Relevant pages:
Some additional information:
During my term as Mayor Coldstream Council was approached by a resident of Cosens Bay requesting that Council of the time annex the Cosens Bay community. Considering the consequences (provision of services such as sewer, water transportation, fire protection, etc) Council respectfully declined the request.
While the residents would have had huge economic benefit the services would have had to be provided through a 4.5 km parkland that would provide no revenues for supporting such services. That would put an enormous drain on Coldstream taxpayers. In my opinion, there would also be a lot of opposition from people who consider this park a gem for the entire region, indeed for the entire Province of British Columbia.
******************************************************************
34 comments:
Could someone please comment on the original terms of sale of all of these lots? In my over twenty years of residency here, I remember many of these lots being advertised for sale. All were sold to my knowledge as "water access only" with no terms for the provision of services. As such, they were priced far below comparable lakeshore properties. If these terms were acceptable to the buyer at the time of purchase, they should be acceptable now. Anything else is a slap in the face to those who purchased and have paid huge property taxes on serviced lakeshore lots. Not to mention the incredible degradation to the park from the constant traffic on a road that never should have been provided in the first place. IMO
I agree with Anonymous. What is going on here? Cheers Shawn Lee
I completely agree with Anonymous. In fact they only reason these properties are not still water access only is due to the stunning stupidity of a local judge who couldn't read. If anything we should be working to keep things as tight as possible to protect our park. The concept of "responsible and respectful" development is in there for comic relief, right? LJ Lewis, Coldstream
I'm with anonymous 1:06.
As I commented previously, the "cabins" should be grandfathered out, as they were in Okanagan Mountain Park.
Groups wishing to access the park and beyond, should be shuttled in by permit.
The park is fragile, and much has been lost post-Klim-lock-cutting which precipitated the legal action.
The flurry of development brought noisy, fast traffic which has greatly detracted from the serenity of the park, and wildlife viewing opportunities.
Signed,
Protect the Park!
Clever cabin owners used stealth to takeover our park. Their hubris may yet give it back to us.
Signed,
Protect the Park!
btw No one else magically gets to change the terms of
sale on their property...follow the money...see who's been enriched.
Development in Cosens Bay is not in the interest of the greater community. A defaced park will not attract tourist dollars. Furthermore, the park has value as a biological resource, for universities, scientists, botanists etc...
Signed,
Protect the Park.
I agree with all of the above. What is really difficult to fathom is how on one hand a large number of people wish to see the development of a "rail trail" on the west side of the lake which will undoubtedly provide economic benefit to an already developed corridor ( and I don't hear the province offering support?), and MOT is proposing spending significant money on a road to service less than 100 people, largely seasonal residents, that is unwanted by most of the greater community and damaging to this beautiful park. I want this stopped in the bud stage!
Te park is gradually being picked away at. What was supposed to be wild is now more of an urban highway with cars and bikes.
Hope Council stands firm on this.
I wonder what the "Rail Initiative" people think about this lunacy, as they try to get provincial financial backing for a really meaningful transportation project.
Anon 5:18, sorry, but this is not in the "bud stage".
The game is on, but is the fix in?
In 2003, interested Cosens Bay property buyers asked me for directions to the cabins; they told me the seller (an "industrious" colony snake charmer, museum "researcher" and agenda pusher), told them that they met with a politician about having services put in, earlier that day.
A lesser politician of late, was said to be fond of the idea of marina at the cabins. Who knows what other special interests would salivate and rub their grasping hands together in glee, if the park is PAVED.
I object to having my tax dollars support this proposed self-enriching boondoggle.
If the park is destroyed by enabling faster traffic and we are deluged by summer traffic to Cosens Bay, our quality of life in Coldstream will be diminished.
Meanwhile, the "colonists", can simply drive past the great unwashed to get to their own piece of Eden and private waterfront.
I say phooey!
Why are the owners of seasonal cabins getting this bonanza?
Is the excuse to protect the water quality of the lake, at the expense of the park? Very clever long game strategy. When a marina is put down there, how will water quality improve?
We don't need the wisdom of Solomon, we just need the cabin owners to work within the parameters of the sales agreement they signed upon purchase.
There are some monster "cabins" built and being built out there that are taking away from the natural beauty of the park and lake. I can't believe the construction that you see there if you go by boat along that shore. I have always asked myself how this could happen in a provincial park and I certainly don't agree with expanding this building onslaught any further. The taxpayers of Coldstream will shoulder the burden and some very lucky "mostly Albertans" will reap huge financial rewards as these monster summer cabins will know become viable year round lakeside houses that will be worth a fortune! All the smaller cabin owners that have been there for years will be ripping down and rebuilding new lakeside permanent residences at a fraction of the lot cost of others who live on the lake. I can see why the cabin owners are pushing for these upgrades at the parks expense .....GREED!
As one of the owners of the only property out in Cosens Bay being big enough to house a marina,Kal Park Estates, I can assure those that are worried about a marina that we have no plans for such a venture. This is fear mongering at its best. In regards to access and the park, access preceded the park and when the park was developed the rights of the owners were ignored. Parks did not formally acknowledge this access despite its existence. However, informally, they allowed access to owners through the use of a gate and key when Parks purchased the property. This continued through the 70's and 80's until they decided to unceremoniously lock the gate and deny owners access. As far as water access only, I have not seen any such designation on our property title nor any of my neighbors. The courts agreed that this access existed since early 1900s and forced the parks to acknowledge our access rights that were illegally taken from us. We are the victims of government abuse not the perpetrators of wrong doing to the park.
Blog author...do not censor me...Please stop the scare mongering. a safe road benefits everyone who uses the park, including cyclists, hikers, horseback riders, etc.--It is absurd to think that anyone wants a paved road or to see a 30 meter roadway through the park. This is pure misinformation. For Mr. McClean to jump to the conclusions that "there will be a paved road through there" is ludicrous. Other than safety issues for ALL members of the public who use the park, ie hikers, bikers, rock climbers, horse riders we do not wish to see a 30 meter paved road.
Safety affects everyone, not just the residents of the two subdivisions. We understand the sensitive nature of the road through the park and other than better ongoing maintenance and improved safety conditions, we do not wish to see anything further. The 30 meters is simply designed to accommodate PUBLIC SAFETY and right of way for services such as hydro. BY THE WAY THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT "WATER ACCESS ONLY" CHECK YOUR FACTS, AND...MANY OF THE OMES HAVE BEEN BUILT TO STRICT R-1 BUILDING CODE STANDARDS (They are not "cabins".
@non 11:20
Ya, right, and we never thought our park would face a proposal to bisect it. Since none of us is immortal or if circumstances change, there is no way to say what others will do with our land once we have left it.
btw Why were your properties not priced and taxed accordingly if you shared all the privileges and restrictions placed on the rest of us?
Local knowledge suggests that cabin access via the road was customary and at the pleasure of the ranch.
Furthermore, old timers remember when logs had to be unloaded into the water at Cosens Bay because there was no through road.
Your self interest is breathtaking and not community minded. Bubble thinking does not built healthy communities.
I want our grandchildren to have the same experience of this magical, although compromised park as we were fortunate to enjoy.
No one is being censored since you are all entitled to your opinion. However, when it comes to checking facts you should be first in line. Read the newer post with reference to water access only. Also, the zoning of most the lots is R6 - Seasonal Recreation, not R1.
As far as park safety, as a woman I am completely uncomfortable walking the isolated high trail. I have never felt unsafe on the road, and I'm just flesh and blood, not an SUV. Although much of the traffic fails to observe the posted speed through the park I have enough wits about me to move off to the side.
Thank you Gyula for giving a voice to ordinary citizens for whom the experience of nature is largely enjoyed locally. Not everyone can afford nature trips outside of our community, or waterfront for that matter.
I can't imagine other communities tolerating the takeover of their public places the way we have been expected to.
No one would ever imagine widening the road through Stanley Park even though traffic in Vancouver is horrendous and one could argue there is a need.
Progressive communities are finding ways to minimize vehicular traffic and encourage green modes of transportation. The proposal to enable the "safer"passage of vehicles through the park is anachronistic and unnecessary. We have evolved past this slavery to vehicles at the expense of the environment...have we not?
Hello fellow anonymous,
Well, there is a lot of misinformation floating around. I could give many examples of where the "old timers" talk about driving down into Cosens Bay to the lake in the 40's or how the sheriff for Vernon used to live out at Cosens Bay at the beginning of the 1900s, etc.
But what ever hearsay you or I cite, it is really irrelevant. A judge and 3 appeals judges found the property owners were entitled to access based on the evidence, including MOT and Forestry reports showing significant expenditures on that road into the 60's, as well as, Coldstream Ranch minutes (over 60 years old) discussing the condition of the road within the subdivision as at least 20 feet wide, ditched and graveled.
Do you think the developer did this for property that was water access only?
There are two properties totally over 100 acres that have no water access.
Do you propose that they fly into their property?
Lets just be reasonable and acknowledge that many Class A parks have roads through them. Why should we, as property owners, be punished?
Would you like it if your neighborhood access was illegally taken from you?
The Coldstream ranch bought the property consisting of what is now the Park, but they did not buy the access to the properties beyond. The fact that these properties allowed Coldstream to put a gate on the access was a courtesy and locking of this gate was restricted to extreme fire seasons (owners were given keys but access was denied the public).
As far as the R1 vs R6...this was a designation changed in the 1970s when NORD was established. We have not been able to determine why this designation was changed except to say that we believe it was probably done as a result of the illegal designation of the road or lack of designation...which ever you like. We even have a letter from one director of Parks to another stating that if "we control the access, we control the value"...this was stated just below the heading "Cosens Bay Properties". We believe the government has purposefully been targeting these properties and restricting access in order to keep values low so that it could be acquired at a low cost at a later date. The 1970's Hansard reports confirm that the MLAs at the time were interested in converting all the land in that area to park.
Messing with property rights and values is illegal and amoral....putting the government (you and me) on the hook for liable. Not to mention that if we are willing to support of even stand by such abuse by our government, we have no one to blame when they come for us (you and me).
I have friends on the west side who own several hectares not accessed by road.
Suppliers to the old colony used to bring their propane stoves etc to the cabins by boat.
Developers can spin all they want. The bottom line is the common good is undermined by pandering to special interests.
"...we have no one to blame when they come for us (you and me)"
In 1946 Martin Niemöller wrote these words:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
Aligning yourself with victims of diabolical attrocities is shameless hyperbole and not worthy of further comment.
Fact clarifications.
If you look at what is required to be classified as water access only you would see that it does not apply to these properties and is not on most of the titles for the property owners.
Second point is seasonal does not indicate what season. There are 4 seasons. It just means they can live there for only 180 days a year.
Third: The taxes there and anywhere are based on property value of which this area pays very high taxes for no services.
Fourth point is the road around Stanley Park was built to standard and is safe to travel. This one is not built properly.
Fifth: The public road existed before the park and the courts agreed that it could not be closed by Parks.
5a) No public road can be purchased in a land purchase so Parks could never have purchased the lands of the road.
As for quotes Winston Churchill" The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
We are all entitled to opinions but none of us are entitled to breaking the law including Coldstream Council.
On another note for the person said this was on the hush hush. It has been posted on the parks website since the application went in. Parks and MOTI have been discussing it for over a year to address issue they both have. Why was Coldstream not informed. News flash the road is not in the District of Coldstream and it does not effect them. No conspiracy. RDNO was informed. The District of Coldstream gave up the right to have a say when they removed the road from their district.
As a second generation owner of property out at Cosens Bay, I am sure that I do not belong to a special interest group or am an individual deserving of revocation of my rights (at least not more than any of you). Between my cousins, aunts/uncles, mother/father and childhood friends, we own 9 lots out of just over 100. That's close to 10% who just want to enjoy our property and have reasonable road access without engaging in a constant battle for our rights in the courts. I am not rich or privileged, I have made sacrifices to own a lake lot. It is hurtful and demoralizing when some people who refuse to argue facts resort to personal attacks, fear mongering and unsubstantiated presumptions. It saddens me that some think that it is ok to steal our access or kick us off the land we have fought to keep in what is their perception of common interest. Personally, I think common interest would be to give better access too all. I am disabled and could not hike into the beach...what about elderly and young children.
Anonymous 7:05
There are many places on this planet that I could only access if it was developed, but then if it was developed, I would be destroying the very thing I desired.
If my being in the park damaged it, then out of my love for the place, I wouldn't want it devalued to accommodate me.
My partner and I have limited mobility, we enjoyed the wild places we visited when we were fit, and are happy to know other generations will have that experience.
There is a season for all things, and there are higher values to consider.
Thirty years ago we left our ocean community because of the beauty and wonder of Kal Park. We were fools.
Good fortune visited the colony when they were granted unfettered access. Many hearts were broken to see the volume of traffic through the park. We adjusted after mourning the former wonders of a quiet park.
Now we are told that there is a proposal to further diminish the the park. My heart is aching.
Posted on "Proposal to split up Kalamalka Lake Park!":
9:09 July 18 says:
"The sensative environment near the park entrance is knapweed and tumbleweed..."
Look a little harder, beyond the shoulder, there are Nootka Roses, Red Hawthorns, Ocean Spray, Thread Leaved Phacelia, Tall Oregon Grape, Chokecherry...all documented in "A Guide to the Natural History of Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park" 1996 Wayside Press.
In the introduction they state that the park is "possibly unique in British Columbia in the degree to which it preserves an ecological whole. Owing to its markedly east-west topography it includes an extraordinary variety of habitats which together represent the southern interior in microcosm."
Further human hard-scapes will violate the spirit of the "wild" and have no place in the majestic Cosens Bay valley.
"We have agreed not to drive our automobiles into cathedrals, concert halls, art museums, legislative assemblies, private bedrooms and the other sanctums of our culture: we should treat our national parks with the same deference, for they, too, are holy places".
Edward Abbey in "Wilderness Ethics: Preserving the Spirit of Wildness" Laura and Guy Waterman, p 31.
I am a rock climber and I use Cosens Bay Road to access Cougar Canyon all the time. Cougar Canyon has some world class climbing and is a hidden gem. BC Parks has just expanded the cougar canyon parking lot 4 km from the park gate last fall and it has been full many many times this year. The road has improved over the years, the dust suppression is great, but it isnt so great meeting an RV or a Propane truck, and in some spots just a pickup. The road isnt that wide and many times I have had to stop or backup to get past. Definitely a wider road will benefit everyone that uses the park. I support MOT's intiative to make the road wider, it will be safer for me and fellow climbers.
The climbers have been useful to the Colonists.
You could live lighter on the land, you could shuttle in. You have to stop for an RV or Propane truck? I have lost track of the time I have had to step aside and breathe dust.
You would destroy one habit so you can indulge your passion in another? Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Kalamalka Lake Park is my sacred space and you would defile it. Shame on you, you get world class, and we get 3rd class.
I'd be careful, your hidden gem may end up as Coney Island in the distant future; but hey, you're getting what you want now.
Rock climber, when was your dangerous incident on the road? Did you report it to the police?
Oh, I thought not.
My Girlfriend and I were leaving the park after hiking in Cougar Canyon area and as we started down the steep hill another vehicle was coming up. We pulled over and stopped to let them by and the other vehicle proceeded and also moved closer to the edge of the road to leave room between our vehicles. Much to everyones surprise the roads edge gave way and the next thing you knew they had two tires over the edge. The people in the back seat jumped out of the vehicle in a panic and had we continued driving instead of stopping to let them by might have been hit by our car.
1:55, what steep hill? Did you report it?
Recently we were driving on Mabel Lake Road, Shuswap River Road (and the bit that goes down to the Mabel Lake Hall) and Creighton Valley Road, both roads had stretches that are eroding. This problem is not unique.
It sounds like too many fast moving vehicles are the problem; faster, city style drivers are the antithesis of slow and steady nature. You know, nature, that thing that you drive to so you can experience?
The green thing to do would be to have a ride-share --save carbon based fuels and pressure on the road and park.
I find it curious that the stretch of Cosens Bay Road from Coldstream Creek Rd. to the parking lot accommodates far more vehicles and I have never heard reports of dangerous incidents involving vehicles.
Yo rock climbers, you all could walk (that thing you do with your feet and forward motion) into the areas that you want to ex cerise in by rock climbing. It would be safer and better for the planet, since you obviously love nature anyways...or so you say...
8:15 Yes I did report it to MOTI and there are many places in this district that have issues. They point you make about the road from Coldstream creek corner to the park is making the point. That section of the road is constructed properly and is a proper width. That being said drive Kidston road to the Elite section of the park. You do not have to drive through a parking lot to continue down the road. You can get out of your car without having cars drive by. Have you ever seen how difficult it is for the horse back riders to load and unload safely. Do you not think that the people who use this side of the park deserve as well constructed parking lot and road as those that use the Kidston side. Or all the beautiful paths for biking and walking on the Kidston side that are newly constructed and almost as wide as the road in some spots. The walkers are ok with paths that were constructed in the same park for them to walk and ride on but they are not ok with the road meeting Parks guidelines for a road. The hypocrisy is crazy. Many Provincial and Federal Parks have Public roads through them. This park is very large and has a lot to offer in other areas that are very far away from the Parking lots. And obviously many people wanting to use it for different activities. Too bad so many people think theirs is the only way. Try to think outside yourselves for a bit. If Parks were not meant to have roads then why would they have guidelines for them?. Why would the original plans for the park have had Cosens Bay road as a 20 ft wide paved road down to Cosens Bay beach. That is right. Parks original plan was for the road to be 20ft wide and paved. Even if this was just a gravelled 20 ft wide road that was never closed, so much tax payers money would have been saved. But no a few owners on Kidston road side put in plans that had the primary beaches and great parking lots that do not disrupt traffic close to their houses so they would benefit and lets keep the rest of the park natural. Such hypocrites. Oh they even recommended removing the Transportation power lines. Something that would have cost the government Millions of tax payers money. Parks listened to these people and illegally closed the road again wasting tax payers money on court cases. If Parks had stuck to the original plan the dust and weed spreading issues that they have may not have ever happened.
Complicated world we live in.
9:47
There is no hypocrisy in trying to maintain the integrity of what is left of our finite grasslands. Grassland habitat across the province is under threat.
All proposed "upgrades" are for the pleasure of a few.
Follow the money.
The tail is wagging the dog. Reminds me of the Harvey regime, in which there was radio silence re questionable activities.
Calling on investigative journalists to uncover why a park road has a greater priority than a heavily travelled road like Silver Star.
Again, why is the tail allowed to wag the dog?
Post a Comment