Banks Crescent Boondoggle

[Queen K]

The biggest threat to the hatchery is the hatchery itself - it just took this to shine a light on the fact that in 100 years they never thought to come up with a secondary water source. Talk about putting all your eggs in 1 basket....

I agree. Except they have thought of it. They have even been alerted to the need.
They just have been unwilling or unable to do something about it.

I'm sure all the NIMBY's will be putting their money wear their mouths are and funding the alternative water source the hatchery has been recklessly gambling without.

We know that the aquifer is located beneath much of the town so anywhere you build is over the aquifer, we know it won't last forever and we know that they will be getting no investment from Lark now.

So NIMBY's, your move. Try organizing FOR something now instead of AGAINST something.
I think you will find much less enthusiasm for that idea.

They actually did organize FOR something. The retention of the small town community in which they all bought or rented in and they voted FOR their chosen community to remain free of eyesore developments which morphed at the will of the developer. Added townhouses later in the plan? What next? Nope they just didn't FOR what YOU wanted. You too Twobits.

They voted FOR their small town feel.

And that's "something."

[fluffy]

They voted FOR their small town feel.

And that's "something."

And a big something in Summerland, always has been. A huge part of Summerland's appeal to many is that it has stayed, for the most part, a few decades behind the hotel/motel/fast food/big box influences that have transformed most of the valley. It is somewhat unique in the aspect that the highway doesn't blast right through the middle of downtown. It was pretty easy to drive through it without even knowing it was there until the development at Five Corners and the Solly Road intersection.

Call them what you want, "NIMBY" is not a totally inaccurate term here, but they too have voices and votes. One man's "progress" is another's "blight".

[Queen K]

Yes, and all developer so is see a pretty place and plot to destroy it, the fast cash and get out. Kelowna is a testimonial.

[shakeman]

Queen K posted the following quote: “The proponent came into my hatchery and said if this (approval of project) doesn’t come through, they’ll be looking for someone to sue,” Girgan said.


That quote from the Penticton Herald is incorrect and incomplete. When I read it I knew there was something wrong so I watched the council meeting again and wrote down exactly what was said.

Mr Girgan said: “A proponent came into my hatchery and told me that because they know of the seller’s...know what the seller’s are like if this doesn’t go through they are going to be looking for somebody to sue. And that was like the, thank you very much, that was an introductory discussion with the proponents.”

You don’t have to be a lawyer to know there is a huge difference in saying, ‘The proponent’ and ‘A proponent’. ‘The proponent’ would mean someone who works for Lark; ‘a proponent’ could just be someone who supported iCasa but has no connection with Lark.

Furthermore when the person said, ‘they know of the seller’s (odd term to use but ok)...know what the seller’s are like’, that, for me at least, reinforces the idea that they were not a Lark employee.

Considering the quote comes from the Penticton Herald and didn’t have a Sue McGyver byline I think we all know who might be responsible for that single word change that stirs the issue up and puts an anti developer spin on the story.

You can find the video here: https://vimeo.com/252409950 Go to 1:43.

[twobits]

They actually did organize FOR something. The retention of the small town community in which they all bought or rented in and they voted FOR their chosen community to remain free of eyesore developments which morphed at the will of the developer. Added townhouses later in the plan? What next? Nope they just didn't FOR what YOU wanted. You too Twobits.

They voted FOR their small town feel.

And that's "something."

All that says to me Queen is you jumped on a bandwagon.. You just liked the nimby story that fit perfectly with your anti development views.. Be honest and admit that you have not personally seen the actual building site lands. You have never set foot near the property.
Unless you have, your opinion must be weighted accordingly. And google maps do not qualify.

[fluffy]

Her assessment is accurate.

[twobits]

Her assessment is accurate.

About as accurate as my assessment of a condo development in Queens neighbourhood without living there or actually knowing the property.

[Queen K]

Her assessment is accurate.

About as accurate as my assessment of a condo development in Queens neighbourhood without living there or actually knowing the property.

WHOOOOOOOOOOSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,

Either you don't understand what the council of Summerland voted FOR, or

you are determined that the locale is the true issue. It isn't. And I don't need to see it to understand that Summerland wants to be retain their small town look and feel.

[fluffy]

Her assessment is accurate.

About as accurate as my assessment of a condo development in Queens neighbourhood without living there or actually knowing the property.

You have been to Summerland haven't you? What she described is exactly what went down. And it's not the first time.

[southy]

I've got a dime on Twobits!

[Anonymous123]

If they truly wanted that "small town feel", then why is there the suggestion to build elsewhere. I believe this is "nimbyism" .

[Queen K]

:popcorn: I've got a dime on Twobits!

Southy, usually I like you but this time

[shakeman]

Could someone please explain to me how iCasa would have changed Summerlands small town look and feel? I heard it throughout the projects discussion; I see it here on these forums.

The iCasa development would have been in a location where 95%+ of Summerlanders wouldn’t even know it was there, I don’t believe anyone driving by on the highway would see it, no tourists or visitors would be aware of it unless they had reason to drive down there.

How would it have altered the undeniably quaint feel of our town? A few hundred more old people? We are already hip deep (admittedly often hip replacement deep) in old people now (myself being one of them) so a few hundred more will hardly have any noticeable impact. And they would have been partially offset with the young/younger people who may have come to town to work at the development.

This ‘small town feel’ is a teat that is milked dry every time any large scale proposal is presented to Summerland. It sometimes actually has meaning.

Build a multi story building (6-7 stories) on Wharton street and that would definitely have an affect on the tranquil ambience of the town. You could not walk around downtown without it looming over you. Build on any of the available flat land north of town and that too would have a considerable affect, less than Wharton St, yes, but a towering 6-7 story building on the outskirts of town would be highly visible from anywhere in town. Either would have a major impact on our quaint, small town feel.

And let me say here that I very much like our small town feel even though I was also very much in favour of the first Wharton St project that actually got passed with the council of the day. (with Waterman reluctantly voting in favour if I might just add)

The iCasa project would have had minimal impact, near zero IMO, on the small town atmosphere of Summerland; certainly much less than any of the three projects proposed for Wharton St; far less than Summerland Hills; far less than any of the large scale developments I can remember in my 27 years in Summerland. (yea, yea, I know, I know, I’m still a newcomer...I have yet to earn my right to a voice)

But explain please how our small town ambience would have been in jeopardy with iCasa.

[RandyDandy]

James Millar had a very good article seen in the Herald online today, especially the part that Waterman's parting shot was 13
minutes too long. The end of a very distasteful effort by Lark much appreciated. Let's go fishing!

[Queen K]

James Millar had a very good article seen in the Herald online today, especially the part that Waterman's parting shot was 13
minutes too long. The end of a very distasteful effort by Lark much appreciated. Let's go fishing!

The problem with developers who are determined to sink their hooks in, like Westcorp, they simply don't go away.

They make a new proposal, more "watered down" from the greedy grasping first one. They "gift" the community with some ingratiating thing, like Westcorp's wharf here in Kelowna. They never just "go away" with a parting shot. They regenerate like starfish.