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.

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.

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.

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

Councillor comes Under Fire

“For those that don't want that area (complex) near their place you might do what me and my husband did – we moved.” (click on image)

That is the advice of Councillor Williams to those upset by the potential negative effects of the sports complex. So all those residents presently residing around the Spicer Block, all those present and future residents of the new development across the road take note. If you don't like music festivals, huge sports events with the accompanying noise and traffic you better move out of Coldstream.

Councillor Williams states that they "...couldn’t find housing that was suitable for us at this stage in our lives” in Coldstream, thus they moved out of the area. It is another surprise!

Coldstream Meadows, which was created with the support of the Councillor, recently ran a major ad campaign advertising their homes. They might be a bit more pricey, the utilities (water, sewer) might be higher, taxes might also be higher but then Mrs Williams would have a better appreciation of OUR burden when it comes to voting on increased taxes and higher sewer a water rates. Since she is not affected by these expenses, forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of the Councillor that she is representing Coldstream residents' interest.

I am quite certain that the inconvenience of the traffic, noise, light pollution, loud music of the music festivals will not be experienced by Councillor Williams so she could vote for the complex in good conscience.

ColdstreamR News

Open Letter to Mrs. Malerby

Mrs. Malerby:

I am very disappointed to find that you are so easily swayed. As a retired teacher, I've dealt with many principals over the years who all tell student bodies (secondary schools) that petitions are a very ineffective method of process, simply because they are so open to misuse and misrepresentation.

Can you assure me--beyond question--that the 600+ names on that petition are all Coldstream taxpayers? Are some of them not possibly youngsters well below the age of voting, or paying taxes? Might some of them be from unorganized jurisdictions? Who collected the names? The only petition on the subject of which I was aware (I am a Coldstream taxpayer) was online via Greater Vernon Sports, and on reading it, I found no restriction on signers to be Coldstream taxpayers.

A second point is that the question now goes to referendum. Excuse me--do Coldstream taxpayers need to foot the bill for a referendum (and, for the sake of interest, how much does that cost?) giving direction as to whether or not to send an application in to a Commission that has, in the past, stated concretely that agricultural land is to be retained? Has anyone thought to query the ALC as to where they stand on this question, before getting involved with referenda and such? Has anyone thought to inform the ALC that, in dealing with this question, they will be embroiling themselves in local politics?

My husband and I voted for you in the last election. Should you choose to run again, you most definitely will not secure our votes another time.

by Cathryn Brown

Council News.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM
TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007
IN THE MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9901 KALAMALKA ROAD, COLDSTREAM, BC
AT 7:00 PM

A G E N D A (see) (click on see)

Council will receive and file the letters from Coldstream residents opposing the change of use of the Spicer Block.

Page 43 e.

Application for Non-Farm Use Within the ALR,

File No. 07-020-ALR (Proposed Park/Sports Field) Lot A, Sections 24 & 25, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan 2420, Except Plan H14664 (9325 Aberdeen Road)

Listing of letters received from Coldstream residents (see separate binder)

Letter from Ted and Carolyn Osborn, dated November 13, 2007

Recommendation

THAT the following correspondence:

Listing of letters received from Coldstream residents (see separate binder)

Letter from Ted and Carolyn Osborn, dated November 13, 2007 regarding Application for Non-Farm Use Within the ALR (Proposed Park/Sports Field, Lot A, Sections 24 K& 25, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan 2420, Except Plan H14664 (9325 Aberdeen Road), be received for information.

Note: This subject opens the door for public input on the Aberdeen sports complex under Item 2. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COUNCIL (Total Time Allotted: 10 Minutes). Anyone wishing to take advantage of this opportunity should do so!!