Initial Response to the Proposed Development
This is my initial response to the presentation on the Proposed Golf Course Development. While I will say that the design and layout is attractive and well thought out, this development defines sprawl wrapped in a pretty package. Billed as a complete community, its only connection to Summerland will be down the main artery of Prairie Valley, which will eventually become the funnel for over a thousand more vehicles at build-out. Preliminary traffic studies show the need for upgrades including four new sets of traffic lights. Do we want this? Although the development group would be supportive of alternate links to town such as hiking and biking trails, there are no definite plans for such.
This development is unabashedly based on the philosophy that growth continues to be inevitable. If there isn't enough water? We'll drill it. If there doesn't appear to be enough land, we'll find it. Even at the expense of the agricultural reserve.
I think we need to start taking a closer look at sustainability and planning for the day when our choices for further growth are a lot more limited.
Brandenburg made his pitch that Summerland needs this development because his millions will help with infrastructure. I certainly hope this Council is not approaching this development from a desperation perspective. I don't buy the "Knight in Shining Armour" bit. Let's not beat around the bush. We've got something and they want it. The developers are here to make money.
This development is unabashedly based on the philosophy that growth continues to be inevitable. If there isn't enough water? We'll drill it. If there doesn't appear to be enough land, we'll find it. Even at the expense of the agricultural reserve.
I think we need to start taking a closer look at sustainability and planning for the day when our choices for further growth are a lot more limited.
Brandenburg made his pitch that Summerland needs this development because his millions will help with infrastructure. I certainly hope this Council is not approaching this development from a desperation perspective. I don't buy the "Knight in Shining Armour" bit. Let's not beat around the bush. We've got something and they want it. The developers are here to make money.
posted by Amie |
Permanent Link
3 Comments:
Fairly thorough article in the Penticton Western about the proposed development here.
I was sorry to miss the open house -- did seeing the details change your perspective at all?
By
Jeremy, at 8:27 a.m.
All these items were glossed over at both the Council presentation the evening before as well as the 3 o'clock IOOF hall presentation. To Jeremy's question re change of perspective--I thought the presentation was "slick". I got the impression that it was a wee bit condescending. That all our problems with water, roads, traffic safety, etc were miniscule. "Not to worry, we will take care of everything" kind of attitude. I had e-mailed nearly 30 queries to Scott Henderson, PR person for the group, prior to the meeting, but they chose to answer just a few of them. The day after the meeting Scott returned my email telling me they were adding a Q&A section to their website in which a lot of the questions would be answered. (Incidentally, has anybody found their website?)I still think there is something peculiar about the Summerhill residents wanting to cut into our potable water supply. They denied the "uranium" content as being insignificant--if it is, then there must be another reason why they would find the deep aquifer water as unpalatable. I don't think there is anyone with a bit of common sense that isn't a little fearful of our future water supply. There are far too many scientests here in the Okanagan that tell us we have a lot to worry about.
My main concern now has turned to the road situation as access to the development will lead past two schools. Those of you on Prairie Valley Road who had to endure the increased traffic of trucks taking fill to Dale Meadows will probably see much more of this as heavy equipment goes back and forth. There is no way we aren't going to have to deal with this as a whole community, and it is going to cost us. If you saw there brochure you will note that Summerland's residential property taxes are expected to go up between 2004 and 2010 from $3.8 million to $4.5 million. In 2010 taxes from the resort will kick in another $2.5 million. What will the Resort expect for this? I would suggest all of the infrastructure between here and there as starters.
July 15th 3:45 pm
Frank Martens
Orchardist
(Now even poorer as we have been told that our advance payments were too high and we now owe BCTF money. You just can't win.)
By
Anonymous, at 3:47 p.m.
This letter is re-printed here with the author's permission. Originally submitted to the Western News.
Dear Editor:
A new golf course, when we already have two, and a huge housing development besides? What's this all about? One sure thing: It's not really about golf.
It's about a billionaire Californian real estate developer in concert with a local developer wanting to make even more money. That's the name of the game. What's at stake? Use of public crown land, alienation of agricultural land, and most importantly: WATER. It's our most precious resource. And NOBODY REALLY KNOWS HOW MUCH IS IN OUR WATERSHED.
"Our test well and computer models show that there's enough water in the deep aquifer that also services Faulder. If worse comes to worst, we might have to use the emergency municipal well at the rodeo grounds", we were told at a glitzy "show and tell" performance that many of us attended at the I00F Hall. The pictures looked good, and so did the design of the golf course.
But we come back to water. No one knows how much water is in the deep aquifer for absolute certain, because the aquifer has NEVER been stressed. No one can predict the recharge rate (rate at which the aquifer will refill if it runs low). Global warming is already occuring, and could accelerate, according to most scientists. The
Ministry of Forests has mandated giant clear-cuts in our watershed for beetle control. This means less water. Also, we could get far less rain than our usual 27 cm. (about 11 inches) What then? We live in a desert climate with a finite water resource. You can have the most modern development plans, but you can't override "Mother Nature's" rules. There hasn't been enough water for Summerland for three years. Even if Thirsk dam is raised, we don't know whether the extra capacity will fill. Now we're supposed to be thrilled about someone else's money-making scheme that will draw a lot of water? It is said that an 18 hole golf course uses as much water as a town of 8,000 people. But besides the golf course, there are going to be 1,115 residences , plus 650 commercial units, plus other tourist accommodations. Golf courses traditionally dump lots of herbicides and pesticides on the manicured lawns. Where do those toxins wind up? Probably in the lake, eventually.
If you look at the management plan of the satellite city, Summerland Hills Golf Resort, the resort plans to get its drinking water from our Summerland Municipal system.
It also plans to use our sewer system, although the presenters at the meeting "hemmed" and hawed" at that question. Still, it's in their management plan.
We're supposed to have a "smart growth" official community plan. A satellite city with its own 10,000 sq. feet of commercial space "so that it's as self-sufficient as possible" doesn't seem like "smart growth" to many Summerlanders. Having cars from that many residences whipping along Prairie Valley Road and past Giants Head School, the only route into Summerland, isn't very palatable to those who live along this beautiful stretch or to those who will have their kids face more traffic. "Our studies show that we won't have to widen the road. Maybe we could also use Morrow Rd." Oh, yes, have the "dreamers" tried these roads in winter?
We, the citizens of Summerland, are not allowed to discuss these issues regarding the development proposal at council meetings due to lack of time. (The last council meeting on July 11th was intentionally crowded with other agenda items before the big issue of this development came up.), nor were we alloted many minutes for questions at the the big "show and tell" presentation. We are starting to feel cranky, indeed! It's part of OUR public land that will be used if this development goes ahead (just in time for the developers to capitalize on the Olympic advertising scheme, no doubt). And it's our agriculture and our community that could easily pay a terrible price.
Submitted by Marilyn H.
By
Amie, at 9:34 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home