Penticton Waterslide

[twobits]

Cheap rent is what makes a seasonal business there feasible. It also provides a revenue stream for the city from land that would normally produce zilch. I understand the issue of private business on public land, but feel that the need for revenue plus the benefits to the tourist trade makes the partnership attractive.

I get your point of view. However I wish you would consider that the amount of real estate we have is fixed and the population is only going to grow. The paltry sum of money that will be contributed from this venture for parkland aquisition is not going to buy anything more than outlying scrub grass. The real estate in question is world class by any countries standard. There will be no more available to the City short of a philanthropist donation. That point is driven home by the fact that the long term plan of lands of South Beach Drive and Sudbury Ave being bought up has been abandoned due to prohibitive market value. By this same Council btw. How can anyone support the loss of this caliber of lake front parkland when the City itself has readily admitted that further acquisition of similar lands for the future is cost prohibitive?
And please do not reply with the straw man argument that this is not a disposition of lands. 30 yrs is near half a lifetime for most and I am quite sure once converted to commercial use, in 30 yrs it will never be restored to public open space cuz the need for "revenue" will be even more pressing than it is now.
Going forward with this plan as presented in it's current form is nothing more than a deal with the devil and selling one's first born child for a short term illusionary gain.

[pentona]

I get your point of view. However I wish you would consider that the amount of real estate we have is fixed and the population is only going to grow. The paltry sum of money that will be contributed from this venture for parkland aquisition is not going to buy anything more than outlying scrub grass. The real estate in question is world class by any countries standard. There will be no more available to the City short of a philanthropist donation. That point is driven home by the fact that the long term plan of lands of South Beach Drive and Sudbury Ave being bought up has been abandoned due to prohibitive market value. By this same Council btw. How can anyone support the loss of this caliber of lake front parkland when the City itself has readily admitted that further acquisition of similar lands for the future is cost prohibitive?
And please do not reply with the straw man argument that this is not a disposition of lands. 30 yrs is near half a lifetime for most and I am quite sure once converted to commercial use, in 30 yrs it will never be restored to public open space cuz the need for "revenue" will be even more pressing than it is now.
Going forward with this plan as presented in it's current form is nothing more than a deal with the devil and selling one's first born child for a short term illusionary gain.

I underlined the above sentence as it brought something to mind. There is a BIG house new house going in on South Beach drive and right next to it is a property that the city bought several years back for whatever reason. They then rented it back to the people who still live there I believe.

Highly doubt that the city can afford any future buy outs in that area. That property that they own is worth a lot. Might as well sell it as pretty certain that other neighbours won't be selling. The city could use the cash.

I realize that its slightly off topic but past councils opted to buy that lot on South Beach Drive and though its not going to be used for a waterslide, the city should not be holding onto property that brings in little rental revenue and could be worth a fair bit on the open market.

[Drip_Torch]

That point is driven home by the fact that the long term plan of lands of South Beach Drive and Sudbury Ave being bought up has been abandoned due to prohibitive market value.

... but, did it get abandoned in the end? I know that was the staff recommendation, but I thought the whole issue got sent back to staff for another look.

I realize that its slightly off topic but past councils opted to buy that lot on South Beach Drive and though its not going to be used for a waterslide, the city should not be holding onto property that brings in little rental revenue and could be worth a fair bit on the open market.

(One down, twenty one more to go...) I don't believe that Penticton's present day financial situation is a forever thing.

Personally, I'm not keen to see the city abandon that plan based on our present day financial snapshot. I laugh out loud every time I see the city's economic reports characterize either end of skaha beach as the beaches' "center". I realize it seems out of reach today, but my own personal opinion is it should stay on the books as a longer term goal. While today, a plan to increase holdings on the lake may not provide a tangible benefit to our communities books, I do believe there is an intangible statement made about who we are as a community and what we hold dear.

[pentona]

It doesn't seem at all logical to assume Trio's sole purpose in responding to the Skaha marina RFP was because they wanted to be in the business of running a waterslide.

Early scoop from the local rag just now:

Waterslides are not included in a new proposal for a commercial development in Skaha Lake Park that will be revealed publicly at a city council meeting this afternoon, The Herald has learned.
Trio Marine Group is instead interested now in leasing and upgrading an existing concession stand inside the park and carrying on with its separate plans for the adjacent Skaha Marina, according to a source with knowledge of the arrangement who is not authorized to speak publicly.
Mayor Andrew Jakubeit declined Monday to confirm or deny the source’s information.
“You’ll have to wait and see,” he said. “We want to make it available to all media and the community at the same time – and it’s literally still just getting finalized.”
He confirmed, however, “there are elements that are different” from Trio’s first proposal, and that the new plan will help the community gauge the company’s resolve to do business in Penticton....

[fluffy]

The paltry sum of money that will be contributed from this venture for parkland aquisition is not going to buy anything more than outlying scrub grass. The real estate in question is world class by any countries standard. There will be no more available to the City short of a philanthropist donation.

A "paltry sum" as compared to what, the piles of cash that the property brings in in it's current state? I'm seeing the addition of the waterpark as an enhancement to the tourist trade and an acceptable use for communal property, as it will benefit the local economy. The fact that someone else is going to build it and will make a return on their investment doesn't much matter to me, other than it will not cost me one thin dime other than the horrible inconvenience of having to move over a little bit when I feel like laying on the grass. Not a big deal because in my experience there has never been a shortage of empty grass in that area. Never.

[pentona]

A "paltry sum" as compared to what, the piles of cash that the property brings in in it's current state? I'm seeing the addition of the waterpark as an enhancement to the tourist trade and an acceptable use for communal property, as it will benefit the local economy. The fact that someone else is going to build it and will make a return on their investment doesn't much matter to me, other than it will not cost me one thin dime other than the horrible inconvenience of having to move over a little bit when I feel like laying on the grass. Not a big deal because in my experience there has never been a shortage of empty grass in that area. Never.

Suggest you pick up a copy of the Herald, Fluffy. The slides, they aren't happening. Time to get over it.

[ferri]

Hoping to scrap the slide

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#179677

[Rosemary1]

The ongoing vague announcements are tiresome and disrespectful to Pentictonites. . Regardless of spin Mayor puts on it what Treo is really after is a foothold on prime land for future development. What a revised contract for a new proposal reads will tell the story.

-what does an expanded concession stand actually mean?
--will the area of leased parkland covered by contract be reduced?
--will it require different zoning?
--what safeguards will be in place to ensure this is not a delaying tactic for future development proposals (if the revised proposal has no change to amount of land originally leased for waterslide, it will be a red flag of what real intentions are)
- who will be responsible for cost of cleaning any contaminated soil that may be found ?
-depending on structure, will risk assessment be done to evaluate any risk from gas pipeline running under park?

[pentona]

Read it and weap (those one or two on here who were in favor):

http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... waterslide

[fluffy]

The slides, they aren't happening.

I think that's a given at this point. It's not likely anyone is going to invest money in a such a controversial project. That doesn't change the fact that I supported the proposal, and would do so again should a similar offer land on the table.

[pentona]

I think that's a given at this point. It's not likely anyone is going to invest money in a such a controversial project. That doesn't change the fact that I supported the proposal, and would do so again should a similar offer land on the table.

It was the waterslides that encroached on the parkland that caused the controversy. No problem with investing in the marina project or concession.

Glad that you were in favor, along with one or two; heck maybe even three other folks. Time to move on and support the new proposal.

[fluffy]

Glad that you were in favor, along with one or two; heck maybe even three other folks. Time to move on and support the new proposal.

You'd best find some place else to gloat, you'll find it's a waste of time with me. I find nothing wrong with making our city's assets work for us.

[pentona]

You'd best find some place else to gloat, you'll find it's a waste of time with me. I find nothing wrong with making our city's assets work for us.

No gloating on our end. Just a fact that democracy finally prevailed and council finally listened. Plus what financial corporation would ever provide funding for a venture that had so much opposition to it. (the slides, I'm referring to).

I hope the Marina and restaurant plans are approved and it succeeds. Without taking up parkland, there will likely be no opposition to it at all.

[twobits]

Just a fact that democracy finally prevailed and council finally listened.

The City didn't finally listen. They withdrew nothing. Trio saw the writing on the wall and withdrew the proposal that included water slides. I also am of the opinion that the settlement offer for termination of the previous lease agreement signed by the Mayor as pretty reasonable. If Council is smart, they will take that offer (essentially 20k cash and forgo 38k in 2016 property taxes) and run to get out of a bad deal. I would qualify acceptance however as long as acceptance was not subject to any other terms.....ie new lease. A law suit would cost much more just in legal fee's.
I have one bit of concern however from the article here on Castanet....

Another part of the new proposal would include public consultations starting April 2019 on revitalizing Skaha Lake Park, which, if granted public approval, could lead to revenue-generating facilities in the space previously set aside for the waterslide.

While it does state "if granted public approval", how public approval is determined must be defined and included in the agreement. Token public hearings such as occurred for the previous deal with Council voting how they wanted regardless is not good enough in my mind. Nothing short of a voluntary referendum such as was conducted for the Prison question would be required for the use of such significant public lands.
My overall thoughts? Finally some rational approach being taken and the citizens being taken seriously rather than being dumbed down by "we think it's good for Penticton and if you disagree, you are an uninformed citizen".

[fluffy]

No gloating on our end.

"Our" ?? I didn't say everyone was gloating, just you.