seeing and hearing in the past year is not encouraging -- I think we're going to be entering a phase where a few people are going to be making a LOT of money in hillside suburbs and lowertown development, and where there's big money, there's probably big greed.
By
Jeremy, at 9:58 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home