Castanet

the truth wrote:fyi they do not kick everyone out that has a relapse, empty rooms do not pay the bills, its simple math.

Bailey63 wrote:Google "Detox is not the answer for opiate addiction". Just listen. Tell me what you think of what you heard.

bluebook wrote:So question for all of you who seem to think all is well putting freedoms door in rutland and right beside Rutland elementary, Pearson elementary, Rutland middle and Rutland high school ... would u be okay with it beside Anne mcclemont ( sp) or chute lake elementary or mission secondary or Knox mountain? Just curious

I realize it is a great facility but the placement has me confused? I realize it is drug recovery and not pedophiles ( although after speaking to some sources on this they definitely can have criminal records)

I just think if they could even move it three blocks down Rutland Rd so grade 2-7 kids don't walk directly by, it just would be more suitable. In fact I would welcome it!! Just too close to too many schools an right in the neighbourhood.

Just to let anyone know who is opposed, I spoke to some high up people and it is definitely going through they will not listen to us!! The next council meeting is sept 19, I urge everyone to be there!

the truth wrote:and thats a fact,could those oppose too this raise some money to get a lawyer and stop it from going ahead ? drag it in the law courts, everyone else does it, why not the people of rutland

BigBearBruno wrote:The kids are the future and most will be contributing lots to society...

A full house is expected at city council chambers for a controversial rezoning application Tuesday evening.

The public hearing will determine whether a piece of property at the corner of McCurdy and Rutland Road is appropriate for a four storey apartment building.

The apartment, if approved, would house a 49-unit supportive housing development for graduates of the Freedom's Door drug and alcohol program.

Residents of the area are not happy with prospective clientele, and it's anticipated they will show up en masse Tuesday night to voice that displeasure.

However, they may not get that opportunity.

When council gave initial approval three weeks ago, triggering the public hearing, it was reminded only the zoning could be discussed, meaning only whether the land was appropriate for an apartment.

At this point in the process, council was told they could not, as per the Local Government Act, determine an outcome based on who will reside on the premises.

"There is no policy regulating where supportive housing should be distributed within the city," said city planner Adam Cseke at the time the application was first presented.

"The city analyzes apartment buildings based on their land use and the form and character merits, not based upon the users of that building."

That also means those speaking out against the project would presumably have to keep their comments to zoning issues, such as parking and traffic impact, not the purpose of the building.

That debate would come at a later date.

As of Friday afternoon, the city had received 54 individual letters, 38 in support and 16 against.

It had also received a petition with more than 700 signatures opposing the apartment.

The property is the current site of the Knights of Columbus building.

At the time of initial approval, some on council suggested they had some concerns but wanted to hear what both sides had to say at a public hearing.

BigBearBruno wrote:These addicts contribute absolutely nothing. Kelowna's priorities are completely out of whack!