Development on the Royal York Golf Course

dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2603
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by dontrump »

common_sense_guy wrote:To the people that want to fight this. Boo hoo it's private land. people in Canada have some right left to do what they want on their own land. Get over it. And one person talking about this as if it's community Green Space. Yes it's green but it's not the communities space.



I dont think anyones fighting anything as there is nothing to fight? I suppose one could try and sue the person they bought the lot and or house from if the golf course was included in the transaction ? (far fetched idea)

The golf course has been for sale for a few years Kal tire housing division bought it life moves on it may still operate for a few more years according to the yorks story
visimp
Posts: 8
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006, 8:12 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by visimp »

It is very interesting to see how the recently released draft copy of the Flood Mapping and Risk Assessment Report created for the City of Armstrong due to two years of damaging flood waters in the community recommends a thorough process to bring the City's policies up to date.

From the recommendations, these items (direct quotes) were significant:

- The City’s OCP (Official Community Plan) pre-dates the 2016 Riparian Areas Regulation revisions as well as the flood mapping and risk assessment work contained within this report and is therefore considered out-of-date;

- The City’s SDSB (Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1570) pre-dates the flood mapping and risk assessment work contained within this report and is therefore considered out-of-date;

- A risk tolerance or acceptable level of flood hazard for the City not been defined

- There are no streamflow measurement programs in place

- Review and revise, if necessary, the OCP (Official Community Plan) , DPA (Development Permit Area) map, and SDSB (Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1570) as may be required to improve future development planning per IFMP (Intergrate Flood Management Plan) risk tolerance

As all of these recommendations are relevant to new developments, especially the large development proposal for the Golf Course, it seems premature to even discuss OCP and rezoning plans when relevant policies are out-of-date and potential flood implications are clearly unknown.

Currently water on the golf course soaks into the ground but with all the water from the rooftops and roads in the proposed development being drained into the problematic Meighan Creek, the flood potential is greatly increased in the lower areas throughout the City.

One City Councillor has recently made a public statement that there should be a freeze on all future developments until the many problems outlined in the Flood Mapping report have been resolved.

This is an obvious conclusion that the Mayor and all of the City Councillors should heed instead of merely accepting more development without regard to the total cost of increased taxes for all taxpayers and damage to the community due to flood water problems.

The City has a new position on staff in 2019 who will be responsible for Planning and Development and again it would seem appropriate to wait until this new professional is engaged in the community before a hasty decision is made about the Golf Course.

We are in process of creating an official Society to oppose the change in the OCP and rezoning of the Golf Course lands and retain this valuable piece of greenspace for the community. Our inaugural meeting is planned for January 8th at 6:30 p.m. in Centennial Hall in Armstrong. If you are concerned about how these changes will affect your association with the community be sure to attend this meeting so we can show the City what the people think.
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2603
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by dontrump »

its rather a easy task to oppose development of property that you don't own nor could you afford to buy ?

you claim and I quote:
We are in process of creating an official Society to oppose the change in the OCP and rezoning of the Golf Course lands and retain this valuable piece of greenspace for the community.



So? are you proposing the tax payers of Armstong buy this golf course so you and you friends can attain this rather personal goal?


Are you of such vast knowledge that your positive that if royal York becomes houses it will truly flood the whole city of Armstrong as U allude to here?

Are you saying the whole planning system within the city of Armstrong has no idea of whats what here?
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by Fancy »

dontrump wrote:Are you saying the whole planning system within the city of Armstrong has no idea of whats what here?

Maybe they are comparing to what's happening in Kelowna?
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2603
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by dontrump »

Fancy wrote:
dontrump wrote:Are you saying the whole planning system within the city of Armstrong has no idea of whats what here?

Maybe they are comparing to what's happening in Kelowna?



what happened there in your opinion? what area its pretty big Iam sure the whole of kelowna was mostly well planed out
visimp
Posts: 8
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006, 8:12 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by visimp »

The golf course is a large area of green space and is a big part of the lifestyle and tourism for the City of Armstrong, not just me. Yes it is a golf course but it is also an complete ecosystem which benefits everyone. The City has also benefited from the Golf Course for over 25 years with higher property values around the course which translates into higher property tax revenues. If you talk to a new resident in Armstrong, a lot say they moved to the City because the golf course is here.

As for my expertise, the comments I made are quoted from the 218 page report requested by the City of Armstrong and released on Dec 21st 2018 by professionals in their field after months of studies and evaluations. They are not my statements.

As for our planning department, again, the report mentions the out of date policies related to planning and development. We can only hope that our new Planning and Development employee will thoroughly look into past and present planning decisions made by our politicians and take remedial action for the benefit of all taxpayers in the City.
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2603
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by dontrump »

The list of people that moved to Armstrong just to play golf at a old 9 hole course is extremely short let me be clear on that
secondly
Its a privately owned piece of land operated as a golf course IF the general public (rate payers) of Armstrong don't want development and feel the course is such a great asset then step up to the plate and buy the dahm course !!

and have the city operate it paid for by all the rate payers
Happytobehere
Fledgling
Posts: 329
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2008, 12:49 pm

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by Happytobehere »

The golf course is not greenspace or an ecosystem. It is a business. The city cannot force the owners to keep operating it. The alternative could be for the owners to shut down the course and let it become an overgrown mess. That would be great for property values.
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2603
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by dontrump »

Happytobehere wrote:The golf course is not greenspace or an ecosystem. It is a business. The city cannot force the owners to keep operating it. The alternative could be for the owners to shut down the course and let it become an overgrown mess. That would be great for property values.


not to worry as kal tire land division has already bought it and it will become houses eventually ;; all the greenies on here crying are sol (way too late to the party)
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3815
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by Hassel99 »

visimp wrote:It is very interesting to see how the recently released draft copy of the Flood Mapping and Risk Assessment Report created for the City of Armstrong due to two years of damaging flood waters in the community recommends a thorough process to bring the City's policies up to date.

From the recommendations, these items (direct quotes) were significant:

- The City’s OCP (Official Community Plan) pre-dates the 2016 Riparian Areas Regulation revisions as well as the flood mapping and risk assessment work contained within this report and is therefore considered out-of-date;

- The City’s SDSB (Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1570) pre-dates the flood mapping and risk assessment work contained within this report and is therefore considered out-of-date;

- A risk tolerance or acceptable level of flood hazard for the City not been defined

- There are no streamflow measurement programs in place

- Review and revise, if necessary, the OCP (Official Community Plan) , DPA (Development Permit Area) map, and SDSB (Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1570) as may be required to improve future development planning per IFMP (Intergrate Flood Management Plan) risk tolerance

As all of these recommendations are relevant to new developments, especially the large development proposal for the Golf Course, it seems premature to even discuss OCP and rezoning plans when relevant policies are out-of-date and potential flood implications are clearly unknown.

Currently water on the golf course soaks into the ground but with all the water from the rooftops and roads in the proposed development being drained into the problematic Meighan Creek, the flood potential is greatly increased in the lower areas throughout the City.

One City Councillor has recently made a public statement that there should be a freeze on all future developments until the many problems outlined in the Flood Mapping report have been resolved.

This is an obvious conclusion that the Mayor and all of the City Councillors should heed instead of merely accepting more development without regard to the total cost of increased taxes for all taxpayers and damage to the community due to flood water problems.

The City has a new position on staff in 2019 who will be responsible for Planning and Development and again it would seem appropriate to wait until this new professional is engaged in the community before a hasty decision is made about the Golf Course.

We are in process of creating an official Society to oppose the change in the OCP and rezoning of the Golf Course lands and retain this valuable piece of greenspace for the community. Our inaugural meeting is planned for January 8th at 6:30 p.m. in Centennial Hall in Armstrong. If you are concerned about how these changes will affect your association with the community be sure to attend this meeting so we can show the City what the people think.



You should call it "the sour grapes society"
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by Fancy »

Armstrong group calls on council to spare local golf course from housing development
Global carried the story tonight.
https://www.saobserver.net/news/armstro ... velopment/
I can see how frustrating it would be to buy next to a golf course because that's why those homes were built - to entice golfers - and then find the course sold for more development to accommodate non-golfers.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by Fancy »

dontrump wrote:The list of people that moved to Armstrong just to play golf at a old 9 hole course is extremely short let me be clear on that...
I believe I heard just over a 100.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
lcpp64
Board Meister
Posts: 415
Joined: Apr 10th, 2016, 10:20 pm

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by lcpp64 »

Construction is performed on site & money is made at “City Hall”

I do not have a dog in this fight, however the key factor is “Re-Zoning” not “Private Property”

The “Civil Lawsuit” if one existed would be devalued adjacent properties due to “Re Zoning”

If a Municipality or Regional District is sending out or requiring the Developer to send out “Re Zoning” information, it is so you can present your arguments for against. This limits the Municipality’s liability and increases their chances at defending themselves in front of a Judge.
bob vernon
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3953
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: Development on the Royal York Golf Course

Post by bob vernon »

ALR land becomes golf course land. Value increases. Profits are pocketed. Some of the land becomes residential land with easy access to the golf course. Value increases. Profits are again pocketed. The rest of the golf course becomes residential. Value increases again. Profits are pocketed. The rezoning smell might be bad, but profits are pocketed. After all, this is the Okanagan and that's local gubment.

Return to “North Okanagan”