Anyone know who voted against the Simpson Covenant?

[NoSpinZone]

Does anyone know who voted to overturn the Simpson Covenant? I believe that we need to remove all those councilors that voted to overturn it. Also, why all the secrecy?

[Nebula]

You will likely never find out. It was a land issue and a legal issue and therefore dealt with at in-camera meetings. Who votes what will remain secret... unless those present publicly talk about it in crafty ways.

[Urbane]

You will likely never find out. It was a land issue and a legal issue and therefore dealt with at in-camera meetings. Who votes what will remain secret... unless those present publicly talk about it in crafty ways.

Are you implying that some politicians might be crafty?

[FunkyBunch]

I'm quoting myself here...

Then what about these articles?


On April 30, City Council voted unanimously to remove the 60-year-old Simpson Covenant from the 11 acre parcel of land which borders the lake on the West, Ellis St. on the East, Doyle Ave. on the North and Queensway on the South.


Kelowna City council has voted unanimously to scrap the 60-year old agreement and re-zone some waterfront property for park-use only.


http://www.castanet.net/cgi-bin2/newNews/news_list.cgi?method=show_story&id=29299&query=search

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-29832--search.htm

But that's only because ALL of them at one point or another voted to get rid of it.

[RJ7]

If you follow the people on council I don't think it would be too hard to guess who voted what re. the appeal... I'd put rule, hobson, and shepherd on one side- the rest on the other. This year is exciting because there are going to be at least 3 new councillors which could swing things completely from this past time around where the above were on the minority for many issues (and why I would never group those 3 with the rest).

[FunkyBunch]

What upsets me the most, is that however many people voted against the second time, did so only because it was the popular thing to do. It had nothing to do with what they actually wanted, especially since every single one of them voted for it to be removed at one point.

Talking about the vote afterward was the ultimate of low-class, regardless of how the vote went.

[RJ7]

You're right, it has to do with the public and what they said they wanted- which was to not appeal the decision- regardless of it going to court in the first place (which was in order to maintain more green space than the original covenant would, and why the more 'green' candidates also voted to remove it originally). Certain people in that group of 9 do listen to the public and do try to truly represent what they are asking for. There are NINE 'individuals' on council/mayor- who are very different from one another- why they are continuously grouped as 'the same' is beyond me and makes me wonder how much people really do pay attention to municipal politics. I guess it would be easier to group them all as one...

[Bestside]

I'm quoting myself here...

Then what about these articles?


On April 30, City Council voted unanimously to remove the 60-year-old Simpson Covenant from the 11 acre parcel of land which borders the lake on the West, Ellis St. on the East, Doyle Ave. on the North and Queensway on the South.


Kelowna City council has voted unanimously to scrap the 60-year old agreement and re-zone some waterfront property for park-use only.


http://www.castanet.net/cgi-bin2/newNews/news_list.cgi?method=show_story&id=29299&query=search

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-29832--search.htm

But that's only because ALL of them at one point or another voted to get rid of it.

Good reads...

[I dunno]

Good article in the Courier today. It was quite simple, do we go to court on the Simpson covenant. From what I understood, council was unanimous in proceeding with an appeal. So how come Hobson and Rule have now stated they are against the appeal? Flip flop, or what? No use voting for these two.

[Bestside]

Kelowna Council has unanimously voted in favour of accepting the court's reasons for judgement, and will now determine the trust boundaries and terms.

http://www.kelowna.thesun.net/news/565/816018

Kelowna Council stops the appeal on Simpson Covenant
Mon, 2008-10-27 21:57.
Local News

The City of Kelowna is putting the brakes on the Simpson Covenant court ruling appeal.

Kelowna Council has unanimously voted in favour of accepting the court's reasons for judgement, and will now determine the trust boundaries and terms.

Councillor Robert Hobson says, "I think the judge did get at the nub of the relationship between the community and the Council of the Day and the seller of the property, so I think it's quite appropriate. And I do think we need to clarify what uses are permitted in an auxillery way to municipal purposes."

Councillor Brian Given says it comes down to being a trust with the people.

"Not just an individual or not just a small group of people. It's a trust that we need to establish with the entire community. Back in the day when a handshake meant something, that's the kind of trust that I'm talking about."

And Councillor Andre Blanliel says there are still many unanswered questions. he says, "Is parking municipal use? Is the concession in Memorial Arena commercial or not? Those are the difficulties that a future Council has to deal with."

City Staff will now engage in a public consultation process to look at municipal and commercial purposes for the Stuart Park and City Hall properties. Those purposes will be included in City Staff's creation of a Civic Centre Precinct plan.

The next Council will also be encouraged to consider placing a question on the ballot of the 2011 Civic Election to determine the opinion of the electors on the appropriateness of any municipal and commercial purposes as porposed in the Precinct.

Denise Wong - Kelowna

[Bestside]

Looks like City Manager Mattiussi got cold feet...
Looks like the plan to close Doyle at Water and build the big highrise on Doyle will come off the shelf and into the dumpster...

Rather than proceed with the appeal, council accepted a staff recommendation to engage a “comprehensive public consultation process” to determine what uses people would like to see made of the covenant lands.

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/stories_local.php?id=143650

Council abandons appeal of Simpson covenant ruling
By Ron Seymour 2008-10-28

The fate of the lands around Kelowna City Hall will be decided by the public rather than the courts.

City council voted unanimously Monday to abandon the planned appeal of the Simpson covenant ruling, instead choosing to create a public consultation process to determine the potential uses of the municipally owned property.

“Quite frankly, what I hear in the community is that everyone just wants this done,” Mayor Sharon Shepherd said. “The community really is saying ’enough is enough‘”

Outside council chambers, Sharron Simpson said she‘s happy council is not proceeding with plans to take the covenant issue to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

“I think this is an appropriate step to take,” Simpson said. “It‘s not a personal victory, but a victory for the community.”

City councillors seemed relieved to set aside the prospect of continuing with the appeal.

“This issue has just been far too divisive,” said Coun. Brian Given.

“I think we‘re going now in the right direction,” said Coun. Michele Rule.

The city had faced a mid-November deadline for deciding whether to appeal an August decision by the B.C. Supreme Court that the Simpson covenant is an enforceable charitable trust.

The covenant was created in 1946 when sawmill owner Stanley Simpson sold properties roughly bounded by Doyle, Ellis, Queensway and Water to the city on condition they be used only for “municipal purposes,” not commercial or industrial ones.

Saying the covenant was outdated and legally unenforceable, city council tried to scrap it last year, a move which sparked the legal challenge from Sharron Simpson and a non-profit society formed by her supporters.

Rather than proceed with the appeal, council accepted a staff recommendation to engage a “comprehensive public consultation process” to determine what uses people would like to see made of the covenant lands.

After that process is complete, voters could be asked to formally endorse those potential uses through a referendum question attached to the ballot in the 2011 municipal election.

Council and staff have said there was never any intention to sell any of the covenant lands. But Given said Monday there was a “public perception that something was afoot,” and that abandoning the appeal and accepting the judge‘s ruling would help to allay those concerns.

[Ken7]

My votes are not for those who break agreements. I feel a handshake should have been good enough.

The current Mayor should be ashamed, and so should all those on counsel who even considered entertaining this thought of developing the Simpson Covenant property.

Rember to vote, make your votes count. Vote for three, four or who you wish. A bad vote could cancel your positive good vote.