Coldstream voters will be heading to the polls sooner than expected.
Despite suggestions that a referendum be held in conjunction with the November 2008 election, the district will be seeking the opinion of residents Dec. 15, 2007.
Residents will be asked if they support council submitting an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use at 9325 Aberdeen Road, for the purpose of a park/sports field.
The 188-acre Coldstream Ranch lands, commonly known as the Spicer Block, are proposed to be partially developed with a sports complex. The 60-acre footprint includes: parking for 1,000 vehicles, four dog agility fields, two baseball fields for ages five to nine, a soccer/rugby field, one football/rugby/ultimate field, four soccer pitches (two with lights), six slo-pitch/fastball fields (two with lights) and a lit stadium with a track and football field plus room for a banquet hall, storage, offices, washrooms, change rooms and bleachers.
While these details are not written in stone, they are about the only pieces of information residents are being given about the project.
Officials are not releasing cost estimates of the project, and that has several voters up in arms.
“What informed consumer considers buying any item without first knowing the cost?” questioned resident Joyce Gershony at Monday’s council meeting.
Another voter, Richard Enns, added: “If we don’t have the information we can’t give you a valid answer on the referendum.”
Several residents also raised their disgust with the project even going forward to referendum.
One resident was so outraged by the process that he stormed out of council chambers cursing.
“If this was passed at the Coldstream meeting and I came to you with a 1,000-signature petition, would you change your mind? Of course not,” said Hegler.
Malerby defends her position, saying she felt she owed 686 Coldstream residents a voice.
Council also debated the wording of the referendum question, which originally stated that this is a proposal for change of use, not removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Coun. Bill Firman said essentially there is no difference, referring to the Coldstream Meadows application, which was still able to develop with non-farm use status, but just had conditions.
“You’re trying to pretend that non ALR use is any less intrusive than removing land from the ALR,” said Firman. “You’re saying ‘don’t worry about this, this is not a drastic event.’”
Coun. Jim Garlick, agreed.
“There’s no way that land will go back to agricultural use. You’re playing with words and if you’re going to play games that’s silly. Don’t do it,” said Garlick.
“Because people don’t think too much anyway.”
The Dec. 15 referendum date was set according to the Community Charter and Local Government Act, which states that a date must be set for other voting opportunities within 80 days of the resolution being passed by council.
The decision to hold a referendum was passed at council’s Oct. 9 meeting, after Coun. Glen Taylor pushed those against the project to reconsider and look at the number of local residents for the project.
A referendum costs anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000.
*********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment