Simpson convenant upheld by courts

[Devil's Advocate]

I just heard, from a very reliable source, that the City was defeated in it's bid to have the Simpson Covenant removed.

What fantastic news!!!

[fluffy]

That is good news. Promises should not have an expiry date.

[Al Czervic]

That is great news. I hope that is accurate information. If true, it appears that the Court’s were able to see through the City’s BS, and thankfully so.

[Honda59]

Does that mean we can get a new council?

[Urbane]

More details:

Judge rules Simpson Covenant stands
Wed, 2008-08-13 12:51.
Local News
A big win for the Save the Heritage Simpson Covenant Society today...

Justice Catherine Bruce's decision sides with the society, who has been trying to stop the City of Kelowna from removing the historic covenant.

The convenant protects municipal properties sold by Stanley Simpson in the 1940's, for civic use only.

Sharron Simpson says its what she's hoped for, and says she's a bit taken a-back.

"We won our case, the covenant stays in tact and the terms of the covenant infact constitue a trust."

Justice Bruce has also awarded the society legal costs, of which the amount is unknown at this time.

For her part, Kelowna Mayor Sharon Shepherd says she hasn't had much time to look over the lengthy decision.

Shepherd says council will uphold the court's ruling, but doesn't regret making the decision to remove the covenant in the first place.

"The decisions that council makes is based on having information in front of us that helps direct us in trying to do what is going to be, ultimately, the right thing for the community, for the future planning - certainly for future councils."

Shepherd says the City is now moving ahead with plans for Stuart Park.

Charmaine de Silve - Astral Media Radio News (Kelowna)

[onestop67]

Excellent.

Between this and the Greenway mistakes, I wonder what the total the City has blown in legal fees, wasted planning fees etc.?

Something this big would make most councils fire their legal department, or at least those who continually give out bad and costly advice.

And if the mayor didn't have such a big head, she'd step down instead of defending why she stands behind going to court. Something this controversial would be one of those times I wish the City did spend a little more money to get a second opinion of what the in house council was saying. All she had to do was look in any paper to see nobody agreed that they should be able to remove the covenant.

[the truth]

i love it

[Al Czervic]

I think this is more of a case of Kelowna Mayor & Council trying to bully their way through the process and not expecting joe public (in this case the Simpson family) from standing up and meeting them head on in the courts. I am glad to hear that the Simpson family will get court costs back, I would be even happier if they got costs and an apology from Mayor and Council; after all they most definitely deserve it.

Was it not Mayor Shepherd who promised that she would bring an end to this “ol’ boys club” style of doing things on council if she got elected? How quickly they forget.

[onestop67]

I think this is more of a case of Kelowna Mayor & Council trying to bully their way through the process and not expecting joe public (in this case the Simpson family) from standing up and meeting them head on in the courts.

If that was the case though, I'd think they would have done everything possible not to go to court once the Simpson's filed.

Although at that point I think the mayor and council knew they would lose and figured "screw the taxpayer, let's fight it all the way to try and save some face!". Pretend we believe so we only look stupid, not like bullies.

After all this I have decided that I can't decide what I think happened.

[Urbane]

I'm puzzled as to why the mayor would still be pleased that council brought the issue to court.

Between this and the Greenway mistakes, I wonder what the total the City has blown in legal fees, wasted planning fees etc.?

Something this big would make most councils fire their legal department, or at least those who continually give out bad and costly advice.

Good point onestop67. While the province bears some responsibility for the greenway fiasco the city seems to be solely to blame for this latest fiasco. And the mayor is pleased?? If she got knocked on the head would she be thrilled? If she loses the next election will she be ecstatic? Just wondering. It's one thing to cover one's *bleep* but another to act like one.

[2by4angel]

Very glad to hear the Simpson Covenant will be honored!
....It's about time someone stood up for the 'little guy'!

I think the mayor (and council members and the general public as well) are glad to have more definite clarification on what the property may/may not be used for and so on...Perhaps going to court was the only way they could get the clarification they needed in order to move forward...

Instead of blaming the mayor for the court costs, I would rather blame those individuals ('legal counsel') who obviously did not provide the City with the correct the information...

[mott.hoople]

This is great news for everyone. Hats off to the Simpson Family and all those other who went to the wall on this.

Message to Sharon and Company from me the tax payer....Get the #%$&* out. And shut the *%^$ up. We are sick and tired of the lot of you wasting our money. Maybe Milroy has a job for you - we the taxpayer have had enough of all of you to last us a lifetime!

Now lets get that snub nosed private boat club off "our" land and open that area up as well. It is a commercial enterprise.

I can just see how fast those pontoons from the old bridge become very valuable a new marina / dock space in the next 90 days!

Maybe Sutherland Bay would make a nice spot now for the yacht club.........

[Born_again]

...Now lets get that snub nosed private boat club off "our" land and open that area up as well. It is a commercial enterprise.

I can just see how fast those pontoons from the old bridge become very valuable a new marina / dock space in the next 90 days!

Maybe Sutherland Bay would make a nice spot now for the yacht club.........

Very thought provoking comments, indeed!

This, for me at least, is a champagne day. Good comments also from Onestop. I think the Mayor has just made the perfect example of why she should not be entrusted with the public account!

[Devil's Advocate]

It sounds to me by the comments made by one city representative on CHBC's coverage of the story that The City is going to stick it to us all by not allowing anything that might be remotely construed as commercial on the lands. Memorial Arena, Hot dog vendors in the proposed Stuart Park, The Yacht Club, The Seniors Center etc. They are looking as apparent spoiled children who since they can't have it thier way are going to punish us all.

As for the Yacht Club as Memorial Arena and others, they were, I believe, accepted beneficial components to the City by the writers of the covenant which should be allowed to remain under the covenant. The Yacht Club is a great steward of the lake ensuring public moorage bouys are maintained (North to where the Vernon Yacht Club does so and South to where the THREE yacht clubs there do so), providing an efluent pump out station free of charge so that people aren't dumping their sewage into the lake, teaching young and old alike motorized and sail boating skills. The intent of the Simpson Covenant is to protect the land for the benefit of all the citizenship. The Yacht Club is more a public service facility than private in many ways. Shelter Bay Marina is a private marina which does nothing for the citizenship but charge huge moorage fees to line the pockets of an already very wealthy man.

Every city on a significant body of water has a yacht club. Any city I have ever visited that is on a significant body of water has an enhanced appearance by the same.

Certainly I expect to see some significant controversy now over peoples own views of what and what not should be allowed on this public land. True to Clown Town colour it should be a very interesting debate/battle. While I am extreamly pleased that a well intentioned historical agreement has been upheld against an unethical party (The City in it's attempt to reneg on the same) I can only imagine given the Clown Town colour of both the governance of this city and it's citizenship of late what antics will now follow.

I can not help but express what stupid people I think so many of you are and say so knowing what flack I will take for it, but it's just as simple as that - STUPID, bickering, self indulgent, shortsighted idiots. Like dogs fighting over a bone. This should be a victorious day for the citizens of this city, a day we can stand up and be proud that we have expressed our respect for tradition, honour and our word. Sharon Simpson has almost single handedly done this herself. She is owed a great debt of gratitude. I believe she is a member of the Yacht Club. I don't believe she set about acting in a manner to send a message to the City administrators that the PEOPLE of Kelowna are ethical, law abiding citizens so that we could now bicker about what we should or shouldn't do with the land. She did so to enforce the agreements made and keep the land to be used for public use as it has since the inception and acceptance of the agreement as was the intent of the agreement.

[Urbane]

Mayor Shepherd:

“You can put municipal buildings on it but you can't put commercial
or industrial buildings on the land. When we tried to remove the covenant, the Save the Simpson Society Covenant tried to put a stop to it and that's why it ended up in the courts. It has implications for future changes in zoning and use of the land. If this ruling overrides the caveat that no commercial activity is allowed on the property than what implications will this have for Stuart Park for instance. An example would be, could a hotdog vendor for example not set up shop in that park?"

That's a stretch to suggest a hot dog vendor might not be allowed in the park. The mayor shouldn't be setting up straw men here. The city should have agreed to keep the Simpson Covenant from the beginning and it appears the mayor is trying to justify going to court rather than agreeing to abide by the terms of the original agreement. It's been a sad waste of time and effort and the mayor shouldn't be compounding it now by coming up with silly scenarios.