Green Avenue

[fluffy]

There was mention earlier of an agreement that was put in place when these lands were made almost inaccessible by the construction of the river channel. More info on that could shed a little light on the situation.

[mrmagoo]

Yes you are right. If it was owned by 8 joe average Penticton businessmen, the discussion would be very different. Different in that there would be no Gov't funding and the development would have to proceed on it's own damn merits. It is quite clear here that Costco, Landmark Cinemas, Home Depot et al were not interested in paying for the cost of a bridge. Landmark Cinemas in fact got tired of waiting for the Fed subsidy and made another investment. People complain about corporate wefare and yet when it is on FN land, it is somehow progressive investment. Sorry, but I will always call a spade when I see it.

Bingo! You nailed it twobits. Not racist at all. Just the plain truth.

Calling "a spade a spade" only works if you are dealing with facts. "Just the plain truth"...

When you decide what the truth is underlying the spade with no reference to facts this provides the underpinning of racism/sexism whatever "ism" that makes you feel artificially superior to another group.

Here is what I understand the facts to be:

1. These lands are owned by individuals who have never been able to develop the lands because of the building of the channel which cut off access.
2. The government promised to provide access when it built the channel.
3. No access was provided.
4. These individuals and the Band have lost a lifetime of development income and tax revenues as a result.
5. Any federal funds going in to this project (I'm not sure how much, if any) are earmarked for First Nations development and would have gone to another area had the Band not received them. This is a win for our whole area. Further, there is a lot of federal funding for all sorts of businesses which fall within the mandate of the government to promote due to the subsequent increase in economic activities that benefit the whole province. There is a long history of poverty in FNs communities that can be directly traced to residential schools and the reserve system and the taking of lands without compensation that was promised which is why they have been winning court cases. Inputting federal funds to create self-sustaining economic development benefits all taxpayers long-term.
6. "Corporate welfare" - well, you'd really need to look at the cost/benefit now wouldn't you. If there is a net benefit to an investment of tax dollars in a specific sector perhaps what we are looking at is that, investment with calculable ROI.
7. My understanding is that the Band is borrowing a lot of money to build this bridge, just as a municipality would do. Of course Costco or another tenant is not going to take that expense on. Ultimately, if the bridge is built and there is no development it is the Band that will be paying for this - not you or me.

I for one am very pleased to see this move ahead. I'm looking forward to something that might continue to grow Penticton a bit and provide more jobs given our limited land base. Seems like the Band has the only developable lands left in the town area.

[Daspoot]

Good post Magoo, I don't think people should jump to conclusions about the worthiness of the project until they have the facts about the background of it all, and understand about provincial and federal funding of highway, water crossing and other infrastructure.

To base an argument on falsities and then proclaim sound judgement is foolhardy.

[XT225]

Here is what I understand the facts to be:

1. These lands are owned by individuals who have never been able to develop the lands because of the building of the channel which cut off access.
2. The government promised to provide access when it built the channel.
3. No access was provided.
4. These individuals and the Band have lost a lifetime of development income and tax revenues as a result.
5. Any federal funds going in to this project (I'm not sure how much, if any) are earmarked for First Nations development and would have gone to another area had the Band not received them. This is a win for our whole area. Further, there is a lot of federal funding for all sorts of businesses which fall within the mandate of the government to promote due to the subsequent increase in economic activities that benefit the whole province. There is a long history of poverty in FNs communities that can be directly traced to residential schools and the reserve system and the taking of lands without compensation that was promised which is why they have been winning court cases. Inputting federal funds to create self-sustaining economic development benefits all taxpayers long-term.
6. "Corporate welfare" - well, you'd really need to look at the cost/benefit now wouldn't you. If there is a net benefit to an investment of tax dollars in a specific sector perhaps what we are looking at is that, investment with calculable ROI.
7. My understanding is that the Band is borrowing a lot of money to build this bridge, just as a municipality would do. Of course Costco or another tenant is not going to take that expense on. Ultimately, if the bridge is built and there is no development it is the Band that will be paying for this - not you or me.

I for one am very pleased to see this move ahead. I'm looking forward to something that might continue to grow Penticton a bit and provide more jobs given our limited land base. Seems like the Band has the only developable lands left in the town area.

Regarding #7 of your post, do you know the total cost of the bridge? The Feds are contributing 2.9 million I believe. Surely it can't cost much more than that. How much is the band contributing and why would they? The land is privately owned by 8 band members; not the PIB in general. As with Boonstock, the PIB likely has little to say about the lands in question. To your #1 and #2 statements, please provide us with links to back these up.

[Tony]

I'm glad to see the progress is happening, but just a question. If this wasn't Band Land - wouldn't it be under the ALR? Sather's have had cattle there for years. Just a question, like I said, happy to see it happening. Maybe I was wrong in an earlier post saying they were putting the cart before the horse. I guess sometimes if you don't buy the cart, you never need the horse.

[Tony]

="mrmagoo"
Here is what I understand the facts to be:

1. These lands are owned by individuals who have never been able to develop the lands because of the building of the channel which cut off access.
2. The government promised to provide access when it built the channel.
3. No access was provided.

Do you really think that any previous Band has wanted to do anything with this land. Remember years ago when they were granted a casino license? Never went anywhere.

This Band and it's leadership seems to be on the right track - good on them!

[Giants Head]

This is a private contract so the number for the bridge is only known to the band and Emil Anderson Construction. Based on what other contractors had priced this tender at I think the number is about 4.5 million.

[pentona]

This is a private contract so the number for the bridge is only known to the band and Emil Anderson Construction. Based on what other contractors had priced this tender at I think the number is about 4.5 million.

The bridge will cost around 6 million according to this article: http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/arti ... 8d747.html

[twobits]

Calling "a spade a spade" only works if you are dealing with facts. "Just the plain truth"...

When you decide what the truth is underlying the spade with no reference to facts this provides the underpinning of racism/sexism whatever "ism" that makes you feel artificially superior to another group.

Here is what I understand the facts to be:

1. These lands are owned by individuals who have never been able to develop the lands because of the building of the channel which cut off access.
2. The government promised to provide access when it built the channel.
3. No access was provided.
4. These individuals and the Band have lost a lifetime of development income and tax revenues as a result.
5. Any federal funds going in to this project (I'm not sure how much, if any) are earmarked for First Nations development and would have gone to another area had the Band not received them. This is a win for our whole area. Further, there is a lot of federal funding for all sorts of businesses which fall within the mandate of the government to promote due to the subsequent increase in economic activities that benefit the whole province. There is a long history of poverty in FNs communities that can be directly traced to residential schools and the reserve system and the taking of lands without compensation that was promised which is why they have been winning court cases. Inputting federal funds to create self-sustaining economic development benefits all taxpayers long-term.
6. "Corporate welfare" - well, you'd really need to look at the cost/benefit now wouldn't you. If there is a net benefit to an investment of tax dollars in a specific sector perhaps what we are looking at is that, investment with calculable ROI.
7. My understanding is that the Band is borrowing a lot of money to build this bridge, just as a municipality would do. Of course Costco or another tenant is not going to take that expense on. Ultimately, if the bridge is built and there is no development it is the Band that will be paying for this - not you or me.

I for one am very pleased to see this move ahead. I'm looking forward to something that might continue to grow Penticton a bit and provide more jobs given our limited land base. Seems like the Band has the only developable lands left in the town area.

And the facts are these lands are not an island that requires a bridge to get to. The lands extend right over to Airport Rd with access to both Green Mtn Rd to the north and Hwy 97 to the south. Why do the developers not build their road access from Airport Rd? The developers of Skaha Hills have essentially done so and on their own dime as well.
An easy access point also exists thru vacant land immediately west of the channel bridge all along the dike. Why do the developers not want that easy route?
It's cuz no Fed money comes with the above two access points and they are not as attractive as an access point down the street from Walmart.

[fluffy]

Why do the developers not want that easy route?
It's cuz no Fed money comes with the above two access points and they are not as attractive as an access point down the street from Walmart.

Both excellent reasons from a business standpoint.

[mrmagoo]

And the facts are these lands are not an island that requires a bridge to get to. The lands extend right over to Airport Rd with access to both Green Mtn Rd to the north and Hwy 97 to the south. Why do the developers not build their road access from Airport Rd? The developers of Skaha Hills have essentially done so and on their own dime as well.
An easy access point also exists thru vacant land immediately west of the channel bridge all along the dike. Why do the developers not want that easy route?
It's cuz no Fed money comes with the above two access points and they are not as attractive as an access point down the street from Walmart.

What makes you believe that either of those points provide easy access to the lands? Is it because you believe the government traffic engineering criteria for access roads to land of this size could be met at these points? Not to mention the fact that I understand from the news reports these lands belong to individuals. Or maybe you believe it is easy and legal to build a road along the dyke?

Or do you simply believe that no-one looked at this brilliant idea and the feds just blindly threw money at this? As someone who worked in government previously I do not believe this for a minute. It again sounds like speculation with negative intent dressed up as fact with a bit of ridiculousness on top to state that Walmart down the road is a reason to spend millions extra. My expectation is that there is a very good engineering or other sound reason cheaper options would not work.

As far as the history of these lands, I believe I posted information about the background documents I read on the discussion about the airport transfer - they are UBCIC and other historical documents. The cut-off of access is well-documented and recently acknowledged:

“What I like about this project (is) at the bottom of it, this is really about ensuring the reconciliation we talk about is actually taking place in real terms,” Valcourt said following the announcement outside the PIB school. He acknowledged part of that reconciliation means restoring access to land presently used for cattle grazing that was cut off when the Okanagan River was channelized in the 1950s." http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/268738071.html

This article also sets out the monies come from a specific fund set aside for First Nations. If PIB did not get the money, another community would have and it would be our specific region's loss.

Also of interest is the UBCIC report on the PIB "the Lands We Lost".

[Daspoot]

Hmmm

[XT225]

Nice try, Daspoot but no chance that Ikea would ever come here. Kelowna, (in a smaller version) maybe, but not here. The population base wouldn't justify it.

[twobits]

Nice try, Daspoot but no chance that Ikea would ever come here. Kelowna, (in a smaller version) maybe, but not here. The population base wouldn't justify it.

IKEA in Penticton is a pipe dream. Out of the 133 Target/Zellars locations, maybe 25-30 would be viable IKEA "pick up your online order" stores. 50K sq ft in superficial display and the rest in warehouse of product in boxes to be picked up. That is the IKEA model.
Having said that, I see the location in Orchard Park being in the top 20 for such a location. Penticton? Not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

[smoky500]

Has anyone seen a drawing of what the bridge is going to look like, judging by the height of the pilings going in there will be an overpass over the parkway?