Behaviour of Kelowna city council members

[unfazed]

So Brian Given stormed out of yesterday's meeting in a huff because he doesn't want the Downtown Revitalization Plan revisited? Is this acceptable behaviour for someone in his position?

One has to wonder why he is so attached to this plan. Its not a horrible plan but is it so wrong to have public input?

"Pandering to the electorate??" Is he angry because his colleagues are listening to the citizens who elected them? Heaven forbid!

I applaud the council members who are wise enough to step back and listen to concerns from the people. The city's planning department is overwhelmed right now and it doesn't need more developments forced through with little thought to long term consequences.

kelowna doesn't need an extreme home makeover writ large in the name of progress. YES the downtown area has a lot of potential for improvement but why does it have to be all done at once? Baby steps, people. Lets get our infrastructure in order first.

Providing a forum for these issues is a good first step. Once the municipal election nears I expect more debate on these issues from the candidates. So far Given does NOT have my vote.

[ferri]

here's a link to the article:

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#39143

[Gone_Fishin]

I agree 100% with unfazed. Mr Given accuses other members of council of electioneering, yet he himself has chosen to attack cottage owners in the Okanagan with a completely misinformed viewpoint. I believe that in his mind, he figures he can attack the 160 or so people involved, and perhaps garner the votes of a greater number of bandwagon jumpers-on who think he's truly concerned for everyone's welfare. Mr Given has gone so far as to call people polluters in the media as he so desperately seeks support, when in fact independent engineering studies have shown there is no environmental impact whatsoever from their activities. When confronted with this, he claims to be "misquoted", and promised he would clarify his stance in the media ASAP, which he did not. His lack of follow-up on his promise is an example of his paying lip service when he's called out for his errors, hoping that his detractors would forget what he said.

Mr Given seems to be unclear as to the definition of "consensus" when his viewpoint is not accepted by others, a clear sign of not being a team player. I do not see Mr Given functioning as an effective elected representative when he grandstands and storms about in a huff, looking for media attention.

Perhaps Mr Given would better serve the community as an actor with Sunshine Theatre than a city councillor? I'll join unfazed in proclaiming that my vote, and the votes of as many as my coworkers, family and friends as I can garner, will NOT go to Mr Given.

[unfazed]

Which begs the question:

Who among us is willing to step up to the plate and run for council?

I would but I'm not comfortable with people scrutinizing my lifestyle and making personal judgments. A quazi-anonymous forum is one thing... I'm more of a "behind the scenes" gal. Ready to rally my support behind worthwhile candidates... but where are they?

[ferri]

here's another article:

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#39161

[LoneWolf_53]

I want to make it clear I'm not defending Given however I do have to wonder how right it is to toss a process aside and do an about face?

I mean they have ways that things get done and what I see here is that Joe Public has to bow down and abide by all the rules laid out and requests made if he wants to do something yet the city can do an about face whenever it wants regardless of how it affects someone?

I sure know I'd be more than a little choked if I was told by the city that I could do something and then after putting myself on the hook for the expense of plans and such I was informed that they've changed their minds.

Once a process is set in place it needs to be followed through to its conclusion regardless of whether it's an election year or not.

[unfazed]

I want to make it clear I'm not defending Given however I do have to wonder how right it is to toss a process aside and do an about face?

I mean they have ways that things get done and what I see here is that Joe Public has to bow down and abide by all the rules laid out and requests made if he wants to do something yet the city can do an about face whenever it wants regardless of how it affects someone?

I sure know I'd be more than a little choked if I was told by the city that I could do something and then after putting myself on the hook for the expense of plans and such I was informed that they've changed their minds.

Once a process is set in place it needs to be followed through to its conclusion regardless of whether it's an election year or not.

So Mr. Milroy's interests automatically trump the rest of the population because he has invested money in the area. That, in essence, is what you are saying.

Boo.

[nolanrh]

Don't assume the "rest of the population" is against this downtown development.

[unfazed]

Its clear that a very vocal yet small group is vehemently opposed to the revitalization plan. Another group - specifically those who stand to profit from it - is clearly behind it.

The problem is that everyone has to live with it once its built so it behooves the city to get it right the first time. What's so wrong with giving someone OTHER than Milroy a place at the drawing board? Many people just don't share his vision of a future Kelowna, including me.

[Bestside]

A major matter that should be very disturbing to everyone is how council has two vastly different views of Kelowna's place in the sun. They are quite two-faced about it.

On the one hand council rightly extols Kelowna as one of the very best destinations in the country, in fact in all of North America, for being both a tourist playground and for permanent living. Can't get it much better than that.

But on the other hand, when it comes to attracting developers and business, then council, led by the city administration, acts like Kelowna is a lousy destination for developers.

This is exemplified by giving the planning job to developers so they can maximize their profits. Recently the possibility of a turn-down in the economy was mentioned as a reason to get going immediately on some controversial projects rather then take more time to get it right.

The fact is with a desirable place like Kelowna the city can develop it's own state-of-the-art-plan with appropriate locations for high density and enlargement of park space in the downtown waterfront area and require developers to not only build according to plan but to also fund the building of amenities and infrastructure.

Tell the developers if they want to be part of this they can pony up or take a hike to someplace else where that other city HAS to offer incentives because it is much less desirable and where the profit margin is much lower.

Rather than the city do the planning, the boy from Edmonton who heads up the City Administration (Ron Mattiussi) fires the head city planner (Mary Pynenburg) and gets the developer from Edmonton (Milroy) to lead the planning effort... This is totally bush league management... something is amiss ...

Simply put, Council talks the talk about a being a five-star destination but fails to walk the walk when it comes to managing development of a five-star destination.

[LoneWolf_53]

So Mr. Milroy's interests automatically trump the rest of the population because he has invested money in the area. That, in essence, is what you are saying.

Boo.

Actually it's more like that's how it suits you to interpret it.

The point was plans for what is and isn't acceptable should be in place and enforced before anyone is out of pocket regardless of whether it's Milroy or Joe Public.

Processes that are in place should not be altered mid stride was the essence of my post.

If a developer chooses to shell out for plans to create a thirty story building in an area that is zoned for ten then tough but on the other hand if the design is within zoning guidelines or officials have led him to believe that they are there should be no turning back.

Those in control of such issues are supposed to be already in tune with what their citizens want and not be swayed by the likes of Zeger style fanatics.

[LoneWolf_53]

Don't assume the "rest of the population" is against this downtown development.

That's a good point as well.

It's already proven pretty obvious that we have locals who will whine at any/every opportunity so to some extent it's no wonder planners appear to turn a deaf ear.

I happen to think downtown is an excellent place for such high stuff if for no other reason than the fact that it allows for residential in a beautiful area for some who hopefully won't be too reliant on automobiles for transportation and best of all there's no single family homes around to *bleep* about their view being blocked.

With population growth comes high rises to some extent so those vehemently opposed best get over it because it's going to happen whether you like it or not.

Be happy that it's downtown and not in front of your house!

From what I've read about the proposal by Milroy so far I see no reason to object to it.

[Bestside]

People should object to giving up a portion of Abbott and Queensway to a developer so he can max out his profits... where did that kind of give-a-way come from?

Not many are against high rise... it's just where it is being placed and what is being given up that is very offensive.

People who want both, high rise and maximum park and culture space for the citizens who built this place, rather than giving it away to deep pockets and out-of-town money say just move the plans back a few blocks and then... guess what... that still looks after deep pockets and out-of-town money just as well.

They still get their views, and their opportunity to walk to a liquor store when they forgot to stop and shop when driving their SUV back from the golf course.

[LoneWolf_53]

People should object to giving up a portion of Abbott and Queensway to a developer so he can max out his profits... where did that kind of give-a-way come from?

That would be because Queensway is such a priceless part of Kelowna in it's current state?

I'm of the mind that anything new is a step above what The Willow drew to that area.

[Bestside]

People should object to giving up a portion of Abbott and Queensway to a developer so he can max out his profits... where did that kind of give-a-way come from?

That would be because Queensway is such a priceless part of Kelowna in it's current state?

I'm of the mind that anything new is a step above what The Willow drew to that area.

So because the Willow is on the corner of Queensway you give away a big portion of Queensway Ave. itself?

That is so far from common sense that it would be laughable if it was not so sad and ridiculous.

That's like saying Location, Location, Location has no relevance to real estate and it is just about the paint colour on the building.