Human chain around park.

Post Reply
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by twobits »

rustled wrote:

Where is the 40 years coming from? (I've read the lease period is for 29 years.)



This comment from someone who posts intelligent and articulate comments actually surprises me. Surprised because in our back and forth banter, I had always assumed you were informed enough about the topic to make factually based comments. Apparently I was incorrect. If you were seriously interested in what the City is handing over, you would know that the recently signed lease by Mayor Jak was for a 29 yr term....with two additional five yr options to be exercised at Trio's prerogative providing they have complied with the lease terms to date. There is no mention of a lease rate negotiation for the two five yr options either so one must conclude the rate and terms set 30 yrs prior would continue. That would then be 39 yrs with the 2 five yr options. Add on the preliminary one yr lease for this year and my math tells me it is a 40 yr lease. So ya, two generations. And in my opinion, qualifies as a disposition of City lands. When my 25 yr old son will qualify for his CPP pension before he has any input on Skaha Park......ya it's a disposition of lands.
I would suggest you read a copy of the agreement. It would appear that Trio is also granted all vending rights all the way down the beach to the first house on South Beach Drive for the first five yrs. That would be the entire length of Skaha Beach. It does exclude current activities such as the concessions but the exclusion area suspiciously only specifies essentially the sand beach and a few feet past the asphalt roadway paralleling the sand beach. Everything else north of that including the volley ball courts up to including the treed park around the tennis courts is not in the exclusion area??
Did you also know that the revenue sharing agreement of profits that have been sold to the public as funds to purchase new park lands or improve already existing park lands only requires the City to use 50% of those funds for such purposes? The rest can just go into general revenues which only strengthens the argument that this a a commercialization of our park lands as a cash cow to general revenues.
Read the damn agreement and weep....if you have any kind of heart and any sense of local heritage and value. I can't believe that a hard core capitalist like myself, dyed blue politically, is chirping like a hippie on Baker St in Nelson about saving park land. Then again, perhaps it's just one of those convoluted examples where I know what the value of this kind real estate is to a community vs an assessed value for a lease agreement. I have no doubt that 20 yrs hence, should this lease be consummated, the Council of the day and the population will be saying, "what the *bleep* were they thinking?"
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Michael Brydon
Newbie
Posts: 35
Joined: Oct 6th, 2010, 2:00 pm

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by Michael Brydon »

twobits wrote:As to the litigation....I am not so sure that resistance is futile in this case. While there are some parallels between this and your Auditorium effort, the conclusion is not necessarily a cut and paste decision [...] there are several other points listed the City might have much more difficulty with.

My motivation in weighing in on this topic is that like rustled I see a lot of parallels between this debate and the auditorium + north gym debate of 2007-08. At that time I was a True Believer in our little group's righteousness and was certain our 2,600 name petition gave us all the democratic legitimacy we needed. I was wrong. So I am posting this simply to share what I learned when I was on the other side of the table.

What I learned is basically this: Duly elected governments are, by definition, always right. Otherwise you would not have elected them.

Don't believe me? Consider Mr. Justice Barrow's ruling on the Pen-Hi issue. After throwing out our case against School District 67 due to lack of standing, he goes on to say that he would have ruled against us even if we had standing. He cited the following precedent:
Campbell J. on behalf of the Ontario Divisional Court in Ross v. Avon Maitland District School Board, [2000] O. J. No. 5680 wrote:It is not within our power to second guess the financial and political decisions of elected officials who act within their legal jurisdiction. The merits of [Decision X], the rightness or the wrongness of these decisions are issues of community concern, finance and politics beyond the limited reach of this unelected court. It is not for the court to say whether [Decision X] is right or wrong. The narrow mandate of the court is to inquire whether [Decision X] is authorized by law, whether there was adequate public consultation as required by law, and whether the decision is taken through a process that is procedurally fair.

Ouch! Keep in mind that the passage of time has shown that our arguments were absolutely right. All the bad things we said would happen did happen and Penticton, almost a decade later, has no replacement auditorium and no realistic plans for one. But the courts don't care if you're right; they only care whether your government did something obviously and provably illegal.

Now I am no lawyer, but I can read a zoning bylaw.
pentona
Übergod
Posts: 1796
Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 4:38 pm

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by pentona »

Michael Brydon wrote:What I learned is basically this: Duly elected governments are, by definition, always right. Otherwise you would not have elected them.

Don't believe me? Ouch! Keep in mind that the passage of time has shown that our arguments were absolutely right. All the bad things we said would happen did happen and Penticton, almost a decade later, has no replacement auditorium and no realistic plans for one. But the courts don't care if you're right; they only care whether your government did something obviously and provably illegal.



Don't believe you? Nope, I sure do not. Politicians are often wrong. We/they should learn from the Pen High Auditorium mistake.
Sadly, our city politicians are afraid to admit when they are wrong and we, the public may pay the price once again.
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by mrmagoo »

I own a home in this area. I really don't understand all the fuss.

A waterslide seems to make a lot of sense in terms of tourism and, while there is a visual impact on one corner of Skaha, that area already has commercial leasing activities and is zoned for a waterslide and the splash pad will be relocated and remain free.

Taxpayers were consulted on the OCP which permits this use. I did oppose the recent proposed amendment to the OCP to the lakefront properties on Skaha from parks and recreation to medium density residential. Wasn't in the OCP and many reasons not to change it imo.

We elect people to represent our interests and we give Council the power to make decisions because they do represent the majority vote. Someone has to make hard decisions and, as taxpayers, it is not our right to individually scrutinize all the business proposals. That is the job of staff at city hall who do so and make recommendations to Council who make decisions within their authority. Suing Council wastes my tax dollars and annoys me when there is no chance of success, nor likely any assets in the society to pay a costs award so the city can be partially reimbursed.

I would note that rent is market rent, including upon renewal, and the tax revenues are significant, not to mention the jobs and spin-off effects. More info on the proposal here: http://www.penticton.ca/EN/meta/city-ne ... rpark.html

As far as putting the waterslide on PIB lands, that requires willing parties which I do not believe exist. If you are talking about the lands across from the new bridge, that would be an extremely poor use of that location. Highest and best would be residential/commercial - not seasonal recreational. My bet is that the owner(s) of the lands would agree.

The requirement for arch work on the waterslide site may kibosh the plan anyway depending on what is found.
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3913
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by XT225 »

mrmagoo wrote:I own a home in this area. I really don't understand all the fuss.

Suing Council wastes my tax dollars and annoys me when there is no chance of success, nor likely any assets in the society to pay a costs award so the city can be partially reimbursed.

As far as putting the waterslide on PIB lands, that requires willing parties which I do not believe exist. If you are talking about the lands across from the new bridge, that would be an extremely poor use of that location. Highest and best would be residential/commercial - not seasonal recreational. My bet is that the owner(s) of the lands would agree.

The requirement for arch work on the waterslide site may kibosh the plan anyway depending on what is found.

You own a home in this area? Notice the "We love Skaha Park" signs on a lot of local residents yards. They love it to and don't want it ruined. You may not love it as much there when the loud music from the waterslides is annoying your peace and quiet. Re the idea of putting the slides on PIB lands, that's not a bad idea at all. So far we know of nobody planning to build there, period. I bet that PIB wouldn't care who builds there as long as they pay the same lease rates., plus it would be far more visible to the tourist traffic flow and has great access with the new bridge. I agree that suing council wastes our tax dollars. It would be cheaper and better use of the public purse just to hold a Referendum, find out exactly what the Majority wants and get on with it. Those of the YES side have said that a Referendum would not be fair as the NO side would rally the troops to stack the deck, is garbage. This is how elections are done, whoever has the will to come out and vote, does so. Yes, the Arch. work may indeed turn up a major problem with development there; we most certainly hope so.
ETA: as far as spinoffs and jobs go, those would all be very part time and low pay in comparison to what Penticton really needs - full time, year round, decent paying jobs.
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by mrmagoo »

Yes, and the "save skaha park" signs too.

People are entitled to their opinions and welcome to post signs all they want. I also get emails from neighbours about this issue and just remain silent because the logic behind their statements is, imo, pretty flawed - unlike when it came to the rezoning for the waterfront properties to medium density commercial. I joined in on that one because there was an amendment required and the proposed change was stupid, again imo.

You entitled to your opinion. Totally fine if you don't like the project, but it is something that does not require an OCP amendment and is not subject to your or my veto or support as no referendum is required. I view a referendum on this issue as another waste of taxpayer money like the lawsuit. It costs a lot to hold one and we elected Council to make these types of decisions in conformity with the OCP.

I don't love a lot of things in my neighbourhood in the summer that are related to the influx of tourists. I am happy to see them here though as I know many people here have incomes that are tied to these numbers even though mine is not. And the "loud music" stuff is just fear-mongering. We have both noise and nuisance bylaws that apply to city-owned lands. I'm more annoyed by the loud music coming from the PIB beach area in the summer that is unregulated.

As for lease and property tax rates, the rate for seasonal recreational is much less than commercial/residential as there is no permanent alienation of the lands and lower overall servicing costs to the city. A waterslide without the marina and restaurant wouldn't be an attractive deal for most lessors.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by twobits »

The Skaha water slide happening are long odds now. From chatter I have heard, and IMO, the City has not responded to the law suit because a more face saving and cheaper exit will come in Oct when the one yr extension granted expires. Could come earlier with some kind of agreement to operate the Marina for the season. Proof of this theory seems quite obvious being that we are into June now and there is no investment happening at the Marina or "restaurant".

Major Jak idiot will be able to say Trio pulled out and Trio will say the costs of the Provincial Lease portion and litigation made the project unfeasible.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
fall
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2458
Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by fall »

Aside from the pay parking issue I have to say I agree with your posts.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by twobits »

fall wrote:Aside from the pay parking issue I have to say I agree with your posts.


If we didn't have diversity of opinion, these forums would be a pretty boring place.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
my10cents
Newbie
Posts: 92
Joined: Jul 3rd, 2014, 12:36 pm

Re: Human chain around park.

Post by my10cents »

twobits wrote:The Skaha water slide happening are long odds now. From chatter I have heard, and IMO, the City has not responded to the law suit because a more face saving and cheaper exit will come in Oct when the one yr extension granted expires. Could come earlier with some kind of agreement to operate the Marina for the season. Proof of this theory seems quite obvious being that we are into June now and there is no investment happening at the Marina or "restaurant".

Major Jak idiot will be able to say Trio pulled out and Trio will say the costs of the Provincial Lease portion and litigation made the project unfeasible.



I hope you are right Twobits! :smt045
Post Reply

Return to “South Okanagan”