Letter: Room for development on east side of Abbott

Why is it that the local daily newspaper’s editors and reporters forever expound so favourably on questionable decisions by our council while often representing the public as more-or-less a smallish crowd of radicals going off the deep end?

To the editor:

Why is it that the local daily newspaper’s editors and reporters forever expound so favourably on questionable decisions by our council while often representing the public as more-or-less a smallish crowd of radicals going off the deep end?

They are in fact, in great part, very knowledgable and concerned residents and would prefer to work with a more thoughtful council.

The facts are:

1. As was stated at the time of purchase, the properties were accumulated for a future lakefront park. Over time the city has received rentals from houses on those properties.

2. The 55 per cent parkland they now expound on is not all on the subject property but simply touted as such by adding the end of Cedar Avenue as a part—and “greening” it up. Remove Cedar Avenue and that claim doesn’t add up.

3. With water tables considered, the actuality of the construction envisaged on the city’s plan could be uncertain as building heights and square footage depend on a developer’s margin of profit.

4. Many more of the public were represented by neighbourhood associations across the city, including Glenmore, Downtown, Rutland and the Mission. Their validity was questioned by council.

5. Many who attended felt a certain belligerence from a council who seemed not too happy to be there but rather set on promoting this elaborate, and to us totally unacceptable, plan.

6. Walkways along the lakeside are a great idea where there is not an alternative—this is not the case here.

7. The meeting opened with over an hour of glitzy promotion of the city’s proposal. In fact, all of the glorious proposals expounded can be met simply by locating such development on the east side of Abbott. There is room there for independent developers to do much the same thing and through development cost charges and taxes with such an idyllic situation of park and panorama, the city would considerably recoup its expenditure.

8. The population continues to expand. Lakefront does not. Buying replacement lands become more and more difficult.

This property needs to be rezoned from residential or CD9, to parkland in perpetuity, as was the original intent.

 

J.L. Lambrick, Kelowna

 

 

Kelowna Capital News