Summerland development application

[southy]

Show me "NO CHANCE".

Interesting I've heard from Fluffy, I've heard from Dazzy yet I haven't heard from the one person who made the statement The Dude. He does exist doesn't he? You know this whole thread is really pointless, because everything that is being discussed about this issue is being discussed as generalizations. There is no one on this forum who is privy to what is really being discussed at the council level. Nor is there anyone on this forum who is privy to the day to day dealings and negotiations within the developer. So what does that leave us?? Assumptions, personal beliefs that certain individuals know more about this property than council, the developer or those involved with the FH. It's about opinion (sometimes a good thing) (sometimes not so much). Maybe just maybe everyone should just let those who you voted in (Fluff, Dazzy, The Dude .. you three did vote this council in did you not) why not let them do their job and TRUST the process. Where have you heard that before Fluff? And Dude if ever you figure it out let me know where you got Real Chance

[Daspoot]

Gotcha, intentionally obtuse it is.



Dazzy out.

[twobits]

Wait a minute now, that hatchery has been in operation for close to a hundred years without any interruption in their supply of clean water. All they want is some guarantee that that supply will continue.

Ya, let's just wait a minute and reflect upon the fact that in all of those years, 95% of the current buildings and development have happened right on top of that spring aquifer. Now all of a sudden, because of one development, the sky is going to fall.
It's time some of you put this into a real context of risk.

[southy]

Gotcha, intentionally obtuse it is.



Dazzy out.

Nahh ... come on Dazzy once again you go and get serious on us . Obtuse - only if it annoys you and obviously it does ! I am quite sensitive to environmental issues. I also get it that a development of this magnitude is probably best handled by council, the developer and whatever Federal/Provincial powers may be involved so that would mean I do understand!!! So other than you not liking what I have to say not sure how you can label me obtuse. Some good TV on tonight think I'll kick back, relax and enjoy.

[Daspoot]

Ya, let's just wait a minute and reflect upon the fact that in all of those years, 95% of the current buildings and development have happened right on top of that spring aquifer. Now all of a sudden, because of one development, the sky is going to fall.
It's time some of you put this into a real context of risk.

Sure, its an entirely unknown amount of risk. But the responsibility of mitigation lies with those introducing the new variable, not those on the receiving end. If I put a gravel crushing plant next to the house you've lived in for a hundred years and the weight and vibration turns your property into a swamp is it your fault for not coming up with a back up plan in the last 100 years?

And please don't try to say building anywhere else in town on the spread of the aquifers huge network of drainage carries the same risk as on the clay bank directly above the exit of the Spring, that's like saying plucking a leaf off a tree is the same as chopping the trunk.

I'm more than willing to fully admit there may well be absolutely no problem at all with the development going in. It's you and Soutly that can seem to admit there may just be an chance it could be a problem for the Spring.

[Daspoot]

Gotcha, intentionally obtuse it is.



Dazzy out.

Nahh ... come on Dazzy once again you go and get serious on us . Obtuse - only if it annoys you and obviously it does ! I am quite sensitive to environmental issues. I also get it that a development of this magnitude is probably best handled by council, the developer and whatever Federal/Provincial powers may be involved so that would mean I do understand!!! So other than you not liking what I have to say not sure how you can label me obtuse. Some good TV on tonight think I'll kick back, relax and enjoy.

I calls them as I sees 'em.

Enjoy your boobtube, I'm having a tough time finding much worth watching right now.

[fluffy]

Now all of a sudden, because of one development, the sky is going to fall.
It's time some of you put this into a real context of risk.

Because that one development, a collection of high-rises the likes of which Summerland has never seen before, is landing right on top of the spout of the funnel. If it was anywhere else it wouldn't be an issue.

[RandyDandy]

Fluffy reiterates the point again that SOME of us have been trying to make all along....if this development were on Jubilee, or some other equally SUITABLE site and kept to 4 stories, where would be the argument? There would not BE one I'd be willing to bet and this forum would be moot. One does not have to be, or pretend to be a soil expert to understand that the presently proposed site is so problematic as to question how on earth it got so far. To prove that council is actually DOING something? Instead we could all rejoice in the fact that the present council and their attention to rainbow crosswalks, have not been keeping up with cost and development charges so that ANY new development costs us ALL more in taxes down the line, not less. SOME people are STILL under the illusion that residential development can be a tax base. NOT!!! How about instead we expect more from council, over and above a new skateboard park or twinning the water system which should have been done years ago BEFORE We had a water purification system. Get with the program councillors, DO something.

[Crazedee]

I have read through the comments on this thread and am compelled to throw in my 2 cents.

For ALL of the reasons discussed on this thread that are currently identified as concerns with this development, traffic, scope of the project, infrastructure (or lack thereof), isolation, location, zoning, cliff stability, fish hatchery, access/egress etc. it is crystal clear to me that this proposed development is the wrong size, in the wrong location and currently "targeted" for the wrong demographic. (I strongly believe that the current target market is quite simply just "smoke and mirrors")

A better development than this would be on the flats, on a smaller scale, closer to existing downtown amenities (supporting all current local business), and be marketed to all demographics (not just isolating seniors). Inclusion and accessibility. This could then also provide some housing options for "all of those well paid workers" that are going to be employed as a result of this development.

This whole proposal (to date) has not been handled in a "fair, open or transparent" way, leaving many (IMO)to question the process and the motives and ethics of those involved.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but by then it will be too late. We do not get a "do-over".

[twobits]

A better development than this would be on the flats, on a smaller scale, closer to existing downtown amenities (supporting all current local business), and be marketed to all demographics (not just isolating seniors). Inclusion and accessibility. This could then also provide some housing options for "all of those well paid workers" that are going to be employed as a result of this development.

Could you please share your resume in Urban Development, location analysis, marketing of and current real estate demands, as well as labour pool availability that supersedes that of people that are proposing to invest multiple millions of dollars? I could be going out on a limb here but I would think anyone looking at investing those kind of dollars has checked all the boxes you throw out as reasons to reject.
IMO, the only reasons to reject this development would be a negative impact on a significant number of neighboring properties and arterial road and traffic issues. The target market and how the potential employee's will get to work and where they might choose to reside should be moot to the Council and general taxpayer.

[Daspoot]

I agree he should share his credentials,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

right after you share yours.

If you're asking, you should at least hold the bar at the same height for yourself right?

[fluffy]

A big thing to consider here is land price. Residential developing is after all, a business, and businesses must show a profit potential to make them attractive to investors. Available land uptown on the flats that is not in the ALR is going to involve purchasing individual properties in numbers strong enough to amass a sufficient footprint. It's my guess that the current landowner in Bristow Valley has been offered an attractive amount that, when compared to the potential cost of uptown land, is equally attractive to the developer.

We also have to consider the studies and assessments needed and who is going to do them. It's my guess that the developer has his eye on exploiting this particular piece of land and will do it with the usual business goal of maximizing return on investment. That means that any requirements for assessing environmental impact placed on the developer will be met begrudgingly, with a bias towards permitting the development to proceed, just as those opposing the project will be likely to produce their own studies biased toward their own position. The challenge here is obtaining objective assessments from credible sources.

[RandyDandy]

The eventual and finally thwarted Summerland Hills Golf fiasco employed water "experts" (Golder?) who had almost everyone convinced that the Prairie Valley/Faulder aquifer was virtually limitless and would easily provide H2O for both the golf course and its accompanying residential development, as well continuing to service the pre-existing Faulderian community. Long story there. Egg on face syndrome developed when the aquifer failed to replentish itself in a timely manner and the project was scrapped. Summerland must be careful to accept bonefide opinions from impartial experts and to not rely on the developer's offerings of assurances.

[fluffy]

We live in interesting times. It seems truth and honesty has taken second place to what you can get people to believe.

[dirtybiker]

And this.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3133810/summe ... ex-impact/