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