Hockey School Land Deal = Election Issue

[twobits]

Just an outside observer, but why did council rush to sell this thing before the election. Dumping properties like this only makes me believe that there is something shady going on here and only time will tell as to whose back was scratched on this one. Or maybe they can do a Kelowna, where the new council threw out the CD21 proposal after it had been approved by the former council.

As an outside observer you are obviously not aware that the city did not rush to dump this property. It was not even listed for sale. The city was approached by the developer and Hockey School with a proposal. They listened, liked, and agreed subject to a full public hearing. Just where did you get the information that they rushed to dump?
As to the next council dumping the project, I doubt it. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people in Penticton, regardless of their political stripe, that think this hockey school project is not a good thing for the community. People might be a little confused about the land aspect, but not the project itself.

[Stellerjay]

"Castanet has learned, through B.C. assessment, vacant lots in the same area of Eckhardt Ave. are assessed at $293,000. If nine of these lots were sold for the B.C. assessment's value the total sale would be $2.6 million."

Plus the city is waiving 50% of DCC's and 50% of building permits and the building will be tax free for the first five years.
Way to go Mayor and the other five council that voted for this. It will be real easy voting on the 19th.

As to the BC Assessment crap, read my post on the subject on the Penticton forum.

As to the waiving of fee's........apparently you do not understand the concept Economic Development Incentive Zones. The city has created a number of such zones in different areas of the city to promote investment, development, and the jobs that come with it. It is one of the few tools that civic governments have. It is absolutely dumbfounding that peole cry for the city to do these things.....promote investment and jobs.....and when they do, people like yourself want to tear it down for nothing more than percieved political points.

No we get it twobits it's the same old fraudulent trickle down economics argument.

[Dayleen]

As a former resident and business owner in Penticton and now a candidate for Kelowna city council..I'm appalled at the fire sale or "your" public lands. The city doesn't need to sell the land to the developer. They can do a 99 year lease, just like the natives have been doing for years. This is a win win situation because you, the land owner, still owns the property and you get lease fees. The developer makes more money because they don't have to pay for the land! Kind of a no brainer..municipalities are favouring this over giving land away in this economy. I'd be making this an election issue and make your vote count if you're not happy1

Dayleen VanRyswyk

[Tero]

I, since the first moment I saw it on the Herald, still think there's something shady going on. I am NOT against progress in Penticton, and I fully support the OHA. It's a fairly quiet industry that brings a ton of money to our city every year, with no trouble at all. However, I am against what seems to be a back door deal (sorry if I'm cynical) and I am against the 7 story building that will block sun and depreciate value from the homes surrounding the property. I'd certainly feel the same if someone wanted to build 7 stories beside my house! Especially when the land was first bought for easment of the existing road.

Also... am I just making this up, or was it rumour, or just in my head? I thought that if anything, the long term goal of that property was going to be a HIGH END hotel that would attract and house HIGH END entertainment to the SOEC? Maybe that was a rumour? I don't know... too much Okanagan Red maybe? (and yes, I know, High End hotel would probably be more than 7 stories.)

[southy]

Tero ... I believe the property you are talking about is the vacant lot beside The Coast Hotel. It used to be a chinese restaurant.

[twobits]

As a former resident and business owner in Penticton and now a candidate for Kelowna city council..I'm appalled at the fire sale or "your" public lands. The city doesn't need to sell the land to the developer. They can do a 99 year lease, just like the natives have been doing for years. This is a win win situation because you, the land owner, still owns the property and you get lease fees. The developer makes more money because they don't have to pay for the land! Kind of a no brainer..municipalities are favouring this over giving land away in this economy. I'd be making this an election issue and make your vote count if you're not happy1

Dayleen VanRyswyk

First Nations have been leasing their land for years because they are not allowed to sell their land. A rather important point don't you think? Cities do lease lands but the more typical lease is fairly short term as for example our Marina properties. Leasing for 99 years is in effect selling it for any resident currenly breathing and does not entail a flow of lease payments as you suggest. It is an up front payment the same as a sale and the payment will reflect current market value. Lease arrangments are not attractive to businesses that are public and plan to be around for a while. Despite the length of 99 years, half way thru, when reconstruction or redevelopment might be considered, the asset value is diminished because of the shorter tenure remaining and becomes a disincentive for further investment or improvment unless the lease is renegotiated at a discounted rate taking into consideration the remaining tenure. So how exactly does it end up back in the control of the citizens? And if you don't renegotiate, the property becomes a decrepid eyesore. All is not as straightforward and simple as you seem to think and is also why you do not have a snowballs chance in Hades of being elected in Kelowna. But good luck to you anyway.....I'm just glad you are not running here.

[Madtaxi]

As a former resident and business owner in Penticton and now a candidate for Kelowna city council..I'm appalled at the fire sale or "your" public lands. The city doesn't need to sell the land to the developer. They can do a 99 year lease, just like the natives have been doing for years. This is a win win situation because you, the land owner, still owns the property and you get lease fees. The developer makes more money because they don't have to pay for the land! Kind of a no brainer..municipalities are favouring this over giving land away in this economy. I'd be making this an election issue and make your vote count if you're not happy1

Dayleen VanRyswyk

First Nations have been leasing their land for years because they are not allowed to sell their land. A rather important point don't you think? Cities do lease lands but the more typical lease is fairly short term as for example our Marina properties. Leasing for 99 years is in effect selling it for any resident currenly breathing and does not entail a flow of lease payments as you suggest. It is an up front payment the same as a sale and the payment will reflect current market value. Lease arrangments are not attractive to businesses that are public and plan to be around for a while. Despite the length of 99 years, half way thru, when reconstruction or redevelopment might be considered, the asset value is diminished because of the shorter tenure remaining and becomes a disincentive for further investment or improvment unless the lease is renegotiated at a discounted rate taking into consideration the remaining tenure. So how exactly does it end up back in the control of the citizens? And if you don't renegotiate, the property becomes a decrepid eyesore. All is not as straightforward and simple as you seem to think and is also why you do not have a snowballs chance in Hades of being elected in Kelowna. But good luck to you anyway.....I'm just glad you are not running here.

Arrogance at its finest. How about the city donate some land to a developer so he can build affordable housing for the servants of the elite in this city.

[XT225]

Word on the street this morning is that ____ wants to buy that land by the SOEC.

[fluffy]

There is no law that states council members are not allowed to invest in our city, but they are obliged to excuse themselves from any discussion or decision making on any project they are personally involved in. I assume that since you are being so free with your criticism that you believe the mystery councilor you refer to has been directly involved with this as a council member and not simply a private investor? If so this is a serious matter and as a concerned citizen you should raise the alarm.

[XT225]

It was simply coffe shop talk; lively banter thrown back and forth. Nothing to take seriously; no moreso than anything discussed daily around town.

[fluffy]

I won't say which one that I heard it was, nor if he/she was involved directly or just as an investor.

Convenient way to disparage the entire council without actually having to back up your claim.

[Captain77]

I won't say which one that I heard it was, nor if he/she was involved directly or just as an investor.

If this is in fact true - and I'm not convinced it is (I'm actually doubtful), then that particular councilor would need to remove themselves from the discussion/vote on the negotiation and sale of the property. That is conflict of interest 101 and everyone around the table would be well aware of the rules, and ensure they were enforced.

[DblDwn11]

*off-topic/Jo*

This was done is this case and it was determined that no city employee was involved in this paticular company.

See the below response to this very question from the Mayor(found in the 'Where is Dan Ashton?' topic)

12. Does anyone on Council or their families have shares in the numbered company that the City is selling?

A corporate search of the company indicated that the Company was incorporated on October 17, 2011 and has two Directors, neither of whom is connected in any way to the City.

You talk a lot about a 'transparent' city hall but you don't seem willing to go and find the information that is right under your nose. You prefer to shoot your mouth off and make wild speculation and accusations. The best part is when someone disagrees with you or questions your conclusions, you label them as arrogant or a name caller. (or TwoBits cousin but I won't go there)

Maybe the only way to satisfy you is to have city council conduct thier meeting in your living room.

[fluffy]

*off-topic/Jo*

[DblDwn11]

I didn't say that I heard that one of them had "shares" in the numbered company; only that they might be involved. That could be as simple as an advisor, or relative; don't try to write something into what I didn't say. Involvement can mean many things. I WILL correct my earlier post; what I meant to say what they could be "involved"; but not necessarily "a part of".

Your own little "dance around the issue"? A better strategy would be to make sure you have substantiated facts before you try to drag everyone through the muck.

Here here Fluffy. But I don't think that's XT's style.