"No" Discussions Moved From Letters Section...

[Administrator]

As discussions don't really fit in the Letters section on the main site I am moving them here. The order is earliest to latest.

[Administrator]

Sep 21, 2004 - Julia T.

"Sep 17, 2004 - Shirley A. WROTE
Unfortunatly this oppossion to growth does not surprise me and I hope the developers that see the furture of this city remain steadfast.
Over the years Kelowna has been happy to welcome tourists during the summer and winter. Many citizens would not have built a business without them. Now that these people, who have also fallen love with this area, are not welcome to retire and enjoy the valley because it will change their city. From reading about the history of the City of Kelowna it clear to me that everyone moved here and evoked change at some point in history.
The old timers want their children to be educated without travelling away but the University status will bring more teachers and students and where will they live?"

There is no opposition to growth, as generally stated here. Growth with wisdom is beneficial. Think of Kelowna as a 12 year old child. Puberty has arrived, and the choices made now, will definitely and most assuredly impact on the future.

There is no problem with change. Change is always good. I personally am not against change in that area, and the revitalization. I do not agree with the current proposition.

No one has ever said that new residents are not welcome in the city.

There is no way that students will be able to afford the currently proposed residences in this area.

[Administrator]

Sep 21, 2004 - Eileen R.

Lawsons Landing is fine where it is going. However at this time there should not be such a high density development at the foot of Bernard Avenue. For heaven's sake, lets get the bridge sorted out and also the approaches to it. Anyone with a quarter ounce of sense can see that the traffic at peak times is going nowhere and in fact clogs all the downtown streets. I live right downtown,and the through traffic on our street is getting worse. we need to be lobbying hard for a new bridge and a bypass around the city. These bypasses work and make the city centres more liveable. I note a recurring slogan in the yes letters " Lets move Kelowna forward", well my friends we aren't going anywhere with the present traffic problems. First things first, high rises can wait.

Sep 21, 2004 - Eileen R.

I wish to correct my previous letter, I was under the impression that Lawson's Landing was another development. Sorry about that. I am not in favour of the waterfront development at this time.

[Administrator]

Sep 22, 2004 - Jason R.

I still read comments about the "environmental argument" in favour of the project. Can anybody tell me how filling in a portion of the lake is environmentally sound? That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard, (other than calling Lawson Landing beautiful). Saving our environment constitutes either conservation or preservation, NOT destroying one part of it to save another. We all know of the shaky ground that the Dolphins and Lagoons sit on, why would we do that again? Ask anybody in those buildings how their doors work, most of the building has shifted so much that major renovations had to be undertaken already. While you are at it, ask them if they had trouble getting insurance because they live in a building that rests upon fill.

Another note on the environmental impact, if the developer is still intent on having two stories below ground, what happens to the natural water table in the area, with those two stories below the natural lake level...can anybody say flood???

What about the fact that we are replacing greenspace downtown with buildings? These builings will only serve to increase the albedo of the downtown core, thereby increasing the urban heat island effect. For those of you who use the "environmental" argument in favour of the development and have no idea what I am talking about, the urban heat island effect occurs in cities, or general densely populated areas where the incoming radiation from the sun is not absorbed into the earth and reflects that radiation back into the atmosphere. Urban heat islands create local temeperature increases that do not occur naturally, therby having negative impacts on the local environment. It does not matter how many trees, or how much grass that you put on the top of a building, the urban heat island is maintained through the emissions of commercial/industrial sized heating and air-conditioning systems.

As you can see, there are many more arguments in opposition to Lawson Landing from an environmental point of view. If the "environmental" argument is all that you can some up with, then there is something seriously wrong with your choice of supporting this development.

[Administrator]

Sep 27, 2004 - Jason R.

In response to Micheal P:

You seem to have a resonable mind in discussion about this project, and you also note that voting in the polls, nobody comments why they voted that way. By the way, how bad does the yes side look when they cannnot even get support in a poll on their own website!!! I posed a challenge to anybody who wishes to discuss this project in a public debate (Duane Tresnich and/or John Skrotski should be the ones answering to this challenge, but as of yet, their silence is damaging their credibility) and nobody wants to put their faces in public to support this proposal. It does not matter how many yes letters are posted due to the narrow explanation for the "yes" comments (how many yes letters simply say "I support this project" and that's it). At least the "no" side has reasonable and rather strong arguments why they oppose Lawson Landing.

[Administrator]

Sep 28, 2004 - John Z. - CRCP

Hi Duane,

Yes, I've only been here for two years which makes me appreciate this city all the more. Unlike yourself, who grew up in Winfield and then moved to Kelowna, I have already had the big city experience that you haven't and seem to be yearning for and want to turn Kelowna into that big city in order to satisfy your desires. Why don't you just go after what you want and move to Vancouver instead of trying to turn Kelowna into Vancouver and destroying this city for the rest of us. That way everybody wins.

John Zeger

[Administrator]

Sep 29, 2004 - John Z. - CRCP

To Mike N. who wrote on Sept. 28,

We at Citizens for Responsible Community Planning would like Kelowna to have more well-paying job opportunities for young people who grew up here in order for them to not have to move to larger centers to find work. The type of growth that Kelowna has been attracting and will continue to attract with projects like Lawson Landing will only create a few more low paying service sector jobs. This is essentially the type of employment that is created by growth that is population driven rather than employment driven. CRCP is a strong advocate of proposals such as the Okanagan Partnership and silicon vineyard which will create the kind of jobs this area needs. I would be the last person to suggest that our youth leave Kelowna, but they are being forced to do exactly that by shodding planning of which Lawson Landing is an example that does not take them into consideration. What type of decent paying jobs do you expect from a project that will cater to retirees and part-time residents? This city should be spending more resources in trying to secure well-paying jobs for our youth instead of more of the same and should be working on building a sustainable community so that our youth can work and raise families here instead of a creating a retirement haven for wealthy retirees.

John Zeger

[Administrator]

Sep 29, 2004 - Jason R.

To Michael P:

"Why do businesses move to larger cities?"

Do have a university degree in business or urban population studies, or anything? Because I do, and I can tell you that population density has nothing to do with a businesses choice of location. If a business owner tells you that they chose a location based on how many people lived there, they are most likely in retail, which pays MINIMUM WAGE (we don't need any more minimum wage jobs in Kelowna), and relies on a larger population base. How do I know, 5 years of post-secondary education relating to this question and 4 years of being in the lead student role bringing UBC to the Okanagan. I spoke to many business leaders over the last few years, and I can tell you without a doubt that the most common answer to when businesses will start locating to the Okanagan was "when the Okanagan has a better educated/trained population base to draw from." It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of people who live in the area.

The types of businesses that will be attracted to the 60,000 sq. feet of commercial space will not be small to mid-size companies. They will be large corporations that will put the small businesses surrounding them out of business, and will pay their employees no more than minimum wage. The business world is tough, look at the example of what Wal Mart does when it comes into a new town. If you want a local example, go ask Mara Lumber how much business they lost when Home Depot came to Kelowna, or the lumber/hardware store that used to be at the intersection of Hwy 33 and Hwy 97. The residents of Kelowna will end up subsidizing the start up for businesses in this builidng because of the high prices of starting up a new location within the city's Central Business District.

Also, the loss of Western Star was realized because it was much cheaper manufacturing wise for Frieghtliner, and that Portland has a much better educated/trained workforce to draw from.

[Administrator]

Oct 1, 2004 - Jason R.

I looked at the "different" renderings of the project. Still doesn't look like anything that I would support. Where would the Fintry Queen dock? Last I heard, the Fintry Queen was being given the option to still operate out that area, am I to assume that this icon of Kelowna is being pushed away in favour of this monstrosity? Why is there a big boardwalk being included in the development? How can a private owner legally contsruct a massive boardwalk for commercial purposes? Who owns the lake where this "big dock" will sit?

To Ryan A:

"What people against this project don't seem to understand is that kelowna is going to keep growing."

Let me inform you of something. Questions 11a and b of the 2004 Kelowna Citizens Survey conducted by the City:

Question 11a: "The population of Kelowna is currently 100,000. In the next 20 years, it is expected to reach 150,000. Do you feel this will influence your quality of life?"

75% of respondents said yes

Question 11b. "How would a larger population in Kelowna impact your quality of life?" This was an open-ended question.

86% of responses indicated a negative impact


We can prevent Kelowna from growing, and the results from the 2004 citizens survey do not lie. You are in a very small minority in Kelowna if you believe that we should allow more growth (to me, and many others, more growth includes the Lawson landing project) Is sprawl unacceptable? Yes, however we must not allow some densification projects to radically change the feel of our city. There are better ways to prevent urban sprawl which does not separate us from our most valuable resource. We all obviously feel very passionate about Kelowna to take the time to post these messages, but to not recognize any of the negative aspects that are involved in this project would be doing this beautiful city, and its residents a great deal of harm.

[Administrator]

Oct 2, 2004 - John Z. - CRCP

To Mike N. of Oct.2:

The survey that Jason referred to is taken from the Draft Strategic Plan. Just go to www.city.kelowna.bc.ca and check it out yourself.

[Administrator]

Oct 6, 2004 - Jason R.

Sebastian J.- read above about questionable language. your language clearly shows your lack of respect for businesses in Kelowna, never mind any respect for the English language with the colourful adjective you used to describe the Fintry Queen. WIth all due respect to Sandra and Sebastian, the Fintry Queen does more for this city in terms of its past, present and future than the both of you will ever contribute.

Sandra J.- I don't think you have been downtown lately, because it seems pretty alive to me. As for your comments on the Fintry Queen, I sure hope that they are fully opposed to the development proposal now.

When it comes to supporters, all of you still hide behind the veil of the internet. WHy don't any of you bother to go the media with an opponent of this project and discuss your views? oh yeah, you just want to criticize when others are willing to stick their neck out in public for something that they believe in. It's real easy to make negative comments about others, but you should keep your comments to yourself unless you are willing to put youself in the same position. If you really believed that this project is good, I still challenge anybody to come up with a stong argument. Still no answer about the public debate. Not surprised though, there are no credible arguments in favour of this project.

By the way, has anybody in the "yes" camp bothered to read the 2004 community results to see that in fact, you are the vocal minority here. please take the time to read it and save time for me by having to tell you that you are wrong.

[Administrator]

Oct 9, 2004 - John Z.

In response to Aaron W.:
People aren't opposed to highrises because they are "scared of the unknown" but because they are afraid that Kelowna will become like a multitude of other big cities like Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, etc., cities that they left because they have become ugly urban jungles. Kelowna is in a unique setting and therefore has a unique character, one that is worth preserving. If there is a fear component working here, it is fear of the KNOWN and it is very justified.

[Administrator]

Oct 20, 2004 - John Z. - CRCP

Hi Duane,

I've been wanting to respond to your personal attack of Oct.10 sooner but I've been very busy with community tasks. It was a pleasure to have met you in person last night (Oct. 19) at the public hearing on the Centuria project. There you told you that you have been living in Kelowna all your life (37 years) and it was the first time you've attending one of these meetings. Well, Duane, I think that its very sad that its taken you so long to get involved in the community. You're constantly sniping at me for having been here only 2 years but within those two years I've attending dozens of community meetings and have been a member of a half a dozen or more community groups. I wasn't in Kelowna for two weeks when I volunteered for the Adopt a Stream program to help clean up the creek bed of Mill Creek and convinced the public works department to put a trash receptical at a nearby bus stop so that people wouldn't litter the creek bed there (and its made a big difference!)You see,Duane, I don't think people should be judged by how long they have lived in a community but rather by their committment to the community and by their ideas. Having lived here for 37 years and having only gotten involved in community matters of late shows that your committment to Kelowna doesn't have very deep roots. And having heard you on the radio, I understand why you keep bringing up my tenure in Kelowna -- you are simply short on good ideas with which to counter mine so you have to resort to cheap shots. On another subject from your "editorial" (or more appropriately "personal attack") of Oct. 10, where you said you "have been" to several large cities in Canada and elsewhere and have satisfied your yearning for the big city experience, if you have lived in this area all your life then you couldn't have lived in one of those other cities but probably just went there on short trips or holidays. To me that doesn't qualify for having experienced big city life. I would strongly recommend that you spend six months in Edmonton or Calgary and maybe then you'll come back and appreciate Kelowna, the best city in the world, and the city that you so easily take for granted and want so badly to change to, well, something you really don't know since you've never lived anywhere else. All you do know is that you want to MoveKelownaForward but don't realize that its really an effort to just MoveKelownaTowardsMediocity. After you come back from your big city internship and spend a couple of years of community involvement here in Kelowna, let me know. Then maybe I'll take you a little more seriously.

John Zeger

[Administrator]

Nov 12, 2004 - John Z. - CRCP

In regards to Mr. Tresnich's "editorial" of Nov. 8, 2004, I vehemently deny that I submitted a petition to city council containing "addresses that did not exist." Regarding another statement by him that the petition contained names of "others that were not in the area," there was only one such signature from a lady who was visiting her mother in the neighbourhood and who insisted on signing the petition because she said she had lived in the neighbourhood most of her life. After initially discouraging her from signing, I finally relented. I have taken up the matter of these false statements with Mr.
Tresnich personally.

John Zeger

[Administrator]

Nov 15, 2004 - john z. - CRCP

Further to my posting of Nov. 12, I would like to invite readers to ask themselves if they attach any credibility to your statements, Mr. Tresnich, considering that you told the Daily Courier that you grew up in Winfield and then moved to Kelowna and you told me in front of several witnesses at the city council hearing that you have lived in Kelowna all of your life. It can't be both, can it? And in regards to what you refer to as my "contradictions," I think that they are only perceived contradictions on the part of yourself and your handful of supporters as you exercize narrow, dualistic thinking and see everything in terms of black or white. For example, if one is against highrises then one must be against all development, or if one is against highrises then one must be in favour of urban sprawl, or if one is against the uncontrolled growth that Kelowna is experiencing at present then one must be against all growth, and that if one acknowledges that there are ultimate environmental, infrastructural, and social limits to growth then one must be an advocate of stopping growth immediately or even some time in the past. I am sorry, Mr. Tresnich, that you cannot comprehend anything but extremes in any argument but the truth of this is apparent in the extreme position that you have taken being an uncritical advocate of any kind of development. As a result you have become nothing more than a "shill" for developers, as one columnist put it, and the mayor's naive and willing pawn.

John Zeger

[Suzanne P]

Fistly, I am amazed of the City of Kelowna constantly rezoning property land to accomodate everybody. You buy a lot knowing it is intended for residential one storey house, but then you plan to build a two or three storeys house. No problem, you just go see the City and make an application to rezone to fit your desires and then you get people rallied up to get want you want if there is opposition. I know it is not quite like that but sometimes it sure looks and sounds like that.

Rezoning now to accomodate Lawson Landing when all the rezoning and rethinking of the waterfront was done for The Grand seems pretty weird to me. What kind of long term planning is the City doing if there is already a need to rethink it all (not even 10 years later???) Would The Grand not want to be 28 storeys also?

Lawson Landing in itself is not bad but I still believe that:

(1) the new bridge and its access will encroach already on the beach portion at the other end;
(2) four towers higher than The Grand is not the way to go (let's block everybody else's view in the process);
(3) encroaching on the existing green area and the water itself is not the way to go (even more so if it is going to be the boardwalk like The Grand (at least The Grand has green space at the end of the boardwalk);
(4) creating even more marina space on the water in front of the City Hall of all places (with the water looking the way it is now) is not the way to go;
(5) does anybody know how many boat spaces go with all these new residents near the lake (and I am not talking about only the residents of Lawson Landing how about those of the Icon building, the Loft, etc.);
(6) stating that the pier will be used by all residents (free and unrestricted access) is not a thing to say if it is not really true. Is it? The owners of the big boats won't mind?

Everybody makes it sound like Lawson Landing is the only project of its kind that will ever pop up in Kelowna. Be real, this is only the beginning. Each building facing the water will be bought and they will all be built higher and each of them will want the trees down not to block their view and all of them will want to have docks for their resident's boats, etc. What will be left for the tourists to see and the actual and futures residents to enjoy?

Growing is part of life but it does not have to be only Lawson Landing's way. How about lower towers like the Grand and why can't they be located exactly where the actual buildings are. Why the need to go forward and encroach on the park and the lake?

Tourists are great and essential to have in a City but please do not forget space for the actual residents and tax payers. We are looking to double the amount of residents of Kelowna. Green space and free and unrestricted access to the beach and the lake is a must. This is why everybody moves here to Kelowna.

Let's not make only the rich be able to see and enjoy this Lake and its beaches.

This goes also for the Mission area. Let's keep as much beach space as we can. The population moving here to enjoy the beach and the lake is growing and there is no way that there is enough beach for all of us in the future.

[guest]

You folks say in your new top page that you are in favour of affordable housing yet you support Lawson Landing which is high-end luxury condos with no affordable housing at all. Your group has never supported an affordable housing project or was critical of the lack of affordable housing in the city. It seems to me that many of your claims are hypocritical b.s. and that your group just supports tons of concrete being poured over all available open space. No one should take you seriously as you are a waste of cyberspace.

[Administrator]

Quote from Guest:

"History will judge you for the juvenile louts and criminals that you truly are.

I seriously doubt that "movingthebankaccountsofdevelopersforward" will leave this message for long at this discussion site. But, if that does happen, in a feeble attempt to appear "open-minded," then I predict that the responses from your group will be the same sort of prepubescent pap I've already seen here."

No comment needed on that ;D

Also, I would like to point out that Mr. Zeger HAS deleted posts on his forum in an effort to censor comments - something of which we do not do here as we value the freedom of speech - the good AND the bad.

[Rick Shea]

What Mr. Zeger deleted were apparently offensive personal attacks, but, as usual, you (like the rest of your group) are twisting that around. Your post just above this only reinforces what the guest said about your group.

I invite everone here to come and have a real discussion about the issues at the C.R.C.P.'s website, but only if you're prepared to truly discuss things, in an open, honest, and meaningful manner.

See you this evening.

[Tony D]

As quoted above by a guest:

"You folks say in your new top page that you are in favour of affordable housing yet you support Lawson Landing which is high-end luxury condos with no affordable housing at all. Your group has never supported an affordable housing project or was critical of the lack of affordable housing in the city. It seems to me that many of your claims are hypocritical b.s. and that your group just supports tons of concrete being poured over all available open space. No one should take you seriously as you are a waste of cyberspace."

Firstly, this guest obviously have no personality skills as s/he has jumped right in, without registering, to state negativity. Due to that, I'm going to simply ignore the simple-handed comments. As for supporting affordable housing, we were in favour of Centuria, which has an affordable housing component. Now as for Lawson Landing, nothing is final and written in stone about whether affordable housing will be available there or not. If affordable housing becomes a component of Lawson Landing, great. If not, developers still have the right to build a luxury-style complex without affordable housing. Not every building in town is going to comply to affordable housing.

And as for the second posting by another guest (or possibly the same one), s/he rambles on about favouring the CRCP and lamblasting us for our views and then says s/he won't be back. That's fine - we don't need irresponsible people like this coming into this forum and firing immature comments. It's people like this that give the citizens of Kelowna that wish to communicate about ideas properly a bad name. People have tried to communicate on the CRCP site just to have all their posts erased and their accounts deleted. We are not "appearing (to be) open-minded". We ARE open-minded. It's the closed-minded people like you that we appreciate leaving.