Penticton Waterslide

[Thinktank]

^ That's wonderful.

The Herald’s poll found support for the waterslides development decreased with age. It was highest at 24 per cent among those ages 18 to 34, and lowest at 12 per cent among those 65 and older.

So according to the poll, almost none (just 12%) of the older people in Penticton want the slide,
and the dictator wants to force us to lose more money, and lose part of the park forever.

The younger people, in my opinion are clueless because they only think about what is fun - now - today.
They don't think about actually paying for something long term. They'll say "Wow! Awesome, a waterslide would be
fun."

But speaking of "logic" I was thinking. If you really want to rob Penticton people of a perfectly
utilized part of Skaha Park forever (It is utilized the way nature intended it to be utilized - naturally)
the smartest thing to do would be to build something that can be used (utilized) year round instead of
just for three months. Something that people would remember Penticton for. If we were to build the biggest Ferris Wheel on earth, that would draw tourists here. It would be dirt cheap to build. It would make us a profit to help
pay for our other losses. It would not take up much space. It would earn money twelve months of the year.



Build a bigger ferris wheel than London on Skaha Park. Now that's good logic.




http://saveskahapark.ca/category/news/

[fluffy]

So according to the poll, almost none (just 12%) of the older people in Penticton want the slide,
and the dictator wants to force us to lose more money, and lose part of the park forever.

Funny, this is being discussed to some length on a Penticton-specific site and one of the things that is becoming evident is that a large number of people on both sides of the issue simply haven't thought it out any further than green=good/money=bad.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that an informed, objective decision beats out an emotional one every time, and that there are factions in Penticton determined to keep this issue emotionally charged for just that reason. The question arises as to whether or not you are happy to be a pawn in someone else's game, or if you are willing to do a little homework and come to an informed decision of your own.

[Rosemary1]

The Save Skaha Park group has mobilized people and resources to challenge the way the decision was made by Council and the decision itself which they believe to be a poor one for the many reasons the group has stated.

Polls aside, there is nothing stopping those in favour of waterslides to organize and come forward with their own collective voice and arguments.

[fluffy]

That has certainly been done. Websites and petitions are out there, but the "Save the Park" appears to be more organized and certainly more passionate about their cause. Make of that what you will, but for all intents and purposes it does appear that prevailing sentiment is against the waterslide proposal. That's not to say that there is no support for the proposal, but the "No" side is making a lot more noise.

[Thinktank]

Actually the No people are not making a lot more noise. They are all in favor of waterslides
like I am, but they don't want to squeeze Penticton people into a smaller and smaller park
just so the richer people who can afford to pay to slide can have a million dollar lake view while they slide.

Yes to waterslides. Without the expensive view.

[fluffy]

You're right Thinktank, the use of public parkland for private enterprise is the issue at the heart of this.

Green space is holy ground to many, but not me. I see a proposal where private enterprise is willing to make significant improvements to the area which would enhance the tourist trade and provide revenue for city coffers, and all on their dime, in exchange for cheap rent on a small percentage of the available land in Skaha Park, 12 to 13 percent to be precise. What is wrong with treating this land as an asset to be exploited when the benefits are plain to see? And what is the cost? A sliver of land which is not in short supply?

[rustled]

And the particularly contentious part of that leased area is smaller still.

[XT225]

Apparently the YES side (as small as it is) is as much "un-informed" as is the No side.

I've yet to run into one single person who is against the slides, period. But a LARGE percentage of them simply want it on more suitable lands. Ie: the Native lands across the channel. Perhaps the new chief will approach Trio with a sweeter lease deal than the city offered them.

[rustled]

I find it amusing that anyone still thinks Trio got into this whole thing because they wanted to build a waterslide.

[XT225]

I find it amusing that anyone still thinks Trio got into this whole thing because they wanted to build a waterslide.

Trio is on record as stating that the entire project would NOT be viable without the slides. Then later, they said "the slides would not be happening"; only the Marina and restaurant project. Go figure; what the real truth is. Of course Trio is down to one owner now according to reports.

[rustled]

It doesn't seem at all logical to assume Trio's sole purpose in responding to the Skaha marina RFP was because they wanted to be in the business of running a waterslide.

[twobits]

It doesn't seem at all logical to assume Trio's sole purpose in responding to the Skaha marina RFP was because they wanted to be in the business of running a waterslide.

XT is correct. You must have missed earlier press statements from the Trio Group that the Water Slide was critical to their business proposal.

[twobits]

and all on their dime, in exchange for cheap rent

With all due respect Fluff, do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Cheap rent is for non profits and charities, not for profit driven businesses for 30 yrs.
I think we can trace this all back to a very poorly worded RFP. It was left too wide open and should have been clear that proposals should maintain and be in line with a Marina Operation and ancillary complimenting plans. A Water Slide is no more ancillary and complimentary to a Park and Marina than a McDonalds. A McDonalds BTW, would make more money for the City as well as provide year round employment at the same wage as the water slide will pay. Would any one sell out that piece of parkland for a mickie dee's? Hell no.

[rustled]

It doesn't seem at all logical to assume Trio's sole purpose in responding to the Skaha marina RFP was because they wanted to be in the business of running a waterslide.

XT is correct. You must have missed earlier press statements from the Trio Group that the Water Slide was critical to their business proposal.

No, I didn't miss that, but nor did I read into it what some are reading into it. Any developer might say their development isn't viable without any single component, but it's not logical to therefore assume that single component of their project was actually their sole purpose in proposing the development.

Think about it. If what you really wanted to do is open a waterslide someplace in the South Okanagan, wouldn't you approach the PIB about the Okanagan Amusements property, or the OIB with their burgeoning tourist interest, instead of getting involved with an aging marina and restaurant at the "retirement central" end of town?

Their proposal for the marina area was very ambitious, with all the nice free amenities they planned to provide. They'd need a significant draw to make the restaurant portion viable, and they'd need a significant source of revenue other than the marina and restaurant to make the proposed upgrades to the waterfront viable.

Sure, I suppose it's possible their goal all along was the waterslide (and then: condos! LOL.) But I doubt it.

[fluffy]

With all due respect Fluff, do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Cheap rent is for non profits and charities, not for profit driven businesses for 30 yrs.

Cheap rent is what makes a seasonal business there feasible. It also provides a revenue stream for the city from land that would normally produce zilch. I understand the issue of private business on public land, but feel that the need for revenue plus the benefits to the tourist trade makes the partnership attractive.