Shelley Nicholl - Council Candidate

[Jo]

This thread is for Shelley Nicholl, council candidate.

[scorpio2]

Shelley has some sensible and practical ideas about the issues playing in this city. I think she should be put in a position to help realize them.
She has my vote...

Roland

[leroibrown]

I have read her platform and agree with her ideas. She would make a great addition to city council. Shelley has my vote as well. I especially like her stance on the meth problem plaguing our fair city and the fact that she is so active about addressing this issue. I'm sure she will not be in favour of farming out our cities problems to a consultant like our current administration likes to do instead of facing them head on with solutions to combat them. She seems to be one smart cookie. Can't wait to hear her speak. Looking forward to hear more from this lady.

[stefzaz]

I don't like her comment on how we need to "build higher". Ruin the beautiful views of the mountains and lakes with a ton of high rise buildings?? No thanks. I agree with Kim Oulette, cap at 20 stories is plenty, even less would be better. I don't want to see Kelowna cluttered with high rise buildings. Might as well move to Vancouver.

[Timi]

I haven't made up my mind on Shelley Nicholl-she's on my "on the fence" vote list. But, I just wanted to comment on the last posters comments. I don't see anywhere on her webpage that she promotes building more 20+ buildings. She does seem to believe in downtown revitalization, I think it's better to build up (more efficient), then to cover our beautiful mountains with houses.

[Snick]

Thanks for asking about the building height issue. I should clarify. When I suggest we build upwards, not outwards, that doesn't mean having 27-storey buildings everywhere. The density has to suit the area and blend in with the neighbourhood. Higher buildings downtown make the most sense and how high they go will depend on where they are located. Nobody wants to see highrises right on the water. In other community centres, even looking at going to six storeys instead of two or three storeys with the same amount of floor space or units means the foot print on the land is smaller and there's more green space available. Again, it comes down to what fits best into the neighbourhood.
I hope that makes sense. Any more questions? Just ask. I'll be checking in.
Shelley.

[FunkyBunch]

What are you going to do about the 45% of citizens in Kelowna who live in low income situatuions?

[Snick]

There are many issues facing people with low incomes from finding affordable housing, being able to access the transit service, handling child care costs and just dealing with rising costs of food and fuel. I could go on and on. I wish I had a perfect solution to help everyone. Like many issues, I think you have to hammer at it from all sides.

Many funding and service issues fall under other levels of governments and the municpal government can lobby for more subsidized housing and subsides for child care. I especially worry about seniors on fixed incomes who may have health care costs to deal with. At the local level, the city is looking at ways to handle affordable housing and I support any initiative (and looking at all possibilities to that end). Having a certain percentage of affordable housing in new development or cash in lieu to go towards affordable housing projects is a good plan. I also support making it easier to zone for secondary suites and may support certain neighbourhoods falling under that zoning in appropriate areas. I also think lobbying the provincial government to help re-train people will help because there is a shortage of skilled labour and we have an opportunity for people to make higher incomes if they can fill those jobs.

These are small steps, but they are a start. I think the community has to work together on this. If you have any suggestions, please pass them along.

Shelley.

[FunkyBunch]

Ideas I've had over the past year:

Phase out minimum-age developments. I really don't see the point in sanctioned age discrimination.

Have the affordable housing limit of new developments be put at $30k, and ensure those making less are able to actually get these units.

Municipally initiated affordable housing, either through services restructuring or ensuring all new developments must pay a certain amount to fund an affordable housing initiative.

[leroibrown]

I agree that it must be easier to make secondary suites but it must be done properly. There must be building codes in place such as seperate power meters and breaker boxes, hot water tanks etc. You should not have to split the power bill with someone who is wasteful. I have lived in one secondary suite in a home that actually had not one but two secondary suites. There was never any hot water as we all shared one hot water tank. I also had a problem with my fridge always going off when the breaker flipped and several times the person in the suite with the breaker box was away on holidays. There was also a parking problem as when visitors came over there was no where to park. There are many factors that must be looked into before we just go willy nilly and let everyone do whatever they want. When I contacted bylaw enforcement about this problem they never did a thing. There was no registration for these suites and the city bylaws only allow one secondary suite. This home had two. Three suites in all. This home is likely still operating all three suites. I think they have a friend at City Hall or something. What a nightmare it was living there. I'm sure the neighbours were not impressed either. Many factors must be considered when changing zoning bylaws to allow such suites. I paid $1400 per month for my suite and had to park on the street. Bylaw enforcement must also enforce the bylaws to avoid anarchy such as what I and the neighbours were subjected to. Don't get me wrong as I am all for secondary suites, but it must be done properly to avoid these types of situations. I also feel that homes with secondary suites should have the landlord/property owner living in one of the suites. I'm quite sure I read somewhere that it is the bylaw in Penticton that secondary suites must be that way. This avoids landlords from turning rental properties into cash cows. Love your attitude Shelley. I hope you get elected. You've got my vote. You seem to have common sense, something that is lacking in our current administration. Should you get elected remember this post as I know this secondary suite issue must be done the right way or we will certainly have problems. I've lived it and can tell you it was very frustrating.

[Snick]

I hear from many people that, like you, they're not opposed to secondary suites in the right locations, as long as everyone is on a level playing field. In other words, people should follow the rules.
Shelley.

[justice4U]

Secondary suites pose the number one threat to our community - its history, its character, and its quality of living.

We need someone to stand up for single-family neighbourhoods and for those who have invested their life savings in such a neighbourhood, NOT someone who is all too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater for short-term political gain.

Sorry, Shelley, you obviously fall into the latter category. My vote will go elsewhere.

[FunkyBunch]

Justice, what about the fact that 45% of Kelowna's populace is Low-Income and cannot afford the single family neighborhood community?
Should they be shunted to the sidelines and left in the cold just so your neighborhood has a family or 2 less in it?

[justice4U]

Spare us the drama, FunkyBunch. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that can afford a single family residence, and a certain percentage that cannot. Such is life.

Does that mean that those who cannot a single family residence are "left out in the cold"? Hardly. Your logic is flawed, to put it mildly. We have 'zoning' which allows certain kinds of development in some areas but not others. These zoning laws allow for controlled development as opposed to chaos. There are countless formerly friendly and peaceful neighbourhoods in Kelowna that have been reduced to warzones over the introduction of secondary suites.

If, despite all the handouts from government funded by MY taxes (I'm not sure if you're a giver or a taker), a person is still unable to afford to live in Kelowna - then that person cannot afford to live in Kelowna. Period. We should not be endlessly subsidizing people (or forfeiting the quality of our neighbourhoods) to enable people to live in one of the most desirable, and thus expensive, cities in Canada. There are options.

[FunkyBunch]

I'm not talking about this for me. I have decent job and my wife and I do fine. However, when I saw the government statistics that 45% of people in Kelowna are Low-Income that is a pretty big number. With rents on the rise there are people being left out in the cold (Capital News Story, front page a few weeks ago, single mother of 3 for example).

I'm not talking about homelessness. I'm talking about families who can barely make ends meet and need a little help. Right now, there are MANY families being left out in the cold or will be soon. I can't believe you'd be so selfish as to not let a family live in a suite that's part of a house that's obviously too big in your neighborhood. It's not like it's your house.

For the record, I don't live in a suite.

What exactly are these "handouts" you're referring too? Low-Income Housing hasn't been built for Low-Income only in years. Rental subsidies? Well that only works if you're paying more than a third of your wage in rent and then only if you're under a very very low income bracket.