City buys beach for $12M

[Veovis]

That property doesn't go from purchase to finished park in 2 months. A multi-yr process is normal, and not some shady conspiracy.

C'mon Glitchy, if we don't create a conspiracy how can we support irrational judgments?

[LoneWolf_53]

Cool now pet owners will finally get that additional dog park by the lake, and the geese can keep Sutherland Park. 8-P

[Queen K]

^ Know what? I actually hope that's true. A water dog park is needed.

[cv23]

^ Know what? I actually hope that's true. A water dog park is needed.

Yet you complain about other civic properties being used almost exclusively by a "special interest group for a pittance of cash"? When have dog owners in Kelowna paid anything or made any financial contribution whatsoever to any of the properties they already have basically exclusive use of?

This new beach park acquisition by the CoK is great. Why is there any reason there needs to be much in the way of development to make it a park? It was bought because it is beach access so what's wrong with letting it remain just as it is, as beach access? Put some "Swimming Area" buoys out in the water and its done. When has the CoK spent any real quantity of money on developing any of the other beach access parks in the city?

[Grandan]

The new park will take "years" to develop into a public park?

Something is very fishy with this timeline. No park should take "years" to develop so that the public can use it. What is the hold up?

I agree with the purchase, don't get me wrong. Kelowna needs growth in public park land, along the lakeshore in particular.

However, nothing makes me more suspicious than the timeline.

For the short term, there are rental properties on the property, that is income.
The New Recreation Centre land at the corner of Longhill and Valley was purchased several years ago.
You might want to take a drive past and have a look at why no one would want to use it without some form of development on it, such as access roads and parking lots and all the other things we take for granted when we visit a park.
Maybe there is something fishy going on.

[maple leaf]

Cool now pet owners will finally get that additional dog park by the lake, and the geese can keep Sutherland Park. 8-P

Make some of it a dog park before people get used to it not being used by dogs.

[cv23]

Make some of it a dog park before people get used to it not being used by dogs.

Sounds like someone is suggesting a special interest group be given exclusive use of a piece of civic property without paying for that privilege or any of the upgrades necessary for that group's specific use?
Why not wait until the existing leases are up, bulldoze the dwellings and build a washroom facility attached to one of the existing sewer and water connections? Other than that washroom might cost $1mil ($800k + inflation) the city would have a great beach for all residents and tourists to use.

[LoneWolf_53]

^ Know what? I actually hope that's true. A water dog park is needed.

I posted that tongue in cheek.

Though I agree, I highly doubt you'll ever see such a park in the Mission. If allowing dogs in a scummy, goose poop infested park, beside an Industrial area, is a no go, you won't see one in the Mission area.

Too many asshats with nothing but time on their hands to lobby for themselves.

[maple leaf]

Though I agree, I highly doubt you'll ever see such a park in the Mission. If allowing dogs in a scummy, goose poop infested park, beside an Industrial area, is a no go, you won't see one in the Mission area.

.

Although posted tongue and cheek It is a good idea,As the City is in the process of finding a place for a dog water park,and it is an option.If Sutherland has a few people adamant that they will do every thing possible to not allow it in the most logical place.This new property is large enough to have a portion of it for people to enjoy with their dogs,and people who don't want to have anything to do with being near a dog.Plus those people have numerous other options to choose from.

Pretty much every person could be pegged as being part of some special interest group.

[JLives]

Just because it's a dog beach doesn't mean non-dog owners aren't allowed to use it. Saying it's exclusive is nonsense. It's just another beach but one dogs are also allowed to go to. I don't like it for that purpose though as the Mission already has the only dog beach in the city. It would be accessible to more people in the North End or along Abbott.

[cv23]

Just because it's a dog beach doesn't mean non-dog owners aren't allowed to use it. Saying it's exclusive is nonsense.

Has anyone ever seen a family enjoying a picnic at a dog park in Kelowna? Do they have exercise or Tia Chi classes in Kelowna dog parks? Ever seen a baseball or soccer game in a dog park in Kelowna? Easter egg hunts in Kelowna dog parks? Anyone ever seen a kiddie party in a Kelowna dog park?
While dog parks are indeed open to use by non-dog owners why would they want to? To be jumped up on by uncontrolled animals? To wallow in the mud, wood chips and feces? Once a piece of property becomes a dog park in Kelowna it becomes no longer fit for use by any one but dogs so can pretty well be called exclusive in use to the dogs.

[JLives]

Has anyone ever seen a family enjoying a picnic at a dog park in Kelowna? Has anyone ever seen any human, other than a dog owner with their dog, spending any time or enjoying any time a dog park in Kelowna?

Not dog park, dog beach. There is a difference. And yes, I have seen people without dogs frequent Cedar Creek and not on the nudie end either although they do also.

[phasyluck]

That property doesn't go from purchase to finished park in 2 months. A multi-yr process is normal, and not some shady conspiracy.

I'm not about conspiracy , more so reality and what's happening to the Okanagan and Kelowna In particular. They best preserve all they can lake front or else it's bad news blues for all that reside.

[maple leaf]

Just because it's a dog beach doesn't mean non-dog owners aren't allowed to use it. Saying it's exclusive is nonsense. .

I agree,besides ,it is not dog owners who insist on being segregated and corralled off someplace,or have a special exclusive place.I for one would be just fine taking my dog to any one of the public parks,beaches at our disposal.But the special interests of some people insist on being separated,from me and my pet,and don't want to share the public space, so dog owners put up with being relegated to segregation and separated from everyone else.All we need to know is what beach ,public place the City wants us to use and that is where we will go.Since the logical place at Sutherland park is for some reason kept for the geese and we can't use it for our dogs ,then the City will be working to find another place and this new park could be an option.

And I have also seen non dog owners frequent the dog park on Richter,to play with the dogs there and get some therapy from a furry little animal, and am sure anyone would be welcome.