Development irks residents.....

[GordonH]

Only way in or out is by Campbell Rd

By choice because that's what the locals want.

I recall many years back someone proposing a connection to Lakeview and the residents got their knickers all in a twist.

Could still be done, that is connecting to Ogden Rd/Thacker Dr... would mean buying out a number of homeowners.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

Absolutely disgusting.

But like I've said, our city council and mayor is every developers wet dream.

I think you meant our Mayor , and most of our council..

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

Only way in or out is by Campbell Rd

By choice because that's what the locals want.

I recall many years back someone proposing a connection to Lakeview and the residents got their knickers all in a twist.

That would require obtaining land on the hillside, some or allus privately owned. If they choose not to sell, then it would mean expropriation. I THINK THE BACKLASH FROM THE road it would connect to above would be huge..
But fundamentally I agree, too many people already for only one entrance or exit.
Adding hundreds more people would cause many problems.

[alanjh595]

It does look a little much, but if the developer can be gotten to pay for the required increase in infrastructure (bus routes, lengthening of Cambell Road slip road, etc.), required to make provisions for amenities, such as public spaces, commercial space, other facilities, I don't have a major problem with it. I'd still like to see fewer hotel rooms, fewer parking spaces and more focus on people living, working, shopping and engaging in recreation in that development, but the size of the development and density of it don't hugely concern me, if it is handled correctly.

Why would anyone build a park and roads in exchange for city council's approval and their subsequent tax profits?

Would you personally pay for a new park, and street sweeping in your neighbourhood in exchange for city's approval of the basement suite that you want to build?

To do so, would be the epitome of city official bribery. The counselor/s would only support something of this nature if he/she was wanting to be re-elected into another term of a cushy job (self gain).

[Jflem1983]

Im for it. Traffic is already a nightmare. I avoid westbank at all costs. To the pount i often turn down work over there. Its just not worth the extra 2 hrs of driving to go a few miles. How a few thousand more cars on the bridge could make much difference is beyond me . Westbank needs to get some bigger lakefront developments. I dont see a problem here .

[Scrobins94]

I hope they build it to increase West Kelowna's population base to support more amenities there so they don't have to cross the bridge all the time.

[Verum]

...
Why would anyone build a park and roads in exchange for city council's approval and their subsequent tax profits?

Because these will be needed to provide appropriate conditions for the people who will live in these apartments. The rest of the tax base should not be paying for significant additional infrastructure demands placed on the community by developments. Simply put, I should not have to subsidise the profits of a developer by paying for the infrastructure they benefit from.

Would you personally pay for a new park, and street sweeping in your neighbourhood in exchange for city's approval of the basement suite that you want to build?

No, but if I was building a hundred of them, yes it might be appropriate, especially so if what I was building was likely to particularly add to the pressures on existing infrastructure. I think it is perfectly sensible to expect developers to foot the bill for these things which will be needed, rather than expect tax payers do so for them.

To do so, would be the epitome of city official bribery. The counselor/s would only support something of this nature if he/she was wanting to be re-elected into another term of a cushy job (self gain).

Basically you are likening any time a counsellor does something of clear benefit to the community to bribery. That's absurd. Counsellors should be free to look out for the interests of the community and if in doing so it reflects well on the counsellor, then that is both fair and right.

[Urban Cowboy]

Only way in or out is by Campbell Rd

By choice because that's what the locals want.

I recall many years back someone proposing a connection to Lakeview and the residents got their knickers all in a twist.

That would require obtaining land on the hillside, some or allus privately owned. If they choose not to sell, then it would mean expropriation. I THINK THE BACKLASH FROM THE road it would connect to above would be huge..
But fundamentally I agree, too many people already for only one entrance or exit.
Adding hundreds more people would cause many problems.

To heck with backlash when the selfish desires of a few, override logic and common sense.

Any area is safer when it has more than one entrance or exit.

If I recall correctly they've already had one scare in that area in the way of a fire.

This is more a matter of some elitist snobs wishing to prevent their little part of paradise from changing.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

It does look a little much, but if the developer can be gotten to pay for the required increase in infrastructure (bus routes, lengthening of Cambell Road slip road, etc.), required to make provisions for amenities, such as public spaces, commercial space, other facilities, I don't have a major problem with it. I'd still like to see fewer hotel rooms, fewer parking spaces and more focus on people living, working, shopping and engaging in recreation in that development, but the size of the development and density of it don't hugely concern me, if it is handled correctly.

Why would anyone build a park and roads in exchange for city council's approval and their subsequent tax profits?

Would you personally pay for a new park, and street sweeping in your neighbourhood in exchange for city's approval of the basement suite that you want to build?

To do so, would be the epitome of city official bribery. The counselor/s would only support something of this nature if he/she was wanting to be re-elected into another term of a cushy job (self gain).

It's called DCC,s everybody pays when you develop. Wether you get the benefits or not. Welcome to Kelowna pull your wallet out and tell us your proposal.
I will give you an example.
A fellow I know once a property on Richter it had a house on it, but was in an industrial area . This was at least 15 years ago and the DCCs for the lot were 50K. In the end there was so many restrictions on what they could build there, that they ended up putting the property back up for sale. This is now the Northeast corner ofvthe current RCMP property.
That'd how it works, gives us 50 k to build a shop, meet all our restrictionsm b- ut don't expect a sidewalk .
That is how property development is donewith the COK.

[alanjh595]

...
Why would anyone build a park and roads in exchange for city council's approval and their subsequent tax profits?

Because these will be needed to provide appropriate conditions for the people who will live in these apartments.
They know what they are buying and what is available, it's their choice to buy there or not. What about all of those that are not residents, that come there to use whatever facilities that have been provided to the residents? Maybe it should be gated and restricted to ONLY the residents that are paying for it? WHO decides what is appropriate?
The rest of the tax base should not be paying for significant additional infrastructure demands placed on the community by developments. Simply put, I should not have to subsidise the profits of a developer by paying for the infrastructure they benefit from.

Would you personally pay for a new park, and street sweeping in your neighbourhood in exchange for city's approval of the basement suite that you want to build?

No, but if I was building a hundred of them, yes it might be appropriate, especially so if what I was building was likely to particularly add to the pressures on existing infrastructure.
Every new basement suite adds to the existing infrastructure. It also adds to policing and fire protection. At what level is considered an appropriate level? 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 200......? Who gets to make that call?
I think it is perfectly sensible to expect developers to foot the bill for these things which will be needed, rather than expect tax payers do so for them.
Isn't it the responsibility of the government to provide "what is NEEDED" to the community it serves? THAT is why they were elected into that position in the first place. Isn't more available housing also NEEDED?

To do so, would be the epitome of city official bribery. The counselor/s would only support something of this nature if he/she was wanting to be re-elected into another term of a cushy job (self gain).

Basically you are likening any time a counsellor does something of clear benefit to the community to bribery. That's absurd. Counsellors should be free to look out for the interests of the community and if in doing so it reflects well on the counsellor, then that is both fair and right.
And by denying others of the basic need for housing, how does that serve "the people" or the continued employment of the councillor? If that counsellor objects to the project, he looses 1500 future votes, if he gives it his blessing, he looses the votes of a few angry neighbours. Those neighbours do have the right to sell and move to somewhere else or stay put and shut up. It's their choice.

[cv23]

Only way in or out is by Campbell Rd

All under control , at least for the residents of the development

Given the existing nature of Campbell Road as the main access to Casa Loma and the Blackmun Bay site, a secondary road for emergency use is being planned, which would allow for an evacuation of pedestrian and emergency vehicular traffic to Lakeview Heights in the event of an emergency only. The plan details are currently being engineered, and no Development Permit would be issued until the details of such road have been fully resolved with the City of West Kelowna.

https://www.blackmunbay.com/faq

And as far as traffic issues that's been handled too.

All development and addition of residential or commercial development will have addition of traffic. However, the required Traffic Impact Assessment was completed for this proposal and the addition of traffic from this development to Campbell Road would be minimal and hardly impact the existing infrastructure. Traffic mitigation techniques are being proposed and would be implemented to minimize impact prior to this development being completed and commissioned.

https://www.blackmunbay.com/faq

It's all under control as per the developer, who according to his portfolio has never previously been involved in this type of development.
http://www.landstardev.com/developments/index.html

Doesn't everyone feel so much better now?

[Queen K]

Errr, no. I don't. But pedestrian? Seriously? They added that?

It’s West Kelowna, not Kelowna......unless you meant that they are also a masturbatory fantasy for developers.

Casa Loma is in the West Kelowna area - DOH.

But yes, the governing council there is also part of every developers wet dream.

<Every council and mayor> "Developer's Wishes are our command!"

[normaM]

Not sure about a second bridge paying for it. People move where it costs less then complain about the commute, traffic etc. Surprise! That's why it was cheaper.

[Verum]

Not sure about a second bridge paying for it. People move where it costs less then complain about the commute, traffic etc. Surprise! That's why it was cheaper.

Yes, which is one reason people don't want things to get significantly worse. People in the Mission area complain about additional houses being built because of the lack of infrastructure, as do people all over the place. Those who live in West Kelowna are just as entitled to expect that additional developments do not result in significantly longer commute times as anyone else.

[motokelowna1]

That is all we need Albertan's showing us how to build. You can't even build a pipeline and only hope you dont build this thing here. Yes I live in Casa Loma and totally against the project. I feel for those living above the project when the blasting starts and they end up having the penthouse .