20 Questions

[fluffy]

I have been enjoying the local election coverage in the Herald so far. This morning's edition had the first of a series called "20 Questions" where a single is question is put to all the mayoral candidates for their input. Interesting that this mornings question on affordable housing did not elicit a response from candidates Powell and Laurio, but this may be more of a reflection on the complexity of the question than any indication of disinterest. Without actually going into some sort of public housing program, the city's hand is restricted to offering incentives to others to engage in such programs on their own. This can be a hard sell to developers who are having a hard enough time keeping their own bills paid in the current market, and has traditionally fallen to service clubs and charitable operations. I've always thought that there is merit to the concept of "inclusionary housing",where anyone developing a multi-family project would be required by law to include a set percentage of units to be made available at affordable rates. Granted this takes a lot of forethought to stave off misuses of the program by investors and speculators but there are working examples to model after.

[Tero]

I found the article interesting, though I thought Katie's answer was chock full of cliche, with no answers! Blah blah blah, she seems to have the politician talk down (act like you're answering, but don't actually commit to anything....)

[twobits]

but this may be more of a reflection on the complexity of the question than any indication of disinterest.

Very true. Affordable housing has many different meanings to different people. IMO, all candidates were weak in their responses with Katie being the glaring failure. I was pleased to see Julius at least make the distinction between general housing cost and social housing. Two very different topics. When one person hears "affordable housing" they may think of tax payer subsidized housing for the unfortunate, while another person may be thinking a home they can afford, purchase or rent, to raise a family in. Both definitions have very different economics that cannot be addressed with the same policy. None of the candidates did or could adequetly answer the question because of this.
Julius, I would be interested to see the success stories of your suggestion to rezone select properties with the covenant that the developer only sell to local residents thus excluding speculators and investors. I seem to reall some case study of a town in southern Alberta that implimented this policy with some success but am foggy on the details. I would like to know if that town would be a suitable comparison to Penticton. If I recall correctly, the town had a problem with outsiders buying weekend recreational getaways, driving the price of housing up, and at the same time adding little to the local economy in economic activity. While some comparisons may be drawn, I think it a bit of a stretch to suggest that such a policy would be a success here.
The first weakness I see in such a policy is reflected in todays market. Where are the investors and speculators driving up prices?? Do you seriously think that a rezoning now with a restrictive covenant to sell only to someone who will live in it is going to come on the market any cheaper than the current inventory? I think not and so it would do nothing to lower housing costs on average.
The second weakness is the developers. They are business people and are going to seek out the highest return. What incentive can you possibly give to them to apply for a rezoning with such a restrictive covenant that is going to reduce the pool of potential buyers? They will simply purchase properties that are currently zoned to there needs. Lands designated multi family as per the OCP are already priced accordingly so there is no saving there. The only way I can see a carrot for the developer is to rezone a cheap peice of property to a higher density that is outside of the offical community plan. So much for planning then.
IMO, the issue of affordable housing cannot be regulated into reality nor can it be mandated with restrictive covenants such as you propose. The only thing that speaks is incentives that maintain the developers bottom line or they will just go elsewhere. DCC's and creative zoning density and design would be a place to direct some attention if you want to bring some lower cost units to market.

[fluffy]

IMO, all candidates were weak in their responses

That may be the politicians' urge to please pushing aside the ability to say "I don't know". ;) I think Julius hit it right making the distinction between social housing and affordable housing. With regards to social housing the most we could expect from local government would be to smooth the road for the charitable organizations to move ahead, like tax breaks and cheap land where possible, but for the affordable end how does one go about legislating an end to the laws of supply and demand?

[Julius Bloomfield]

but this may be more of a reflection on the complexity of the question than any indication of disinterest.

Very true. Affordable housing has many different meanings to different people. IMO, all candidates were weak in their responses with Katie being the glaring failure. I was pleased to see Julius at least make the distinction between general housing cost and social housing. Two very different topics. When one person hears "affordable housing" they may think of tax payer subsidized housing for the unfortunate, while another person may be thinking a home they can afford, purchase or rent, to raise a family in. Both definitions have very different economics that cannot be addressed with the same policy. None of the candidates did or could adequetly answer the question because of this.
Julius, I would be interested to see the success stories of your suggestion to rezone select properties with the covenant that the developer only sell to local residents thus excluding speculators and investors. I seem to reall some case study of a town in southern Alberta that implimented this policy with some success but am foggy on the details. I would like to know if that town would be a suitable comparison to Penticton. If I recall correctly, the town had a problem with outsiders buying weekend recreational getaways, driving the price of housing up, and at the same time adding little to the local economy in economic activity. While some comparisons may be drawn, I think it a bit of a stretch to suggest that such a policy would be a success here.
The first weakness I see in such a policy is reflected in todays market. Where are the investors and speculators driving up prices?? Do you seriously think that a rezoning now with a restrictive covenant to sell only to someone who will live in it is going to come on the market any cheaper than the current inventory? I think not and so it would do nothing to lower housing costs on average.
The second weakness is the developers. They are business people and are going to seek out the highest return. What incentive can you possibly give to them to apply for a rezoning with such a restrictive covenant that is going to reduce the pool of potential buyers? They will simply purchase properties that are currently zoned to there needs. Lands designated multi family as per the OCP are already priced accordingly so there is no saving there. The only way I can see a carrot for the developer is to rezone a cheap peice of property to a higher density that is outside of the offical community plan. So much for planning then.
IMO, the issue of affordable housing cannot be regulated into reality nor can it be mandated with restrictive covenants such as you propose. The only thing that speaks is incentives that maintain the developers bottom line or they will just go elsewhere. DCC's and creative zoning density and design would be a place to direct some attention if you want to bring some lower cost units to market.

Good response twobits, I think you may referring to Canmore in AB. It has had a huge shift in home ownership with up to 75% of houses being occupied part time on some streets. This has a detrimental effect on schools, shops, restaurants etc, in fact every full time business and institution there. However I was referring to the Algarve in Portugal and the Tyrol in Austria that are both areas of outstanding natural beauty (similar to the Okanagan) where the uber rich want to buy real estate. In both areas there were residency restrictions on owning real estate in some specific areas or even just some houses whereby you had to be a local to own those houses. It has been some years since I witnessed this but it was a successful in its application although I believe the restriction was lifted in the Algarve.
The problem with simply giving developers incentives to build affordable housing is that the incentive ends with the developer, it is not residual and does not follow through to future owners, hence my idea of restricting ownership by a covenant to allow the market to determine the value, which will be whatever the local working family can afford not being in competition with the investor/speculator.
This can be applied on a small scale at first, and the idea is that the provincial and federal governments would be approached to come to the table with incentives for the developer to make it happen. It would be simple in its application and the higher government bodies will be at long last able to say they have helped to make affordable housing a reality!
Thanks for reading.

[twobits]

The problem with simply giving developers incentives to build affordable housing is that the incentive ends with the developer, it is not residual and does not follow through to future owners, hence my idea of restricting ownership by a covenant to allow the market to determine the value, which will be whatever the local working family can afford not being in competition with the investor/speculator.
This can be applied on a small scale at first, and the idea is that the provincial and federal governments would be approached to come to the table with incentives for the developer to make it happen. It would be simple in its application and the higher government bodies will be at long last able to say they have helped to make affordable housing a reality!
Thanks for reading.

Julius, the incentive for the developer does not have to end with the developer. The key is continual supply and with moderated prices, there would be demand. I think we all understand the simple economics of supply and demand. It is the reason why we have virtually no construction activity and prices have come down. They have not come down further because the owners of the current supply can afford to wait out the current cycle with the cost of capital being at historic lows. It makes more business sense to carry the cost than it does to lower prices below their investment in land and construction. What we have to do to keep the incentive from ending with the developer is to lower the unit cost of contruction and insure that there is plenty of available land for housing purposes. As a imited land base is a speculators dream, the city does have one very powerful tool in it's bag. I have spoke of this on this forum before and will repeat it again. Expand the city boundaries as much as possible imediatly. Take in all of the lands above Wiltse Flats, all of Upper Carmi, and all suitable lands in the "north east sector". Currently you have property owners willing to be amalgamated and become tax payers of the city rather than the RDOS. Do so before they become estates or hobby ranch lifestyles that are not interested in joining and we end up with much the same situation as West Bench, having cake and eating it too.
Doing so does two things. It increases imediately tax revenues to the city with a minimal additional cost as these areas are unserviced. Second, it dramatically increases available land supply which puts downward pressure on land costs throughout the city. As land costs are a significant proportion of housing costs, there would be very real savings that do not end with the developer. Combine this strategy with as mentioned in my previous post, creative zoning and design that addresses single family dweling densities and footprints, relaxed mandatory design mandates, and perhaps a DCC review in certain cases and you have a formula for lowering the cost of housing. The current council wisely did some of this in the creation of RS4 zoning. This type of thinking needs to be expanded.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Penticton has not already expanded it's boundaries as all of the areas have been studied to death and are all part of targeted expansion areas based on smart growth principles.

[Captain77]

Why doesn't the Herald rotate the order of the candidates in the 20 mayoralty questions? It seems to me that the first candidate listed would be the most read, down to the final and least read. Once people have read some similar responses, they will move off. Hope JM (AKA b.m.u.m.) will adjust the order fairly.

[Julius Bloomfield]

The problem with simply giving developers incentives to build affordable housing is that the incentive ends with the developer, it is not residual and does not follow through to future owners, hence my idea of restricting ownership by a covenant to allow the market to determine the value, which will be whatever the local working family can afford not being in competition with the investor/speculator.
This can be applied on a small scale at first, and the idea is that the provincial and federal governments would be approached to come to the table with incentives for the developer to make it happen. It would be simple in its application and the higher government bodies will be at long last able to say they have helped to make affordable housing a reality!
Thanks for reading.

Julius, the incentive for the developer does not have to end with the developer. The key is continual supply and with moderated prices, there would be demand. I think we all understand the simple economics of supply and demand. It is the reason why we have virtually no construction activity and prices have come down. They have not come down further because the owners of the current supply can afford to wait out the current cycle with the cost of capital being at historic lows. It makes more business sense to carry the cost than it does to lower prices below their investment in land and construction. What we have to do to keep the incentive from ending with the developer is to lower the unit cost of contruction and insure that there is plenty of available land for housing purposes. As a imited land base is a speculators dream, the city does have one very powerful tool in it's bag. I have spoke of this on this forum before and will repeat it again. Expand the city boundaries as much as possible imediatly. Take in all of the lands above Wiltse Flats, all of Upper Carmi, and all suitable lands in the "north east sector". Currently you have property owners willing to be amalgamated and become tax payers of the city rather than the RDOS. Do so before they become estates or hobby ranch lifestyles that are not interested in joining and we end up with much the same situation as West Bench, having cake and eating it too.
Doing so does two things. It increases imediately tax revenues to the city with a minimal additional cost as these areas are unserviced. Second, it dramatically increases available land supply which puts downward pressure on land costs throughout the city. As land costs are a significant proportion of housing costs, there would be very real savings that do not end with the developer. Combine this strategy with as mentioned in my previous post, creative zoning and design that addresses single family dweling densities and footprints, relaxed mandatory design mandates, and perhaps a DCC review in certain cases and you have a formula for lowering the cost of housing. The current council wisely did some of this in the creation of RS4 zoning. This type of thinking needs to be expanded.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Penticton has not already expanded it's boundaries as all of the areas have been studied to death and are all part of targeted expansion areas based on smart growth principles.

You almost answered your own question - city expansion needs the consent of almost all the property owners and the agreement of the RDOS, a very difficult task.

[fluffy]

I see a fair amount of infill going on in the older neighbourhoods, but that's not going to help the affordability situation if builders are having to pay $200-$250K for what amounts to a building lot.

[Julius Bloomfield]

I see a fair amount of infill going on in the older neighbourhoods, but that's not going to help the affordability situation if builders are having to pay $200-$250K for what amounts to a building lot.

That's correct. This type of infill is for duplexes and single family homes. Affordable housing models are normally larger in the number of units such as townhouse developments due to economies of scale.

[twobits]

The problem with simply giving developers incentives to build affordable housing is that the incentive ends with the developer, it is not residual and does not follow through to future owners, hence my idea of restricting ownership by a covenant to allow the market to determine the value, which will be whatever the local working family can afford not being in competition with the investor/speculator.
This can be applied on a small scale at first, and the idea is that the provincial and federal governments would be approached to come to the table with incentives for the developer to make it happen. It would be simple in its application and the higher government bodies will be at long last able to say they have helped to make affordable housing a reality!
Thanks for reading.

Julius, the incentive for the developer does not have to end with the developer. The key is continual supply and with moderated prices, there would be demand. I think we all understand the simple economics of supply and demand. It is the reason why we have virtually no construction activity and prices have come down. They have not come down further because the owners of the current supply can afford to wait out the current cycle with the cost of capital being at historic lows. It makes more business sense to carry the cost than it does to lower prices below their investment in land and construction. What we have to do to keep the incentive from ending with the developer is to lower the unit cost of contruction and insure that there is plenty of available land for housing purposes. As a imited land base is a speculators dream, the city does have one very powerful tool in it's bag. I have spoke of this on this forum before and will repeat it again. Expand the city boundaries as much as possible imediatly. Take in all of the lands above Wiltse Flats, all of Upper Carmi, and all suitable lands in the "north east sector". Currently you have property owners willing to be amalgamated and become tax payers of the city rather than the RDOS. Do so before they become estates or hobby ranch lifestyles that are not interested in joining and we end up with much the same situation as West Bench, having cake and eating it too.
Doing so does two things. It increases imediately tax revenues to the city with a minimal additional cost as these areas are unserviced. Second, it dramatically increases available land supply which puts downward pressure on land costs throughout the city. As land costs are a significant proportion of housing costs, there would be very real savings that do not end with the developer. Combine this strategy with as mentioned in my previous post, creative zoning and design that addresses single family dweling densities and footprints, relaxed mandatory design mandates, and perhaps a DCC review in certain cases and you have a formula for lowering the cost of housing. The current council wisely did some of this in the creation of RS4 zoning. This type of thinking needs to be expanded.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Penticton has not already expanded it's boundaries as all of the areas have been studied to death and are all part of targeted expansion areas based on smart growth principles.

You almost answered your own question - city expansion needs the consent of almost all the property owners and the agreement of the RDOS, a very difficult task.

Then you are not aware of property owner surveys that are over 90% in favour of amalgamating? I had thought as a realtor you would be more informed. And it does not require the agreement of the RDOS per se.....only the affected residents. It also requires the approval of the province, which also yeilds to the wishes of the residents. The RDOS's only obligation is to inform the residents of their options and the cost of amalgamation re taxes etc. It is only a difficult task when you are dealing with established residential areas like West Bench......and might I add even Naramata whereby you call Penticton your place of residence when on vacation more than 200 miles away yet don't pay for the amenities utilized by the Pentixton taxpayer. Cake and eat it too position. Can't blame them.
Now please give me a thoughtful response to my suggestion towards creating more affordable affordable housing now that you know there are hundreds of acres that want to be in the city and paying taxes.

[Julius Bloomfield]

The problem with simply giving developers incentives to build affordable housing is that the incentive ends with the developer, it is not residual and does not follow through to future owners, hence my idea of restricting ownership by a covenant to allow the market to determine the value, which will be whatever the local working family can afford not being in competition with the investor/speculator.
This can be applied on a small scale at first, and the idea is that the provincial and federal governments would be approached to come to the table with incentives for the developer to make it happen. It would be simple in its application and the higher government bodies will be at long last able to say they have helped to make affordable housing a reality!
Thanks for reading.

Julius, the incentive for the developer does not have to end with the developer. The key is continual supply and with moderated prices, there would be demand. I think we all understand the simple economics of supply and demand. It is the reason why we have virtually no construction activity and prices have come down. They have not come down further because the owners of the current supply can afford to wait out the current cycle with the cost of capital being at historic lows. It makes more business sense to carry the cost than it does to lower prices below their investment in land and construction. What we have to do to keep the incentive from ending with the developer is to lower the unit cost of contruction and insure that there is plenty of available land for housing purposes. As a imited land base is a speculators dream, the city does have one very powerful tool in it's bag. I have spoke of this on this forum before and will repeat it again. Expand the city boundaries as much as possible imediatly. Take in all of the lands above Wiltse Flats, all of Upper Carmi, and all suitable lands in the "north east sector". Currently you have property owners willing to be amalgamated and become tax payers of the city rather than the RDOS. Do so before they become estates or hobby ranch lifestyles that are not interested in joining and we end up with much the same situation as West Bench, having cake and eating it too.
Doing so does two things. It increases imediately tax revenues to the city with a minimal additional cost as these areas are unserviced. Second, it dramatically increases available land supply which puts downward pressure on land costs throughout the city. As land costs are a significant proportion of housing costs, there would be very real savings that do not end with the developer. Combine this strategy with as mentioned in my previous post, creative zoning and design that addresses single family dweling densities and footprints, relaxed mandatory design mandates, and perhaps a DCC review in certain cases and you have a formula for lowering the cost of housing. The current council wisely did some of this in the creation of RS4 zoning. This type of thinking needs to be expanded.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Penticton has not already expanded it's boundaries as all of the areas have been studied to death and are all part of targeted expansion areas based on smart growth principles.

You almost answered your own question - city expansion needs the consent of almost all the property owners and the agreement of the RDOS, a very difficult task.

Then you are not aware of property owner surveys that are over 90% in favour of amalgamating? I had thought as a realtor you would be more informed. And it does not require the agreement of the RDOS per se.....only the affected residents. It also requires the approval of the province, which also yeilds to the wishes of the residents. The RDOS's only obligation is to inform the residents of their options and the cost of amalgamation re taxes etc. It is only a difficult task when you are dealing with established residential areas like West Bench......and might I add even Naramata whereby you call Penticton your place of residence when on vacation more than 200 miles away yet don't pay for the amenities utilized by the Pentixton taxpayer. Cake and eat it too position. Can't blame them.
Now please give me a thoughtful response to my suggestion towards creating more affordable affordable housing now that you know there are hundreds of acres that want to be in the city and paying taxes.

Sorry for the short reply last time, I was a little busy but tried to keep in touch. The issue of the city expanding its boundaries has been studied and proposed on different occasions in the past and I was somewhat involved in an attempt to incorporate some land up Carmi into the city a few years ago without success because some property owners did not want it to happen. The case of West Bench is also well known.
The issue of expanding the city in the peripheral areas is a good idea but the cost of the infastructure then comes up. To serice Carmi is millions of dollars, the last figure I heard for the NE sector was over $6m. Not that this will stop expansion in a hot market but it doesn't help the equasion of creating cheaper land when the servicing costs are so high.
The RS4 zoning was introduced at the request of Canadian Horizon who are the developers of the Carmi project. That style of lot development fitted their vision of that land and the new zoning was passed at the same time as the confirmation of that development.
Giving a developer a deal on DCC's and expecting them to pass on those savings to the buyer simply does not happen. The seller of a property, whether a developer or an individual seller, will sell at a price that the buyer is willing to pay no matter what kind of a deal the seller gets when they build it. Therefore my idea of the covenant.
As for the cake and eat it comment - we are all neighbours and whether we live in or out of the city we are linked economically, socially, in education, health care and all service industries. Many people working in those industries servicing the city live in those outer areas. The tourists that come and stay in Penticton hotels and eat in it's restaurants and spend in the shops come to see the lakes, the trails, the golf courses, the wineries and the farms, many of which are not in the city limits. The financial benefits of being in or out of the city works both ways. So we are neighbours in more ways than one and we should respect the choices each individual makes as to where they live. I live in Naramata because I found a wonderful piece of land there to build my dream home. If that piece of land had been in the city limits I would now be living in Penticton.
Thanks for reading.

[twobits]

Sorry for the short reply last time, I was a little busy but tried to keep in touch. The issue of the city expanding its boundaries has been studied and proposed on different occasions in the past and I was somewhat involved in an attempt to incorporate some land up Carmi into the city a few years ago without success because some property owners did not want it to happen. The case of West Bench is also well known.

Interesting that you mention your attempts in upper carmi. Where you aware of the residents survey initiated by then planner Donna Butler aprrox 3 years ago. The results were overwhelmingly in favour. Only two non responses from out of town owners and one one yes but more info required. I would also point out that it does not need to be 100% in favour, only a strong majority

The issue of expanding the city in the peripheral areas is a good idea but the cost of the infastructure then comes up. To serice Carmi is millions of dollars, the last figure I heard for the NE sector was over $6m. Not that this will stop expansion in a hot market but it doesn't help the equasion of creating cheaper land when the servicing costs are so high.

Infrastructure costs are borne by the developer when the lands are developed. The city's contribution for example to the Sendaro Canyon project is fully recoverable and not a taxpayer burden. Besides, no one says the lands must imdediatly be developed. Just having the increased supply of developable lands within the city that can be develped because of access to servicing puts downward pressure on all land costs and land costs as you are aware, are a significant part of houing costs here in the Okanagan. Inventory my friend, inventory. While it is outside boundaries without the potential of servicing, it has no effect on supply and demand. Plus tax revenues which are direly needed.

The RS4 zoning was introduced at the request of Canadian Horizon who are the developers of the Carmi project. That style of lot development fitted their vision of that land and the new zoning was passed at the same time as the confirmation of that development.

Yes I am aware of the origins of the RS4 zoning and I also understand you were also the initial contact for Canadian Horizons as well as doing all the initial legwork to get the Sendero Canyon project going. The RS4 zoning is not exclusive to Sendero and can be duplicated many places in the city. This I am sure you are aware of. My point was mearly to say well done in thinking outside of the box a little and to do more of it. IMO, the RS4 zoning is one of the biggest boosts to making home ownership possible for many and will proove popular. As an aside, I am curious as to why if you were involved with this project from the very beginning, why are the Cutler's marketing it and not yourself?


Giving a developer a deal on DCC's and expecting them to pass on those savings to the buyer simply does not happen. The seller of a property, whether a developer or an individual seller, will sell at a price that the buyer is willing to pay no matter what kind of a deal the seller gets when they build it. Therefore my idea of the covenant.

I think you misunderstood me here Julius. I agree that just cutting slack on DCC's would not translate to lower unit end pricing. I was just suggesting everything should be on the table and perhaps in certain instances where the design was clearly for entry level housing, some slack could be provided. We do it for social housing so I think if done carefully it can also have a place in the free market as well. Strickly on a case by case basis.

As for the cake and eat it comment - we are all neighbours and whether we live in or out of the city we are linked economically, socially, in education, health care and all service industries. Many people working in those industries servicing the city live in those outer areas. The tourists that come and stay in Penticton hotels and eat in it's restaurants and spend in the shops come to see the lakes, the trails, the golf courses, the wineries and the farms, many of which are not in the city limits. The financial benefits of being in or out of the city works both ways. So we are neighbours in more ways than one and we should respect the choices each individual makes as to where they live. I live in Naramata because I found a wonderful piece of land there to build my dream home. If that piece of land had been in the city limits I would now be living in Penticton.
Thanks for reading.

I think here we will just have to agree to disagree. I hear what you say about us all being socially and economically linked to some degree but I am afraid you will never convince me that the City/RDOS funding formula or utilization of city facilites via subsidy is in any way just for Penticton Taxpayers.
I would like to thank you for your participation here. It is both enlightening and refreshing

Edit to add-Re tourists. They are short term guests in our community that use our amenities for short periods. They bring with them new money from outside our economic zone. That is how they make up for the subsidy. RDOS residents are not short term guests.....they are permanent residents utlizing facilites year round that they do not contribute towards. There is a huge difference between these two subsidized groups.

[clouseau]

As for the cake and eat it comment - we are all neighbours and whether we live in or out of the city we are linked economically, socially, in education, health care and all service industries. Many people working in those industries servicing the city live in those outer areas. The tourists that come and stay in Penticton hotels and eat in it's restaurants and spend in the shops come to see the lakes, the trails, the golf courses, the wineries and the farms, many of which are not in the city limits. The financial benefits of being in or out of the city works both ways. So we are neighbours in more ways than one and we should respect the choices each individual makes as to where they live. I live in Naramata because I found a wonderful piece of land there to build my dream home. If that piece of land had been in the city limits I would now be living in Penticton.
Thanks for reading.

I often hear this argument being put forward by RDOS rural directors. Apparently because RDOS residents shop in Penticton this somehow makes up for not contributing to Penticton amenities. This thinking ignores the fact that residents of Penticton ALSO shop here but still must pay property taxes that support community amenities used by those living in the RDOS areas.

I note that at least the Westbech community contributes some token fees towards the use of Penticton recreational amenities and also I believe they pay money for the Penticton library. I have asked this question of you before and would like a more candid answer, if you were Mayor of Penticton would you create an agreement for Naramata residents similar to the Westbench agreement that provides some contributing funds into Penticton for use of our recreational amenities ?

[Julius Bloomfield]

As for the cake and eat it comment - we are all neighbours and whether we live in or out of the city we are linked economically, socially, in education, health care and all service industries. Many people working in those industries servicing the city live in those outer areas. The tourists that come and stay in Penticton hotels and eat in it's restaurants and spend in the shops come to see the lakes, the trails, the golf courses, the wineries and the farms, many of which are not in the city limits. The financial benefits of being in or out of the city works both ways. So we are neighbours in more ways than one and we should respect the choices each individual makes as to where they live. I live in Naramata because I found a wonderful piece of land there to build my dream home. If that piece of land had been in the city limits I would now be living in Penticton.
Thanks for reading.

I often hear this argument being put forward by RDOS rural directors. Apparently because RDOS residents shop in Penticton this somehow makes up for not contributing to Penticton amenities. This thinking ignores the fact that residents of Penticton ALSO shop here but still must pay property taxes that support community amenities used by those living in the RDOS areas.

I note that at least the Westbech community contributes some token fees towards the use of Penticton recreational amenities and also I believe they pay money for the Penticton library. I have asked this question of you before and would like a more candid answer, if you were Mayor of Penticton would you create an agreement for Naramata residents similar to the Westbench agreement that provides some contributing funds into Penticton for use of our recreational amenities ?

It's not just that RDOS residents shop in the city, asI tried to explain inmy previous post they are a much larger part of this community than that. I know that in the past the city explored the issue of charging RDOS areas for the use of city facilities and I heard that the RDOS director for Naramata agreed to that, but then the city decided not to charge more for non-city residents (I was at that council meeting and remember that decision). As I have said before on other posts, I have no problem in paying more on my taxes for the facilities and I will certainly bring this up if elected, if agreed to by council then we can approach the RDOS. However we will have to look at all the areas and not just Naramata.