Saturday, September 22, 2007

Special Council meeting -- in-camera!

There seems to be an ever increasing number of in-camera meetings. Why do our representatives think that everything concerning the rest of us must be debated in secrecy?

Coldstream Council’s latest Special In-Camera meeting is declared to be pursuant to Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter. This Section states the following:

“90(1)(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;”

It is reasonable to believe that the issues to be discussed are related to Greater Vernon Services (GVS). GVS is in a state of great upheaval. Area directors (B and C) wish to withdraw from Economic Development and Parks. The City of Vernon and Coldstream want to withdraw from bulk water. The area Directors question the Governance related to GVS. The house of cards that Jack built is crumbling.

Should we not know about what is happening? Why is it a great secret? It is our future and our money with which they are playing!

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Fire near the sanitary landfill site.

Saturday morning a fire broke out just below the sanitary landfill site. This photo shows the extent of the fire as seen from Coldstream.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Thank you Coldstream Council!

The debate is over. The majority of Coldstream Council supported the majority of Coldstream residents’ wishes. They declined to support GVSC’s application to locate the Sports Complex on prime agricultural land. We are proud that our Councillors stood their ground despite the tremendous intimidation effort put on by the sports lobby. We must resolve problems through logical, informed debate and by following due process. This issue lacked due process and grass root public input. The decision of Council was the right one.

The poll question “Should Council support change of use of prime agricultural land?” was an unscientific effort to gauge Coldstream residents’ desires. It received a total of 59 votes: 12 (20%) for and 47 (80%) against. It roughly agreed with residents expressed desire during the last OCP review to retain our agricultural land in agricultural use.

Residents who responded by attending two meetings within a week to support their Council should be proud of their efforts. The executive of the Coldstream Rate payers Association thank you.

Gyula Kiss

Readers Write -- Coldstream Council

Thank you for your wise decision. We seem to be in an era when the concepts of 'make-do' and 'live within your means' are brushed aside.

I was very interested to hear that DND is committed to the park space and that the annual renewal is a formality that can only be changed by an order of Parliament. The stipulation that no beer garden can take place during the six weeks of cadet camp is so minor. The objections to Polson Park are also interesting: i.e., field too short, washrooms unsafe, homeless people in the grandstand, needles on the field. How about lengthening the field and rebuilding the grandstand? How about applying Smart Growth principles to that neighbourhood and getting people living down there with their 'eyes on the street' and solving the homeless problem? Obviously, GVSC must now go back and rethink.

Also thank you for the larger vision of preservation of foodlands and green space. Coldstream is fragmented already and a decision to take out from the ALR 118 acres of prime farmland would have set a precedent. An idea that I have heard is preserving the Coldstream Ranch as a World Heritage Park--an idea well worth pursuing. It is well known that farmers and ranchers can chose not to farm or not to utilize the land to its full agricultural potential and thereby begin the process of urban development (a sports complex is an urban development).

Kay Stamboulieh

Readers Write.

Glenn Mitchell, Managing Editor Morning Star, last Sunday

  1. The site would remain, well largely green… not according to preliminary development plan.

  2. and always has been used in recent memory, for cow food. Site is intensely cropped and irrigated, produces enough forage for about 130 cow/calf units for a year.

  3. you know, those beasts that spew methane…as does Mr. Mitchell and the rest of all living creatures (at most organisms bigger than an amoeba).

  4. the Coldstream Ranch,…obviously has calculated that they can afford to forgo the hay field…New owners have apparently said they are not interested in consolidation of parcels, who know their intentions and why are they interested in selling this prime hayfield?

A Few Additional Thoughts on Why this Site is important on a More Global Level:

  1. large amounts of carbon are stored in the soils e.g. 100 tonnes/ha or 5,000 tonnes on the 120 ac parcel – this is the basis of the carbon trading program being developed all over the world

  2. crops, including hay and corn, growing on soils take up CO2 from the atmosphere and release oxygen – the preliminary development plan shows most of the developed portion of the site covered by hard surfaces

  3. with parking lots come cars and the burning of fossil fuels and an increase in global warming – 1000 parking spaces!

  4. hard surfaces result in more runoff, whereas these crop lands enhance water quality due to their natural filtration capacity – a wetland used to exist in the depression and the remnant is still there

  5. the value of farmland is increasing all over the world because of ethanol production which reduces the use of fossil fuels – this site has been used for corn in the recent past (part of crop rotation likely)

  6. people want control of their food quality – they don’t want hormones and pesticides and so many farmers are turning to organic beef production which is becoming very lucrative - paving over this land eliminates the potential to use this prime site for this in the future

  7. the burning of fossil fuels is considered the major contributor to climate change - it is well documented that growing food close to home is an important component of environmental sustainability because it reduces food transportation costs

I believe these things are important to the people of this community …

Paul Christy

Readers Write.

Dear Council September 10, 2007

I have listened to and read the comments of those in support of using prime farmland for a massive sports complex and have become increasingly concerned by how people have become completely removed from how their food gets to their table. Comments like ‘It just grows hay’ show peoples’ ignorance and have prompted me to speak out

I do support recreational fields but I do not support them at the expense of a large parcel of actively used farmland. The following points should be considered when deciding whether more than 100 acres of prime agricultural land should be converted to a sports complex that has very little to do with children.

  • Statistics Canada reports that the Okanagan is one of the two most threatened agricultural areas in Canada due to urban encroachment.

  • About 97 % of BC’s land is considered unsuitable for agricultural purposes and a mere 3 % of our land can support agriculture. Less than 1% is designated as prime agricultural land.

  • According to Smart Growth BC for every acre of land being added to the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), 2.8 acres are being removed. The BC Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) has reported that 90% of the land being added to the ALR has been in the far north of the province.

  • At present BC only produces 48% (according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands) of all the food that we consume. With an expected population growth of 30 % in the next 20 years we should be seeing an increase in our agricultural land base not a decrease as we are seeing.

  • In Coldstream’s OCP review it was reported that 88% of the respondents stated that they support the retention of agriculture land. Why would council disregard the majority of its residents’ views?

  • It is estimated that just over a hectare of farmland is needed to produce food for 1 person for 1 year. Does Coldstream have this in reserve, taking into account predicted population growth? If it does not, how would council go about achieving this? Is Coldstream food secure? Does anyone on council know the answer to this? If they do not, perhaps it would be prudent to bring in experts on food security to look at this issue before applying to the ALC to change the status of this land or look for alternatives to this piece of prime agricultural land.

  • Finally we can not predict what the unforeseen effects of climate change or the escalating price of fuel costs will be on the food supply. We need to maintain an agricultural land base to secure a sustainable, safe food supply.

Let’s preserve our children and grandchildren’s rightful legacy with careful, long-term planning and maintain an agricultural land base for them. We must help secure their ability to have a sustainable, safe food supply for their future.

Thank-you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Karen Thoresen
7502 Giles Drive
Coldstream, B.C. V1B 1G5
Tel. 250-542-0421

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Decision day.

Coldstream Council will make a decision tonight. There seems to be a major push to debate unrelated issues at this meeting.

However, there is only one issue before Council and that is: should they support the request by
GVSC to allow change of use for the 120 acres of prime agricultural land by the Agricultural Land Commission. The final decision, even if Council supports it against the Official Community Plan, will rest with the Commission.

The issue relating to the Sport Complex has no standing for the debate. It is a GVSC issue and appropriate procedures must be followed. There has to be a plan laid out before the public complete with specific drawings (these are just loosely drawn up sketches, according to Mayor Corner). There must be costs and time lines provided and must be debated in Greater Vernon, not at the Coldstream Council chambers.

Finally, there must be a referendum to give an opportunity to the paying public to express their wishes. We have had it with poorly planned and executed wish lists and having projects pushed down our throats.

We need planning and must follow proper procedure!

Coldstream Council's forum tonight!

Please remember Council's Public Forum tonight, at 7 PM at the Coldstream Elementary gym regarding the change of use for 120 acres of agricultural land! Your presence is important!

Monday, September 10, 2007

Questions to Mayor Corner.

At the August 27th meeting of Council I suggested that the proposed Sports Complex was developed without input from the general public and only special interest groups were able to have input. Your Worship told me that special interest groups had no input for the Sports Complex plans. Since then I discovered that the information was misleading. Let me read to you from the Minutes of GVSC October 13, 2005 and again from the Minutes of GVSC October 27, 2005:

from Minutes of GVSC October 13, 2005


Delegations and Recognitions Funtastic Sports Society – Summer Festival

2.1 Letter from the Funtastic Sports & Music Festival dated October 13, 2005.

Mr. Jason Gilbert, Executive Director, provided the Commission with a presentation requesting that consideration be given to partnering with Vernon Funtastic on a sports complex project."

from Minutes of GVSC October 27, 2005 -


Funtastic 6.1 Letter from the Funtastic Sports & Music Festival dated October 13, 2005;

PowerPoint presentation made by the Funtastic Society at the October 13, 2005 GVSC Regular meeting.

Moved by Commissioner Nicol Seconded by Commissioner Taylor THAT the letter from the Funtastic Sports & Music Festival dated October 13, 2005 be received; AND THAT GVS attempt to secure a long term lease with DND, work towards securing a new site to build a multi use sporting facility and develop a vision of how a new complex can be built to accommodate other sporting facilities and tournaments.


Moved by Commissioner Cochrane Seconded by Commissioner Nicol THAT this item be brought forward to the December 2005 GVSC Regular Agenda in order to inform the new Commission members of the particulars of this issue.


Now I have some specific questions:

1. When did informal negotiations commence with the owner of Coldstream Ranch for the purchase of the Spicer Block?

2. Has Coldstream Council been aware of these negotiations?

3. If not, who authorized these negotiations?

4. Was Council aware of the letter sent to the ALC by Mr Al McNiven on May 8, 2006?

5. If not, who authorized said letter?

6. If Council was aware of the above letter, how did it happen that nobody realized that it was inappropriate for GVSC to contact the ALC directly?

7. Why was the community of Coldstream kept in the dark about the Sports Complex plans and the plans of purchasing the property for this purpose?

8. In light of the response of the ALC

“Given the very high agricultural capability of these lands, and their current agricultural use, the Commission would likely not support the conversion of an additional 40 to non farm uses”

why would we continue proceeding with the present venture?

It appears to me that GVSC and its Chair was trying to do an end-run to secure said lands for the Sports Complex so the taxpayers of Coldstream could not prevent such an event.

This is definitely not the way our Mayor should represent the community that elected him and I suggest to Council that they should select a representative to NORD who will keep the interest of the taxpayers of Coldstream paramount on this important legislative body.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Readers Write.

On September 10 at Lavington there is to be a Public Hearing regarding an amendment to a bylaw.

Strongly encouraging long term agricultural use of lands in the Kidston, Coldstream Creek, Cunliffe And Kal Park areas.

I think this should include ALL LANDS THAT ARE NOW IN THE ALR.

Farm land backing on to Whetzell Drive residents, (Webster Properties). If we don't keep this in the ALR, then all sorts of developers etc. will think they can do anything they want in COLDSTREAM/LAVINGTON.' We certainly don't want ball fields at the back of our property. (Webster).

You also know my views on the Land that GVS is wanting for Playing fields etc.

In case you don't the answer is NO, NO NO AND NO AGAIN.

1. Does the Coldstream Ranch really want to sell the property ?. And what is the selling price?

2. Does GVS have the authority to ask the question? Who gave them permission to have this thing scoped out before even seeing if it is feasible.?

3. Do they have the $'s to buy the property?

4. I think it is time that GVS is disbanded and the Parks and Rec, Water etc. be under control of the Municipality, City ( Vernon) and others. (Another one of Jack Bordens schemes gone wrong if I am not mistaken). This whole thing started with the creation of GVS which is ( or should be) just a committee.

Yours truly
Angie Kitcher
Lilian Da Pont
Whetzell drive

The answer from Coldstream


1. I will try to answer your questions with respect to the Coldstream Ranch property.

1. There is a current offer on the property. It is my understanding, that Coldstream Ranch would only consider selling this property for parks purposes. They are not interested in making deals with any developers. The selling price is In-Camera at this point, to protect the buyer and the seller.

2. Coldstream Council gave authority to the Parks Manager to approach Coldstream Ranch, as well as the Greater Vernon Parks Committee.

3. The money is available through Greater Vernon Parks to purchase the property – some money from the referendum held for acquisition of park land, as well as Development Cost Charges. There may be some other funding sources that haven’t been pursued at this point.

4. Creation of GVS – although it is now called GVS, parks have been under the control of NORD since 1978 with the same four partners participating in the function.

I hope you are able to come to Tuesday’s meeting, there will be a lot of information provided to the residents with respect to this proposal.

Have a great day!

Wendy Kay
Chief Administrative Officer
9901 Kalamalka Road
Coldstream, BC V1B-1L6
Phone: 545-5304 Fax: 545-4733

Editor's note:

Why were taxpayers of Coldstream not informed of this potential change in their Official Community Plan before
Coldstream Council gave authority to the Parks Manager to approach Coldstream Ranch?

Thank you!

Thanks to the caring residents of Coldstream the Town Hall meeting was an overwhelming success. The Kidston Elementary gym was full with enthusiastic residents, most of whom were urging Council to reject the proposed change of use of the high quality agricultural land.

Many agreed that some additional playing fields might be required but that should be discussed openly by the politicians and user groups with the rest of the taxpayers.

Thanks for the donations to help pay for the flyers and rental. Special thanks to Kidston Elementary Principal, Mr Harry Adam who went way beyond his duties in helping to set up the chairs as well as granting us use of the gym.

Remember the date, time and place of the next important meeting set by Council to discuss the issues. It will be on September 11th at 7:00 PM at the Coldstream Elementary gym. Your presence will be imperative to impress upon Council that we the taxpayers are jealously protecting our major industry: agriculture and the agricultural land.

We are inviting those who wish to become a member to sign up and those members whose membership lapsed to renew their membership. We intend to continue watching the performance of our elected officials locally as well as regionally.

Once again, thank you all.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Readers Write.

7 Sept 2007

I have e-mailed the Morning Star a letter to the editor complaining about their biased coverage of the sports complex issue, on 29 Aug 2007, you may read the letter on Gyula Kiss’s website, the ‘ColdstreamerNews Blog’. I am glad to report that they have since remedied their reportage on this matter.

In my view this whole controversy could have been avoided if more attention had been paid by Coldstream voters to the agendas of the two mayoral candidates in the last municipal election. As it was, Mayor Corner was narrowly elected by a margin of 8 votes, which he believed, gave him a mandate to proceed with the “community plan” to continue ‘suburbanizing’ Coldstream Municipality. To wit, we have had several new residential subdivisions been built, a new city hall, a sewer to Coldstream Meadows, a new fire hall, Park facilities and parking lots, a new water purification plant, etc, and now a proposed Sports Mega Complex. One wonders why Mayor Postill and Corner didn’t start first with a new Community hall to bring residents of Coldstream together?

Many residents have chosen to reside in Coldstream because it was relatively rural and undeveloped, shall we say a “green community” now they find themselves besieged by suburban and urban developments which are transforming the community into something they never envisaged and they have now become anxious about the impending Sports Complex proposed for the heart of their community. Perhaps it is already impossible to stop because the municipality has embarked on so many capital projects that it needs to increase its tax base by promoting further residential and business developments to pay for these projects?

It’s clear to me that this a business driven development agenda, advantageous to large landholders and the construction industry in which the majority of residents have no direct interest. We are simply helpless bystanders as events unfold around us. I would have hoped that our municipal governments would have opted to preserve a “Green” community, to create an ecologically friendly, bio-social environment that is sustainable over in the long term; this requires the preservation of agricultural land and of natural habitat for other life forms. Instead we are confronted with the spectra of an ever-increasing ecological footprint, as urban development devours the Coldstream Valley ever eastwards. The Sports Complex proposal is a watershed event, we must draw the line now to stop this proposal and preserve our community from further degradation.

If this is indeed the popular will then we must be careful to whom we entrust our local government to, those counsellors that vote for this proposal, vote for development as usual and should not be re-elected in future!

Finally, I believe there is a hidden agenda behind this proposal, which is simply the sale of the agricultural land in question. I believe the Coldstream Ranch Cattle operation is in essence a land speculation hoping to capitalize on the continued and further development of Coldstream Municipality. After all, Coldstream has been built on previously owned ranch lands, why shouldn’t the current owners cash in their lands. This can only happen if a credible agency such as Coldstream counsel or the GVSC applies to the Agricultural land Reserve to have the land freed to serve the greater public good. I have no doubt that under the current Liberal government the land would be released for development if it were applied for. Therefore it is imperative that we let this issue go no further. We should further rethink the future of those Councillors who vote for this proposal.

Peter Peto 492 Terrace Drive, Coldstream

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Mixed feelings -- by Richard Rolke -- Morning Star, 97-07-05

Editor's Note:

One of the problems with the present debate is that people overlook one major point: agriculture is the major industry of Coldstream and agricultural land is industrial land. The proposed complex here would convert prime agricultural industrial land for a sports complex. Is it short sighted?

Firm opinions about a sports complex in Coldstream abound these days, but you won’t find one here.

Since the plan was first announced by the Greater Vernon Services Committee, I have wrestled with the notion of a large-scale complex on Aberdeen Road. And that may seem strange as I have written before about the lack of proper sports facilities in Greater Vernon compared to other communities.

But I am the product of farmers and agriculture is deep within my roots. As I drive past the Aberdeen Road property every day, I value its ability to grow numerous forage crops a year.

I also shudder at how Coldstream is becoming urbanized. I fear that a sports complex on this site will open the door for other properties in the area to develop, further diminishing so-called rural living at its best.

And for GVSC officials to claim the land could always return to agriculture is a joke. Once millions of taxpayers’ dollars have been invested on asphalt, playing fields and buildings, farming is never coming back.

Beyond this, I am only about a 10-minute walk from the site so I selfishly wonder how it will impact me. Already I hear the Funtastic music festival from DND, so what will it be like if the concert is just up the road from me?

I also question why a banquet hall has been placed in preliminary designs. Receptions and dinners could be held at existing hotels and restaurants in Vernon, bolstering their revenues and reducing the impact on the Aberdeen Road neighbourhood.

But as I indicated earlier, I have a split personality when it comes to this matter, and I also see positive aspects to the complex.

Primarily, my daughters play fastball and I have experienced tournaments both here and away. After working concession stands and sitting in bleachers, I believe the current facilities in Greater Vernon are woefully inadequate.

Yes there are the DND fields, but GVSC can only ink a year-to-year lease from the federal government. There is no certainty that those lands will always be available to the public, so any major spending on capital upgrades is a waste of cash.

As for Marshall Fields, it is largely committed to soccer and I don’t see how it can be expanded to include football, track and field, fastball, slowpitch and dog agility.

GVSC’s opponents insist economics are driving the proposal, but they ignore the importance sports tourism can have on the area. Everyone attending a tournament drops money at local hotels, restaurants, shops and gas stations. In turn, those businesses hire local residents and purchase supplies from other businesses. Ultimately, some of that cash goes back into municipalities through taxes.

But economics aside, proper sports facilities will allow local residents — both youth and adults — to train and play here. Currently, that is extremely challenging for both football and track and field.

And as much as I want farm land preserved, there is the reality that the only large chunks of property left in Greater Vernon are in the Agricultural Land Reserve. If it’s not Aberdeen Road, it will be farm land somewhere because the issue of a sports complex won’t go away.

In the end, I will support the concept of a sports complex on Aberdeen Road, but I’m not completely thrilled about it.

Hopefully, Coldstream council gets more clear direction from other residents so an educated decision can be made.

Monday, September 3, 2007

The Question of Community Need.


Report highlights legal inconsistencies between Agricultural Land Commission Act and ALR exclusion decision-making framework

Vancouver – Concern raised by farmland preservation advocates regarding differences between the mandate of the of Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and the way in which Commissioners have recently been making decisions on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) exclusion applications have been legally validated by a report released today.

“Community need” has been listed as a criteria for the removal of farmland from the ALR since being introduced into the ALC’s annual Service Plan in 2002,” says Ione Smith, Special Projects Coordinator at Smart Growth BC. “We wanted to investigate whether the criteria set out in the Service Plan, which is used as a decision making guideline by Commissioners, is legally in line with the ALC Act, which states that the purpose of the ALR is to preserve farmland for food production for all British Columbians. We’re concerned because several precedent-setting Commission decisions regarding farmland removal have been made with reference to ‘community need’ since 2002.”

To determine whether the ALC has the legal authority to make decisions based on ‘community need’, Smart Growth BC retained lawyer Deborah Curran to research this issue. Curran’s report, “British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve: A Legal Review of the Question of Community Need”, is being released today.

Supported by the West Coast Environmental Law’s Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, the report includes an overview of the initial motivation for forming the ALR more than 30 years ago, an analysis of the current ALC Act and recent Service Plans, and a review of previous court rulings on the ALR.

Niels Holbek, a Commissioner from 1991-1995, says that this report helps to clarify and reaffirm the role of the ALC and Commissioners. “In my day community need was never a determinant – preservation of our food lands was the top priority.”

Specific findings from this thorough report include:

• The purpose of the ALR and role of the ALC is to preserve farmland for food production.

• It is neither the role nor responsibility of the ALC to balance competing land uses or to negotiate the use of farmland for non-farm uses.

• The current Service Plan states that land may be removed from the ALR for ‘community need’, and that the amount removed for that purpose does not have to be minimized.

• The Service Plan goes so far as to establish targets for the percentage of decisions made based on ‘community need’.

• The ALC’s current consideration of ‘community need’ is contrary to its legislated authority.

For lawyer Deborah Curran, the simple legal choices are stark. “We can either remove the term ‘community need’ from the Service Plan, thus reaffirming the thirty year old purpose of the ALR as preserving farmland,” says Ms Curran, “or amend the legislation to include ‘community need’, a move that could transform the ALR into an urban land reserve. Polls show that most British Columbians agree that the ALR as an urban reserve is not an option.”

- 30 –

Smart Growth BC is a provincial non-profit non-governmental organization devoted to fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible land use and development with a mandate to create more livable communities in British Columbia.

For more information, please contact:

Ione Smith, Special Projects Coordinator, Smart Growth BC 604.915.5234 (office) 778.999.2149 (cell)

Deborah Curran, Lawyer,
Deborah Curran and Company
250.383.0263 (office) 250.882.0642 (cell)

Letter to the Editor.

The following letter was sent to the Morning Star. It is in response to "Out in left field" By Richard Rolke (Aug 29 2007)

Imagine that the applicant in front of Coldstream Council for an $8,000 grant was the Salvation Army or the Food Bank and not the organizing committee for the 2008 Ford Women’s Curling Championships. What would have been the answer from Council members? They would have turned it down unceremoniously. But if, by some miracle, they approved the grant Richard Rolke would have torn them apart for wasting taxpayers money.

Carolyn Farris and Bill Firman did what they have been sworn to do: represent the best interest of their constituents who placed their trust in them.

Obviously, the grant is not for the curlers. It only subsidizes businesses. Coldstream Mayor Corner said that his business would benefit from this event (I assume curlers from all over the world would be flocking into Corner Optical to buy their new eye glasses). But didn’t Vernon Council just recently subsidize businesses by reducing their tax load by six percent and increased the residents load by five percent? It seems some Council members have their wires crossed.

Normally, businessmen sponsor such prestigious events and use it as an opportunity to advertise their particular business. They should be honoured to be the sponsors.

Of course, for the event to be successful we need spectators. That’s where the general public comes in and spend their money showing that they indeed support the event and pay the bills. We should not be forced to donate through our taxes.

Business owners in Vernon pay their taxes in Vernon. If their employees live in Coldstream they help those businesses make profit by providing services and assisting them to pay taxes. Nothing prevents those businesses from sponsoring the curling championships.

If my Council has a spare $8,000 I would prefer that they lower my taxes. By the way, I question the validity of the statement: “...virtually all of its (Coldstream’s) adult residents make a living in Vernon.” I know a whole lot of non-virtual (real) residents who don’t work in Vernon.

It is immaterial how other politicians voted. They are accountable to their own electorate. Carolyn Farris and Bill Firman should be commended that they voted their conscience and did not get carried away in the emotional fervor. Calling Councillor Ferris “woefully wrong” would imply that Mr. Rolke is “woefully right” which is not the case.

Mr. Rolke is a strong supporter of the “Sports Complex” proposed for 120 acres of prime agricultural land in Coldstream, thus his attack on Councillor Firman’s stand on that issue. The fact is that there are no concrete plans but a loosely drawn up “concept plan”. In an editorial of the Morning Star the Editor, with reference to the Vernon Library/Civic complex, stated:

“ With the counter-petition finished, let every resident of Vernon express their opinion. Collect information on usage, and potential usage, of a new building. Determine exactly, to the penny, how much the building will cost taxpayers. Explain the benefits for the city and the RCMP and lay out other options that have not been explored. All we ask is for the city to let us express our informed opinion, whether for, or against.” (M.S., August 24).

The same principle should be observed with reference to the proposed Sports Complex. Before the reporter took a stand for or against it he should have done some thorough research. The present proposal is a wish list by special interest groups without any input from the general public. Without a price tag, one could wish for the world. Endorsing such a dream as reality is irresponsible from a well respected reporter.

We need facts from the media not emotionalism.

Gyula Kiss

Coldstream Ratepayers News! All Coldstream residents are ratepayers!

The opinions expressed by "Coldstreamer" are strictly his own and do not represent the opinions of Coldstream Council!

Because I value your thoughtful opinions, I encourage you to add a comment to this discussion. Don't be offended if I edit your comments for clarity or to keep out questionable matters, however, and I may even delete off-topic comments.

Gyula Kiss;


We must protect our rights and freedom! (Photo courtesy of D. Gibson) Click on eagle to watch EAGLECAMS

About Me

My photo
I have been a resident of Coldstream since 1976. I have had 15 years of experience on Council, 3 years as Mayor. As a current Councillor I am working to achieve fair water and sewer rates and to ensure that taxpayers get fair treatment. The current direction regarding water supply is unsustainable and I am doing all I can to get the most cost effective water supply possible.