Banks Crescent Boondoggle

[fluffy]

...the opposition has hung their hat on this one item...

True, but it’s a good item. I agree that emotional manipulation has become a popular tool in politics at all levels, but in this it’s a tool both sides are using with equal vigour. Just as opponents of the development cry doom and gloom the proponents sing the siren song of jobs and tax revenue. If we look past all that back to that one item we see that some legitimate concerns, those of the trout hatchery, have yet to be addressed adequately. And they really need to be.

[Cactusflower]

From a letter received from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations concerning the multi-story development on Banks Crescent, Summerland:

a) The uninterrupted availability of clean water is required by the fish hatchery.
b) The rezoning proposal must address risks to the water source and slope stability above the spring due to construction and maintenance activities, as well as future irrigation requirements.
c) Climate change (e.g. saturated soils in the spring) may add to this risk, and should be included in the mitigation considerations.

None of these governmental stipulations have been adequately addressed by the developer or the District of Summerland.

[twobits]

From a letter received from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations concerning the multi-story development on Banks Crescent, Summerland:


c) Climate change (e.g. saturated soils in the spring) may add to this risk, and should be included in the mitigation considerations.

None of these governmental stipulations have been adequately addressed by the developer or the District of Summerland.

Can you provide a link to verify this? And please highlight the portion that support this climate change demand so we all don't have to read 400 pages of bs to reference your point. And if it turns out to be true....that climate change becomes a consideration for future liability of any construction.....we are f'ed in building anything anywhere. How in hades does one mitigate the consequences of future climate change when that is impossible to foresee???
But that is your strategy isn't it? Throw up any roadblock possible, no matter how improbable, with no verifiable fact. That's not fear mongering 101, it's fear mongering at the PHD level.

I would be most interested in where your....(e.g. saturated soils in the spring) due to climate change was referenced in this gov't report. Me thinks it is nothing but bs extrapolation by Cactusflower, Phd in fear mongering.

[Drip_Torch]

This thread is an interesting read and I still don't have an opinion, one way or the other, but then again why would I? Summerland residents need to decide Summerland issues when it comes to OCP and zoning amendments.

Still, an interesting read and both sides are forwarding some interesting points.

The letter, twobits, can be found here: MFLRO letter re: Banks Crescent

[Cactusflower]

*removed*

[OllyV]

From a letter received from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations concerning the multi-story development on Banks Crescent, Summerland:

a) The uninterrupted availability of clean water is required by the fish hatchery.
b) The rezoning proposal must address risks to the water source and slope stability above the spring due to construction and maintenance activities, as well as future irrigation requirements.
c) Climate change (e.g. saturated soils in the spring) may add to this risk, and should be included in the mitigation considerations.

None of these governmental stipulations have been adequately addressed by the developer or the District of Summerland.

At risk of deflating the sky is falling perspective, this letter just raises concerns that need to be addressed during design and construction. Honestly, this happens every single day on countless projects all across the province. Probably the world.

This is normal due process and there were systems in place to protect the public long before the crying in the forums crowd got energised about Banks. These systems were established, implemented and have evolved under the stewardship of the very professionals the opposition to this project told us not to trust.

This letter does not say construction can't be done. It says these concerns need to be addressed. These are just a few important challenges among thousands of others that are addressed in a development this size.

Believe it or not, these concerns are met or not met everyday. Projects move forward when they are met or they don't receive approval when they are not met. An overly emotional public outcry never added anything useful to the discussion.

However, it is sadly becoming the norm it seems.

[Cactusflower]

^^The only 'public outcry' I've seen on this thread has been coming from the clods who whine constantly about the jobs that won't be realized if the project isn't approved. They aren't in the least concerned about the fish hatchery jobs that could be lost due to contamination of the aquifer, or the homes and lives that could be lost if another slide materializes in that area. (Yes, there have been others in Summerland, between Summerland and Penticton, and also on the Naramata side. Anyone who has lived here for a number of years knows this.)

One of the questions the Lark supporters ask when confronted with the fact that nothing has been done to mitigate the real danger of Summerland losing its trout hatchery is: Why doesn't the hatchery already have an alternate water source? Well, they've been raising trout there for 100 years and it has never been an issue before, and if the Lark Group weren't so determined to put their development in the most unsuitable location in town, it wouldn't be an issue now. Lark has been offered other, far more suitable locations for their 'seniors' complex (What senior in their right mind wants to be stuck in a big hole, far from the town centre and all the amenities Summerland has to offer?) but they stubbornly refuse. It must all boil down to money, as usual.

[fluffy]

The letter...can be found here: MFLRO letter re: Banks Crescent

That letter does cut through all the emotional hoopla. There are some basic concerns that, according to the latest release from the hatchery, have not been adequately addressed. The slide concerns are valid, this location is only two or three hundred yards from the location of the landslide that took a couple of lives and levelled a number of houses back in the early seventies. If memory serves, that slide was attributed in part to irrigation of the orchards above.

I don't see this as a big deal really, the hatchery has a water source that has been serving them well for a century, they simply want some assurance that it will continue to be usable and, if it becomes unusable due to the construction of this project, what will the developers do to remedy that? Again, I suspect that those remedies carry a hefty price tag which is why any kind of firm commitment has not been made by the developer so far.

[Anonymous123]

*removed*

[Cactusflower]

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/arti ... 0653b.html
This is the latest news on this topic. I think it answers a lot of questions Summerland citizens have been asking about the project.

[Jhunter199]

I have a question:
Lets say the Lark was ultimately able to ensure uninterrupted clean water to the hatchery, satisfied all risks of slope stability and water source, along with mitigating future climate changes.
Would everyone now be 100% behind this project or do you think we will start again with a new list of "hoops"?

I'm not for or against this project, I think building and bringing people into an economy is a good thing as long as its done properly.

[Anonymous123]

Let's say that a small earthquake (not unheard of in the area) disrupts the flow of water to the Hatchery diverting it to another area. What will they do then? They have been flying by the seat of their pants for almost a century without a backup plan. Maybe they should look into an alternate source themselves. Use some of that 100 million that they claim they generate by stocking lakes in BC.

[Cactusflower]

Let's say that a small earthquake (not unheard of in the area) disrupts the flow of water to the Hatchery diverting it to another area. What will they do then? They have been flying by the seat of their pants for almost a century without a backup plan. Maybe they should look into an alternate source themselves. Use some of that 100 million that they claim they generate by stocking lakes in BC.

http://doorsopensummerland.ca/location/ ... -hatchery/
Perhaps you will understand the Summerland Hatchery better once you read this link. They have not been 'flying by the seat of their pants' for 100 years. How many similar operations have secured back-up plans for their water supply? Even many municipalities don't have back-up water sources when the existing ones have been adequate for a century and if left undisturbed could last another century, or more.

If a developer comes in and threatens their existing water supply, as what is happening here, the onus is on said developer to provide a back-up source. The Lark Group knows this and is trying to avoid the responsibility by threatening lawsuits. The District of Summerland needs to tell Lark to get out of Dodge. There are other developers who are honest and will buy one of the other existing Summerland sites on which to build a strata complex or whatever.

[fluffy]

If a developer comes in and threatens their existing water supply, as what is happening here, the onus is on said developer to provide a back-up source.

In a nutshell.

[fluffy]

Let's say that a small earthquake (not unheard of in the area) disrupts the flow of water to the Hatchery diverting it to another area.

The supply has yet to be disrupted in a century of upstream development and small earthquakes. This development proposes to drop a few thousand tons of concrete and steel on top of that supply at what is likely it’s most vulnerable point. Now it’s entirely possible that there will be no ill effects at all and the water will continue to flow strong and clean for the next hundred years... but what if it doesn’t?