Giving away city parkland to private interest

[Midnite]

There lies the problem (for you, at least)...there does NOT appear to be any YES petitions. Tis obvious that the NO side far outweighs the YES folks. Majority should rule and a referendum is the way to prove real Democracy still exists here. As I said, most of the NO crowd is NOT against the slides; just not on public parkland.

Those in favour accept the results of the "election" those opposed do not. The opposition seems to accept democracy on a selective basis.

[XT225]

Those in favour accept the results of the "election" those opposed do not. The opposition seems to accept democracy on a selective basis.

Council wants this to forge ahead and they know full well that a proper Democratic Referendum would result in defeat of the proposal thus they won't allow it. When was the last time anyone saw that many people march on the steps of city hall over any proposal. Its obvious this is a huge issue and needs more thought and solutions before moving ahead. As I stated, most of the NO side is in favor of the water slides but not in favor of losing parkland. There are other locations/options available if the city would just open up their minds a bit. Where is that YES petition, I wonder?

[Static]

People are not going to visit Penticton for only 5 waterslides. The size of the water park is a joke.

[Corneliousrooster]

To me a couple of acres of parkland is a small price to pay for the economic shot in the arm this project will bring.

So the economic shot in the arm could be just as beneficial on private land - no need to use up park land.

A lot of people keep touting the success of the Vernon water slides and claim to visit them now and again (contributing to their success). Keep in mind that the benefit will not likely be returned by Vernon or kelowna residents as they don't need to travel that far to partake. Perhaps Vernon's success is due to the lack of competition so they benefit from a wider draw. Any new water slide venture is going to share in that water slide market, perhaps shrinking tha markets enough to make them all not profitable.

A large chunk of our tourists come from Alberta which is home to one of the best water slide parks there is - I don't think that segment of our tourist draw will be chomping at the bit to pay to use a far inferior slide park for most likely a similar admission price.

Skaha slides better have significant "wow" or the novelty will wear off pretty quickly.

[fluffy]

So the economic shot in the arm could be just as beneficial on private land...

True, but only as far as the town and it's citizenry. It's the opportunity for comparatively cheap land in a prime location that makes the venture attractive to the developers. If they can't see some hope of profitability then this whole exercise is for naught.

[Corneliousrooster]

True, but only as far as the town and it's citizenry. It's the opportunity for comparatively cheap land in a prime location that makes the venture attractive to the developers. If they can't see some hope of profitability then this whole exercise is for naught.

What developer wouldn't love publicly funded subsidized prime lakefront - doesn't mean everyone should support it just for the sake of convenience at the expense of losing legacy park land.

[fluffy]

It's good enough for me. We've got plenty of parkland and this deal will make us money to buy more. Opposing this development simply on a principal of preserving parkland is short sighted in my mind, since we stand to gain even more parkland from the revenue.

[Corneliousrooster]

It's good enough for me. We've got plenty of parkland and this deal will make us money to buy more. Opposing this development simply on a principal of preserving parkland is short sighted in my mind, since we stand to gain even more parkland from the revenue.

No one is gaining parkland. They would essentially be using prime lakefront and possibly acquiring something down the road that most certainly would not be anywhere near equal. Why don't they acquire new parkland now and put a water slide on it? Probably not because it defies logic - much like the current proposal.

You are also putting a lot of faith in there being any significant revenue. How many years worth of water slide revenue do you think there will have to be before there is enough to buy anything worthy of getting a park status? There is so much wishful thinking attached to this project.

[twobits]

It's good enough for me. We've got plenty of parkland and this deal will make us money to buy more. Opposing this development simply on a principal of preserving parkland is short sighted in my mind, since we stand to gain even more parkland from the revenue.

When is too much parkland too much?

As to the deal making us money to buy more parkland.....do you know something we don't fluff? Has anyone been made privy to the deal on profit sharing? With the capital investment they are proposing, including moving the splash park, boathouse etc at their expense....what is the definition of "profit" they will be sharing? Will the costs of those gratuitous expenses be costed into that formula before there is an actual profit to share? Any numbers provided to date on revenue share dollars are purely speculation. This operation could easily lose a few hundred K a year instead so ZERO dollars for parkland acquisition. And even if they do come anywhere close to true, we will have bound beachfront assets for a generation worth at least three million dollars an acre to receive a few hundred k in parkland acquisition funds.
Won't even buy the equivalent of the marshlands they call a dog beach on Eastside road. This Trio Marine group is not stupid. The only reason there is a profit share proposal is to set the hook for the gullible so they can be reeled in. They know full well that they can expense enough on the financials that they will never have to pay anything more than a pittance if anything at all..
Before I will accept this profit sharing agreement, I want to know what oversight the City has over operational expenses. That would be the norm if this was being sold as a joint venture but it is not. Commercial landlords sometimes enter into lease agreements where the lease payments vary according to gross revenues. They never enter into leases that depend on a share of net profits. That is just stupid unless there is some oversight to operational costs. Will the City be able to challenge why one of the principal's of Trio Group sons makes $35/hr to run the gas pumps on the dock or his son in law 100k/yr to manage the water slides for 4 months?
We, the taxpayers, are absolute mushrooms in the dark when it comes to the "deal" are we not? IMO, this Counsel has seriously misjudged how uninterested people are about the governance of their assets. Usually they are but once and a while an issue comes up...like the prison debate....and people do get interested. And if this Counsel does not recognize the slap in the face they have just received and retreat for further discussion and/or public polling, they are arrogant and unworthy of the position of looking out for the public interest.
In the private sector it would be like a CEO and Board of Directors at an AGM not recognizing that a large component of shareholders were seriously pizzed off about a proposed deal. The smart CEO and BOD will table the agenda item for further scrutiny and examination. They would not meet in private and then issue a statement to the media saying "nope, we're all still good with it".

[fluffy]

I still like the idea. But I'm stubborn like that.

[twobits]

I still like the idea. But I'm stubborn like that.

Said the man to his divorce lawyer and still got seriously screwed. Financially anyway.

[waynetyea]

i lived in richmond and they gave some property for a tennis club but they had to have a couple of courts for the public however you could never play there as the club used them as well

[zebrawoman]

Before I will accept this profit sharing agreement, I want to know what oversight the City has over operational expenses. That would be the norm if this was being sold as a joint venture but it is not. Commercial landlords sometimes enter into lease agreements where the lease payments vary according to gross revenues. They never enter into leases that depend on a share of net profits. That is just stupid unless there is some oversight to operational costs. Will the City be able to challenge why one of the principal's of Trio Group sons makes $35/hr to run the gas pumps on the dock or his son in law 100k/yr to manage the water slides for 4 months? .

From the city's own site:

What if Trio doesn’t make any profit?
The agreement with the City requires Trio to pay a percentage share of the total revenue – not profit – meaning the City and taxpayers are paid first.

[Static]

^^^^^^ how does the city share in revenue if the company is burning cash? It will not happen under this circumstance.

[sale4u]

I just want to be on record that I approve of this plan. That's all!