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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of Decision Making Power

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

No Cost Guarantees

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

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

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

Public use:

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

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

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

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

visit www.complexfacts.com

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

Concerned Area Residents Question the Aberdeen Sports Complex Vision

A number of Coldstream residents are questioning the recent press releases and the entire concept for the proposed Aberdeen sports complex. The Greater Vernon Outdoor Sports User Group recently compared their vision for the Aberdeen site to Ambleside Park in West Vancouver.

"Ambleside Park is drastically different than the proposal for a stadium and multiple playing fields being put forth for the Aberdeen property", commented Penny Thorlakson. "The majority of Ambleside Park is devoted to beach front access and a seawall walkway. There are a few sports fields, but no permanent structures such as stadiums or bleachers. The park is located in a large metropolitan area and not in a rural community."

"It is also important to note that the sports field portion of the West Vancouver Park is built on a marshy area where people used to dump refuse", said Gyula Kiss. "They didn't build on high quality soil, like the Aberdeen land. This is a far cry from ripping out land, which can support a wide variety of crops out of the Agricultural Land Reserve to build a sports complex."

"Once large quantities of sand and rock are placed on the Aberdeen land to prepare it for sports fields, the farm land will be lost forever" continued Maria Besso-Ockert. "The changing of the land to non farm use status also then opens up the possibility of housing. Note that the 160 unit Coldstream Meadows development is on ALR non farm use land"

Aside from agricultural issues, some residents are also concerned with the misperception about the proposed complex. "We constantly hear that this park is for the kids, but a solution truly geared to kids would be placing sports fields closer to neighborhoods, and not centralizing all sports in one mega site way out of town" commented Joanne Osborn. She feels that the proposed development is being sold as a park, but in reality it is development geared towards Funtastic and sports tourism.

"The vision unveiled by the Greater Vernon Outdoor Sports User Group this summer was not for a park, but for multiple playing fields, a stadium, and 1,000 parking spaces. Walking trails were mentioned in the press, but this was for a completely different location along the Grey Canal parallel to Buchanan Road. GVSC bundled the Aberdeen and Grey Canal proposals together, but Coldstream Council separated the proposals at the September meeting and passed the Grey Canal concept." Osborn believes that the current press release from the Sports User Group is now just claiming to include family friendly structures for picnicking and non-sport leisure activities at the Aberdeen development to ease public concern.

Many residents, like Denice Berlinski, are also concerned that there hasn't been a professional independent review for the needs of the user groups. "Mayor Gary Corner and some sporting groups pushed this issue to the forefront without any concern for the Coldstream community plan", said Denice Berlinski. She goes on to point out that the Greater Vernon Services Master Parks Plan states that there is a very high field to person ratio in Vernon when compared to other B.C. communities. "Coldstream has 18% of the population and 27% of the sports fields, not counting Coldstream's resources for lacrosse, ball hockey, skateboarding, beach volleyball and tennis."

However, if user groups still feel the need to build more fields, many Coldstream residents question why the proposed rubber track cannot be added to the future site of Vernon Secondary, similar to the site at Penticton Secondary, or that a football stadium can't be built as a stand alone structure/field, and that current sporting and school fields be upgraded. "We don't believe that all avenues have been seriously exhausted. Greater Vernon Services and the Greater Vernon Outdoor Sports Group want a monstrous complex for tournaments and are putting out the notion that this is our only option and chance to have better sports fields. It's not," added Patrick Tymkiw, a concerned Coldstream resident.

Coldstream residents head to the polls on December 15th to vote on whether or not to send an application to the Agriculture Land Commission for non-farm use on the property.

TURBULENT TRUTHS - by Joyce Gershony, Coldstream

We need to look beyond what is being presented to us at the surface as soccer fields for children and local sports clubs, to the turbulent truths that lie underneath. This proposal has been shrouded in a cape of political doublespeak and secrecy right from the beginning. It sprang into being fully formed, with absolutely no input from the general public like us. The referendum question itself was posed to make it sound as harmless as possible. At a council meeting on October 22, Councillor Bill Firman raised the question of why “gild the lily”. He requested to remove the bracketed section in the referendum question which states: “(this proposal is for change of use, not removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve)”. He challenged council to call it as it is – this land is really being requested to be removed from the ALR. Let’s not fool ourselves as to what this question really means. Let’s not fool ourselves either as to what this mega sports facility really represents - it’s not really about sports fields for children; it’s about something much different than that.

We are all aware of what we are being told at the surface level here – that these 118 acres of prime farm land on Aberdeen Road are being used for soccer fields for children, and green space. It doesn’t take much digging to get at the deeper truths. This prime farm land is being sacrificed for a mega sports tourism facility. Besides two baseball fields, four soccer pitches (two with lights), six slo-pitch/fastball fields, (two with lights) - there’s parking for 1000 vehicles, four dog agility fields, a banquet hall, storage, offices, washrooms, change rooms and bleachers, and most importantly, a fully lit stadium with a track and football field. This mega sports facility being proposed by Coldstream council sounds remarkably similar to Funtastic’s vision, as stated on their website. Yet Funtastic wants to call this a park! On the Funtastic website it states:

“Funtastic is fully behind this proposal and encourages all citizens to VOTE YES on December 15th … The proposed park will still remain within the ALR and will be designated non-farm use…The park will include some sports fields, walking trails and whatever the community at large wishes” (Funtastic website, Nov. 3, 2007, para. 1,2).

We need to ask ourselves: Does this proposal sound like some sports fields, or does it sound like a Funtastic site? Does this sound like what the community at large wishes? Does parking for 1000 vehicles, a banquet hall, storage, offices, washrooms, change rooms, bleachers, and most importantly, a fully lit stadium with a track and football field sound like a park, or concrete and steel? This is not green space! This is not soccer and baseball fields for children! This is an opportunity to bring sports tourism into our midst. As stated on the Funtastic website, their vision is of:

A multi sports facility with permanent facilities (including larger washrooms, concessions, building for officials and organizers, covered grandstands, dugouts, covered stage and clearly laid out parking). The new facility would become the ideal location to host tournaments (including volleyball, football, soccer, lacrosse, rugby, ultimate and slo-pitch) and outdoor events (including music performances, plays and outdoor festivals). (Vision, para. 2)

We need to ask ourselves: Do we want the heart of Coldstream to be utilized as a beer garden band festival? Without the restrictions of the present DND conditions, there could be parties with music resonating up and down this bowl-like valley (Ockert, Coldstreamernews, October 25, 2007). Do we want to welcome this nightmare vision of sports tourism into our vision of rural living at its best? Pity the people who look down on this mega complex, or anyone within our valley. Our quiet rural Coldstream neighborhoods will become something we don’t recognize, or want. By then it will be too late!

Coldstream council has stated:

“No cost estimates are being released on the project, as not to jeopardize the referendum question. The question is not about the cost, but whether Coldstream residents want the project or not” (Morning Star, October 12, 2007).

Scratch a little deeper and we need to ask ourselves: What exactly does council mean by as to not jeopardize the referendum question? To jeopardize, by definition, means “to put in danger". Does this mean that no cost estimates are being released on the project, because they don’t want to endanger their outcome of this referendum question? Cost estimates are essential to the referendum question. Without releasing cost estimates they are jeopardizing the referendum question. There is an obvious inherent bias in that statement. The question has to be about the cost, because that should be one of the major factors in the decision in whether Coldstream residents want the project or not. What informed consumer considers buying a major item without first knowing the cost? Why the secrecy? The majority of Coldstream council has made it obvious that they want this mega sports facility built. Are they ensuring a higher likelihood of their favoured outcome by not releasing proposed costs? Do you think we would be able to stop this momentum if we realize after the vote that the cost is too high? By then it will be too late!

Forty years ago we foolishly wasted water with no thought. Then we watered the sidewalks, the roads, our patios, and ran the sprinkler all day long just to cool off. Fast forward to now – water is a precious resource. Even in Canada, the land of plenty, we have water restrictions. With global warming bringing longer and hotter summers, water restrictions will only tighten. We need to ask: How much water will be wasted to keep this space green for leisure activities, rather than being used for food production? Would these fields be placed on water restrictions like the rest of us? Have we thought as well of the impact of the amount of herbicides and pesticides that will be pumped onto those playing fields to keep them weed and pest free? Those toxic chemicals will end up in Hunter Creek, which originates in this property. Those chemicals will continue down our watershed to Kal Lake – a source of our drinking water. Not to mention the species all along the wetlands that are fed by Hunter Creek that could potentially die out because of this massive interference. By then it will be too late!

It’s important to consider that only about 7 % of all ALR land left in B.C. is Class 1 and 2, and less than 20% of all ALR land in the Okanagan is Class 1 and 2. These 118 acres are rated as very high capability Class 2 land. There have been comments in the paper that this isn’t good land. This land grows only corn for cows. I’ve never seen it grow anything else! The truth is that it can grow a very wide range of crops, including fruits and vegetables, especially because it has a source of irrigation water. Let’s keep in mind as well that there are many small acreages neighboring this prime land in the ALR where the owners have been striving to be good stewards of the land. Following such a drastic change to their quiet rural lifestyle, they may soon be seeking to take their land out of the ALR as well. Will council be able to say no after allowing this prime ALR farm land to be developed? As stated by Don Elzer in the Vernon Courier:

“When land is removed from the ALR using the community need provision, what guarantee is there that future sprawl won’t result? Are we placing future food production needs at risk?” (October 25, 2007).

The surface words – we really have to build this mega sports facility on these 118 acres, and we need to do it fast! The deep truth: This land is as precious a resource as water, not to be wasted. Let’s not have to look back and think about this. By then it will be too late!

Now fast forward forty years. It’s not difficult to imagine that all our prime farm land has been developed, not just here, but everywhere else. The population in our valley, and elsewhere, has expanded exponentially. We can’t afford to buy imported food because the cost is too high, and, even if we could, the quality is low, full of preservatives needed for the long distances it has to travel to get to us. We realize as we look back that prime farm land was a precious resource that we foolishly wasted, and our grown children question us why we didn’t do more to protect it while we could. The time is now! Our prime farm land is a resource that should not be developed for any reason! True park development should be used to improve degraded marginal land. In this case good agricultural land is becoming degraded through the parks development process. We stand at the cusp of a momentous decision. This decision will have repercussions and echoes with far reaching effects. This decision is in the palm of your hand right now!

There are other options for sports fields distributed in Vernon and Coldstream. What happened to the idea of improving and more fully utilizing existing facilities such as the DND, Polson Park, school fields, Marshall Fields, as well as other ideas? What about the idea of buying smaller parcels of marginal, low-productivity or nonproducing ALR land? These options were suggested at the public meeting called by Coldstream council in September. Here they made their first decision not to send forward an application to develop this land. This decision turned out to be only a temporary one, because of pressure to push this mega sports tourism facility forward regardless of the legitimate concerns and strong objections of many Coldstream residents. As a result, no other options were given any opportunity to be explored. There are solutions out there; we just need the time and opportunity to find them. By stopping this proposal we enable all sides to work together with united strength to find a solution, rather than against each other.

We need an opportunity to find a solution that works for everyone!

We need to put a stop to Funtastic festivals, and noise and light pollution in our midst!

We need to put a stop to this injustice against our children’s future!

We need to look below the smoothly worded surface, to the turbulent truths beneath!

We need to vote NO!

When faced with the turbulent truths of the future certainty of higher taxes; the future certainty of noise and light pollution from this stadium in our midst; the future uncertainty of urban sprawl; the future uncertainty of global warming; and the future uncertainty of water and food shortages – the only defensible choice is No. The risk of this complex far outweighs the benefits. As stated by Margaret Mead: A small group of thoughtful people could change the world.

Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. We have power here. Power means simply our capacity to act. We need to take action now so that we can look back and know that we were that small group of thoughtful people that made a difference. What can we each personally do? Get out, and spread the words - Vote no!

Joyce Gershony, Coldstream

Fact Sheet - We Do Not NEED It!

Posted Wednesday, November 7 2007



The following is a compilation and evaluation of GVSC Parks data by Denice Berlinski and presented at the Town Hall meeting on November 7. We thank her for her due diligence.

The Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation Master Plan include the following (Pages 25 – 27): (http://www.greatervernon.ca/index.php?p=3.01)


The typical high and low range of supply based on other BC communities is:

Softball

Low range of supply 1/7,429 population

High range of supply 1/3,000 population

Our supply 1/2,116 population Very High Supply

Baseball

Low range of supply 1/10,000 population

High range of supply 1/7,429 population

Our supply 1/5,080 population Very High Supply

Sports Fields (soccer)

Low range of supply 1/6,000 population

High range of supply 1/2,811 population

Our supply 1/996 population Very High Supply

The above information is taken directly from Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation Master Plan which was published in 2004. (Relate this to teaching kids they can’t have everything they want. Also must respect and look after things they have before getting new things they want.)


Usage is Overstated in GVSC Master Plan because Fields Supply and Availability are both Understated


When calculating the usage factor for the playing fields in our area they used only 6 hours (9-3) availability for Saturday. This is grossly understated as most are used well into the evening hours on Saturday. These calculations also did not include any availability on Sunday. Neither Lavington Community School nor Lavington Park included in calculations. Facilities in these two locations include 2 ball diamonds and a soccer field.

Supply of Youth Soccer Fields in Coldstream

4 at Creekside Park

2 at Coldstream Elementary School

5 at Kidston Elementary School

1 at Lavington Elementary School

They have capacity for approximately 240 players per use (12 fields X 2 teams @ 10 players). With 1 use per weekday evening and 5 uses on Saturday, they can accommodate 2,400 players per week (240 players per use X 10 uses per week). That is enough for each of the 1,000 Coldstream children to play soccer 2.4 times per week. In fact, 5 year old children play only once per week, and children up to at least 10 play only twice per week (one game and one practice).


Supply of Youth Soccer Fields in Greater Vernon


We have a total of 35 youth soccer fields in the Greater Vernon area according to the Greater Vernon Park and Recreation Master Plan. Using the same factors as above; 2 teams per field, 10 players per team, and 10 uses per week, we have a total capacity for 7,000 youth soccer players per week. This is enough for each of the 2,223 children registered through NOYSA (North Okanagan Youth Soccer Association) to play soccer 3.15 times per week. Please note that this does not include Marshall Field or DND, or the field at Lavington School. In fact, 5 year old children play only once per week, and children up to at least 10 play only twice per week (one game and one practice).


Sports Field Supply in Coldstream


If you count only soccer, slow-pitch, and rugby/football, we have 7 sites hosting 23 sports fields. According to the Parks Master Plan there are 85 of these sports fields in Greater Vernon, therefore Coldstream has 27% of these facilities. According to Stats Can 2006 Census we have 18% of the total population of Greater Vernon. This does not take into account all the other facilities in Coldstream such as:

2 lacrosse/hockey rinks

1 skateboard park

2 beach volleyball courts

as well as several tennis courts

Spicer Block Production Capability: 600 tonnes of hay or 2900 tonnes of corn silage


This property could also produce apples, prunes, strawberries, cane crops such as raspberries, and cool season vegetables such as peas, potatoes, carrots, etc. This land has excellent soils, greater than 150 frost free days, and is large enough for commercial food production.


The majority of the Beef produced by Coldstream Ranch may in fact be sold south of the border, however, that still contributes to our food supply here. It is a matter of each of us doing what we are better suited for and then sharing. I will try to explain this reasoning in a simplified fashion. If we, in Canada, reduced our beef sales to the USA, they would have to increase their own production of beef. In order to produce more of their own beef they would have to produce more hay, corn, and grain to feed the cattle. In order to produce more hay, corn and grain, they would have to decrease production of some other products they are growing on the land needed to grow these crops. In all likelihood they would choose to decrease production of fruit and vegetable crops that they export rather than decrease their own food supply. Therefore there would be less fruits and vegetables available for us. Many these products we simply cannot grow here ourselves because of our climate.





Traffic concerns relate to Marshall Field traffic trouble with only 200 vehicles


Anyone who has ever attended a soccer game at Marshall Field knows the nightmare that it is to get into and out of the parking lot there. Just imagine the congestion with 5 times the volume, not to mention the light at the highway that will stop traffic and add to the problem. Also adding to the problem most people will be coming via the highway and will have to turn left across traffic on Aberdeen Road to enter the site.


This property will not become housing subdivision if Coldstream does not support it being removed from the ALR.


In order to apply to the ALC to change use of or remove land from the ALR the applicant must get support from the local governing body first. If we vote NO to this referendum we effectively let our council know that we do not agree with them supporting any such application to the ALC regarding this land. They could not then, in good faith, support any future applications. The most likely way for this property to become a housing development would be to vote YES in this referendum. If the ALC refuses this application, which they have already said they are likely to do, our council could then in goof faith support future applications to the ALC regarding this property without any further public input.


Boundary for development – OCP?


City of Vernon should be held to account and demand that they secure the Marshall Field site. Other sites are available:

Beside Kin Track

South of landfill - Letter to editor

East of Hillview Golf Course??

May be surplus to current owner but not surplus to Area.


The current owner of the land may be in a position that he has a surplus of land but that does not mean that the Okanagan Valley, or the Province of B.C. or for that matter even Canada have a surplus of productive agricultural land.


ALR land quoted as reason to abandon other potential sites


On an information sheet circulated by the sports users group at the September 11 meeting, the land being in the ALR is listed as a reason to abandon other lower grade, less productive, potential sites however seems of no concern for this site. Why is that?


Concern for Greenhouse emissions created by people driving to/from sports fields


A yellow information sheet circulated by the sports users group at the September 11 meeting, stated concern about the greenhouse emissions produced by Coldstream residents (9,471) driving the families to/from fields outside of Coldstream as a reason to support this proposed sports complex in Coldstream. I fail to see how having the other Vernon area residents (43,102) driving out to Coldstream instead would improve the situation.


Number of Coldstream Children Registered in youth soccer is overstated


If number 1,000 is factual, then 75.47% of the children (age 5-14) in Coldstream are registered in youth soccer, and only 25.27% of the rest of the children (age 5-14) in Greater Vernon are registered in youth soccer. Hard to believe. Using 1,000 kids, 10 age groups (5-14), 10 kids/team, that means there are 10 teams for every age group in Coldstream. This is absolutely not true for either my daughter’s or son’s age groups.


No Resemblance to Polson Park


I honestly think Mr. Corner must have some very serious optical impairment if he can see any more than a fleeting resemblance between Polson Park and the Sports Complex that he is trying to shove down our throats (Corner Field perhaps??). The only resemblance between the two sites is a football field, although the one proposed for Aberdeen Road site is much larger. Polson Park is indeed a park, it has only two organized sporting areas surrounded by beautiful open spaces and amenities for everyone to use and enjoy at any time. The complex proposed for the Aberdeen Road site is a sports complex plain and simple. There are no amenities, nor even any open space for use by the general public, there are only sports fields to satisfy the 4 user groups involved.


Agricultural Potential Lost


Once this site is covered by large permanent buildings, and asphalt it can never be reclaimed for agricultural purposes. Simply leveling it to the extent required for sports fields will remove the topsoil that makes it so productive. The result would be no different than removing it from ALR altogether.


No Walking Paths or Trails


There are no walking paths or hiking trails of any kind in this plan. The notion that these facilities would be incorporated probably stems from the fact that the Gray Canal walking Trail and this Complex were somehow deemed to be connected in some way during discussions. Gray canal is nowhere near Aberdeen Road. It is more than a mile away on the South-facing hillside above Buchannan Road.





What about the other ½???


The total size of the land the GVSC is proposing to purchase is 118 acres. The sports complex plan occupies only 60 acres. What is planned for the other 58 acres? How can we be expected to make an informed decision when we do not have ½ of the information?





At What Cost??


How can anyone be expected to make and intelligent, informed decision when we know absolutely no costs associated with this proposed sports complex?





by Denice Berlinksi

Demographics of Coldstream & Vernon . . . How it Fits In

Demography is simply the study of population and how it changes over time. Its components are birth, death, migration and aging. The renowned Canadian demographer David Foot (author of the best seller Boom, Bust and Echo) claims that demography explains two-thirds of everything. The other one-third might come from misguided political leadership and other unpredictable events.

Coldstream and Vernons’ population distribution mirrors both Canada’s and B.C.’s demography, but with much greater growth in the retirement/senior population. The median age (half of the population younger, and half older ) is 44.3 years for Coldstream and 44.8 years for Vernon. This is what the median population of B.C. is expected to be by the early 2020s (Canada Census 2006). We are an older community and getting older; the median age in the year 2031 is projected to be 47.4 years for Vernon.

Since 1999/2000 there has zero to negative net natural increase in population (more deaths than births in Vernon). All population growth to the year 2031 will be driven by net migration.

The actual age distribution over time reveals the following percentages for Vernon:

Census 2001

Less than 25 years old.... 30%

25 – 44 years ...................26%

55 years and greater .......31%

65 years and greater .......17%

Census 2006

Less than 25 years old... 28.2%

25 – 44 years ..................22.3%

55 years and greater.......33.6%

65 years and greater.......19.9%

Census projection 2031

Less than 25 years old....23%

25 – 44 years..................23%

55 years and greater.......38%

65 years and greater.......26%

Note that the 2031 projection was done without the benefit of the 2006 Census data (ie. used only 2001 data and historical growth rates)

The growth of the “over 55 years group” as a percentage of total population may actually be higher than the 38% projected by 2031 , if the rate of growth between 2001 and 2006 is sustained. The “25 – 44 years” group has already fallen below the 30 year projection, in a mere 5 years.

As for the age group that dominates organized sport and puts the greatest pressure on sport field use, one has to look no further than the BCTF to establish school enrolment projections:

“Full time-equivalent student enrolments have declined steadily since 2001/2002 and are expected to do so until the school-age population in B.C. begins to increase at about 2015. The most recent-published population projections (B.C. Stats, February 2007) indicate that by 2031, the school age population will have returned to 2000/2001 levels, the highest in the almost 40 year period between 1970 and 2007.”

So given the establishment of the adequacy of sport fields in Vernon and Coldstream to present need (see Blog Archive….Some Additional Info from Denice Berlinski), one can easily conclude that these existing fields will be somewhat underutilized for the next decade and will easily satisfy “community need” for the next 30 years, until school populations revive.

Additionally, as the school district continues to be impacted by enrolment shortfalls, and hence revenue shortfalls, some sharing of fields and costs with GVS may prove attractive for the likes of football and track needs as well as gymnasiums etc.

Data Sources:
BCTF Research Report Section IV 2007-50-1 Population and Housing Profile and Projection for the City Of Vernon, 2001-2031: Dec 2006B.C. Stats 2006 Census Profile VernonB.C. Stats 2006 Census Profile Coldstream



Author: Greg Ockert