Banks Crescent Boondoggle

[Anonymous123]

I wonder how safe the water supply will be if someone raised pigs or chickens on the property.All that fecal coliform leaching it's way into the water supply. It is zoned agricultural and the owner would be well within their rights to use it that way.

[seewood]

So NIMBY's, your move. Try organizing FOR something now instead of AGAINST something. I think you will find much less enthusiasm for that idea.

I

Kinda doubt it. I believe many are in favor of a seniors complex, perhaps even with the scope the lark group has presented, just not in that location. Here lies the problem though, where to build a development with that scope in Summerland's down town area. Again no suitably zoned land, just ALR and we know how well that went a few years ago when a swap was proposed.
Perhaps Lark as mentioned will look for suitable land closer to amenities but likely will be a lot smaller in scale.

[fluffy]

it just took this to shine a light on the fact that in 100 years they never thought to come up with a secondary water source.

What is the secondary source for the municipal water supply?

[RandyDandy]

Fluffy! Bing! For the win!

[Corneliousrooster]

What is the secondary source for the municipal water supply?

Garnett Valley - this was used just this past year when they did a pretty major upgrade to the main system. I am not positive but I believe the municipality has water licenses to pump from okanagan lake if they should so choose to go that route in the future to meet increased demands.

[twobits]

Fluffy! Bing! For the win!

What win?? Summerland has two water licenses for Okanagan Lake they have not had to exercise for community water needs. What backup source does the Hatchery have? For a facility to claim to be such an important economic driver (300 mill) for all of the province, they seriously need to get a new management team in place that recognizes the achilles heal of their operation.
I mean seriously.....no one would even build a 500k greenhouse operation without a backup heat source to protect their product.

[fluffy]

Garnett Valley - this was used just this past year when they did a pretty major upgrade to the main system. I am not positive but I believe the municipality has water licenses to pump from okanagan lake if they should so choose to go that route in the future to meet increased demands.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info.

I think what has really been the point all along is that the Hatchery is under no obligation at all to incur any expense whatsoever due to the proposed development putting their current water supply at risk. Sure it would be wise to have a back up plan in place but the truth is that the current supply is not at risk. The developers were bringing that risk into the equation and fell miles short of offering any sort of contingency plan should the worst come to pass. I'm sure it was a money decision, they simply did not want to commit to the expense of correcting any problems their project caused. And in the final analysis that reluctance proved fatal.

[OllyV]

I think what has really been the point all along is that the Hatchery is under no obligation at all to incur any expense whatsoever due to the proposed development putting their current water supply at risk. Sure it would be wise to have a back up plan in place but the truth is that the current supply is not at risk. The developers were bringing that risk into the equation and fell miles short of offering any sort of contingency plan should the worst come to pass. I'm sure it was a money decision, they simply did not want to commit to the expense of correcting any problems their project caused. And in the final analysis that reluctance proved fatal.

A few truths you could have learned at the hearing if you were listening:

1. Lark actually weren't reluctant to providing mitigation. They were willing and able to negotiate a solution.
2. The aquifer IS currently at risk and declining if you listened to the hydrologist,
3. The hatchery does have a responsibility to have a backup plan due the oft touted $100 million dollars in revenue they generate.
4. The NIMBY's chose to selectively hear and selectively apply blame to server their cause.
5. The risk caused by construction was nearly non existent due to the aquifer being 13 storeys underground and not directly beneath the site.
6. Even if the site was fully on the aquifer, the site the coverage was less than .5% of the estimated aquifer area. Much of the town is built on the aquifer. It is almost completely under the town. Nearly every building we build is built on the aquifer.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of emotions...

[OllyV]

Kinda doubt it. I believe many are in favor of a seniors complex, perhaps even with the scope the lark group has presented, just not in that location. Here lies the problem though, where to build a development with that scope in Summerland's down town area. Again no suitably zoned land, just ALR and we know how well that went a few years ago when a swap was proposed.
Perhaps Lark as mentioned will look for suitable land closer to amenities but likely will be a lot smaller in scale.

According to the hydrologist who spoke at the hearing, if it was built uptown that is still over the aquifer. If it wasn't about NIMBY views then they should still oppose it.

That aside, my original point still stands, everything that even sniffs of progress is opposed by much of the same crowd in this town. It is exhausting and disheartening to say the least.

If I had more time I would make a list of the projects that have passed us by, or barely came in with much opposition, just in the last 15 years... it is embarrassing.

We are forced to watch the town we love steadily decay as a very vocal contingent, made up largely of folks who won't even be on this earth in another decade or two, hobble our community with their relentless negativity.

Very depressing. Economically and emotionally.

[fluffy]

If I had more time I would make a list of the projects that have passed us by, or barely came in with much opposition, just in the last 15 years... it is embarrassing.

Fill yer boots.

[Queen K]

Kinda doubt it. I believe many are in favor of a seniors complex, perhaps even with the scope the lark group has presented, just not in that location. Here lies the problem though, where to build a development with that scope in Summerland's down town area. Again no suitably zoned land, just ALR and we know how well that went a few years ago when a swap was proposed.
Perhaps Lark as mentioned will look for suitable land closer to amenities but likely will be a lot smaller in scale.

According to the hydrologist who spoke at the hearing, if it was built uptown that is still over the aquifer. If it wasn't about NIMBY views then they should still oppose it.

That aside, my original point still stands, everything that even sniffs of progress is opposed by much of the same crowd in this town. It is exhausting and disheartening to say the least.

If I had more time I would make a list of the projects that have passed us by, or barely came in with much opposition, just in the last 15 years... it is embarrassing.

We are forced to watch the town we love steadily decay as a very vocal contingent, made up largely of folks who won't even be on this earth in another decade or two, hobble our community with their relentless negativity.

Very depressing. Economically and emotionally.

Oh clever. An attack on people who know that when the beauty of Summerand is gone, it's GONE. They have seen communities all around the Okanagan be destroyed by unbridled lust for more, more, more. Greed to the max. The project was too large and would destroy an area that could never be revived again. They've seen urban sprawl destroy and eat up rural areas. Not everyone thinks that mega-projects are the answer to everything.

Why not move to a larger community if you're unhappy with the beauty of Summerland? Or will be happy when it's all gone, never to return?

[twobits]

[quote="Queen K"
Oh clever. An attack on people who know that when the beauty of Summerand is gone, it's GONE. They have seen communities all around the Okanagan be destroyed by unbridled lust for more, more, more. Greed to the max. The project was too large and would destroy an area that could never be revived again. They've seen urban sprawl destroy and eat up rural areas. Not everyone thinks that mega-projects are the answer to everything.

Why not move to a larger community if you're unhappy with the beauty of Summerland? Or will be happy when it's all gone, never to return?[/quote]

Queen, I would bet that if I asked you to meet me at the proposed development site without the use of GPS, you would have no clue how to get there. You have no clue as to where it is at or the properties that surround it. You just bought into the nimby BS.

[Queen K]

Wharton Street site?

Would that be difficult? If it is, I'd google Earth it before driving out to Summerland.

Oh and here, I dont' think this was ever published here but my bad if it was

https://sensiblesummerland.com/13610-banks-crescent/

[Queen K]

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_68b9f11a-00a6-11e8-879a-db181040653b.html
This is the latest news on this topic. I think it answers a lot of questions Summerland citizens have been asking about the project.

Summerland—The developers behind the controversial Banks Crescent project allegedly threatened the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC with a lawsuit should the project not be approved.

Kyle Girgan, manager of the society’s Summerland Trout Hatchery, dropped the bombshell in front of town council during a no-holds barred discussion Monday.

“The proponent came into my hatchery and said if this (approval of project) doesn’t come through, they’ll be looking for someone to sue,” Girgan said.

I wonder if this is going to happen now?

[Queen K]

Oh and the artists rendition as we've learned here in Kelowna, is rarely followed.