The Greater Vernon Advocates Committee is a newly formed union of 20 members in Coldstream. They have come together in opposition to the proposed sports complex on Aberdeen Road.
“One of the main purposes of our group is we’re trying to get out the facts, by ad, brochure, website, signs and word of mouth,” said member Terri Jones, adding that the committee is divided into sub-committees focusing on aspects such as costs, farm land issues, due process, research, demographics and sports tourism.
They have a wealth of information, theories and concerns which they hope to share with residents prior to Coldstream’s Dec. 15 referendum.
All of them agree that parks are great, but that what is being proposed is not suitable for the location – 118 acres of agricultural land which the Coldstream Ranch is prepared to sell to Greater Vernon Services Committee for the project.
“All kinds of people are taking an interest in it because there’s all kinds of issues that arise,” said Richard Enns.
Members question the need for the complex, which proposes fields for soccer, slo-pitch, football, rugby, baseball and dog agility.
Referencing the 2004 Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Denise Berlinski points out that there are already 34 ball diamonds and 51 sports fields.
“In their own words we have a very high supply of softball diamonds and baseball,” said Berlinski, adding that the report shows these numbers are high compared to other B.C. communities.
Greg Ockert wonders if they’ll ever even be a future need with an aging population and demographics showing that schools are facing declining enrolment numbers.
“Plus, the people who come to this area now are not youthful, they’re older people,” said Ockert. “We have enough fields, we’re going to have a lot of under-utilized greenspaces for decades.”
Since the parks master plan says that many school fields are in poor condition, Ockert suggests efforts instead be put into revamping these spaces.
“You want a football field – Fulton. You want a track – VSS.”
Kelly Tymkiw agrees and says she’d rather see her kids walking or biking to schools, where most of their sporting activities already take place.
“As a parent, for me that’s important.”
These factors have led Jones and the others to believe that this project is all for sports tourism. The proposed project could host a number of tournaments and events but Jones says without hotels and restaurants nearby, this is not the place for it.
“You do not put sports tourism in the middle of an agricultural field, in the middle of an agricultural community.”
Another concern is what this complex could do to the agricultural land, which according to the Canada Department of Agriculture, is class two land (class one being the best).
“This field can grow almost anything,” said Berlinski, citing a list of produce. Plus, she adds, the land has a long season with 150 frost-free days per year (which is considered a high number).
“If we keep diminishing the agricultural land we hurt an economic engine in this community,” said Enns. “Every time you take away a piece of property you diminish that.”
Not only does the group have concerns about how the agricultural capability of the land could be impacted if developed with fields and facilities, but what the potential of a land-use change for the project could mean in the future.
“The real risk now is if it goes to non-farm use, it means they could build houses,” said Maria Besso, pointing to the non-farm use designation Coldstream Meadows was granted, which now houses a seniors’ facility.
Another concern the group has is how the general public was left out of the planning process for this project.
“Our mayor must have been aware of it because he’s the chairman of GVSC, but nobody in Coldstream heard about it,” said Gyula Kiss, who is a member of this new group as well as the Coldstream Ratepayers’ Association.
“It’s the whole cart before the horse – they haven’t asked: do we want to head in that direction?” adds Berlinski.
Along with being left out of initial planning, the committee doesn’t understand how the public can support a project with no firm details or costs associated.
“It’s completely backwards,” said Jones.
Mark Korral has come up with his own cost theory, after looking into building and servicing costs.
He says a rough $8 million figure was presented by GVSC at a Sept. 11 meeting, but did not include site servicing or landscaping.
“I would say (the actual cost would be) double or more of this figure they’ve put out there and that’s very conservative,” said Korral, adding: “we’re all guessing because the project’s a moving target.”
For more information about the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee visit their website: www.complexfacts.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment