Last Wednesday, directors unanimously agreed not to forward an application from a BX resident to the Agricultural Land Commission to use his land for a seniors care home. Staff indicated that property in the Agricultural Land Reserve is not on the table for conversion to other uses, and that concept was hardly challenged by the politicians.
But on the other side of Aberdeen Road from the NORD office is 118 acres of prime farm land many of the same politicians want to purchase and turn 60 acres into a sports complex.
NORD directors may suggest the situations are completely different. That the BX property would be permanently removed from the ALR while the Aberdeen Road site would remain within the land freeze, just the use would change. But that’s just smoke and mirrors because once millions of dollars are invested in sports fields, farming is gone forever.
NORD may also make the argument that it is in the interest of the entire community to have sports fields for recreational, social and economic purposes. But with our aging population, wouldn’t a seniors care home also serve the public’s interest?
I am not going to comment on whether the Aberdeen Road site should be converted into sports fields. But certainly the directors should realize the argument to do so is undermined when they are not willing to follow the same rules they forces on to others, or the recommendations of their own planning staff.
Contradiction, though, isn’t just reserved for those sitting at the NORD board.
Opponents to the Aberdeen Road sports complex have stated the location is poor because it will force people to drive there, creating traffic problems and pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Their alternative — a chunk of property just south of the Greater Vernon landfill on Highway 97. With this site being halfway to Oyama, everyone would have to drive there, creating traffic headaches in their gas-guzzling, environmentally reckless automobiles.
At least with the Aberdeen Road property, it would be within walking and bicycling distance for many Coldstream residents, as well as some from Vernon.
I am all for looking at other potential options for a sports complex, but they actually have to have some merit.
Keeping with the same subject, the Coldstream Ratepayers Association is right to demand some financial costs for the proposed complex.
How can the public actually determine if that site and the proposed design are worth supporting if they don’t have a sense of the long-term financial implications?
The Greater Vernon Services Committee — an arm of NORD — states that providing a cost now is useless because the scope of the project could change. And that may be true, but a ballpark figure would be better than nothing. GVSC must remember that taxpayers from Coldstream, Vernon and Areas B and C would be paying for the land purchase and any improvements, so they have a right to know how hard they could be hit in the wallet.
And finally I found recent comments from Jim Garlick, a Coldstream councillor, surprising and somewhat troubling.
Wanting the Dec. 15 referendum in Coldstream to fail, Garlick said, “If we go ahead with this, I see no use in being there (on council) anymore.” That sounds like the kid, who not liking how the game is going, storms off the field with his ball.
Was Garlick elected to represent all of Coldstream or just those he agrees with? Is he saying he knows better than the electorate?
**********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment