A thought provoking letter re: Summerland Hills
Dear Mayor Gregory,
I am a Summerland resident who has no vested interest in whether or not the new town proposal for Summerland Hills proceeds as an investment initiative. I have carefully considered the implications of the proposal and I feel strongly that the proposed new town should not be incorporated into our Official Community Plan.
In the short term there will be a handful of people who will strongly benefit from the proposed new town. The developers and some contractors will earn millions of dollars, but there will be no immediate benefit for the average Summerland resident. There will be moderate short term and heavy long term costs to the Summerland community. If we proceed, it will be too late to turn back when we are all affected by the long term costs.
We will have immediate bragging rights about the project. It will be flashy. There will be construction jobs. There will be tax revenues. Unfortunately, residential tax revenues typically do not offset the service costs. Unless the developer is levied with a huge initial cost, the eventual infrastructure costs will have to be borne by an overall increase in property and business taxes for Summerland. CMHC has estimated the infrastucture cost per housing unit to be approximately $40,000 per household, even in a large, efficiently operated development such as their Ottawa Carlton study.
Golf courses typically require the financial support of development profits from the community which surrounds the course. User revenue is usually inadequate to cover either long term capital development costs or short term operating costs. This means that in the long term, after the developers have taken their profits and gone, the community will have to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to maintain and operate a golf course in the new town.
We are presently (June 2006) in Summerland Stage one water restrictions at the end of an unusually wet spring season. The recent Thirsk Dam project contains no excess capacity for expanded water use in Summerland. It is barely adequate for present water use.
Climate change is no longer a hypothesis. It is reality. The Trout Creek water resource has been carefully studied and has been projected to decline in volume and to peak earlier in the spring. Water demand is projected to increase for both agricultural and domestic consumption. Summerland’s present requirement is barely being met by the Trout Creek system, therefore future expansion of water supply must be drawn from Okanagan Lake.
We will all be affected in the event of a water shortage, not just the new town. The lake as a water source is limited. In the event of a water deficit, it is the most recently allocated licences such as a new Summerland application that would be withdrawn to provide priority supply to older licences, such as Oliver and Kelowna. If Summerland were to expand their water supply by acquiring a new licence to pump from the lake, it would not only be the new town, but all of Summerland who would be rationed for water when the pumping licence is withdrawn. The declining Trout Creek resource will be the only water source for Summerland, when the Okanagan Lake licence is cancelled.. With climate change and population expansion in the Okanagan, valley wide water deficits are projected to occur within the proposed development duration of the new town. It will likely be impossible to complete the new town, even if it is approved.
The Summerland Hills developers have cleverly and successfully divided Summerland residents by proposing a controversial, attractive, modern, new town for the area. Their studies have not addressed the complete costs and eventual consequences of their actions. On examination, a new town centre for Summerland will create more problems than benefits.
I have only a vested interest as a resident of the community in which I live. I am not a NIMBY.
The developers have a vested interest in earning millions of dollars at our expense. If there is such a high priority to be placed on a new town, it should also be viable if placed into an undeveloped region with no infrastucture. In that event, the developer would be forced to pay the complete cost of establishing and operating the town, rather than paying for part of the cost and then transferring the long range costs and consequences to an existing community.
Sincerely,
Gary Strachan, BSA, SM
I am a Summerland resident who has no vested interest in whether or not the new town proposal for Summerland Hills proceeds as an investment initiative. I have carefully considered the implications of the proposal and I feel strongly that the proposed new town should not be incorporated into our Official Community Plan.
In the short term there will be a handful of people who will strongly benefit from the proposed new town. The developers and some contractors will earn millions of dollars, but there will be no immediate benefit for the average Summerland resident. There will be moderate short term and heavy long term costs to the Summerland community. If we proceed, it will be too late to turn back when we are all affected by the long term costs.
We will have immediate bragging rights about the project. It will be flashy. There will be construction jobs. There will be tax revenues. Unfortunately, residential tax revenues typically do not offset the service costs. Unless the developer is levied with a huge initial cost, the eventual infrastructure costs will have to be borne by an overall increase in property and business taxes for Summerland. CMHC has estimated the infrastucture cost per housing unit to be approximately $40,000 per household, even in a large, efficiently operated development such as their Ottawa Carlton study.
Golf courses typically require the financial support of development profits from the community which surrounds the course. User revenue is usually inadequate to cover either long term capital development costs or short term operating costs. This means that in the long term, after the developers have taken their profits and gone, the community will have to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to maintain and operate a golf course in the new town.
We are presently (June 2006) in Summerland Stage one water restrictions at the end of an unusually wet spring season. The recent Thirsk Dam project contains no excess capacity for expanded water use in Summerland. It is barely adequate for present water use.
Climate change is no longer a hypothesis. It is reality. The Trout Creek water resource has been carefully studied and has been projected to decline in volume and to peak earlier in the spring. Water demand is projected to increase for both agricultural and domestic consumption. Summerland’s present requirement is barely being met by the Trout Creek system, therefore future expansion of water supply must be drawn from Okanagan Lake.
We will all be affected in the event of a water shortage, not just the new town. The lake as a water source is limited. In the event of a water deficit, it is the most recently allocated licences such as a new Summerland application that would be withdrawn to provide priority supply to older licences, such as Oliver and Kelowna. If Summerland were to expand their water supply by acquiring a new licence to pump from the lake, it would not only be the new town, but all of Summerland who would be rationed for water when the pumping licence is withdrawn. The declining Trout Creek resource will be the only water source for Summerland, when the Okanagan Lake licence is cancelled.. With climate change and population expansion in the Okanagan, valley wide water deficits are projected to occur within the proposed development duration of the new town. It will likely be impossible to complete the new town, even if it is approved.
The Summerland Hills developers have cleverly and successfully divided Summerland residents by proposing a controversial, attractive, modern, new town for the area. Their studies have not addressed the complete costs and eventual consequences of their actions. On examination, a new town centre for Summerland will create more problems than benefits.
I have only a vested interest as a resident of the community in which I live. I am not a NIMBY.
The developers have a vested interest in earning millions of dollars at our expense. If there is such a high priority to be placed on a new town, it should also be viable if placed into an undeveloped region with no infrastucture. In that event, the developer would be forced to pay the complete cost of establishing and operating the town, rather than paying for part of the cost and then transferring the long range costs and consequences to an existing community.
Sincerely,
Gary Strachan, BSA, SM
posted by tony cooke |
Permanent Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home