Simpson convenant upheld by courts

[Ragamuffin]

I"m glad the City is Appealing the Simpson convenant. The city needs to grow up and get with time times, It's not getting smaller just bigger and the Downtown needs lots of work bring on the Highrises

I couldnt agree more. Hmm..what would I frequent more, a farmers market like granville island, some shops, some coffee bars..hmm..or another piece of grass occupied by homeless crackheads? The downtown doesnt need another park! We need something that will attract not only tourists but the locals as well.

lmao, you actually think it will end up being developed like Granville Island if the city wins an appeal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The one other poster who is on the same side as you about appealing it as least realizes it will be highrises all over that land if the city wins.

What I meant was I'd rather it be something other than another patch of grass like drug infested Kerry park. The developers that were gonna do something with it had some innovative ideas that would have benefited everyone. But no, some want it to be another park which we already have enough of downtown.

[unfazed]

I just picked up a book by an author who had a lot to say about urban planning. Jane Jacobs wrote many excellent books on the development of the North American city. I bought "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" where she discusses what makes cities great, neighbourhoods and parks safe, etc. She has some excellents points and should be required reading for all municipal civil servants.

[Timi]

I am having a difficult time understanding the covenant. Is there a copy of it somewhere? Everything I have read states that the covenant protects the land and saves it for public use. What does that mean? How does the Yaht Club fit into public use? You have to be a member, or be accompanied by a member to go to the Yaht Club? Hardly public. So, needless to say - I'm confused.

[westbankkid]

I am having a difficult time understanding the covenant. Is there a copy of it somewhere? Everything I have read states that the covenant protects the land and saves it for public use. What does that mean? How does the Yaht Club fit into public use? You have to be a member, or be accompanied by a member to go to the Yaht Club? Hardly public. So, needless to say - I'm confused.

Not 100% sure, but I believe the Yacht Club was written into the Covenent as having perpetual rights to it's location.

[fluffy]

So, needless to say - I'm confused.

Yeah, me too. Kind of breaks up the day though, doesn't it?

[onestop67]

So, needless to say - I'm confused.

Yeah, me too. Kind of breaks up the day though, doesn't it?

lmao

[kgcayenne]

I am having a difficult time understanding the covenant. Is there a copy of it somewhere?

Land Titles Office, for a fee, can provide you with the title, which should have the covenant.

[dsldriver]

And now the city wants to appeal the ruling. They were given the land based on the contents of the covenant. They shouldn't be able to remove that covenant for any gain.

The city is just trying to flex their legal muscle. I am hoping that even if this goes to the Supreme Court of Canada that the covenant will be upheld.

[mott.hoople]

At this point, I'd vote for the enterprise bunnies over this motley crew.

[NAB]

I know some folk are not impressed with the CRCP, but if one can get past that there is some good info on the Simpson Covenant(s) (apparently signed by Ms. Simpson on behalf of the Simpson Family) at:

http://www.saveparadise.org/covenant.php

Edit to add:

There is an article in The Yacht Clubs on line edition of the Hornblower at:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:s9 ... clnk&cd=23

(.pdf version here: http://www.kelownayachtclub.com/hornblowerOct07.pdf )

..under the Title "Thanks S. M. Simpson" (Page 8)

Excerpt:

""Over 60 years ago, in 1945, the Kelowna Yacht Club had its humble beginning. By 1948, it became apparent that with the increase of boating’s popularity, the existing breakwater was not adequate and that the Yacht Club required a new permanent location. While the City was the owner of some lakefront property, they would not make it available to the Yacht Club. Fortunately, in 1950, Stanley Simpson was in the process of finalizing the sale of the Kelowna Sawmill property to the City and he added a stipulation that a portion of the land should be made available to the Kelowna Yacht Club “for as long as it was required.” The City’s agreement to this was subsequently documented in a letter written to the Kelowna Sawmill by the City Clerk.""

[floppi]

Any news from the council meeting? How did the mass demonstration go? Any news????

[NAB]

Any news from the council meeting? How did the mass demonstration go? Any news????

Nothing that I have seen or heard frosti, and it wouldn't appear anyone here is bragging about any effort being made ;-)

the only thing newsworthy I see so far is Gran has decided not to run again, so that takes care of one encumbant and opens up a slot for a newbie. There are a couple of others who 'may' do similar IMO.

As to the "plans" for the covenant lands.. IMHO one of the best Mayor's Kelowna ever elected was James "Jim or Jimmy" Stuart (1986 - 1996). A true gentleman, always pleasant and approachable, on top of almost everything, often out and about interacting with the people on his own initiative, never quarrelsome or aggressive, and gave so much of himself for the benefit of 'the people' over many many years. Certainly not a "one-trick pony" like so many are these days. It would be very difficult to find someone willing to stand for Mayor who comes even close to having Jimmy's experience, dedication to all, and civic service experience/credentials.

http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page490.aspx

"In recognition of Jim’s dedication to the community the City of Kelowna named a new waterfront park in his honour in 1996. Stuart Park will be developed in future years."

What is the current status of the promised Stuart Park, and where is it? Anyone know?

Nab

[floppi]

Nevermind, just read the Capital News. The closed council meeting was on Monday and not Tuesday according to the article. It was also fairly clear that Mayor Shepard voted no to appeal the court's decision. According to the article, " Under Secton 117 of the Community Charter, members of city council are not allowed to reveal how they voted on a decision in an in-camera meeting. In fact, those votes, and even who moved and seconded a motion, cannot be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act either for another 15 years , unless council passes a resolution to do so ahead of time, according to city clerk Stephen Fleming.

The provision of Secion 117 extend to in-camera meetins, records and even confidential memos and require that the council members respect the confidentiality agreement unless something else releases the information - such as a land dispostion."

[Nebula]

Good article in the Courier this morning:

Covenant chasm opened
CHUCK POULSEN
2008-08-20

Mayor Sharon Shepherd has opened a hornet‘s nest that is guaranteed to put some sting in the upcoming municipal election campaign.

Without saying that she voted against an in-camera motion to appeal the Simpson Covenant decision, Shepherd left no doubt that is exactly what she did.

In doing so, some councillors think she has violated the confidentiality of the in-camera vote.

“I‘m deeply dismayed by the mayor‘s action,” said Coun. Brian Given. “That‘s all I‘m going to say, but you can take that to the bank.

“I don‘t know what I can and can‘t say (about the in-camera vote). I don‘t know if I would breach confidentiality, but I‘m not going to put myself in the position the mayor is in.”

In a press release sent out late Monday, the mayor said: “The appeal of the Kelowna Sawmill/Simpson Covenant should become an election issue. I intend as part of my campaign to run on the basis of promoting the election of a council that will support the defeat of the appeal of the covenant.

“I feel this should now be in the hands of the electorate, which will go to the polls on Nov. 15, and I encourage everyone to consider asking every candidate if they will vote to defeat the appeal of the covenant. My answer is already that I will.”

Council voted Monday to appeal the decision by Madame Justice Catherine Bruce that supported the validity of the covenant as a public trust.

Coun. Barrie Clark said he is thinking of bringing forward a motion that would make public council‘s vote on the appeal.

“I think (Shepherd) broke the spirit and intent (of in-camera),” said Clark. “What happens next? That‘s the question all of us are pondering. We could have a motion that council release everything. I might make that motion, but I‘m still sleeping on it.”

Carol Gran said Shepherd was wrong to make her vote known, but wouldn‘t oppose a motion to have the results made public.

“I‘m disappointed in her,” said Gran. “I think the mayor has overreacted, maybe emotionally. In a leadership position, that is not how you behave.

“But I think we should let the sun shine on the entire issue. I wouldn‘t be the least bit concerned with releasing the vote. I‘d be happy to state my position.”

Coun. Andre Blanleil also didn‘t think Shepherd should have gone public.

“Everybody is allowed their opinion, but I‘m a little disappointed in her,” said Blanleil.

Asked if he would support a motion to make the vote public, Blanleil said he would want to hear everyone‘s arguments before making a decision.

He‘s concerned the campaign could come down to just one issue.

“She is saying how you voted will determine whether you are a good councillor,” said Blanleil. “. . . I would hope that being a city councillor is more than one issue.”

Coun. Robert Hobson doesn‘t think Shepherd was out of line.

“We are all going to have to take a stand on this during the campaign,” he said. Hobson said he‘s not yet ready to make his position known, but he will when the campaign starts.

Coun. Norm Letnick is waiting to speak with Shepherd before expressing an opinion on her actions.

“I‘ve left a couple of messages for her,” he said Tuesday.

Shepherd said a referendum may be the best way to decide the issue.

“When I ran for mayor, I stated I supported the spirit and intent of the covenant and have not lost sight of that promise,” she said. “I continue to support the intentions of the covenant lands.”

Sharron Simpson, who took the city to court to preserve the covenant, said Shepherd made “a gutsy move” in going public.

“I‘m sure she is not in great favour with the rest of her council,” said Simpson, “It‘s a very interesting development.”

Simpson, a former councillor and unsuccessful mayoralty candidate, said although many have asked, she has no intention of running for office in November.

Bruce ruled that the agreement between the city and Simpson was not a covenant, but did amount to an enforceable charitable trust. An appeal would not likely be heard until next spring. The new council would have the ability to abandon the appeal.

Simpson‘s grandfather sold the downtown properties to the city in 1946 for $55,000. Among other things, the agreement covering the sale stipulated that the land only be used for municipal purposes. The city had argued the covenant was outdated and unenforceable and said rezoning is a better way to protect the land.

[NAB]

Wow, good article. I suppose a lot could be read into the comments by various other council members.

Still, I am at a bit of a loss as to how Fleming thinks that Section 117 of the Community Charter prevents any participant of the meeting from indicating how they personally voted. If asked they can of course decline to answer if they wished, but even then a few comments as to their personal views on the issue would give a strong indication of how they voted without specifically saying so.

I sense a lot of staff input and recommendation to this thing in terms of pursuing an appeal.

Nab