Mt. Boucherie Trail System

[TylerM4]

I agree that people don't like it Fancy.

What's your solution tho? Stop all development and force taxpayers to buy back the now useless undeveloped land?

Snake and trails and roads are everywhere. You'd be hard-pressed to find a location where these are not concerns.

[Fancy]

Why ask me if I had a solution? Irrelevant. What is important is for residents to speak up at the meetings coming up to voice their concerns and hopefully come to an understanding with the developers. Now is the time to make a difference, not after a neighbourhood has been completed.

The main road connection is to be Vineyard Drive. Menu road and McCallum Roads are not to
be through roads but may be emergency access routes.
At each rezoning application the Regional Board will review and consider traffic impacts with a
view to adding an additional road prior to complete build-out..

http://www.districtofwestkelowna.ca/Doc ... e/View/948

[TylerM4]

I ask you for solutions because that's how the world works. Complaints and concerns raised without a proposed solution are often ignored. Especially when the same complaints and concerns are raised every time. NIMBY is not a solution at best it just makes it someone else's problem and officials know that hence it's ignored.

[Fancy]

Again, asking me for solutions is pointless and irrelevant. What the residents are doing by way of petitions and attending meetings might achieve something.

[TylerM4]

Again, asking me for solutions is pointless and irrelevant. What the residents are doing by way of petitions and attending meetings might achieve something.

It's not pointless and irrelevant. You listed a bunch of concerns. Concerns that I believe apply to most/all development and don't have apparent solutions. Loss of access to private land, increased traffic, etc. If there is no apparent solution, then what is the purpose of protesting? The only reason is because you want it to be some other neighborhood's problem instead of your own. Which is fine - just that people need to recognize it for what it is.

There's a big difference between fighting a development (what the OP is doing). And ensuring appropriate development which I think we both agree this group should shift their focus to.

[Fancy]

The only reason is because you want it to be some other neighborhood's problem instead of your own.

You don't make sense when saying I want it to be some other neighbourhood's problem. Haven't a clue what you're saying there. Certainly working with developers has worked in the past when residents become aware of what's going in. Footprints are changed, density housing has changed and green space has been maintained. Compromises have been made in the past and so something can be done in the early stages. NIMBY is not an appropriate term to be used in a lot of these cases. The residents know there's development going in but to keep the access to the trails is probably a valid concern. Some developers have made this possible - others not so much.

[TylerM4]

You don't make sense when saying I want it to be some other neighbourhood's problem. Haven't a clue what you're saying there. Certainly working with developers has worked in the past when residents become aware of what's going in. Footprints are changed, density housing has changed and green space has been maintained. Compromises have been made in the past and so something can be done in the early stages. NIMBY is not an appropriate term to be used in a lot of these cases. The residents know there's development going in but to keep the access to the trails is probably a valid concern. Some developers have made this possible - others not so much.

NIMBY is very apparent what's going on with the OP. They're not asking for changes, they're asking for the development to occur somewhere else. My understanding is that the development plan hasn't even been released yet.

Fully agree - the group need to shift it's focus from "Fighting development in this area" to "ensuring appropriate development of this area".

[Fancy]

A concept plan has been released.

[Fancy]

They're not asking for changes, they're asking for the development to occur somewhere else.

No, they are not according to the Castanet article. They are asking to preserve the trails.

[TylerM4]

They're not asking for changes, they're asking for the development to occur somewhere else.

No, they are not according to the Castanet article. They are asking to preserve the trails.

Something that's obviously not possible without huge sacrifice from the developer. And the OP's focus has been on blocking the development to "preserve the trails" rather than just "preserving the trails".

I could see them re-routing the trails to sidewalks within the development then re-connecting to the trails outside of the development. But preserving the trails while still allowing a development is not viable and everyone knows it.

[Fancy]

I see no blocking of the development. Their main concerns are density, green space and access. All valid concerns that have been addressed in other developments. There can be no solutions without discussion between the parties affected. There are other areas with access to green space provided by developers so hopefully the residents can achieve this.

[FriendsofMt.Boucherie]

To clarify, the main purpose of this post and the group "Friends of Mount Boucherie" is NOT to oppose development, but to promote preservation of the trails and as much green space surrounding the property as possible. However, as someone has previously mentioned, the confidence level in the city is low. This is a direct result of past and recent negative experiences. Hence why our approach has shifted. As we have stated numerous times on the Facebook group page, within the petition on change.org, as well as in the article on Castanet, our main goal was and still is to preserve the trails and ensure appropriate development, not to oppose development completely.

[Raven1]

Since rattlesnakes can't be moved far from their dens, I wonder how many will be destroyed.

Id like to be an observer for moving day. I hope the developer makes sure interior health has lots of anti-venom on hand. Any and all homeowners on the bottom of boucherie better be given plenty of notice as well. When the Boucherie fire happened there's was a lot of problems with rattler relocation.

[Fancy]

The 1992 fire?

[LTD]

Since rattlesnakes can't be moved far from their dens, I wonder how many will be destroyed.

Id like to be an observer for moving day. I hope the developer makes sure interior health has lots of anti-venom on hand. Any and all homeowners on the bottom of boucherie better be given plenty of notice as well. When the Boucherie fire happened there's was a lot of problems with rattler relocation.

If that was even remotely a problem all of you hikers would be dropping dead left right and center that's a lame excuse