Removal of pathway at Skaha and Yorkton

[mountain sky]

Was unable to follow council last evening. Does anyody know how it went on the ammendment to remove the provision for a pathway thru the old waterslide park in the redevelopment?

We sent in our letters of opposition, I hope council listened.

[Glacier]

slightly off topic here, but in Alaska there is a law that if a government wants to widen a road, they must include a separated bike path along side the road. As a result even the highways and roads through unincorporated communities have great bike paths. I'd like to see the same thing in BC.

[twobits]

slightly off topic here, but in Alaska there is a law that if a government wants to widen a road, they must include a separated bike path along side the road. As a result even the highways and roads through unincorporated communities have great bike paths. I'd like to see the same thing in BC.

Glacier.....seriously??? That makes about as much sense as AGW. Foist that expense on the taxpayer for the multiple thousands of roads in BC for 1/10 of one percent of the population that would use them. I would suggest there are far more important uses of funds than bike paths in remote areas. Maybe Alaska has oil money to waste on things such as bridges to nowhere and bike paths with "warning, moose crossing ahead", but we don't.

As to the amendment to remove the pathway thru the old waterslide park....I didn't see it either but I sure hope it got removed. If you can't walk the distance along Waterford to Yorkton up to Skaha Lake Rd, you have a serious problem. Expropriate private land to save you less than a minute?

[Glacier]

It only applies to populated areas, and only major roads and highways. It's actually not hard to do in most cases because the road right of ways are already wide enough in Alaska to accommodate bike paths a good 20 feet from the highways (so that you can see the moose a long way off). Same goes for the BC highway maintained by the federal government (the Alaska Highway).

[Drip_Torch]

If you can't walk the distance along Waterford to Yorkton up to Skaha Lake Rd, you have a serious problem.

Are you suggesting people with serious problems should live somewhere else, or just be denied access that you and I take for granted? Does this mean you support bicycle lanes over a network of trails? Should people that rides bikes live somewhere else, or just be denied access to safe alternative routes?

Expropriate private land to save you less than a minute?

It seems to me, this covenant came into being out of a "this for that" relationship entered into by the previous developer. I did a quick read and it seems "this and that" is what the current developer would prefer. Hardly an expropriation.

Missed the meeting...I guess we'll know tomorrow.

[Drip_Torch]

Bad luck, gone like the wind.

[twobits]

a "this for that" relationship entered into by the previous developer.

Lol, just another form of expropriation. Some people would even call it extortion. I would venture a guess, actually I am quite sure, you have never developed a piece of property in your life. "So Mr applicant, you want to build a building. Fine we will agree to it if you grant a 10 ft corridor thru your property, agree to pay for bike lanes on all adjoining streets, pay for new traffic signal lights at the intersection now for installation when they are deemed required........ and you wonder why the original development did not proceed? So a new investor comes along and says "I am sorry the previous bozo agreed to all these terms but if you want me to develope this piece of land that has been growing weeds at the entrance to your city for going on ten years, you are going to have to cut some slack here".........and the duddly do rights and nimby's have a problem. Go figger. We can just let the weeds grow for another ten years until an investor that "see's the vision" steps up to the plate. Welcome to Penticton.
Do you actually ever wonder why there are so many prime pieces of property here doing nothing but growing weeds? The only thing actually motivating anything here is the economic development incentive of which this parcel is part of BTW. Lord, if you are listening now......please help!

[Drip_Torch]

I would venture a guess, actually I am quite sure, you have never developed a piece of property in your life.

Good guess... I've never been a land developer, although I'm not exactly unfamiliar with some of the horse trades that go on.

I did fall into a consultant and contracting position once by enabling a solution that couldn't be found in a box, but frankly, I had other interests and sought other challenges after my role on that project was complete. The project was 148 acres and 600 homes and it's still doing quite well today; some thirty something years later. I can't think of anything comparable locally.

We can just let the weeds grow for another ten years until an investor that "see's the vision" steps up to the plate. Do you actually ever wonder why there are so many prime pieces of property here doing nothing but growing weeds?

Honestly, back when I was visitor for conventions and vacations, I did wonder, but I've been here for a while now.

Perhaps the issue isn't so much "the vision" but lack thereof. I mean seriously, our planning department spends most of it's time counter-planning, our OCP is a whimsical document, that seems to exist simply to be worked around and our building bylaw is so dated that it draws a number of it's enabling provisions from the Municipal Act. Part 5 of the bylaw (Construction Regulation) could probably be rendered moot by a monkey with a couple of nickels.

For example:
5.1 The British Columbia Building Code as adopted pursuant to Part 21, Division 5 of the Municipal Act shall form the regulations for construction and fire limits within the City of Penticton including regulations for:

Hint... the Municipal Act was re-enacted, about 14 years ago, as the Local Government Act and there isn't a Part 21, Division 5 anymore. There isn't a Municipal Act anymore and furthermore, there is simply no resolve to operate cityhall by the principals outlined in Part 1, Section 1 of the Community Charter Act.

Bully rules apply and the rule of holes be damned. Most people quit digging when they get close to the bottom.

I know full well why there are empty lots here. If I was asked to describe the combined character of "the little powers that be" in this town, as one famous person - I'd have to go with Ron Jeremy swinging solo. Yeah, sure - at the end of the day they get the job done, but there must be bad taste lingering after some of it.

(That's not to say there isn't good people in City hall - I know full well there is and it's a rare day that I don't experience a moment when I feel just a little remorse for them.)

So, reality check back at ya.