Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby RandyDandy » Jan 29th, 2018, 11:40 am

The very idea that the fish hatchery should have to spend money to subsidize Lark or any developer is incomprehensible. To me.
The hatchery is being taken to task for not having secured an alternate source of water for 100 years. They have not because they have not NEEDED to. It's not been broken, why fix it? Because of LARK? Crooked thinking! IF the Lark enterprise were to be successful in their quest they will already be getting major subsidization from the municipality because waterman says that new development does not pay for itself which means higher taxes for everyone already living here. How much more does Lark want? As much as they can get more because they are in the business of making money and anything they can get someone else to pay for is a big plus to them. I'm sure that we all suspect that required infrastructural modifications such as water, electrical, curbing, road widening, road sweeping, fire suppression etc. Etc.etc. wiould also be subsidized because if they weren't Lark would walk away. If a landowner doesn't WANT to sell 10 feet of property to Lark, will expropriation raise its ugly head? SUCH a dog's breakfast. "Stop the Swap".

2 people like this post.
RandyDandy
Fledgling
 
Posts: 175
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 48 posts
Joined: Mar 22nd, 2009, 3:46 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Jan 29th, 2018, 3:22 pm

RandyDandy wrote:The very idea that the fish hatchery should have to spend money to subsidize Lark or any developer is incomprehensible. To me. The hatchery is being taken to task for not having secured an alternate source of water for 100 years. They have not because they have not NEEDED to. It's not been broken, why fix it? Because of LARK? Crooked thinking! IF the Lark enterprise were to be successful in their quest they will already be getting major subsidization from the municipality because waterman says that new development does not pay for itself which means higher taxes for everyone already living here. How much more does Lark want? As much as they can get more because they are in the business of making money and anything they can get someone else to pay for is a big plus to them. I'm sure that we all suspect that required infrastructural modifications such as water, electrical, curbing, road widening, road sweeping, fire suppression etc. Etc.etc. wiould also be subsidized because if they weren't Lark would walk away. If a landowner doesn't WANT to sell 10 feet of property to Lark, will expropriation raise its ugly head? SUCH a dog's breakfast. "Stop the Swap".


I am not even sure where to begin with everything that is wrong with this post.
RandyDandy, I hope you do not live by the view that, I don't have a backup plan or insurance policy because I have never "NEEDED" it.

How did that thinking serve all the flood victims last year? I mean, it hadn't flooded that high in 100 years before!

This process has brought into sharp relief how, by the seat of their pants, the fish hatchery has been operating thus far. If nothing else comes of this hopefully they take seriously their needs to mitigate the risks, they have been deferring for so long because thus far they haven't "NEEDED" it. If indeed the fish hatchery is such a treasured member of the community, perhaps we Summerlanders should all be helping to find a solution to the nonexistent contingency plan the hatchery have been forced to live with due to limited resources.

Which raises a question others have noted. If this hatchery is worth $100 million in annual revenue from the province’s anglers, of which I am one, why haven't the resources been allocated long ago to secure a secondary water supply? Are we really risking $100 million on clay banks that slide on their own every year without any human interference?

And for the record, every business is in the business of making money Mr. Dandy. This obnoxious philosophy that making money with your business is somehow evil is ridiculous. Do you get paid for whatever work you do RandyDandy? If yes, then why? Are you only in it for the money? Shame on you. How much do you want anyway?

From the infrastructure improvements angle, you clearly have no idea how any of this works. In reality, property owners and developers are more and more on the hook for infrastructure improvements. The uninformed fear mongering that the tax payers are going to pay for all that while the developer reaps the benefits is shameful misinformation and does not add to informed discourse in anyway.

The reports are in. This development will be a financial benefit for the community, not a burden to the taxpayer. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Similarly, raising concerns of unwilling landowners having their property appropriated for this development is preposterous fearmongering intended to fire up the opposition base. Shameful behaviour.

I think that council meeting was very enlightening. I have watched it twice now and if you took anything away from it other than the hatchery is being an obstacle to a solution rather than part of a solution I have no idea what you watched. Not the only obstacle but certainly one obstacle.

This could be a golden opportunity for them to piggy back their needs on those of the developer. They could have a problem that they have not dealt with on their own resolved by someone else, largely on the other party’s dime.

If the chief complaints are that one person from Lark said something that hurt your feelings and they have not brought a solution to you yet that meets ALL your needs, that is insane. (Needs your currently living without I might add.)

First, put on some big boy pants. If you walk out of a negotiation process because someone was mean to you then perhaps you aren't cut out for the process. It is worth noting that from what I have heard Lark denies having said they would litigate against the hatchery if they didn't get their way. Since the other accusation, the claim that the hatchery couldn't expect to get out of this without having to incur some costs was misrepresented by Mr. Girgan, I think we need to take the claim of litigation with a grain of salt. Perhaps, he misinterpreted the words he heard in that instance as well.

Either way, MOVE ON. GET OVER IT. We get it. Your feelings were hurt.
Don't let one personality stand in the way of the possible significant improvement that could be made here to the hatchery. Take the high road and put personalities aside. You aren’t entering into an arranged marriage. It is business and an opportunity that may never come along for the FFSBC again. Don’t blow it.

The bottom line is, no one is going to bring you a plan. You are the experts; you know your needs. Outline a specific set of requirements and propose more than one strategy or combination of strategies that will mitigate your concerns and, above all, be willing to negotiate. This is the most efficient way to make sure the developer, who knows nothing about trout hatcheries and doesn’t need to, addresses your needs.

I think Mr. Girgan’s comment that he can see only one solution that will satisfy him is an alarming, red flag. If that is the case, send someone else to negotiate who has not already made up their mind. Someone who perhaps has a bit more open-minded vision to solutions. Similarly his claim that this will be a "very, very, very, slow process..." is another red flag. It doesn't need to be. That is a choice and it looks like Mr Girgan has already chosen.

It sounds like anything better than the rigorous “visual test” to check the water quality would be an improvement to the current state of things. I think the Mayor was absolutely right in suggesting that there are better systems within reach and the FFSBC has an opportunity to make improvements if they are willing to undig those heels just a little.

Mr. Girgan speaks about restoring trust when the FFSBC was the one to cut off negotiations and limit access to the Golder report. He is right, trust needs to be rebuilt. On both sides. It sounds like Lark is willing to find a solution. From Mr. Girgan’s tone in that council meeting it is difficult to say the same thing about the FFSBC at this time.

The bottom line is the developer is not interested in developing a product that is going to slide down the bank or into the aquifer. To protect their own investment, they need to shore the development off from the unstable elements of the site or improve their stability. This means complicated, expensive, structural engineering that will need to leave the site more stable then when they came to it. That is how construction is done. Logic, and experience, dictates that the site will be more stable in the end than it is now. This happens every day up and down the valley and all over the world. It isn’t new science here.

As long as the hatchery can put the hard feelings behind them and come to the table with an open mind, there is a solution to be found in this opportunity. There is no reason they can’t come out much better than they are right now.

2 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 Anonymous123 » Jan 29th, 2018, 5:49 pm

If I could have liked the above post by OllyV twice, I would have. The only reason the hatchery is involved at all is because the NIMBYs used it as a pawn to stop something that they don't want in their neighbourhood.
We See
We Judge

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Anonymous123
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2268
Likes: 1643 posts
Liked in: 1112 posts
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 5:02 pm
Location: The fine line between reality and fantasy

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby twobits » Jan 29th, 2018, 7:52 pm

Anonymous123 wrote:If I could have liked the above post by OllyV twice, I would have. The only reason the hatchery is involved at all is because the NIMBYs used it as a pawn to stop something that they don't want in their neighbourhood.


Exactly what I have said all along. The Hatchery has not been acting in good faith on a solution at all. They have chosen to pick up the bat and ball and go home and relied on misinformation of their perceived perils in full hope that nimby's would support their position without any basis in fact. And it has worked to date. Summerland Council has even recognized this and why there is a call for the Hatchery and Developer to meet and resolve this. To date, it is the Hatchery that is refusing and are behaving like school yard children that have been offended and will never sit at the same table for lunch unless they get their way. It's immature behaviour at the very least and at the worst, a total disregard that the benefits this development can bring and will continue to bring to both Summerland seniors and the community as a whole in tax revenues. It is selfish of them plain and simple to not sit at a table and find a solution that is doable for both parties.
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: 6298
Likes: 611 posts
Liked in: 2652 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby totoramona » Jan 29th, 2018, 11:48 pm

Anonymous123 wrote:The only reason the hatchery is involved at all is because the NIMBYs used it as a pawn to stop something that they don't want in their neighbourhood.


Totally not true. The Hatchery is in the business of protecting their fish. They are required to act in the interest of the health of their fishery. The area around Shaughnessy Spring has NEVER BEFORE been slated for a development of this scale. This proposed change to both the OCP and the Zoning is what has precipitated the need to ensure adequate protection for what has been a thus far uninterrupted supply of water for their operation. What don't you get about that? This is new. This risk is unanticipated and unprecedented. The Fishery did not ask for or want this. They are reacting to it. And it rests upon the developer to provide what is needed. In the early stages of this, the Council said it would not even proceed as far as they have until the Fisheries interests were protected. But they, too, have failed to follow through on their word.

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 fluffy » Jan 30th, 2018, 5:52 am

Anonymous123 wrote:If I could have liked the above post by OllyV twice, I would have. The only reason the hatchery is involved at all is because the NIMBYs used it as a pawn to stop something that they don't want in their neighbourhood.


That's a crock. The safety of the hatchery's water supply has been a legitimate issue right from the beginning, an issue that has yet to be resolved to their satisfaction. The hatchery was there first, they've been there for a hundred years and the water has flowed without failure. They are not the ones proposing to make major changes to the area. The ones who are, the developers, need to step up and take full responsibility for correcting any damage they do. This is not rocket science.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19068
Likes: 241 posts
Liked in: 3835 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Jan 30th, 2018, 9:51 am

totoramona wrote:Totally not true. The Hatchery is in the business of protecting their fish. They are required to act in the interest of the health of their fishery. The area around Shaughnessy Spring has NEVER BEFORE been slated for a development of this scale. This proposed change to both the OCP and the Zoning is what has precipitated the need to ensure adequate protection for what has been a thus far uninterrupted supply of water for their operation. What don't you get about that? This is new. This risk is unanticipated and unprecedented. The Fishery did not ask for or want this. They are reacting to it. And it rests upon the developer to provide what is needed. In the early stages of this, the Council said it would not even proceed as far as they have until the Fisheries interests were protected. But they, too, have failed to follow through on their word.


fluffy wrote:That's a crock. The safety of the hatchery's water supply has been a legitimate issue right from the beginning, an issue that has yet to be resolved to their satisfaction. The hatchery was there first, they've been there for a hundred years and the water has flowed without failure. They are not the ones proposing to make major changes to the area. The ones who are, the developers, need to step up and take full responsibility for correcting any damage they do. This is not rocket science.


If what you are saying is true. If "The Hatchery is in the business of protecting their fish." and if, "They are required to act in the interest of the health of their fishery." then they are currently doing the exact opposite.

This development has offered them an opportunity to do just that. Protect their business in a way that they have been so far unwilling or unable to do on their own. Lark has offered to try to meet the needs of the hatchery. It is the hatchery who has pulled back, it is the hatchery that are the experts in the field and have not put forward a reasonable proposal that outlines their specific needs in detail. It is the hatchery that withheld the Golder report and then is acting as if there if the review lacks legitimacy even though they have accepted the findings of the same research group in the past. It is the hatchery that has put up obstacle after obstacle such as, "if certain people are involved we won't go." and "we will accept only one solution."

The report found that while there is a threat, it is manageable. That is good news. that is what we should ALL want to hear if we truly aren't just being NIMBY's. We should want to hear that there is a resolution that can make both sides happy.

Lark has never, that I know of, said [email protected]*k the hatchery. Not our problem. As recently as last week they reiterated their desire to help find a solution. And the hatchery dug their heels in further.

Now, the grown-ups in the room just need to sit at a table and work out the details. You can't just cross your arms, bury your chin in your chest and pout, saying "...bring a solution to me. I am only seven minutes away."

Be an active part of the solution. "This is not rocket science."

However, negotiations start with two parties at opposite ends of an issue. That means you may hear some things you don't like in the negotiation. What you do not do, if you are serious about finding a solution, is walk away when your feelings are hurt. This isn't a middle school. Leave your feelings at the door.

I find it utterly alarming that the FFSBC is taking the approach that "they've been there for a hundred years and the water has flowed without failure." so they don't need a contingency plan. What responsible business runs like that?

It is embarrassing that so many of our community members are so short sighted that they feel this is an acceptable level of planning. It is downright distressing that the hatchery operates like that when so much BC investment is at stake.

Mr Girgan's comment that he could see only one solution he would accept sounds like a teenager whose parents just told them they would buy him his first car and his response is "I can only see myself in a Lamborghini."

If you have seen the numbers that the developer is putting into infrastructure improvements and municipal fees alone then you can't honestly say that there is not a solution that can be negotiated here. It could be as simple as enclosing the water supply from one end of the development to the other. That could be done before construction and would also protect the aquifer from a landslide.

Which, by the way, could happen tomorrow and cut the source of the water off forever without a single shovel being put in the ground. Where would that leave our precious hatchery? Wouldn't the cost of restoring the flow of the water supply after a calamity be better used in a) preventing loss of the supply OR, b) providing an alternate supply? It seems the public is fine with waiting until something goes wrong then dealing with that and still not having an alternate source. REALLY?!? Brilliant minds at work there.

What is really happening here, if you truly love the hatchery so much, is the opportunity to resolve this issue and improve our community and the hatchery.

We can't let the same old voices of opposition that rise up against every project, continue to hobble our community.

It just doesn't need to be this complicated. The well meaning, yet unqualified public needs to stop complicating the issue and let the professionals find a solution.

2 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 30th, 2018, 1:09 pm

OllyV wrote:If what you are saying is true. If "The Hatchery is in the business of protecting their fish." and if, "They are required to act in the interest of the health of their fishery." then they are currently doing the exact opposite.
This development has offered them an opportunity to do just that. Protect their business in a way that they have been so far unwilling or unable to do on their own. Lark has offered to try to meet the needs of the hatchery.


No. Lark has made two offers that do not meet the needs of the Hatchery. And then acted perplexed as to why they weren't accepted.

OllyV wrote:The report found that while there is a threat, it is manageable.


The report found a threat and how to monitor it, but there are no actual contingencies outlined on how to maintain the water flow should a threat occur.

OllyV wrote:I find it utterly alarming that the FFSBC is taking the approach that "they've been there for a hundred years and the water has flowed without failure." so they don't need a contingency plan. What responsible business runs like that?


What I find alarming is that you would think it is reasonable to expect there be an expensive contingency plan for the totally unexpected. Current OCP and zoning designation prevents what is being proposed. Why would the fishery have prepared for it? Businesses invest in one location. Most of us have put all of our "eggs in one basket" of a house to live in. I live in a strong, solid and safe house. Should I be expected to have a "back up" or second house to live in, just in case a development comes along that threatens its foundations?

What Lark has proposed to the Fishery so far have been lesser fixes that don't quite meet the mark. That was disrespectful. They are now trying to act hard done by, as if unreasonable expectations are being placed on them. The Fishery is holding out for what will actually protect its interests. That is their mandate and nothing less should be expected of them.

Troutcreeker likes 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 30th, 2018, 3:07 pm

totoramona wrote:No. Lark has made two offers that do not meet the needs of the Hatchery. And then acted perplexed as to why they weren't accepted.


That is why I said they need to be willing to negotiate. It sounds like anything would improve the once a year water check and "visual test" they have now. You do not always get the Lamborghini but often a Toyota can do the trick.

totoramona wrote:The report found a threat and how to monitor it, but there are no actual contingencies outlined on how to maintain the water flow should a threat occur.


The report was there to identify the threats not resolve the challenges they posed. The report did what it was supposed to.
Proposing contingencies requires specific expertise, in this case the FFSBC. They are the experts but they need to be willing to negotiate and compromise. That is why I said, bring more than one strategy or combinations of strategies to the table. We teach our children to compromise. Now it is time to demonstrate how that works.

These things are done daily on projects we know nothing about. No need to reinvent the wheel here.

totoramona wrote:What I find alarming is that you would think it is reasonable to expect there be an expensive contingency plan for the totally unexpected. Current OCP and zoning designation prevents what is being proposed. Why would the fishery have prepared for it? Businesses invest in one location. Most of us have put all of our "eggs in one basket" of a house to live in. I live in a strong, solid and safe house. Should I be expected to have a "back up" or second house to live in, just in case a development comes along that threatens its foundations?

What Lark has proposed to the Fishery so far have been lesser fixes that don't quite meet the mark. That was disrespectful. They are now trying to act hard done by, as if unreasonable expectations are being placed on them. The Fishery is holding out for what will actually protect its interests. That is their mandate and nothing less should be expected of them.


A bank sliding in this region is not "totally unexpected" is that not a big part of the opposition's argument against the development in the first place? As similar slide happened just up the lake last summer. Would you really consider a slide "totally unexpected" event? The Banks development is not the only threat to the hatcheries water supply. The FFSBC has admitted that based on the 2004 report an alternate water source should be available.

If your house contained a business that provided services to a government contract that provided $100 million in revenue to the province then yes, I absolutely would expect that you would have a contingency plan in place to ensure you could meet the demands of the contract in the event of a "totally unexpected" event.

As is clearly obvious, and not disputed by the hatchery, there is a preexisting threat to it's operation by having only a single source of water.

As has been noted by myself and others, including the mayor and the council in the meeting on January 22nd, if "The Fishery is holding out for what will actually protect its interests. That is their mandate and nothing less should be expected of them." then they should be at the table, putting perceived disrespect and hurt feelings aside and acting like professionals, to make the best of what could be a golden opportunity for them.

Or, they can keep digging in and eventually that area gets developed anyway and they get nothing.

The ball they took home over a perceived slight is in their court.
OllyV
 
Posts: 42
Likes: 63 posts
Liked in: 26 posts
Joined: Nov 16th, 2016, 9:40 am

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby twobits » Jan 30th, 2018, 7:49 pm

OllyV wrote:
RandyDandy wrote:The very idea that the fish hatchery should have to spend money to subsidize Lark or any developer is incomprehensible. To me. The hatchery is being taken to task for not having secured an alternate source of water for 100 years. They have not because they have not NEEDED to. It's not been broken, why fix it? Because of LARK? Crooked thinking! IF the Lark enterprise were to be successful in their quest they will already be getting major subsidization from the municipality because waterman says that new development does not pay for itself which means higher taxes for everyone already living here. How much more does Lark want? As much as they can get more because they are in the business of making money and anything they can get someone else to pay for is a big plus to them. I'm sure that we all suspect that required infrastructural modifications such as water, electrical, curbing, road widening, road sweeping, fire suppression etc. Etc.etc. wiould also be subsidized because if they weren't Lark would walk away. If a landowner doesn't WANT to sell 10 feet of property to Lark, will expropriation raise its ugly head? SUCH a dog's breakfast. "Stop the Swap".


I am not even sure where to begin with everything that is wrong with this post.
RandyDandy, I hope you do not live by the view that, I don't have a backup plan or insurance policy because I have never "NEEDED" it.

How did that thinking serve all the flood victims last year? I mean, it hadn't flooded that high in 100 years before!

This process has brought into sharp relief how, by the seat of their pants, the fish hatchery has been operating thus far. If nothing else comes of this hopefully they take seriously their needs to mitigate the risks, they have been deferring for so long because thus far they haven't "NEEDED" it. If indeed the fish hatchery is such a treasured member of the community, perhaps we Summerlanders should all be helping to find a solution to the nonexistent contingency plan the hatchery have been forced to live with due to limited resources.

Which raises a question others have noted. If this hatchery is worth $100 million in annual revenue from the province’s anglers, of which I am one, why haven't the resources been allocated long ago to secure a secondary water supply? Are we really risking $100 million on clay banks that slide on their own every year without any human interference?

And for the record, every business is in the business of making money Mr. Dandy. This obnoxious philosophy that making money with your business is somehow evil is ridiculous. Do you get paid for whatever work you do RandyDandy? If yes, then why? Are you only in it for the money? Shame on you. How much do you want anyway?

From the infrastructure improvements angle, you clearly have no idea how any of this works. In reality, property owners and developers are more and more on the hook for infrastructure improvements. The uninformed fear mongering that the tax payers are going to pay for all that while the developer reaps the benefits is shameful misinformation and does not add to informed discourse in anyway.

The reports are in. This development will be a financial benefit for the community, not a burden to the taxpayer. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Similarly, raising concerns of unwilling landowners having their property appropriated for this development is preposterous fearmongering intended to fire up the opposition base. Shameful behaviour.

I think that council meeting was very enlightening. I have watched it twice now and if you took anything away from it other than the hatchery is being an obstacle to a solution rather than part of a solution I have no idea what you watched. Not the only obstacle but certainly one obstacle.

This could be a golden opportunity for them to piggy back their needs on those of the developer. They could have a problem that they have not dealt with on their own resolved by someone else, largely on the other party’s dime.

If the chief complaints are that one person from Lark said something that hurt your feelings and they have not brought a solution to you yet that meets ALL your needs, that is insane. (Needs your currently living without I might add.)

First, put on some big boy pants. If you walk out of a negotiation process because someone was mean to you then perhaps you aren't cut out for the process. It is worth noting that from what I have heard Lark denies having said they would litigate against the hatchery if they didn't get their way. Since the other accusation, the claim that the hatchery couldn't expect to get out of this without having to incur some costs was misrepresented by Mr. Girgan, I think we need to take the claim of litigation with a grain of salt. Perhaps, he misinterpreted the words he heard in that instance as well.

Either way, MOVE ON. GET OVER IT. We get it. Your feelings were hurt.
Don't let one personality stand in the way of the possible significant improvement that could be made here to the hatchery. Take the high road and put personalities aside. You aren’t entering into an arranged marriage. It is business and an opportunity that may never come along for the FFSBC again. Don’t blow it.

The bottom line is, no one is going to bring you a plan. You are the experts; you know your needs. Outline a specific set of requirements and propose more than one strategy or combination of strategies that will mitigate your concerns and, above all, be willing to negotiate. This is the most efficient way to make sure the developer, who knows nothing about trout hatcheries and doesn’t need to, addresses your needs.

I think Mr. Girgan’s comment that he can see only one solution that will satisfy him is an alarming, red flag. If that is the case, send someone else to negotiate who has not already made up their mind. Someone who perhaps has a bit more open-minded vision to solutions. Similarly his claim that this will be a "very, very, very, slow process..." is another red flag. It doesn't need to be. That is a choice and it looks like Mr Girgan has already chosen.

It sounds like anything better than the rigorous “visual test” to check the water quality would be an improvement to the current state of things. I think the Mayor was absolutely right in suggesting that there are better systems within reach and the FFSBC has an opportunity to make improvements if they are willing to undig those heels just a little.

Mr. Girgan speaks about restoring trust when the FFSBC was the one to cut off negotiations and limit access to the Golder report. He is right, trust needs to be rebuilt. On both sides. It sounds like Lark is willing to find a solution. From Mr. Girgan’s tone in that council meeting it is difficult to say the same thing about the FFSBC at this time.

The bottom line is the developer is not interested in developing a product that is going to slide down the bank or into the aquifer. To protect their own investment, they need to shore the development off from the unstable elements of the site or improve their stability. This means complicated, expensive, structural engineering that will need to leave the site more stable then when they came to it. That is how construction is done. Logic, and experience, dictates that the site will be more stable in the end than it is now. This happens every day up and down the valley and all over the world. It isn’t new science here.

As long as the hatchery can put the hard feelings behind them and come to the table with an open mind, there is a solution to be found in this opportunity. There is no reason they can’t come out much better than they are right now.


Thanks for that post. Saved me time in responding to several posts that the Hatchery is not the only entity in town with skin in the game and they should grow up and play.
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: 6298
Likes: 611 posts
Liked in: 2652 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby shakeman » Feb 6th, 2018, 9:24 pm

This project is dead. Vote was taken tonight.

In favour: Peter Waterman, Janet Peake
Against: Erin Carlson, Toni Boot, Doug Holmes, Richard Barkwill, Erin Trainer

I found it odd that, with all the opposition, the room was maybe three quarters full.
shakeman
Fledgling
 
Posts: 121
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 29 posts
Joined: Dec 7th, 2009, 6:10 pm

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Anonymous123 » Feb 6th, 2018, 9:30 pm

I can almost smell a 5% tax increase next year.
We See
We Judge
User avatar
Anonymous123
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2268
Likes: 1643 posts
Liked in: 1112 posts
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 5:02 pm
Location: The fine line between reality and fantasy

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Queen K » Feb 7th, 2018, 10:54 am

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#218255

Banks Cres. killed.

Good.

Wrong place.
Too big.
Threat to hatchery.
Developers being driven by City Council, unlike Kelowna, where the City Council asks, "How high" when developers order, "Jump."
Our saddest days are when we add up our losses, and losses seem to be our saddest when we lose our best. Proud to be a "Leaf-licker" and I know who else is too. **smiles**

seewood likes this post.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 52134
Likes: 11667 posts
Liked in: 12130 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 12:39 pm
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby Corneliousrooster » Feb 7th, 2018, 1:06 pm

Queen K wrote:https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-218255-21-.htm#218255


Threat to hatchery.


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....

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Corneliousrooster
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2516
Likes: 17 posts
Liked in: 212 posts
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 10:20 am

Re: Banks Crescent Boondoggle

Postby OllyV » Feb 7th, 2018, 1:21 pm

Corneliousrooster wrote: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.
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 0 guests