Cedar Avenue Park Use Before Council

[erinmore3775]

This article in the Courier caught my eye today.

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/news/article_50dca5a4-4765-11e4-8378-001a4bcf6878.html
Paddle centre a good first use for eventual waterfront park lands

I will provide an brief perspective on the park creation.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1560807/kelowna-to-rezone-abbott-street-waterfront/

Kelowna to rezone Abbott Street waterfront

After years of indecision the City engaged "...the public at a community charette in February involving 30 community volunteers. Among the group were ordinary citizens, developers, representatives from area neighbourhood associations and four members of the Kelowna Paddle Centre, the neighbourhood’s newest tenant.

[Edited to correct url reference]

Kelowna residents at large were solicited about what to do with the waterfront land through an on-line engagement process.

After receiving the public feedback, council voted to create a park on the properties instead of sell any portion to a developer.

Among the ideas for the park could be a new civic owned building to house the Kelowna Paddle Centre, which some City documents have suggested could include a $1 million investment by the City."


Unfortunately, in making its decision Kelowna Council completely ignored the recommendations of the public charrette and acquiesced to a small, vocal neighbourhood group. Instead of supporting a recommendation that would partically cost taxpayer nothing, they voted for a project that would cost at least $1 Million.

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/news/article_51f59e6a-d6e9-11e3-93ad-0017a43b2370.html

Pricey waterfront park plan sells other Kelowna neighbourhoods down the river

Ron Seymour wrote, "...Because the way things stand right now, the vast majority of Kelowna residents who live nowhere near the Cedar Avenue-Abbott Street enclave are getting badly shafted by a surprising and ill-considered council decision taken Monday.

Bowing to the ceaseless agitation of a small group of area residents, council voted 5-3 to lavish even more civic attention and public money on an area of town that is already by far the most privileged in terms of parkland." He then went on in the article to point out the park projects in the rest of Kelowna that will be delayed or curtailed by this decision.

Toady at City Council, councillors will be taking their first step to rectify their bad decision of the spring. Administration is bringing forward a motion to give the Paddle Club a five year lease on three lots in the most norther portion of the proposed park. The Paddle Club currently has a temporary lease on one of those properties.

Seymour points out in todays article that "...some critics say the paddle centre represents a betrayal of the city's original intention in buying the waterfront properties – to develop a passive park where people can sit on the grass or benches to admire the lovely view of Okanagan Lake and distant mountains.
But Kelowna already has many waterfront parks where not much of anything, at least not anything desirable, takes place through much of the year. Outside the peak and relatively short summer season, they are too often the favored haunting grounds of drug-involved individuals, transients, and others who most of us would cross the street to avoid.
But paddling season extends from early spring to late fall. The new centre – which is entirely a volunteer-run, non-commercial affair - promises to bring some new and welcome animation and vibrancy immediately to what will become, one day, Kelowna's newest waterfront park."

I would also point out to the critics, that the land purchased for the proposed park was done so with taxpayers' money from all of Kelowna, not just the taxes raised from the local neighbourhood. The plans, from the charrette, presented to Council in the spring represented the views of a wide cross section of Kelowna citizens including representatives from the neighbourhood. The option recommended by the charrette and the City's administration offered the greatest multipurpose recreational benefit and least cost to the taxpayers.

The critics of the proposed park, who want it used totally for green space, base their claims not on legal documents, convenants, or current or rescinded bylaws, but on old newspaper articles and oral history. While I respect their desire to have a quiet, green space immediately adjacent to their homes, which would significantly improve their property values, their wish should not be completed with other taxpayers' dollars. I say to them, if you want your "quiet" park, band together, raise the necessary money, purchase the land from the City at fair market value, then gift it back to the City with a covenant describing its future use. After all City Park was created that way, for the benefit of all Kelowna citizens, perhaps the vocal critics would wish to consider this option.

[Troy]

If you can't make it down to council chambers this afternoon, you can listen to our live broadcast of this meeting here:
http://www.castanet.net/kelownacouncil/

[erinmore3775]

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinion/article_9539f1cc-4a8d-11e4-81ee-0017a43b2370.html

Park must have public access

"So, with the unanimous council approval this week of locating the Kelowna Paddle Centre on property previously occupied by rental homes, at least some progress is being made toward changing the nature of this quiet strip of lakefront.
One would think.
However, those who envisioned an open public space were shocked to learn the club will have private, members-only access to the beach.
They feel betrayed."

I really do not understand why they (The People for the Park) should feel betrayed. They have convinced the City to use the lots for parkland. However, they do not like the proposed uses of this parkland. Yet they cannot produce one legal document, bylaw, or official correspondence that ties the City to allocation of these lots to a purely passive park.

Members of The People for the Park served on the charrette that the City convened to determine the proper use of the lakeside City owned lots adjacent to Cedar Avenue. These members were unable to convince other charrette members that a passive park was the best use of the land or that the criteria for the charrette should be changed. However, most of the charrette participants lobbied the City to change some of the parameters of the charrette, namely around the number of lots to be considered. The charrette by consensus did propose two models for the park. The model with the greatest participant support was also supported by City administration and recommended to Council. This proposal for a multi-use park would have "cost" taxpayers practically nothing and work on the park could have commenced almost immediately without jeopardizing any proposed park projects in other areas of the City.

The People for the Park presented a powerful lobby against the proposal. Council yielded and went for a "proposal" that will cost taxpayers additional money and delay the Cedar Park development for many years.

Now there is an uproar from People for the Park and local residents for the extension of the Paddle Club lease on the grounds that it is a private club using public land exclusively. They would have an argument if they did not carefully examine Kelowna's use of public land. The City Park lakeside water fun park, the new wharf, the Yacht Club, our recreational facilities, Prospera Place, Rotary Center for the Arts, and our soccer and baseball fields are all leased/rented to individuals, corporations, or organizations for their use. However, each is accessible to the general public for a membership and/or fee for use. Mayor Grey this week pointed out on the 1150 morning show that the Cedar Park area and the Paddle Club are being treated no differently than any other multi-use park and that established City policies and procedures have been followed.

The exception to the rule is the entitlement that People for the Park and the adjacent neighbours to the Cedar Park area feel. They feel they are entitled to have the taxpayers of Kelowna establish a passive green space park in their neighbourhood that would exclude other uses and largely benefit them by increasing their property values. I do not believe that "Council needs to quit pulling the rug out from under the park proponents." I believe that it is time that a group of very selfish and self serving citizens stopped trying to hoodwink the City and its taxpayers into providing an "exclusive and limited use" green space area in their neighbourhood!

[wanderer]

Of course we all know, including City Councillors and Staff that the intent of what the People for the Park were working for was a Park for everyone to access free-ly. That the Staff and the City Councillors have leased Cedar Park out to a group that has fenced off the area for their members only, goes against that intent and we all know it. Another slap in the face at Kelowna Citizens. I do not swim or kayak and I have no wish to at my age, but I would have liked to sit by the water or even to walk along the shoreline there. I'm sure there are many other tax paying citizens like me. I do not live in that area so you can't pin my opinion on wanting a park in my back yard. I recognize the value of having as much no fee public access shoreline and park as possible, and preserving if for future generations for ALL to enjoy. The shoreline land is constantly under threat of being developed, paved over, cemented, built on, it would no longer be a green resource. We need to make sure it is there for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto have great no fee linear parks along shorelines or water resources, that is foresight. I'm not against the kayak club, I'm against them fencing off that park land and not giving access for all citizens of Kelowna.

The city owned public properties that are fee for use listed in the previous message have come into existence under Gray and the current city manager. I do not pay a fee to use Knox Mt, City Park, Mission Creek Park and Greenway. I really think what is needed are some truly civic minded people governing our city, as we have had in the past. People who worked for ALL the citizens of Kelowna, not for special interest groups, or good ol' boys. Our civic leaders in the past saw good reason to have free public places for the citizens of Kelowna, not cash cows to be exploited to fill the city coffers. The current governing body has even gone out of it's way to make sure the Simpson Covenant was not used for the "intent" for which that generous gift was given to the people of Kelowna. Shameful, another slap in the face to a civic minded family, similar to how they are treating the intent of the People for the Park. I imagine city hall had a lawyer work out what they could do to screw the citizens of Kelowna out of a truly public park.

[Queen K]

Leasing four prime sandy beach lots out to a group of less than 130 for five years is a slap in the face. Does anyone know the EXACT membership numbers? Last heard it's 100 actually.

My tax money went towards buying those properties. So did a lot of people's property taxes. And they get what out of the new park? Very little. "Hey, look! The Kayak Club!"

To use those properties I now have to pay a fee to the Kayak Club of $250/year for use that might be good 6 months of the year.

And so does everyone else.

Guess who is left out of Kelowna's newest and latest park? Everyone who can't afford an elite per year price tag.

Essentially it boils down to this, the first two years are leased out for $2,500 right? So the club members already pay $250 each times 100 members (or so) = $2,500. So they get the CHEAPEST storage unit possible placed on what is now their private lakeshore land for 24 hour boat/kayak/SUP board/canoe storage.

And that was paid for by every property owner in Kelowna who pays into the coffers of the regional district.

[wanderer]

This just came in as a City of Kelowna News Release:

News Releases For The Record Oct. 20
Response to 'Paddle Centre lease does affect taxpayers'
Letters – Kelowna Daily Courier
Oct. 17, 2014

A letter published Oct. 17 in The Daily Courier contained some incorrect information.

In a letter about the Pandosy Waterfront development, the writer says the city will lose out on rental income from a city-owned property that is to be converted for use as a centre for paddle boating.

The writer says the current tenants pay the City of Kelowna $25,000 a year to live in this 3,000-square-foot waterfront property.

In fact, the rental income was $18,603 in 2013, with $9,896 going to pay the non-municipal portion of property taxes. The approximate gross income of $8,707 does not include maintenance and repair expenses, which average in the range of $3,000-$4,000 per year for the City-owned waterfront properties.

The Paddle Centre group will pay the City of Kelowna $2,500 per year for the first two years of the lease agreement, in addition to being responsible for property taxes and building maintenance costs.