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.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
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
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.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
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
Monday, December 10, 2007
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
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
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
