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.

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

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.