Think globally, VOTE locally

While most of us identify ‘green’ or environmental issues as a top priority in federal, provincial and even municipal elections, we often don’t take the steps personally to make an environmentally sustainable future for our children and all future generations. Some local politicians would like us to believe that voting in favour of the proposal to remove 118 acres of prime agricultural land from the ALR to go to non-agricultural use is a positive vote for a ‘greening’ of the community. I hope voters aren’t fooled. This isn’t a move to make Coldstream a ‘greener’ or more physically fit community.

We often hear slogans during elections or campaigns. “Think globally, act locally’ is a fine example of a slogan. It’s not just a commercial jingle or a snappy t-shirt message. It holds real meaning to many of us. I may not feel personally responsible for huge CO2 gas emissions, or global warming, devastating storms, floods in lowland or island nations, or the like, but in reality we are. We Canadians are some of the world’s biggest polluters. What can we do to fix this problem? (Didn’t mom always say that when you break something, you have to take responsibility and fix it?) Well, step one is really easy.

Taking prime agricultural land out of the ALR is short-sighted and in the long term will only make our environmental footprint larger. The further our food travels, the more CO2 gas emissions. That’s just a simple fact. So, step one to the solution is: Leave local agricultural land alone and support your local farmers!

I urge all eligible voters to vote No on Dec. 15th and send a message to the politicians. “We support local agriculture and a real sustainable community for our children.”

Sincerely, P.E. Szeliga.

Letter to Morning Star Editor - awaiting publication

When we first moved to Coldstream some of the things that we initially noticed were probably some of the same things that you did. There were the quiet neighborhoods, the lovely scenery, the beautiful vistas, and the verdant farmlands. However, we also noticed that some things were missing. Where was all the noise, the traffic, the paved parking lots, the light pollution, the screaming fans at sporting and music festival events. Where was all the litter and garbage on the side of the road that follows such events? It didn't take us long to arrive at the same conclusion that a few others have. What this community needs is a Mega Sports Complex built on prime farmland!

Come on, let's get with the times. Everywhere from the vanishing rain forests to the vast urban sprawl of poorly planned towns and cities, everyone's doing their share. Why should Coldstream be left out?

We've heard it said that if we build this sports complex, taxes will go up and that no one really knows what all this is going to cost. We believe that there is no greater excitement than buying something without any idea of what it will cost.

When we go shopping we like to tell the sales person, "Don't tell us how much it is, surprise us! We'll give you a signed cheque today, and you can just write in the amount of your choosing at a later date.

"Besides, once this "Fun Park" becomes established property values in Coldstream will no doubt go down. For many, Coldstream will become a less desirable place to purchase a home. By "many" we mean of course those who don't like to take risks, don't like surprises and don't like "Parks". It just stands to reason that if property values go down taxes will too eventually. In the meantime, we're all for raising taxes. We didn't know what to do with all that money we have anyway.

Speaking of "Parks", we've recently learned that the word "Park" can be used for all sorts of things. It's a very nice word and we have been having fun lately finding other meanings for it. Some of them you may already be familiar with, such as "Car Park", "Shopping Park"...."Industrial Park". Though we aren't as clever as some, I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with a few other uses for the word "Park" as well.

Now as for the devastating loss of prime farmland. Everyone knows that all the food for ourselves and our animals comes from the supermarket or feed store anyway, not from some field, somewhere. If the stores happen to run out we can always truck more in from someplace else. Gas is cheap, we all know that. Prime farmland is old fashioned and should all be paved over and developed as soon as possible. There's nothing that says progress like a big shiny new parking lot filled with cars and trucks. It's so much prettier than some green farmland, cleaning the air and reducing the gasses that lead to global climate change. Everyone knows that's just a hoax anyway right?

So now's your chance. If you vote "NO" on Dec. 15th, all this will never come to pass. Your children, grandchildren and future generations will know that you were one of those that took a stand against the joy that comes from having a Mega Sports Complex built in your area. They'll be able to say that you said, "NO" to the beauty of urban sprawl, paved parking lots, increased traffic, bright lights, pollution and noise that comes from a field full of screaming fans. Just think of it.... if you vote "NO" we won't be able to have our very own "Field of Screams", because remember..... if we build it, they will come.

Mr. & Mrs. Janse

Letter to the Editor - Morning Star (awaiting publication)

Now is the time to consider the long-term future of the historic Coldstream Ranch. Aside from its aesthetic, agricultural and environmental values, its rich history makes it worthy to be considered as one of Canada's World Heritage Sites.

Parks Canada's mandate states: "we protect and present nationally significant examples of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure their ecological and commemorative integrity for present and future generations".

Coldstream Ranch is rich in all these values. If this property is seen as having a value to the community beyond farming then why not enlarge our scope to envision Coldstream Ranch as an international tourist destination? The site, as well as being a working ranch could include an interpretive center presenting the history, flora and fauna of the ranch.
Coldstream Ranch was purchased by Lord and Lady Aberdeen in 1891. Lord Aberdeen introduced the first commercial orchard in the Okanagan:
"it was obvious to all concerned that the value of the rich bottomlands for fruit farming was far greater than any value they might have for ranching". The End of an Era 1895-1905

Lord Aberdeen went on to become the Governor General of Canada in 1893 and held the position through the terms of Prime Ministers: Sir John Thompson, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Wilfred Laurier.

One can only imagine what Lord and Lady Aberdeen would think of a proposal to build a controversial project on prime agricultural land.

Katy Pace

The Wrong Message - Richard Rolke, MorningStar Dec 12 2007

Coldstream residents head off to the polls Saturday thinking they can make a difference in their community. Boy, are they mistaken.

As advance polling started last week, the District of Coldstream was undermining the entire electoral process.

“Council’s not bound by the results of the referendum,” said Wendy Kay, chief administrative officer.

Kay went on to say that council will make the ultimate decision on forwarding a sports complex application to the Agricultural Land Commission because the referendum “is just an opinion, it’s not about money.”

And that is an extremely poor message to send to residents, and especially those who have campaigned on both sides of the controversial issue.

It leaves the public with the impression that their opinions don’t count and the politicians and bureaucrats will do what ever they want.

And you would have thought Kay would understand that situation after the municipal office fiasco of a few years ago.

In 2001, residents were asked through referendum to borrow money to construct a new municipal office. The proposal was shot down in flames, but instead of abandoning plans, council found other ways to proceed with the office. The excuse was that the referendum was about how to finance the office and not whether the building should be constructed.

Technically, the council and administrators of that era were correct but it left many residents feeling that their politicians were arrogant and out-of-touch.
Flash forward to 2007 and once again the bureaucrats are technically correct.

It is council — or at least a majority of them — that will have to officially send any application for the Aberdeen Road site off to the ALC for consideration.

Kay indicates that the referendum is just an opinion, but if that is entirely the case, why bother asking for it?

Residents expect that when they are asked to vote in a referendum, that the prevailing outcome will be accepted by the politicians and not just cast aside like yesterday’s laundry.

Two scenarios are in the offing for Saturday — a majority of voters support sending the application off to the ALC or a majority want it put through the shredder.

If it is a no vote, Mayor Gary Corner and Councillors Glen Taylor and Carol Williams better be willing to get with the program and accept the fact that current plans for Aberdeen Road are dead.

But if it is a yes vote, a similar onus is on the anti-complex forces — namely Councillors Doug Dirk, Bill Firman and Jim Garlick — to not stand in the way (I have not placed Coun. Mary Malerby in a camp because she is a wild card and could go either way).

Ultimately, this is not about what politicians want or their own personal views.

That point was made loud and clear when Garlick announced his intention to run for council in 2005.

"I'm wanting to serve my community, not serve myself,” he said.

Kay’s comments last week were inappropriate and they could have some residents questioning whether they should even vote Saturday.
With just a few days left, council members need to be abundantly clear that whatever the results, it is the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of the issue.

From a Young Artist with a Conscience

An anonymous artist dropped off this artwork in support of our efforts to preserve the Spicer block.

Thank you!

Councillor speaks up. -- Letter to the Editor -- Morning Star

Dear editor,

I would appreciate it if this letter could be published before Saturday, December 15. No other politicians seem willing to speak out for or against so give me their space. I think it will be possible if you try. I kept it short. Thank you.

Coldstream residents go to the polls on December 15 to give their views on a land-use issue. It is not to determine if they are for, or against parks. Instead, it is to determine whether or not the 118-acre parcel of land in-question on Aberdeen Road should be considered for use other than agriculture on the basis of community need. In order to make this decision we need to know much more information than what we have been given. We also need to enlighten ourselves on some unfolding realities in the world.

The glib manner with which this issue has been addressed by local government staff and politicians along with the sports user group might have been acceptable in days gone by. It is not so today. In today’s world, this attitude appears oddly irresponsible, selfish, and short-sighted. While others in the world discuss food security and safety for future generations under the shadows of peak oil and climate change, our community has chosen another route with our land resources. We have decided to consider removing our best agricultural land from production with far too many unanswered questions regarding the factual, clear costs, benefits and direction of our decision. These are not dollar figures alone.

In a phone conversation I had with the owner of the Coldstream Ranch last Saturday, he described his intentions as purely good for the community. I believe him. Unfortunately this may well be one more good intention paving the way to a hell of a future. This referendum could turn out to be a sorry reflection of our community, or a chance for positive change in how we value agricultural land and how we do business to preserve it in the years to come.

Jim Garlick
Councillor
District of Coldstream
9901 Kalamalka Road,
Coldstream, BC V1B 1L6

Email jimgarlick@msn.com

Letter to Editor - Morning Star Dec 9 2007

Food Security is an issue that is of great importance but unfortunately seems to be off the radar screen for most citizens of the affluent West. We assume that we have access to ample food sources and we can’t imagine our own future regarding food scarcity. We are all aware of the regions of the world with famine (which is often not environmentally caused but due to political situations.) Guess what, folks. We are not immune to food scarcity or higher prices due to availability or higher transportation costs.

We are entering an era known as “Peak Oil”. What does this have to do with ‘parks’ or ALR lands? Plenty. While some short-sighted politicians may see ‘green parks’ as a positive ‘green’ or environmental bonus to the citizens of Vernon/Coldstream, this is a farce. I think we can all agree that food security is a higher priority than playing fields (and 1000 parking spaces) for our children and future generations. Let’s not get distracted by cunning politicians’ ‘green’ language or sports tourism promoters signs.

The FAO (the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization) wants us to focus on what they refer to as “Self Reliance” and “Local Agriculture”. What a concept! This isn’t far-fetched science fiction. Senior researchers at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition in the U.S. warn that the U.S. would have to reduce its population by 100 million immediately in order to become self sufficient in food crops. Can we assume that our food from China, the U.S., South America, the Caribbean , etc. will always be available and at prices that we can afford? We all like parks, but food security for future generations is of greater importance. Please consider how you may vote on Dec. 15th and really think about the big picture and how future generations may look upon this decision.

Yours truly, P.E. Szeliga.

Letter to Morning Star Editor

As for the letter writer in the Sunday Morning star, who said, “The view (Aberdeen fields) will not be diminished with the construction of playing fields and a track oval” who is she kidding?

When you can no longer see the night sky because it is lit up with the lights from 5 playing fields (number proposed to be lit) or you can not have a conversation in your home, because there is a rock concert or music blaring or have to listen to announcements my quiet enjoyment of my acreage is ruined. Not to mention my ability to work from my home. This complex will be ugly. It will be noisy. It will increase the traffic in front of my home. It will devalue my property. And I will be first in line to remove my land from the ALR if this proposal goes through. It will be the only way to recoup the lost property value due to this complex.

But, outside the reasons why I don’t want this in my backyard, this proposal is a waste of tax payer’s money. It is the wrong location for a park – because it is prime agricultural land. We already have Kalamalka Provincial Park and Coldstream in general has more parks per population than Vernon. What we are missing is the neighborhood parks in new residential areas like Middleton.

It is the wrong location for sports tourism – which should be by hotels and services. We already have a sufficient number of sports fields and considerable capacity with school fields if we simply invest to maintain them better and provide a few amenities. We need to invest money in the parks we have. Polson Park is a perfect example. I gave several suggestions as to how we could turn this into a beautiful destination park when I worked with the DVA. Instead, it has been deteriorating from lack of investment and lack of use. Let’s get the full value out of our parks and recreation tax investment, by investing wisely. Let’s send a clear message to GVS to go back to the drawing board and do the job right.

Terri Jones

Funtastic's Role in the Aberdeen Sports Complex - Press Release to All Media

On Funtastic’s web site they state their mission as: “Funtastic envisions building 6 more ball fields to replace aging fields at Kin Race Track and compliment fields that are located on leased land at DND. The 6-8 fields would be part of a bigger field complex that would be a multi sport facility with permanent facilities (including larger washrooms, concessions, a building for officials and organizers, covered grandstands, dugouts, covered stage and clearly laid out parking). This is almost the identical list proposed by GVS for the Aberdeen sports complex. The new facility would become the ideal location to host tournaments (lists different ones) and outdoor events (including music performances, plays and outdoor festivals).”

Note the GVS application proposes 6 new slo-pitch / fastball fields. GVS stats show that these sports are used almost exclusively for adults. The connection to Funtastic is clear. They need more fields to host an even bigger tournament. The actual GVS application states, “The Group (Funtastic) hopes to build Funtastic Place in Vernon, a major slo-pitch tournament facility” (page 60 GVS application). This vision is what rings true with this application – not a community park where people can have whatever they want.

Excerpt from Andy Danyliu, president of the Coldstream Rate Payers Association regarding this question:

The tax payers of Greater Vernon have searched the minutes of GVSC meetings to try to help us find out why GVSC would want to commit tens of millions of tax dollars to purchasing farm land in Coldstream to build a "Sports Complex" when their own consultants report stated there were more than enough playing fields already in their inventory.

The probable answer comes in the form of minutes from a 2005 meeting held in May where GVSC agree to "partner" with Funtastic to acquire a stadium and other facilities to further the "Funtastic' music festival and Slo pitch tournament events.

Gary Corner chairman of GVSC was forced by the Agricultural Land Commission to present the commission with an endorsement from Coldstream Council to convert 118 acres of farmland into a "Sports Complex" before the commission would consider GVSC's request. The citizens of Coldstream and Greater Vernon were unaware that Corner and the GVSC had a year earlier tried to push this proposal through the ALC.

The GVSC thought they could push through their request for removal and or change of use of 118 acres of prime agricultural land without any input from the tax payers who would eventually foot the bill.

When the Council of Coldstream permitted public input the Funtastic spokes persons argued that their activities would bring millions of "sports tourist dollars" into their coffers which they in turn would contribute back into the community through more sports fields. Plans reluctantly presented by GVSC showed a mega stadium, giant parking lots and other convention style facilities.

When it became obvious even to hard core tourist dollar developers that the people of Coldstream were not going to accept the mega sports complex it evolved into green parks space being touted by amateur sports coaches with the "Funtastic reps" taking a back seat in the debate.

The CRA as do most informed residents of greater Vernon remain convinced that the 118 acres of prime agricultural lands will become the "partnership" site for future "Funtastic Place" slo pitch tournaments, special events and music festivals and evolve into the giant entertainment center that the economic development, through sports tourism backers in the GVSC, have always desired.

The GVSC must repudiate the notion that this space will become "Soft Ball City" and detail the exact proposals and accompanying costs and reveal any attendant partners they have waiting in the wings.

When people are asked to spend thousands of dollars to vote and not given precise facts for voting, no one is served!

Andy Danyliu
Pres. CRA


Jason Gilbert, Executive Director of Funtastic was quoted as saying, “Everybody wants the best for the community it would just be nice if everyone worked together”. (Morning Star, Nov. 9th, page A3). If Funtastic, VOSC and GVS really want what is best for the community and want to work together, why not ask the general public what they want first, then draw up a plan, then find the appropriate land and then go to referendum? Given the opposition and the suggestion that there are scaled down plans and revised drawings, why not pull the original application, make the modifications, put a proposed price tag on the project, sell it to the public and then submit it to Coldstream for approval? Instead they have pushed through a proposal that is not about the general community but about the sports community, a little bit about kids but primarily adults and not about local needs but sports tourism opportunities.

Finally, have we forgotten to ask what the vision for the Coldstream is? Jason Gilbert, executive director of Funtastic said, “I truly believe that the Coldstream residents want this to Happen” (Morning Star, Oct. 12,). The Funtastic web site says, “the number one issue for the citizens is having more green space.” Wrong. According to the last Coldstream referendum 88% of the respondents stated that preserving ALR agricultural land was one of their top three priorities. The other two were, managing rapid population growth and preserving environmentally sensitive areas (Coldstream OCP Pg.5). This proposal brings to mind all three of these priorities. There is an environmentally sensitive water course through this property. This is one of the best and largest pieces of ALR farm use land in BC and planning or managing rapid population growth is at issue.

If Coldstream residents still hold to these three priorities the outcome at the upcoming referendum will be a resounding NO.


Press Release Contact: Terri Jones, spokesperson for the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee. 545-6405 home. 550-0338 Cell phone.
www.complexfacts.com

GVS Application to reclassify ALR land to Non Farm Use - THESE ARE THE FACTS

There are 6,556 outdoor sports users according to the Greater Vernon Field user survey.(Page 66 of GVS application) 3,340 of them are adults (2200 of which are for softball, 700 for soccer): 3216 are youth of which 2000 of them are for soccer.

They have included 200 youth for gymnastics. This is a bit of a stretch. Gymnastics by definition is usually performed in a gym.

Al McNiven is quoted as stating that the Slo-Pitch fields are for adult use. That is 6/15 fields or 40% of the proposed complex admittedly purely for adult use.

The baseball fields may indeed be designated for use by children, but that is only 2/15 playing fields on the plan for the proposed complex, and we already have 10 baseball diamonds (Master Parks Plan pg. 25) and only 400 youth involved in the sport (Greater Vernon Field User Survey). Participation in minor Baseball is decreasing (Master Parks Plan pg. 25). 10 Baseball Diamonds have a capacity for each of the 400 youth to play 3.6 times per week. (2 teams X 9 players X 10 fields X 8 uses).

Most school track and field teams practice at the school grounds and use the official track once or twice per year for track meets. There are only 25 youth involved with the Track and Field organization listed on the Greater Vernon Field User Survey.

The track at Polson Park is still there and could easily be refurbished at a lot less cost than building this Mega Sports Complex, or a new track could easily be incorporated at the Vernon High School field when the school is rebuilt.

As for soccer, the fields on the proposed plan are full regulation size fields not youth fields. We already have 35 youth soccer fields (Master Parks Plan) 11 of these fields or 31% are in Coldstream, and as a matter of fact, the only non-school facility counted is Creekside Park in Coldstream. These 35 fields have a capacity for each of the 2,223 youth soccer players to play 3.15 times per week. In fact 5 year olds only play/practice once per week and from age 6 up to at least age 10, they only play/practice twice per week. It is very worth noting that the number 35 as reported in the Parks Master Plan do not include DND, Marshall Field or the fields in Lavington. It is also worth noting that a Parks Amenities listing received from GVSC as back-up for the numbers published in the Master Plan shows that we actually have 48 youth soccer fields.

It is likely that there will be more adult soccer played at the new complex than youth soccer, especially in the evenings as is the case with the other lit fields.

The dog agility park is for adults. That is 4 of the 14 fields. Rugby is for adults. Ultimate is for adults. The proposal lists two of the fields are to include Rugby and one of the two is also for Ultimate.

The Banquet Hall and Stadium are lists as resources for special events, musical festivals, weddings, etc. It is likely both of these resources will be used primarily for adult events.

The Greater Vernon Advocates Committee believes the proposed new complex will cater primarily to adult sports and functions.

It's NOT a Choice Between a Sports Complex and Residential Development - Press Release to All Media

The Yes campaign continues to tell residents that their choice is between residential development and a sports complex.

Last week a number of the yes campaign telephone canvassers were taken to task for telling residents that the land (Aberdeen parcel) has been slated for development for a long time, that it will just go to housing if we don’t put a park there and that the ranch owners have said they are willing to consolidate parcels of the ranch so it can happen.

Al McNivan from GVS said he hadn’t heard that, Rick Dubois from Funtastic and Bill Tarr from the VOSC said this was incorrect and that their telephone campaigners should not be saying it. The owner of the Ranch, Keith Balcaen was angry when he heard that the Yes campaign was telling people that. His words were that is “absolute bullshit”.

At the same time as the Yes campaign was saying it was wrong they put in an ad in the Sunday Morning Star telling people, “The Coldstream Official Community Plan (OCP) has dedicated a portion of the land for future single and multi-family homes if the owner amalgamates some of their smaller ALR properties. (They know that this proposal is no longer on the table for consideration). They also know that the owner has no intention of consolidating his properties. They continued to say “ A “NO” vote Does Not Guarantee this property will remain a farm.”

If the Vote is NO – the land stays as farm use and can only be used for those activities outlined for farm use in the Official Community Plan. It cannot be used for residential or mixed residential development.

Keith is not interested in consolidation and even expressed he wasn’t that interested in selling. It was GVS that approached him and tried to get him to sell for what he was led to believe was a community park. If however, he did sell the Aberdeen land block to another owner it does not mean the new owner can ask for development. The ALC and the District of Coldstream only offered the deal in exchange for a net benefit to the ALR from other holdings that Keith had. If the new owner does not have these same type of holdings, there is nothing to discuss or trade.

If however, a yes vote prevails, Coldstream agrees to send the application to the ALC for change of use, and the ALC agrees to non-farm use, then the land can be developed. Note the 160 units going up at Coldstream meadows on ALR – non farm use land. GVS could at any time sell off all or a portion of the land not used for the sports complex. With non farm use zoning a new owner could develop the property with residential units. Voting Yes – puts the property at the most risk. The ALC might however put conditions on GVS’s use of the land that prevents that.

Loss of Decision Making Power

If the yes vote wins the referendum, Coldstream will have only 1 voice out of 6 on the GVS Committee in determining what will actually be developed on this land. Coldstream’s representative to GVS has already gone on record supporting the original (sports complex) plan. So voting Yes, means Yes to a mega sports complex, not a community park.

No Cost Guarantees

Are Coldstream and Greater Vernon residents ready to sign a blank cheque to GVS for a mega sports complex? How many millions of dollars are you prepared to spend for a Mega Sports Complex designed for sports tourism? (8 million + land cost + infrastructure + landscaping + drainage + maintenance, etc.) We have been given no cost guarantees.

Are you willing to have the parks and recreation budget subsidize this mega sports complex for many years to come if not indefinitely? What will the ultimate costs be? Will our other parks deteriorate? Will proposed neighborhood parks be sidelined? These are questions the voters should ask and then determine if they will be comfortable with the consequences.

25% of our taxes already go to pay for parks and recreation. The GVS Master Parks Plan proposes a new, on going levy against all property owners to pay for purchasing more “park” land.

Public use:

This proposal is not for all ages and recreational needs. When is the last time you had a picnic or family get together in the middle of a ball field or soccer field. The largest growing demographic in Vernon is the 55+ age group. How often do you see them playing baseball, soccer, football or doing track and field? When will the general public who want to play – get to play if the fields are booked for leagues and tournaments? This is an Athletic park – what if you are not an athlete? What if you don’t participate in dog agility?

To date, there are no general public uses indicated on this site plan. The sports complex will take 80 acres (Al McNiven), add to that a water course with a 10 acre buffer; a buffer between the complex and neighboring properties; as well as the land dedicated for road improvements on Hwy 6 and Aberdeen and there isn’t much land left.

The public should not be fooled. This is a Mega sports complex not a community park.

Contact: Terri Jones, Representative for the GVAC. Home – 545-6405; Cell: 550-0338

visit www.complexfacts.com

Encouraging Words from the Spallumcheen Community

Hello everyone!

After reading of your group's formation in today's paper, I very quickly went to your website, then found a place I could contact, and congratulate you!

Although I live in Spallumcheen, I have been watching carefully the actions of your council in trying to snow taxpayers into believing this is actually for children's sports fields; and I and several of my friends and neighbors could not be more thrilled with the resulting actions of your taxpayers assoc. and now your group in standing up, not only for yourselves but for future generations.

It takes a lot of courage to do that. And a lot of your time and energy - but it is so worthwhile. Preserving our farmland is crucial - those of us who are trying to do that and grow our own food are not described as 'Tree Huggers' so much anymore - our common sense approach is slowly becoming accepted and our voices louder and more clear.

I could go on a lot longer but won't.

Please keep up the good fight - It is the RIGHT thing to do. I am so proud of all of you.

Myrna Christianson
A Farmer
In Spallumcheen

David Suzuki takes aim at VOSC Petition to the District Of Coldstream - Press Release to All Media

On September 11th, the District of Coldstream Council voted No, to the request by Greater Vernon Services to send a letter of support to the ALR to change the land use on the Spicer land from farm use to non farm use for the purpose of a sports complex / park.

Shortly after that, the Vernon Outdoor Sports Committee submitted a petition to Coldstream Council in support of GVS’s application. As a result of this petition, Coldstream council decided to go to referendum.

This petition was misleading. The petition stated that, “We support the building of a new outdoor complex at 9235 Aberdeen Road that includes “fields and green space for everyone.” The petition listed the various fields that would be included as well as “trails and pathway throughout the proposed site including 4.3 km of the Grey Canal Trail”. Those who signed the petition did not have to be from the Coldstream and could be under 19.

The Grey Canal trail application is on a different property from the land proposed for the sports complex. The petition gave the impression that these two applications were tied together. The petition said, “Green space for everyone”, but the actual proposal for the Aberdeen site which had already been submitted in July did not have green space identified for the general public. There are only fields for outdoor sports users and the facilities that go along with it.

There were a number of errors on this petition where people listed Coldstream as their address, but in fact they resided in Vernon. There were also duplicate signatures. But, the most interesting signature came purportedly from David Suzuki himself.

Louise Christy with the Coldstream Ratepayers Association just happened to go to university with David Suzuki and decided to contact David about his signature on the petition. David sent back a hand written reply that read:

“To whom it may concern: I was stunned to see a petition for Recreation and Green space in Vernon that bore my name at the top. It is such a joke because whoever signed my name misspelled it and my Foundation. I do not sign petitions in any case. I hope the citizens of Vernon are informed about this hoax. It certainly raises questions on the credibility of this group.” Signed David Suzuki, on David Suzuki Foundation letterhead.

Credibility is a very important issue. The Vernon Outdoor Sports Group and Funtastic have continued to soft sell the mega sports complex to the public as a community park. They continue to say the park will have walking, biking, green space and community gardens with some sports fields. The voters can only rely on what is actually submitted within the application form by GVS to the District of Coldstream.

That application form and proposal outlines a mega sports complex with 15 sports fields, stadium, offices, storage, washrooms, change rooms, banquet hall, sound system, 1,000 parking spaces, etc. Basically all of the items listed on Funtastic’s web site under their mission to create a multi-sport facility. The GVS application says that Funtastic wants to build “Funtastic Place” a major slo-pitch tournament facility. (Page 60 GVS application – File no. 07-020-ALR). The vision is for sports tourism not a community park.

VOSC has said the plans have been scaled down and changed, but no changes have been made to the actual application form, nor have these claims been substantiated by GVS. GVS has given no cost analysis and no cost guarantees, because they say they don’t know what will actually end up in the “park”. Perhaps they should figure that out, before a referendum vote.

It should be noted that the Greater Vernon Master Parks Plan does not call for a new Athletic park for many years into the future. It reads on Page. 9, “If the park function was removed from either property (DND and Marshall field resources), the GVRPD would need to replace the site with land that could serve as an athletic park. ALR land would likely be required to meet that need.” Neither of these resources has been removed.

GVS and Funtastic have made comments suggesting that DND resources are not secure because they cannot get a long term lease. They use this rationale to justify the need for this new sports complex. However, Terri Jones, who was employed for the past year as Executive Assistant to our Member of Parliament and had worked with DND on land use requests, refuted this argument. “DND is by law only able to issue 1 year leases. That does not mean that DND field resources are not secure.” “DND has no intention of cancelling their field leases to GVS.” Terri had in fact called Mike Harrison at DND in Chilliwack to confirm that this was still the case and was told yes it was and that they would even entertain the possibility of expansion.

The credibility of the proposal for a mega sports complex is at issue because:

1. The general public hasn’t had any input into the plan
2. The public has not been given all of the facts
3. There is a soft sell campaign to make the proposal appear as a community park, yet the typical community park attributes such as walking trails, bike paths and picnic areas do not exist on the actual sports complex proposal.
4. VOSC and Funtastic keep making claims that the plan has changed, but GVS has not substantiated these claims or made any changes to the application submitted to Coldstream Council.
5. There is no official plan, no cost analysis and no cost guarantees. Voting Yes, is voting yes to a blank cheque.
6. Coldstream residents need to know that if this application is approved they will have only 1 vote in 6 on GVSC to determine what actually happens to the development of this site.
   
   
   Contact:
   Terri Jones, spokesperson for the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee545-6405 home; 550-0338 cell.

Coldstream Referendum - Facts vs. Fiction - Press Release to All Media

Jason Gilbert, Executive Director of Funtastic sends out e-mail appeal for votes. (See attached) Greater Vernon Advocates Group question the claims made in this e-mail.

E-mail claim:
1,200 Coldstream residents play soccer

Facts:
The GVS application, pg. 66 says that according to the Dec. 2005 stats there were 2,000 youth soccer players and 700 adult soccer players = 2700 soccer users.

If 1,200 are from the Coldstream, which has 18% of the Greater Vernon population (9,465 people), the Coldstream has a whopping 44.4% of the players.

The North Okanagan Youth Soccer Association stats say there are 2,223 youth soccer players (likely more recent stats).

If 1,200 of the total 2,223 are from the Coldstream it would mean that 53% of all soccer players come from the Coldstream.

According to the 2006 Census, Coldstream only had 2,090 youth aged 5 to 19. If 1,200 of them are playing soccer that means 57% of all kids in the Coldstream are registered in the Soccer league.

We all know these stats cannot be correct.

E-mail claim:
Coldstream only has 1 regulation sized field.

Fact:
We are not sure how many regulation size fields there are in Coldstream, but we do know this:

• There are 4 soccer fields at Creekside Park, 2 at Coldstream Elementary School, 5 at Kidston Elementary School and 1 at Lavington Elementary School. (There is one extra soccer field in Lavington that only has one goal post. They have been lobbying GVS to replace the other one for a long time with no response.)
  
• They have the capacity for approximately 240 players per use (12 fields x 2 teams @ 10 players for each team. With 1 use per weekday evening and 5 uses on Saturday, the fields can accommodate 2,400 players per week. (240 players x 10 uses per week).
  
• Therefore even if there were 1,200 Coldstream players – Coldstream fields alone could accommodate them all.
  
• Young kids do not need a regulation size field. There are lots of schools that do not have regulation size gyms, or courts. That does not mean kids can’t play the sport properly.
  

E-mail Claim:
Coldstream has not built a playing field in 20+ years.

Fact:
Coldstream has 27% of the sports fields of Greater Vernon with only 18% of the population. Why do they need to build more fields?

E-mail Claim: “we are MAXED out for field space.”

Fact:

GVS application (pg. 60 & 61) state there are 51 sports field in Vernon. 17 are in parks and 34 are in school fields. ‘Vernon has a sports field supply of 1 for every 996 people.’ “This is a very high supply.” “Using a conservative estimate…. The field use in relation to capacity is 43% for school fields and 73% for fields in parks.” The estimate is conservative because it only counts capacity to 3 pm on Saturday – and everyone knows that teams play into the evening during the spring, summer and fall as well as on Sunday which is not counted in at all.

Lavington resources have also been totally left out of the stats.

Contact:
Terri Jones for more information. Home phone: 545-6405. Cell Phone: 550-0338
Greater Vernon Advocates Committee spokesperson.

Coldstream Referendum – Facts vs. Fiction. 2nd Installment - Press Release to All Media

The Vernon Outdoor Sports Committee has started their telephone canvassing blitz. Unfortunately, right out of the gate there is misinformation being presented. When working with volunteers, there is the potential that some canvassers may not have the true facts, have misinterpreted the facts or embellish information to get a vote.

It is important however to correct false information and ensure the truth is being told. One case in point came from a phone canvasser for the VOSC last night. This is how the conversation went:
Tonight my husband Paul and I (Paul and Louise Christie) received a phone call from a female “YES” campaigner. When I told her she was calling the wrong person, as I was a solid “NO” voter, she politely asked, “May I ask why?”

I of course, said that it’s just wrong to use prime agricultural land like the Spicer block for the purpose of a mega sports complex. Before I could go on any further, she interrupted me and said something to the effect that, I should know that the land has been slated for development for a long time and that it will just go to housing if we don’t put a park there and that the ranch owners have said they are willing to consolidate parcels of the ranch.

At this point I put the speaker phone on and asked her to repeat what she had said. She did so. Then Paul asked her where she had heard that. There was a pause. Then Paul said something to the effect, that he is a member of the Coldstream Advisory Planning Committee and that the members were told that the ranch ownership was not interested in consolidation. Further, he said that if she didn’t know what she had said to be fact, she was being deceitful and shouldn’t be telling people that.

There was dead silence for at least 5 seconds, then she said, “Ok, goodbye."

Paul called Al McNiven immediately and asked him if there was any truth to these allegations. Al said that he had not heard that information.

Rick Dubois, President of Funtastic was also called and asked about this information being given by one of the yes campaign canvassers. He said that his callers should not be spreading erroneous information.

Bill Tarr was also sent an e-mail in this regard but had not returned the e-mail at the time of this mailing.

Jim Garlick, Coldstream Councilor was sent this information and replied,

“The Spicer (land block) is not slated for development without considerable requirements involving consolidation of a large number of other of Coldstream Ranch parcels. The Coldstream Ranch owner has stated that consolidation is not an option for him. It is in writing in the reply-to-purchase information from the owner. Council has been told this and the Advisory Planning Committee has been told this. The parcels in question that were proposed for consolidation are far too valuable as fee simple parcels for this deal to be attractive anymore.”

“Unfortunately this caller did not know this and called Paul Christy who is a Advisory Planning Committee member and has been involved with the ALC his entire career as an agrologist.”

The facts are:

1. A potential deal was being considered at one time to develop a piece of the 118 acre Spicer Block parcel in exchange for the Coldstream Ranch consolidating a number of other key agricultural pieces. The Coldstream Ranch owner as stated above refused this offer and put that in writing. There have been no further discussions with the District of Coldstream in this regard.

2. ALR land that is designated for farm use does not support residential or commercial development.

3. If Coldstream Council and the ALR approve “non farm use” for this land, as is currently being requested by GVS, this land could support residential development and or the mega sports complex development with banquet halls, stadiums, and other facilities to support the sports user groups. Note: that Coldstream Meadows is currently building 160 units on non-farm use land within the ALR.

4. It should also be noted that land that has had layers of sand, gravel or fill added for subsurface paving preparation or leveling cannot be converted back to good farm land.

5. The only way to protect agricultural land and prevent development is to vote NO at the referendum.

It would be interesting to get the Vernon politician's views on this proposed mega sports complex. Since they have hired SmartGrowth BC (check out SmartGrowth BC's views on preserving agricultural land) to do their OCP this puts them in an odd, if not ironic, position to support putting the mega sports complex on some of the best agricultural land in BC.

One of Vernon’s guiding principles identified by the community and adopted by Council last August was: Protect Agricultural Land.

Recently the North Okanagan Regional District unanimously voted no to a request to send an application to the ALC for an 18-20 unit extended care home on 4.47 acres on Star Road. “It’s truly a rural area and we don’t have any designation in our official community plan for that kind of housing,” said Stan Field, BX Silver Star Director (Morning Star).

Perhaps some Coldstream Councilors should consider the same logic as this proposal also goes against the Coldstream Official Community Plan.

For Further information please contact: Terri Jones, Greater Vernon Advocates Committee spokesperson. Home: 545-6405. Cell: 550-0338

GVSC Drops the Ball - Richard Rolke, Morningstar Dec 5th

It’s interesting to listen to the pro-sports complex forces bash the no side. They absolutely insist that the opposition is spreading misinformation about the scope and costs of the proposed facility on Aberdeen Road.

And that may possibly be true, but nobody knows for sure because the public is operating in an information vacuum.

And that vacuum is completely the responsibility of the Greater Vernon Services Committee.
Since the District of Coldstream opted to go to referendum on the land use issue, GVSC has completely sat on its hands. Officials have been so quiet you’d think they’d discovered Velcro.
Barely a peep has been made about the design of the facility, and even less has been said about the cost to purchase the land and construct fields and other structures there.

As a result of the lack of details, residents have been allowed to speculate or come up with their own interpretation of what is planned. Some of it may be accurate, some of it may not.
Certainly sports user groups have attempted to state their case for a complex, but the reality is that they’re technically not in the loop.

All decisions rest completely with GVSC and only that agency can answer to the matter at hand.
Recently, chairman Gary Corner defended not providing more information prior to the Dec. 15 referendum.

“The problem we have is this really isn’t a GVSC issue right now,” he said.

But Corner tends to ignore the facts.

It was GVSC that put together the idea for a complex. It was GVSC that offered to purchase a chunk of land from Coldstream Ranch. It was GVSC that made a preliminary approach to the Agricultural Land Commission about changing the land use on Aberdeen Road. It was GVSC that ultimately sent an ALC application to the District of Coldstream, which triggered community debate and the referendum.

For Corner to say it’s not a GVSC issue is a joke.

And ultimately the joke is going to be on GVSC because the lack of information and the perceived arrogance of officials could lead to a resounding no vote Dec. 15.

There’s been some talk about GVSC putting together an information campaign now. But it’s too late. The damage has been done.

GVSC has allowed the opposition forces to take control of the issue and any wrong information has taken on a life of its own. At the 11th hour, it is highly unlikely that any effort would be effective.
The only thing that could save GVSC’s bacon is the sports users rallying their troops and residents of a like-mind. Dec. 15’s vote is going to become a numbers game and it’s going to be crucial for both the yes and no sides to get their people out.

And while the divide within Coldstream is pretty deep, there is a small group of residents who are undecided. They see the merits to a sports complex, but there are concerns about the loss of agricultural land. Their ultimate decision could send one side over the top.

But no matter what happens during the referendum, one thing is clear — GVSC has bungled the matter completely and avoided its responsibility to those who pay the bills — the taxpayer.

There Are Other Options - Letter to Editor, Morningstar Dec 5 2007

Like every other parent, I do believe that we need to provide our children with areas to play sports.  However, the proposal to turn a significant portion of 118 acres of prime agricultural land into a sports complex is not the solution.

Many people are under the misperception that if this land is not made into a sports complex it will be developed into housing. This is simply not true. The Agriculture Land Commission has already indicated that they will not allow this land out of the ALR unless there is a net benefit for agriculture.

The 118 acres is prime agriculture land that can support a wide range of crops, and is large enough to commercially grow produce. Only about one per cent of B.C.’s land base is prime farm land (our best crop land), and very few areas in Coldstream have such a large tract of excellent soil.

Preservation of farmland is becoming increasingly important to ensure that we can feed ourselves in the future. Climate change, political instability, water scarcity, rising demographics, and the decreasing supply of fuel could threaten the availability of the large amounts of imported food which we have come to rely on so much today.  We must protect our ability to be more self sufficient in the future.

A mega, centralized sports complex which requires children to rely on their parents to transport them to the fields, is not for kids. With the exception of Funtastic, there is no pressing reason to have all sporting fields in one location.

Options do exist for neighborhood parks which could meet the needs of our sporting groups (ie. improvement and better utilization of existing fields, cooperation with the school district for development of their fields, acquisition of appropriate lands throughout Vernon and area).

GVSC has simply not provided the basic information that citizens require to make an informed decision.  Where is the proper auditing of alternative locations?  Where is the clear delineation of costs? How much money will be left for the development of bike paths, walking trails, increased access to waterfront, and improvement of existing parks throughout Vernon and area?

We do need to provide our children with areas to play sports, but let’s ensure that it is a solution that is truly for children and not at the expense of our future sustainability.


Joanne Osborn

Group Rallies Against Complex - Morningstar Dec 5th, Jennifer Smith

A common interest in agricultural land preservation has banded a new group together to fight for what they believe in.

The Greater Vernon Advocates Committee is a newly formed union of 20 members in Coldstream. They have come together in opposition to the proposed sports complex on Aberdeen Road.

“One of the main purposes of our group is we’re trying to get out the facts, by ad, brochure, website, signs and word of mouth,” said member Terri Jones, adding that the committee is divided into sub-committees focusing on aspects such as costs, farm land issues, due process, research, demographics and sports tourism.

They have a wealth of information, theories and concerns which they hope to share with residents prior to Coldstream’s Dec. 15 referendum.

All of them agree that parks are great, but that what is being proposed is not suitable for the location – 118 acres of agricultural land which the Coldstream Ranch is prepared to sell to Greater Vernon Services Committee for the project.

“All kinds of people are taking an interest in it because there’s all kinds of issues that arise,” said Richard Enns.

Members question the need for the complex, which proposes fields for soccer, slo-pitch, football, rugby, baseball and dog agility. Referencing the 2004 Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Denise Berlinski points out that there are already 34 ball diamonds and 51 sports fields. “In their own words we have a very high supply of softball diamonds and baseball,” said Berlinski, adding that the report shows these numbers are high compared to other B.C. communities.

Greg Ockert wonders if they’ll ever even be a future need with an aging population and demographics showing that schools are facing declining enrolment numbers. “Plus, the people who come to this area now are not youthful, they’re older people,” said Ockert. “We have enough fields, we’re going to have a lot of under-utilized greenspaces for decades.” Since the parks master plan says that many school fields are in poor condition, Ockert suggests efforts instead be put into revamping these spaces. “You want a football field – Fulton. You want a track – VSS.”

Kelly Tymkiw agrees and says she’d rather see her kids walking or biking to schools, where most of their sporting activities already take place. “As a parent, for me that’s important.”

These factors have led Jones and the others to believe that this project is all for sports tourism. The proposed project could host a number of tournaments and events but Jones says without hotels and restaurants nearby, this is not the place for it. “You do not put sports tourism in the middle of an agricultural field, in the middle of an agricultural community.”

Another concern is what this complex could do to the agricultural land, which according to the Canada Department of Agriculture, is class two land (class one being the best). “This field can grow almost anything,” said Berlinski, citing a list of produce. Plus, she adds, the land has a long season with 150 frost-free days per year (which is considered a high number). “If we keep diminishing the agricultural land we hurt an economic engine in this community,” said Enns. “Every time you take away a piece of property you diminish that.”

Not only does the group have concerns about how the agricultural capability of the land could be impacted if developed with fields and facilities, but what the potential of a land-use change for the project could mean in the future. “The real risk now is if it goes to non-farm use, it means they could build houses,” said Maria Besso, pointing to the non-farm use designation Coldstream Meadows was granted, which now houses a seniors’ facility.

Another concern the group has is how the general public was left out of the planning process for this project. “Our mayor must have been aware of it because he’s the chairman of GVSC, but nobody in Coldstream heard about it,” said Gyula Kiss, who is a member of this new group as well as the Coldstream Ratepayers’ Association. “It’s the whole cart before the horse – they haven’t asked: do we want to head in that direction?” adds Berlinski.

Along with being left out of initial planning, the committee doesn’t understand how the public can support a project with no firm details or costs associated. “It’s completely backwards,” said Jones.
Mark Korral has come up with his own cost theory, after looking into building and servicing costs.
He says a rough $8 million figure was presented by GVSC at a Sept. 11 meeting, but did not include site servicing or landscaping. “I would say (the actual cost would be) double or more of this figure they’ve put out there and that’s very conservative,” said Korral, adding: “we’re all guessing because the project’s a moving target.”

For more information about the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee visit their website: www.complexfacts.com.

Vote No – Coldstream Referendum Signs Destroyed / Threatening E-mails

Only days after the Vernon Sports User Committee Group’s Vote yes signs were vandalized the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee’s, Vote No signs were equally vandalized.

Within hours of putting up the signs, 10 had either been stolen or broken. Overnight on December 3rd the large sign at Kal Beach was broken into three pieces.

Sharon Lawrence who spear headed the sign committee for the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee was dismayed. She said, “All of these signs were hand painted and took hours and hours to complete. We didn’t have a sign company mass make our signs. We just had a lot of people spend their own money and take their own time to put up a message they believed in.”

The committee is currently debating whether it is worthwhile to redo the signs. “We wonder if the same thing will happen again.” said Tom West one of the sign designers and painters. “I had two signs removed from my property. The first one was by the road and was taken. I moved the second one farther into my property, but they took that one too.”

The Vernon Outdoor Sports Committee received a donation to replace their signs from a concerned “NO” supporter. The Greater Vernon Advocates Committee is wondering whether they will receive a similar donation from a “Yes” supporter.

The anonymous No supporter for the Yes campaign signs wrote a letter that was given to Jim Garlick on Coldstream Council. The full message of that letter was not quoted in the media. It read:

“I am an active athlete and have been closely following this debate. What saddens and frustrates me is how divided the community is over the park issue. The acts of vandalism this past weekend demonstrate in brilliant colors how truly ignorant some people can act when living in a vacuum of political leadership.”

Unfortunately, unless the next municipal elections produce a miracle, it appears that GVS and GVS Parks and Recreation will continue to create these kinds of conflicts in our community through their lack of transparent political leadership and intelligent, dialogue based, long term planning. (As an example, surely it must be possible to identify and understand the needs of the various groups and propose compromised based solutions which work for all members of our community.)”

“Despite the fact that I am an active athlete, I find myself obligated (not currently in favour as reported in the Morning Star, pg. A10, Dec. 2nd) to support the “NO” side of the current debate and the vision and views of Coldstream Councilor Mr. Jim Garlick.

The author finishes by saying, “I also hope that what ever the outcome of the referendum is that all members of our community recognize the advantages for all of us to understand each others needs and reach solutions based on a ‘win/win’ mentality as opposed to the current GVSC and GVS Parks and Recreation mentality of ‘win/lose’.”

Threatening E-mails:

Gyula Kiss reports that his blog: http://coldstreamernews.blogspot.com/ received some nasty and or threatening e-mails about the sports complex issue. The writers, “unclesmelly”, “tommy shaw”, and “Pete Piichot” chose to call the ‘No’ proponents names like, “old farts”, “Birdie Brains” & “clowns”. Tommy Shaw threatened the people to “Vote yes or face a good boot in the rear”. Gareth Southgate said, “if you do not vote yes prepare for the consequences of your inappropriate behaviour.” “Gina Gershon” wrote, “maybe it is because the no side has their head up their ass”.

Tuesday, Dec. 4th another e-mail came in that said:
From: bert l pederson
Date: 12/4/2007 1:05:04 PM
To: coldstreamer@shaw.ca
Subject: YES to new park or you get boot in ass

I talk to my friend greg he say you no want park on Aberdeen road he say you hate kids . I talk to neighbout of you on kidston road the Carr's he say you have head up your ass. that you have spent too much time with old cocaine pipe . I drink at alexanders andy danyliu there one night he say to me yes park good on abereen road. he say originally he talk out of his ass now he talk out of his mouth . he got bad dope from beleize and it made him sick for awhile. I see you not vote at polling station I boot you in ass when i see you take your dog for crap in orchard. Bert

How unfortunate that in today’s supposedly enlightened world this is how people act – whether in person or through various forms of communication. Some hide behind fake names so as to not identify themselves, but their ignorance and intolerance for others views is blatant for all to see.

It is this type of mentality that leads to bullying in schools, cliques and all forms of abuse.

It is sad and just another indicator that what should have been a proposal based upon public input from all sides of the issue has turned into an ugly, name calling, threatening, vandalism laden, divisive debate and campaign.

Everyone will form an opinion. What is important is that the opinion is based upon a full knowledge of the facts. That is the goal of the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee. We encourage people to read the Greater Vernon Master Parks Plan, the actual application from GVS to the District of Coldstream, Coldstream’s Official Community Plan and ALR guidelines, facts and figures. It will give voters an understanding of what is truly happening with this application.

Divided Community, Political Leadership & Building Fences

A letter addressed to Bill Tarr and Sandra Simao of November 28 2007 was dropped off to Coldstream Councillor, Jim Garlick.

The anonymous writer has admonished the GVSC and GVS for "the lack of transparent political leadership and intelligent, dialogue based, long term planning".

The writer donated $1,000 towards the replacement of signage that was vandalised in the hope that it would demonstrate the need to "mend some fences" within a community divided on this issue.

Much of the content of this letter was not referred to in the Morning Star Article dated Dec 2 2007. We have attached both documents for our readers to critique.

Sports Compex (get informed) - Letter to Editor - Morningstar Dec 2/07

On Nov. 6, we attended a very well organized and informative meeting of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association. The meeting was billed as a town hall meeting on the proposed sports complex and we made a conscious decision to attend and become more informed on the issue prior to the upcoming referendum.
 
The speakers were all very passionate and clearly cared a lot about our community. The evening was interesting but more interesting to us has been what has happened since. While one speaker appropriately mentioned that the upcoming referendum is pitting families against families and neighbours against neighbours we did not realize how much until our pictures appeared in The Morning Star article “Residents rally opposition to complex,” on Nov. 9.

Since then more than a few co-workers, neighbours, people at the gym, etc have commented on us not wanting more playing fields. Honestly, we still haven’t decided how to vote and having our pictures in the paper has stirred healthy debate and allowed us to explore other people views on the subject. Gathering more information was our intent and we have certainly done that as a result of our evening out. 

We would like to encourage others to find out the facts, hear both sides of the issue, talk to your friends and neighbours and make an informed vote on Dec. 15. Your opinion matters and we know you care about the future of Coldstream – a few of you have shared with us just how much.  Thanks for your input.

Pat & Judy Hughes

Agricultural Land - Letter to Editor - Morningstar Dec 2/07

When did saying yes to agriculture mean saying no to parks, or no to kids?

I am of course referring to the proposed sports complex that would eat up a significant portion of this valley’s limited agricultural land in Coldstream. I have made an effort to read up on as many sides to the issue as I can and I surely sympathize with the need for sports facilities in the North Okanagan.

However, as a community we must not permit any further loss of agricultural land. Ask any farmer, once land is used for something other than agriculture, it will never come back to farming; especially if a large chunk is paved over for parking.  Also, not a single supporter of farmland is saying no to parks.

In fact, I am sure we could all enjoy more park space, but does it have to come at the price of agricultural land?

“But our youth need sports space!” you say, well I happen to be one of the rural youth in the North Okanagan, so I understand the value of sports facilities.  I played baseball in a local league for years. Yet, baseball players have no use for soccer fields and soccer players have no use for dog agility space. So why must these things be grouped together?

 
If you break the complex up into small pieces it will be easier to find suitable, non-agricultural, space. Moreover, what about the youth activities that already happens out on the farm like 4-H and equine sports?

The bottom line is those of us who oppose the sports complex only want to see farmland stay farmland.

Only three per cent of the entire province is suitable farmland and a large portion of that lies in the Okanagan Valley.  Yes, we need sports space but agricultural land cannot be the answer.
I do not want my future to be one where we must rely on other countries for the food we eat because we cannot grow it ourselves.

 
And to those who think we can make an exception just this one time, remember if we keep taking pieces of the pie, sooner or later it is all gone.

Dustin Griffin

Complex Complains Grow - Morningstar - Nov 30th - Jennifer Smith

Opposition continues to be vocal in Coldstream over the proposed sports complex, while little is heard from politicians and those in favour.

The district has received even more letters from residents opposed to the Aberdeen Road complex – 129 versus one letter in favour. These are in addition to the 277 letters in opposition and nine in favour received two weeks ago.

Yet Coldstream politicians are doing nothing more than receiving the letters for information.
Meanwhile several residents are calling on their mayor and councillors to provide more information, such as cost estimates, how the proposed and existing parks and fields will be maintained and just general clarity on the issue.

“People in Coldstream see the choice as between a complex or housing,” said Richard Enns, an opposing resident who says the choice is really between a complex or agricultural land. “The council, perhaps Coldstream, has failed to get the information out there. Without that clarity it’s going to divide the community.”

Resident Gyula Kiss also questioned why this facility is needed and how it will be maintained.
“We actually have a high number of sports fields,” he said, referring to Greater Vernon Services Committee’s parks inventory. “If you’re going to add more it’s going to be even less maintained because there’s going to be less money in the budget.”

Mayor Gary Corner did say that the need and search for fields have been issues for quite some time. He added that GVSC has long been consulting with sports and recreation groups about their current and future needs, which is how this proposed project has come about. “We’ve been looking for a piece of property for years now, certainly before my time on council.”

Coldstream and GVSC are reluctant to release definite costs for the project because details of what will be included still need to be finalized. Those details will be ironed out through a public input meeting after, and if, Coldstream residents and the Agricultural Land Commission allow a land use change.

Coldstream residents will vote on the issue during a referendum Dec. 15, where they will be asked if they support forwarding an application to the ALC for 118 acres to be used for non-farm use, for the purpose of sports fields.

If the project goes ahead, Coldstream’s portion of costs for the project would be 17.6 per cent.

Clarification of Status of Spicer Block

There appears to be a perception that if the Spicer Block is not converted into a sports complex it may eventually become a housing development. Let’s dispel that erroneous notion once and for all.

In a letter to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture the Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote:

“The Commission notes that it has indicated to the District of Coldstream through the Official Community Plan process that it would consider the urban development of a PORTION of the Spicer Block upon consolidation of smaller lots owned by Coldstream Ranch into larger agricultural parcels. However, the Commission has not provided any support for, or outlined a framework by which it would consider the continued urbanization of the remaining Spicer Block.”

The District of Coldstream OCP shows the Spicer Block as primarily Agricultural, with a portion zoned RMC – Residential Mixed Cluster. This portion is on the South West Corner. It is however labeled – subject to ALC conditions. Those conditions are as follows (page 8):

In order to protect the long term agricultural viability of the valley bottom from possible “hobby farm” development on the existing smaller parcels of the Coldstream Ranch, the Agricultural Land commission, the District of Coldstream and the Ranch have been engaged in discussions about the potential for consolidating the smaller lots.

To offset the economic losses this consolidation would incur for the Coldstream Ranch, the District has proposed that the value of the approximately forty lots that would be lost in the consolidation be transferred to a more suitable site. These transferred parcels would be considerably smaller than the existing lots and clustered so as to reduce the impacts on the surrounding area.

After conducting an intensive development constraints and opportunities analysis, the District presented a number of potential development sites to the OCP steering committee and Coldstream Ranch for consideration. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these sites were discussed (by the whole group). All of these options were eventually deemed unsuitable, with the exception of the Spicer Block.

The Spicer block has relatively high agricultural capacity, but it is located close to existing development and sewer servicing and offers the potential of developing stronger ties to the existing and proposed residential community. The proposed cluster of single family and multi-family residential could be enhanced by recreational land which could act as a buffer separating residential from agricultural uses. Residents attending open houses in Lavington and Coldstream in march 1997 responded favorably to the consolidations and density transfer idea. 73% of Lavington respondents and 67% of Coldstream respondents agreed with the idea.

There is a whole section on how to facilitate the consolidation and density transfer. However, the Coldstream Ranch owner refused to consolidate the parcels and therefore this entire project is no longer on the books.

The Coldstream Meadows development is built on a section of land that was granted alternate use while still being classified as being in the agricultural reserve. This is proof that once the land is granted alternate use within the agricultural land reserve anything can happen to it.

The only way to ensure that the land remains productive agriculture land is by voting NO on the referendum question!

Danger Zone in Coldstream

One of the more dangerous corners in Coldstream is at the intersection of Aberdeen and Venables Roads. Increased traffic from the mega sports complex would significantly increase the number of accidents at that intersection. Reconstruction of the road would be born by Coldstream residents as demonstrated by the attached image. Residents of the area are extremely worried of the potential increase in traffic volumes if the sports complex is approved.

For further information contact Charlene Smart at 542-9694.

Notice to residents of Coldstream

The District of Coldstream reminds residents that posting referendum related posters on power poles is illegal and such posters will be removed by Municipal staff.

Coldstream Councillor's Communication - Morningstar Nov 28th

I am writing to clarify my position in response to Jennifer Smith’s article and Richard Rolke’s editorial. Ms. Smith quoted me as saying, "If we go ahead with this, I see no use in being there (on council) anymore." She did not provide any context. Mr. Rolke wrote he found my statement troublesome that I would not seek re-election if the yes-vote won the referendum on the proposed sports complex. He wrote, "That sounds like the kid, who not liking how the game is going, storms off the field with his ball." And "Was Garlick elected to represent all of Coldstream or just those he agrees with? Is he saying he knows better than the electorate?"

Neither Mr. Rolke nor Ms Smith took the time to speak to me for the rational behind my statement. I would therefore like to present that rational here in the hope that my intentions are not misconstrued.

I ran for council on a platform of the need for planned development and preservation of ALR land within Coldstream. I did not choose this platform because I thought it the flavour of the day and that it would get me elected. I chose it because it is something I strongly believe in. It is also an issue that Coldstream residents strongly believe in. 88% of Coldstream survey respondents stated that preserving ALR land was one of their top three priorities. The other two were, "managing rapid population growth and preserving environmentally sensitive areas".

The present issue regarding the proposed sports complex on Aberdeen Road involves both planning and preserving ALR land. This is a complex issue that goes beyond just buying a piece of land for a park.

From a planning viewpoint, the thought that this land is better a sports complex than condos is flawed. The repercussions of the sports complex of the type shown in the original proposed plan will affect Coldstream development well beyond this parcel of land. It will affect the type and scale of development as well the physical direction development takes in the community, eastward. A mega sports complex will pave the way for the hotels, restaurants, stores and more parking lots surrounding the sports facility. A precedent will be set. Other landowners in the area will come forward for exclusion from the ALR and subdivision within the ALR. How do we tell them no? How do we protect ALR land in future if we allow a mega sports complex on more than 100 acres of prime agricultural land?

We could not have gone out and found a higher quality piece of agricultural land to denude of its agricultural capability with this sports complex if we had tried. This parcel is one of the best pieces of agricultural land in the Historic Coldstream Ranch. It is one parcel of over 100 acres, has high-quality soil in a mild microclimate, and is actively being farmed as part of a larger value-added operation. It has been an apple orchard and could support 240,000 high-density apple trees. It shows a lack of education in an important aspect of life, food, to say, "It only grows hay."

The land within the ALR is the backbone of Coldstream. It is an economic generator for our area and provides Coldstream with great opportunities other than just being a cheap land bank for development. This land will become increasingly important as the world comes to grips with issues of food security due to fuel costs and climate change. Paving over the best agricultural land will not serve us well over the long term.

I believe we can find alternatives to this site for a sports complex that would minimize the impact on agricultural land. Not enough effort has been made to look for such alternatives. Grahame Park at Fulton School could be used as a site for a football stadium. School sites should be identified for partnerships between GVS parks and the school board for improvement and new facilities. Schools are where children actually participate in sports.

I stand behind my principles and my original platform. I made my reasons for running for office known. I believe it is the reason people elected me. I am not going to change my stance to provide what I consider to be a "want" rather than a "need". I will campaign for the NO vote. If the vote goes the other way by a convincing majority of the Coldstream electorate then I will accept the vote, continue to represent the public and the public input process to the end of my term. I would not however spend time, energy and money to run in the next election. I would not be the right "player" to represent the community in what I would see as damage control of "urban sprawl". I do not see myself as the kid taking my ball and going home, but rather the coach that has been asked to find another job because I do not fit the team’s vision.


Jim Garlick
Councillor
Email jimgarlick@msn.com