|
Post by sebastianandwisla on Aug 28, 2005 19:27:27 GMT -5
I say no. I don't want to pay higher taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 28, 2005 20:10:40 GMT -5
I haven't put too much thought to it but first reaction would be no. They should incorporate to their own city.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Phillips on Sept 1, 2005 10:43:58 GMT -5
i used to live in westbank, i can remember growing up in a community of 20,000+ that was still an unmunicipality. i can remember asking my parents why we were not on the maps of BC, or why when we went to vancouver, we told people that we were from kelowna.
Westbank citizens have been complaining for years about how they do not have as good services as we have in kelowna, most recently being the volunteer fire department.
the fact of the matter is, that the citizens do not wish to pay more taxes, therefor their large community remains an unmunicipality.
a couple years ago, i spent a summer in Saskatchewan, would you believe that there are only 7 cities in Saskatchewan? that is because before a community can become a city, it must have a population of at least 10,000.
Westbank's population is now more than 30,000, it is larger than Penticton, or Vernon, but still it remains absent, or only a tiny white dot on the map, which truly does not do this large community justice.
If People in Westbank continue to be hypocritical about their lack of services (that would come with being a city), yet their reluctance to pay the additional taxes that would come with being a city, than they will always remain little more than some nameless obstacle which you must drive through on your way to kelowna.
Kelowna annexed Rutland many years ago, i believe that it is time for us to incorporate Westbank into our already wonderful community.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 2, 2005 9:57:44 GMT -5
Good for you Matt in showing some independent thinking and not just basing your judgements on monetary (tax) considerations like the others in your group.
|
|
|
Post by DuaneT on Sept 2, 2005 17:43:35 GMT -5
First of all Guest/krisha, Matt and John actually agree on this point.
I on the other hand feel that it might be in the best interest for Westside to join the city of Kelowna. I know sebastianandwisla don't want to pay more taxes but that is exactly what is going to happen anyway, especially if they form their own community. The District of Lake Country is a perfect example has their taxes have increased higher then the average city in the Okanagan.
At lease with Westside joining Kelowna, they are joining an infrastructure that is already in existence, we already have a city hall with the staff already in place, and we have bylaws that can easily be adapted to the Westside.
If Westside becomes their own mucipilaity then they will be responsible to spend millions of dollars to build the infrastructure that already exists in Kelowna. Think about it, they would have to start with a city hall and hire the staff required for it just for a start. They will have to hire a planning department, water department, bylaws staff, utilities staff, and parks staff, just to name a few departments.
Will the taxes rise on the Westside, yes they will anyway you look at it. But at least with joining Kelowna there is a chance that the tax increases will be more moderate then when you have to start out as a new city. Also with the Liberal Government in power, Westside will not receive the grants it will need to become its own Municipality.
|
|
|
Post by KimOuellette on Oct 23, 2005 22:29:14 GMT -5
8-)I would have to say that all small cities have had these concerns and issues, although that i would have to say that they Westbank decides to become part of Kelowna don't you think it should be up to them, Westbank Citizens themselves. I would have to say that I would have to agree that only if providing City Council reflects fair representation of members. This can be achieved by the addition of two seats for Westbank and WFN.
|
|
|
Post by KevDreger on Apr 16, 2006 23:07:55 GMT -5
I say Yes, but it won't happen. Westbank is already making plans for a new huge fire hall and city hall. Stupid westside leaders just want to be famous by being part of a "city council" oooooo!!! WOW! CITY COUNCEL!!!......... i wish we would join kelowna....
|
|
|
Post by DuaneT on Apr 17, 2006 15:54:33 GMT -5
I have not heard of the plans for a city hall, but they are looking at a new firehall and RCMP station. I would guess they will hold off on the city hall until they decide what to do.
|
|
|
Post by KevDreger on Jan 24, 2007 20:22:59 GMT -5
It seems like this issue is becoming really popular right now...
I am still in huge favour of Kelowna extending their bounderies around the westside. Taxes are going to get higher no matter what we do. So there is no point complaining about it. Westside becoming part of Kelowna just makes so much sense. Think about it, it will make Kelowna a lot bigger which will create more oppurtunites for Kelowna.
*Should Westside and Kelowna become one bigger Kelowna?*
YES YES YES YES YES.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Mar 26, 2007 14:40:01 GMT -5
I have had many debates with people and on other forums regarding this topic! There was a letter printed int the Westside Weekly Mar 21/07 That I think sums it up nicely!
[glow=red,2,300]Words of caution about the future[/glow] Amalgamation with Kelowna is not a meeting of two equals where both parties have the same rights and influences. The Westside, after voting to amalgamate,turns over its future to the provincial government and Kelowna council, who will negotiate and impose how our Westside representation is structured. A naive belief that we do not have to be concerned because Kelowna will treat us fairly is dangerous to our future. Fair treatment means different things to different people. Will Rutland, Glenmore or Mission feel comfortable if Kelowna council decides to allow the Westside more representatives or special consideration than any other community? No, they will not. Will the Westside, which would be the largest single community by population and tax base with Kelowna, be mad equal in influence to the other smaller community? yes we will. Will the Westside still get our promised medical centre, before Kelowna General Hospital in enlarged? Not likely. Will Westside infrastructure improvements have to stand in line with the other communities in Kelowna and wait? Yes we will. Westside policing costs will rise no matter what we choose. Water costs will increase no matter what we choose and transportation costs will rise no matter what we choose. Rapid growth led to our governance question, acknowledging an need and opportunity to access a more flexible tax toolbox available within the Municipal Act, which provides legislation that allows movement of tax dollars to different spending areas. Our present unincorporated status restricts tax allocations to the needed areas. Both incorporation and amalgamation offers us the benefit of the municipal act. Which choice is best for the future Westside? Proponents of amalgamation claims that less government is better. There is no reason to build our own city hall and hire the managers and staff needed to operate a newly incorporated Westside city b/c Kelowna already has them in place, believing it would be more efficient and a greater savings if we do not have a repeat service. S what does this really mean? With amalgamation , there are indications that Kelowna council will reduce Westside's political representation to possibly one council member, maybe two, streamlining Kelowna council. This appears efficient as there will be less political positions to pay for, but it reduces Westside representation- meaning the present-day representation we get for our tax dollar diminishes, as our future taxes go, costing us more while giving us less. How does this save us money? Does efficiency mean lack of thoroughness or quality? Amalgamation with Kelowna will instantly increase operational size of the expanded city, leading to the hiring of more staff in their different departments to handle the increased workload that amalgamation brings. Maybe Kelowna will have to build a larger city hall to house them all. Westside loses elected representatives, but gains unelected bureaucrats who are not answerable to the constituency and not solely interest in the the Westside alone, but must dance to their political masters from all the other communities within Kelowna. Therefore, b/c we fear having to hire and pay for our own bureaucrats under a Westside city plan, we instead pay Kelowna bureaucrats under a Kelowna city plan. We will pay for either choice. The governance question is about what it has always been - our representation and how effective do we want our inevitable tax increase to be. To compare Lake Country's incorporation several years ago and the Westside governance question today is like comparing apples to oranges. Lake Country probably wishes it had the same growth and possibilities back then that the Westside has now. Incorporation does not mean Westside is competing with or is less interested in Kelowna. It does not mean we would not go to Kelowna to spend money and see friends. It does not mean that the Westside will not work within the regional district. Incorporation is the only way to ensure there will be a Westside voice standing up for Westide issues. Jon Christoff, Westside Well said Jon Well said!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by KevDreger on Jun 3, 2007 14:49:58 GMT -5
Voting on June 16th! Now all you westsiders... Vote for amalgamation. Like the signs everywhere say, "It just makes sense". I'm a westsider too and i think the westside would benefit greatly by amalgamating with Kelowna. One big city, working together to become stronger. Most westsiders think that if we join Kelowna that we'll be ignored. This is not true. The city of Kelowna plans to elect 2 or 3 members of the westside into city council if we join together so that there are still some members in the council who have a say on what happens on the westside. The westside is booming and isn't a little town centre anymore. We need the structure and support from Kelowna. And don't you all just want to have one bigger city? Rather then adding yet another smaller town/city to the okanagan?
|
|