Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Darkre » Jan 21st, 2018, 9:44 am

RandyDandy wrote:More obfuscation and a litany of half-lies and semi-truths from Lark today on Castanet. Thank you Castanet. At this point Lark's desperation is palpable. Was it Waterman who said that without Hatchery support this project would not fly? I think it was also he who said 18 months ago that it was a done deal. "The Art of the Deal".....perhaps?

Could you point out the "half-lies and semi-truths"? Here is the article for those interested https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-216798-21-.htm#216798.

There were some very informative links provided in the story.
Apparently the aquifier protection strategy has been peer reviewed by 3 seperate geotechnical firms that all agree that construction should have minimal effect on the auquifier.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/7E6E5D09336F47EEABD31F18F07618E9-4-Letter%20to%20Mayor%20and%20Council%20iCasa%20Resort%20Living%20.pdf

Lark embarked on a review of the petition against the project. They found that almost 1000 of the 2700 signatures were invalid. They then contacted 284 people that were legitimate signees of the petition. After addressing their concerns directly 31% became in favour of the project, 34% became neutral and 35% remained opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/37798B09A6F24585BC88B02AE172B3C9-5-Statistical%20Analysis%20report.pdf

Lark also did a public door to door outreach, interviewing 2212 people, and found that 1526 (including 160 businesses) supported the project and 523 were neutral. Only 163 were opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/D4546A5A0EF145D59789CACF816E8FDA-Cover%20Letter%20to%20Mayor%20Council%20re%20iCasa%20Support%20Let.pdf

Honestly it's pretty impressive the amount of work Lark has put in to this. They took the time to directly contact around 25% of the population of Summerland. It does really seem in this case that a very vocal minority is trying to force their agenda on the rest of the town.
Darkre
Board Meister
 
Posts: 483
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 66 posts
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Cactusflower » Jan 21st, 2018, 1:02 pm

Darkre wrote:I've had a hard time understanding the opposition to this project. The question I've asked a few people from Summerland is "How will the construction of this project directly affect you?" The answer has always been "well I guess it won't really" or something to that effect. I then asked why they were opposed to it.

1. Fish Hatchery water supply
This is a valid concern, you would hate to see construction of any project have a dramatic effect on a neighbouring business. However I've pointed out how it is ridiculous that the hatchery does not have a secondary source of water regardless of whether this complex is built or not. Springs can have their paths changed from earth quakes, slides or even construction in an area thought to be totally unrelated. To rely solely on this one water source for so long is a huge gamble that the hatchery has been lucky to survive for this long.

2. Won't help local businesses
Will it hurt them to have 7-800 more residents in town? It may not be within walking distance to anything but many older retirees would rather shop locally than drive the highway to Penticton or Kelowna, especially in the winter when local businesses need the biggest boost.

3. Road wasn't meant for that kind of traffic
The road will be upgraded but also even if you were to account for 720 additional vehicle trips on that road a day (which is probably hugely exagerated) that is 1 car per minute over a 12 hour period (7am-7pm). I would think the road could handle that. Even if you think that is too large of an increase, How would it affect you?

4. Slide area
If Lark Group and the owners of the units are willing to accept this moderate risk what concern is it of yours? Even if there is a slide, How would it affect you?

5. Farm land
It has grapes on it... It isn't part of the food chain anymore, it's part of the booze chain. You can't expect this land to contribute anything to the food chain ever again whether the complex is built or not.

6. Wrong location
This is the one that is hardest for me to understand. There may be properties that would be better suited from the towns perspective but what about from the developers and future owners? This is a lake view property that isn't in the ALR. Construction of the complex directly affects only a handful of property owners. A project like this would also put an OPEN FOR BUSINESS sign up in Summerland and some of these other properties that you would like to see developed likely would be. Once again, even if the project is built at this location, how would it directly affect you?

The final thing anyone opposed should ask themselves is how big of a tax increase they are willing to absorb if this project does not go ahead. This is the one question I wish politicians would ask when there is opposition to a project. This complex will contribute $400-500K a year to Summerland. Due to the infrastructure deficit, if this project doesn't proceed the money has to come from somewhere.

This is similar to the issue faced by our local cities when the prison was first proposed. The question asked then was "Should we allow a prison to be built in our city" and of course the answer is going to be no. Nobody wants that. However if they had stated "By allowing a prison to be built the city will receive $6 million a year. We require this for infrastructure repairs regardless of if the prison is built or not. Our question to you is would you rather have a prison built in our city or have your taxes increased by 10% to make up the difference." Now Penticton faces the same issues as if a prison was built in our city but we receive none of the benefit. Summerlander's face a similar financial choice with this project except the new proposed neighbours are of a much higher quality.


How would it affect me? That seems to be your recurring theme. Why is that so important to you? What's important to me is not how it would affect me personally, because I live far enough away from it that I probably wouldn't even notice it was there........until I decided to drive down there some day and found the access to lower Summerland blocked off by a massive mudslide due to construction of what I like to call Waterman's Folly. Or when I decide to go fishing in one of the hundreds of lakes that are annually stocked with fish from the Summerland hatchery and found the lake devoid of fish because the Summerland trout hatchery was no more due to their water supply being contaminated by that same construction.

So unless you can come up with a better reason for allowing this ill-conceived project to begin than you have, I'm still opposed to it. Some REPUTABLE developer will come along and decide to build on that vacant land across from the town park, but until then I don't mind paying my share of increased taxes due to improved infrastructure.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3096
Likes: 1446 posts
Liked in: 669 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby dirtybiker » Jan 21st, 2018, 1:16 pm

Cactusflower wrote:
How would it affect me? What's important to me is not how it would affect me personally, because I live far enough away from it that I probably wouldn't even notice it was there........until I decided to drive down there some day and found[snip] blocked off by a massive mudslide[snip] Or when I decide to go fishing in one of the hundreds of lakes that are annually stocked with fish from the Summerland hatchery and found the lake devoid of fish because the Summerland trout hatchery was no more due to their water supply being contaminated by that same construction.

So unless you can come up with a better reason for allowing this ill-conceived project to begin than you have, I'm still opposed to it. I don't mind paying my share of increased taxes due to improved infrastructure.


This X2
"Don't 'p' down my neck then tell me it's raining!"
dirtybiker
Guru
 
Posts: 6339
Likes: 5365 posts
Liked in: 2764 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2008, 7:00 pm
Location: Central OK

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby twobits » Jan 21st, 2018, 7:39 pm

Darkre wrote:[
Could you point out the "half-lies and semi-truths"? Here is the article for those interested https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-216798-21-.htm#216798.

There were some very informative links provided in the story.
Apparently the aquifier protection strategy has been peer reviewed by 3 seperate geotechnical firms that all agree that construction should have minimal effect on the auquifier.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/7E6E5D09336F47EEABD31F18F07618E9-4-Letter%20to%20Mayor%20and%20Council%20iCasa%20Resort%20Living%20.pdf

Lark embarked on a review of the petition against the project. They found that almost 1000 of the 2700 signatures were invalid. They then contacted 284 people that were legitimate signees of the petition. After addressing their concerns directly 31% became in favour of the project, 34% became neutral and 35% remained opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/37798B09A6F24585BC88B02AE172B3C9-5-Statistical%20Analysis%20report.pdf

Lark also did a public door to door outreach, interviewing 2212 people, and found that 1526 (including 160 businesses) supported the project and 523 were neutral. Only 163 were opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/D4546A5A0EF145D59789CACF816E8FDA-Cover%20Letter%20to%20Mayor%20Council%20re%20iCasa%20Support%20Let.pdf

Honestly it's pretty impressive the amount of work Lark has put in to this. They took the time to directly contact around 25% of the population of Summerland. It does really seem in this case that a very vocal minority is trying to force their agenda on the rest of the town.


It actually is really impressive the amount of effort that Lark has put into this. I am surprised they have not already walked.

Despite several engineering reports, that you have provided links to.....there are armchair experts that will not believe them. Makes me wonder why we hire high priced help if it can be so easily dismissed by people with no expertise and education in the subject matter.
I would also emphasize that these studies are independent third party opinions. No skin in the game whether the project goes ahead or not. They have no motive to take a side. Just present the facts.
Given that this piece of property is already labelled as future residential in the Community plan, I find it curious, and somewhat disingenuous that the Hatchery itself has not funded their own independent study, which refutes the finding of the studies done thus far. Instead they have demanded independent third party opinion paid for by someone else, and still say it is not good enough.
Let's just make it so expensive that they just go away and we get our way.
Does anyone not think the Provincial Gov't would not step in and squash a project like this if it was a threat to a fish hatchery? It's not and they take the attitude of non interference in civic politics unless it crosses into Provincial concern. Their absence in the argument should speak volumes to those that are concerned the Hatchery could be affected.
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.

OllyV likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 6299
Likes: 611 posts
Liked in: 2653 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Cactusflower » Jan 22nd, 2018, 12:43 am

twobits wrote:
Darkre wrote:[
Could you point out the "half-lies and semi-truths"? Here is the article for those interested https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-216798-21-.htm#216798.

There were some very informative links provided in the story.
Apparently the aquifier protection strategy has been peer reviewed by 3 seperate geotechnical firms that all agree that construction should have minimal effect on the auquifier.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/7E6E5D09336F47EEABD31F18F07618E9-4-Letter%20to%20Mayor%20and%20Council%20iCasa%20Resort%20Living%20.pdf

Lark embarked on a review of the petition against the project. They found that almost 1000 of the 2700 signatures were invalid. They then contacted 284 people that were legitimate signees of the petition. After addressing their concerns directly 31% became in favour of the project, 34% became neutral and 35% remained opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/37798B09A6F24585BC88B02AE172B3C9-5-Statistical%20Analysis%20report.pdf

Lark also did a public door to door outreach, interviewing 2212 people, and found that 1526 (including 160 businesses) supported the project and 523 were neutral. Only 163 were opposed.
https://summerland.civicweb.net/FileStorage/D4546A5A0EF145D59789CACF816E8FDA-Cover%20Letter%20to%20Mayor%20Council%20re%20iCasa%20Support%20Let.pdf

Honestly it's pretty impressive the amount of work Lark has put in to this. They took the time to directly contact around 25% of the population of Summerland. It does really seem in this case that a very vocal minority is trying to force their agenda on the rest of the town.


It actually is really impressive the amount of effort that Lark has put into this. I am surprised they have not already walked.

Despite several engineering reports, that you have provided links to.....there are armchair experts that will not believe them. Makes me wonder why we hire high priced help if it can be so easily dismissed by people with no expertise and education in the subject matter.
I would also emphasize that these studies are independent third party opinions. No skin in the game whether the project goes ahead or not. They have no motive to take a side. Just present the facts.
Given that this piece of property is already labelled as future residential in the Community plan, I find it curious, and somewhat disingenuous that the Hatchery itself has not funded their own independent study, which refutes the finding of the studies done thus far. Instead they have demanded independent third party opinion paid for by someone else, and still say it is not good enough.
Let's just make it so expensive that they just go away and we get our way.
Does anyone not think the Provincial Gov't would not step in and squash a project like this if it was a threat to a fish hatchery? It's not and they take the attitude of non interference in civic politics unless it crosses into Provincial concern. Their absence in the argument should speak volumes to those that are concerned the Hatchery could be affected.


The provincial government would likely get involved if they were informed of this kerfuffle, but since we have no NDP representatives in this valley, they probably know nothing about it. Dan Ashton sure as heck wouldn't put the interests of Summerland residents before the interests of shady Surrey developers.

BTW, did you watch '60 Minutes' tonight? There's a huge sky-scraper in San Francisco that's sinking into the mud and listing so badly that if something isn't done soon, it will end up worse than the leaning tower of Pisa. And all because the geothechnical engineeers didn't advise the construction company to drill down to bedrock before laying the foundation. So who can we trust ? If the engineers hired by Lark are as inept as those guys in San Francisco, this project could be an even bigger fiasco than Summerland fears it will be.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3096
Likes: 1446 posts
Liked in: 669 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Jan 22nd, 2018, 8:18 am

Cactusflower wrote:BTW, did you watch '60 Minutes' tonight? There's a huge sky-scraper in San Francisco that's sinking into the mud and listing so badly that if something isn't done soon, it will end up worse than the leaning tower of Pisa. And all because the geothechnical engineeers didn't advise the construction company to drill down to bedrock before laying the foundation. So who can we trust ? If the engineers hired by Lark are as inept as those guys in San Francisco, this project could be an even bigger fiasco than Summerland fears it will be.


And if we ever build a "huge sky-scraper" on questionable footing this will be something to keep in mind. Or we can look to the millions of skyscrapers all over the world that aren't falling down. Either way, it is irrelevant, however alarming, to this situation.

Let me get this straight. Of the millions of completely safe buildings constructed every year, particularly low rise multi-family as this project is, you are going to select one entirely dissimilar sky-scraper, with construction troubles to "prove' your point?

Really?

You realize your entire argument is based on "what ifs" while Lark are doing the actual research and homework to ensure the what ifs are minimised and mitigated. Thank god the people who actually improve our lives everyday don't sit there cowering in the corner worrying about the what ifs. They just get on with building and creating.

If you want people to take you seriously, then please try to prove that any of the dozens of similar projects to Banks, up and down the valley, that you pass everyday as you travel to shop in Kelowna or tour the wineries down south, have brought the calamitous ruin to their respective communities that the opposers of this development are trying to convince us will occur here.

You can't do it because there really isn't a leg to stand on. Just because you all have dug in so deep doesn't mean you can let clearer heads prevail and pull back.

This "sky is falling" mentality is so ridiculous. It has made the relatively few dissenters start to look pretty foolish. They are giving the impression that all life as we know it will come to a screeching halt in Summerland once this Waco like compound roles into town, builds its walls off from us, drops the portcullis and starts tossing plague infested chicken carcasses over the wall.

There are dozens of these complexes throughout the okanagan that bring in more investment to the community, increase density which limits sprawl and provides much needed homes to an ever increasing demographic.

Oh the humanity. How will our community ever recover.

Can anyone even name one similar development that has ever caused them grief in any single way in their lives ever? Nope.
Well, guess what? This one won't harm you either. It will actually improve your community whether you fought it all the way along or not.

Please, put all of the this well meaning but wholly misplaced energy into actually helping your communities. If you are so bored there a plenty ways to volunteer your time that aren't so misguided.

3 people like this post.
OllyV
 
Posts: 42
Likes: 63 posts
Liked in: 26 posts
Joined: Nov 16th, 2016, 9:40 am

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby totoramona » Jan 22nd, 2018, 11:32 am

OllyV wrote:
This "sky is falling" mentality is so ridiculous. It has made the relatively few dissenters start to look pretty foolish.


Just on the clay cliff issue alone, there has been much precedent for concern in the South Okanagan. In the late nineties, three family homes on Eastside Rd, built with the blessing of the city, were condemned and had to be torn down, due to clay cliff slump. The condos at Gabian Courts on Green Ave had a similar clay cliff slump that nearly resulted in condemning place and did nearly bankrupt the strata. In Red Wing Resorts, up top some houses sunk into the clay within a year of being built and they had to use slab jacks to lift them back up into place. There were sinkholes that they filled with truckloads of concrete. At Skaha Benches, one of their condo buildings was actually moving and they were tracking it with a gps to determine the extent and assess the risk. Here in Summerland, at the relatively recently built Tuscan Terrace on the clay cliffs above Peach Orchard beach, some of the decks are pulling away from the rest of the structure. As well, there have been multiple clay slides, some of them massive, along Lakeshore Drive in recent memory.

So to express concern over the foresight (or lack thereof) of developers and engineers with plans to build five story buildings over clay, silt and a running water aquifer seems completely reasonable to me. They don't call these areas "red zone" for nothing.

2 people like this post.
totoramona
Fledgling
 
Posts: 329
Likes: 321 posts
Liked in: 265 posts
Joined: Nov 21st, 2009, 7:02 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Jan 22nd, 2018, 2:47 pm

totoramona wrote:Just on the clay cliff issue alone, there has been much precedent for concern in the South Okanagan. In the late nineties, three family homes on Eastside Rd, built with the blessing of the city, were condemned and had to be torn down, due to clay cliff slump. The condos at Gabian Courts on Green Ave had a similar clay cliff slump that nearly resulted in condemning place and did nearly bankrupt the strata. In Red Wing Resorts, up top some houses sunk into the clay within a year of being built and they had to use slab jacks to lift them back up into place. There were sinkholes that they filled with truckloads of concrete. At Skaha Benches, one of their condo buildings was actually moving and they were tracking it with a gps to determine the extent and assess the risk. Here in Summerland, at the relatively recently built Tuscan Terrace on the clay cliffs above Peach Orchard beach, some of the decks are pulling away from the rest of the structure. As well, there have been multiple clay slides, some of them massive, along Lakeshore Drive in recent memory.


You are correct in that there are anecdotal instances of structures that have failed in the okanagan due to poor geotechnical conditions not being mitigated properly. To give your examples proper balance should we start listing all the structures that are functioning exactly as designed under the same conditions?

That list will be in the many thousands, probably tens of thousands.

If you have actually stood on the site and have expertise in geotechnical and structural engineering you will see that within the "red zones" this site is really low risk. It is flat, set back from the cliffs edge and is supported on three sides by banks that slope up and away from the site.

totoramona wrote:So to express concern over the foresight (or lack thereof) of developers and engineers with plans to build five story buildings over clay, silt and a running water aquifer seems completely reasonable to me. They don't call these areas "red zone" for nothing.


Alright, two ideas here.

First let's look at the "red zones". In spite of the alarming sounding name, all this means is that you need a professional geotechnical engineer and structural engineer engaged to ensure the site is; one, able to be built upon and two, that the structure is adequately designed for safe occupancy. I assure you tens of thousands of people occupy these buildings in this valley alone everyday and are completely safe. I am sure that if you don't live in one, your friends and family do and I guarantee you patronize business' in buildings all the time that have have been constructed with these considerations in the design process.

If you look at the similar, and less alarmingly named, HSS (Hillside Steep Slope) designation in the RDOS you will see that it covers much of buildable land in the Okanagan. You should not be alarmed at this, you should be reassured by it. It means that the experts in the field of building sciences are putting public safety ahead of rampant development to do their best to mitigate the risks of construction in what is a high risk zone. By that I mean much of BC. Earthquakes, steep banks, heavy precipitation and fires just to name a few of the risks that construction professionals protect you from everyday.

And that leads to your other thought which is the most frustrating one. This dismissal of science.
From the moment you wake up every morning until the moment you wake up the next morning you put your life in the hands of professionals who are there to make sure you don't kill yourself because of all the things you don't know and don't understand.

Eating, driving, flying, being indoors, being outdoors, walking, sitting, shopping, taking medicine, playing sports, watching TV, etc. Each and everyone of those activities could kill you but for the expertise of scientists who have done the hard work and study to make sure you don't kill yourself just getting through the day. Every single building you have ever been in relied on the same expertise you are now dismissing as being so unreliable that we shouldn't even bother.

Can you imagine where the world would be if everyone thought like you?

We have professionals who watch our professionals in this province. We have the BCBC which is administered and applied by architectural, engineering and regional construction experts (among many others) to ensure that these kinds of decisions aren't left up to armchair designers and developers who all seem to know better.

Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. When we start referring to the expertise of Joe and Katie on the street rather than the trained professionals who have made it their life's work to ensure that every structure in this province is as safe as our current knowledge of building science allows, then we are really going to get in trouble.

Is it a perfect system. No. Do people still get food poisoning, die in car crashes, die in aircraft failures, succumb to faulty medications and die in building collapses. Yep. That stuff still happens.

Should we stop doing anything because we don't have 100% guarantee of success? That would be stupid.

What we need to stop doing is listening to the armchair critics and listen to our professionals. When those professionals let us down make them accountable and improve the systems.

I am in the construction industry and I find it insulting that you are making the argument that because some buildings sometimes fail, our industry experts cannot be trusted.
Last edited by OllyV on Jan 22nd, 2018, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

twobits likes this post.
OllyV
 
Posts: 42
Likes: 63 posts
Liked in: 26 posts
Joined: Nov 16th, 2016, 9:40 am

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby twobits » Jan 22nd, 2018, 7:46 pm

OllyV wrote:What we need to stop doing is listening to the armchair critics and listen to our professionals. And when those professionals let us down make them accountable and improve the systems.

I am in the construction industry and I find it insulting that you are making the argument that because some buildings sometimes fail, our industry experts cannot be trusted.


And that is the bottom line for me as well. This whole thing has become an exercise in fear mongering. And it appears some Summerland residents have become masters at it.
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.

2 people like this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 6299
Likes: 611 posts
Liked in: 2653 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Cactusflower » Jan 22nd, 2018, 11:41 pm

twobits wrote:
OllyV wrote:What we need to stop doing is listening to the armchair critics and listen to our professionals. And when those professionals let us down make them accountable and improve the systems.

I am in the construction industry and I find it insulting that you are making the argument that because some buildings sometimes fail, our industry experts cannot be trusted.


And that is the bottom line for me as well. This whole thing has become an exercise in fear mongering. And it appears some Summerland residents have become masters at it.


http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/arti ... 952f3.html
Being a construction worker does not excuse you from being informed. Calling concerned citizens 'fearmongers' because they have done their homework and have followed the intricacies of this project for more than a year is rude and disrespectful.

All you care about is the possibility that you might be able to work on a lengthy project close to home. You don't care what happens to the employees at the Trout Hatchery, and you don't care about the British Columbia sport fishermen who rely on the hatchery to stock 300 lakes in this province. The Summerland Trout Hatchery has been operating for a century with yearly revenues of over $1 million. Why should some shady Surrey developer be allowed to come in and threaten its existence?

This developer has a checkered past but you don't want to know about that. You don't even read the local news, much less the White Rock Sun or other lower mainland publications.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3096
Likes: 1446 posts
Liked in: 669 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby fluffy » Jan 23rd, 2018, 5:00 am

The claim that the so-called independant third party assessment by Golder is based solely on input from the Lark Group is a biggie here. The hatchery's water supply has become the hinge pin that this whole project swings on, and apparently there are some huge questions as yet unanswered.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19071
Likes: 241 posts
Liked in: 3836 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Jhunter199 » Jan 23rd, 2018, 9:42 am

"The Summerland hatchery produces up to one million trout annually which supplies approximately 300 lakes in the province and contributes an estimated $100 million each year to the BC economy."

Personally, i'm shocked that an operation like this has no plan "B' in place. There are so many natural events that could affect their one and only water supply that is the base of the entire operation.

OllyV likes this post.
Jhunter199
Fledgling
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 257 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Apr 18th, 2013, 10:11 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby fluffy » Jan 23rd, 2018, 9:58 am

I guess that’s why making sure nothing mucks with Plan “A” is so important.

My guess is that the alternatives, like trucking in water from a distant source or some high tech filtration system, are horrendously expensive. Probably why Lark Group doesn’t want to commit to guaranteeing a supply.
Last edited by fluffy on Jan 23rd, 2018, 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19071
Likes: 241 posts
Liked in: 3836 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby totoramona » Jan 23rd, 2018, 10:07 am

Jhunter199 wrote:"The Summerland hatchery produces up to one million trout annually which supplies approximately 300 lakes in the province and contributes an estimated $100 million each year to the BC economy."

Personally, i'm shocked that an operation like this has no plan "B' in place. There are so many natural events that could affect their one and only water supply that is the base of the entire operation.


It shouldn't be surprising that there is no plan "B". Summerland itself has no plan "B" for its municipal water source. We rely solely on a water shed that reaches the town through Trout Creek. If there were any natural event that obstructed the flow through many miles of Trout Creek, our water source would become compromised.

Not to mention the fact that the outward pressure created in our water holding reservoir is achieved by continuous flow in and any reduction in this would immediately cause the reservoir to be threatened by the contaminates from the landfill surrounding the reservoir.
totoramona
Fledgling
 
Posts: 329
Likes: 321 posts
Liked in: 265 posts
Joined: Nov 21st, 2009, 7:02 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Jan 23rd, 2018, 10:14 am

Cactusflower wrote:http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/arti ... 952f3.html
Being a construction worker does not excuse you from being informed. Calling concerned citizens 'fearmongers' because they have done their homework and have followed the intricacies of this project for more than a year is rude and disrespectful.

All you care about is the possibility that you might be able to work on a lengthy project close to home. You don't care what happens to the employees at the Trout Hatchery, and you don't care about the British Columbia sport fishermen who rely on the hatchery to stock 300 lakes in this province. The Summerland Trout Hatchery has been operating for a century with yearly revenues of over $1 million. Why should some shady Surrey developer be allowed to come in and threaten its existence?

This developer has a checkered past but you don't want to know about that. You don't even read the local news, much less the White Rock Sun or other lower mainland publications.


I am not a construction worker and do not stand to benefit personally from this development in way other than the benefits that the whole community will see.

I am however an angler and the fisheries are very important to me.

I was happy to see that the report indicated the sensitive nature of the aquifer and emphasized the importance not only in the developer proving they would take every precaution to mitigate the impacts of the construction and of the permanent development but also that systems would need to be implemented for continual monitoring of the situation. This is what we want these reports to find and recommend. This is the process. It is common and happens everyday all over the province in areas with sensitive environmental interfaces with human development.

I am curious how many other developments, buildings, agricultural business' and civic improvements that impacted this aquifer have had this level of scrutiny. Perhaps all, but I doubt it. I'll wage a bet that most of the folks who are so concerned about our fisheries now never gave it a thought before.

I have read the articles and have been following the arguments on both sides. That is how I formed an opinion. The opposition does not have a monopoly on being informed as they so often prefer to frame the discussion.

These articles are why we are all here. Believe it or not, the not so vocal majority who are in support of this development read the news as well. There is no valid argument in denying that fear mongering, as a tactic, has very much been employed here. Let's just hope it does not win the day. As we have watched all of the other arguments about how this development was going to ruin our community fall away, the opposition has hung their hat on this one item.

If it proves to be prohibitive to the developer, after due diligence, to apply all reasonable measures to protect the water source for the hatchery, then the council will have to take that into consideration. However, if the council moves against the development largely based on the highly emotional opinions of the vocal minority rather than the findings of registered professionals, that will be a very sad day for informed decision making and our community's future as a whole.

Jhunter199 likes this post.
OllyV
 
Posts: 42
Likes: 63 posts
Liked in: 26 posts
Joined: Nov 16th, 2016, 9:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests