Public Hearing

310
Public Hearing May 24, 2011
A Public Hearing of the Municipal Council of the City of Kelowna was held in the Council Chamber, 1435 Water Street, Kelowna, B.C., on Tuesday, May 24th, 2011.
Council members in attendance: Mayor Sharon Shepherd, Councillors Andre Blanleil, Kevin Craig, Robert Hobson, Charlie Hodge, Graeme James, Angela Reid-Nagy, Michele Rule and Luke Stack.
Staff members in attendance were: City Manager, Ron Mattiussi; City Clerk, Stephen Fleming; Director, Land Use Management, Shelley Gambacort; Manager, Urban Land Use, Danielle Noble; Director, Infrastructure Planning, Randy Cleveland*; Manager, Long Range Planning, Gary Stephen; Director, Policy & Planning, Signe Bagh; Manager, Environment & Land Use, Todd Cashin; and Council Recording Secretary, Sandi Horning.
(* denotes partial attendance)
1. Mayor Shepherd called the Hearing to order at 2:04 p.m.
2. Mayor Shepherd advised that the purpose of the Hearing is to consider certain bylaws which, if adopted, will amend “Kelowna 2020 - Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7600" and "Zoning Bylaw No. 8000", and all submissions received, either in writing or verbally, will be taken into consideration when the proposed bylaws are presented for reading at the Regular Council Meeting which follows this Public Hearing.

Barry Patterson and Bryan StGeorge, on behalf of John Woodworth and Concerned Citizens of Kelowna, 43-3535 Casorso Road
- Want Harvey Avenue returned to the citizens of Kelowna by including John Woodworth’s proposal for an expressway in the 2030 Official Community Plan.
- Would be willing to work with staff in order to bring forward Mr. Woodworth’s expressway proposal.
- Believe that both senior levels of government would be willing to provide funding for the expressway proposal, but that the request for funding would have to be submitted by the City of Kelowna.
Staff:
- Provided comment of regarding the proposed improvements to the City’s road network.

In the following Council Meeting a motion was presented to have Staff investigate this Xpressway Concept ... defeated !  FIVE COUNCILORS WOULD NOT EVEN ALLOW THE PROFESSIONALS TO LOOK INTO JOHN WOODWORTH'S RECOMMENDATION.
What qualifications do these 5 people have that would in any way compete with the education and experience that Mr John Woodworth provides?
The statement just given is that these 5 do not want to return Harvey Avenue to the Citizens of Kelowna!
Editor's note:  Reid-Nagy seems to have changed her mind.



MADE IT THIS FAR?   by   Gregory Krasichynsky


  • While I do not want to characterize the tea-party candidates personally, there are items that have been corroborated between highly-placed business people in Kelowna, academia, media, and many public servants from every branch. If you have read this far - here is what I have gleaned from it, by virtue of its ubiquity and the reliability of the sources:
  • Walter Gray got over and past this bull, is enjoying his retirement and honestly wanted nothing to do with this election - he even left the radio station to his son to take care of so he could hit the course!  But no, they caught up with him and he was prodded and prodded and cajoled and nagged to jump in, by people who are angry that Sharon won the last two elections.

Fact is, Sharon, Michele Rule, Kevin Craig, Charlie Hodge, and Angela Reid were elected specifically BECAUSE they opposed CD21 - voters agreed - we are doing great for development - we don't need to deregulate it, damage the taxpayer reserves, give away our parks, and cast every beach in the shadows of highrises that render them essentially private, while digging many years' of gigantic mud-holes in the very heart of the city we love and want to enjoy. But CD21 is their issue, years after having been dismissed by the voters and long after it left the table altogether? Why? Here's why:

  • There are those who own land downtown and would have seen its value skyrocket, had CD21 been forced through and had the city agreed to saddle taxpayers with enormous debts on behalf of the developer. It would have created an open-pit quarry that left a gaping wound occupying most of the heart of downtown and parts of City Park - filled with mud (and in the summer generating dust and killing every downtown shop), for Years.

But a few select landowners would have become very wealthy.  It is they who shoved Walter back into the race, because they couldn't find a single other candidate who would stand up for their "poor millionaires club" who was more credible than a former mayor who was defeated on that very issue of development - twice. 

Developers who want to capitalize on lands elsewhere in town wanted it to happen too. Why? Because the "special permission" given to billionaire Milroy was to create the kind of density you don't see anywhere but the heart of the world's most packed, congested cities.  And then other developers building everywhere else in town could have made smaller and smaller units and sold them for more and more money, on less and less land.  The infrastructure and traffic and utility demands would be horrifying, but the developers don't live anywhere near their monstrosities, so who cares, right?

  • Check the land records to see who would have become richER by screwing over Kelowna.  Check the supporters of the "4change" cabal.  Check their former businesses & colleagues.  Check who their current colleagues are.  Tell me what you think of their altruistic love of Kelowna and desire to preserve our quality of life.
  • Can anyone tell me that a negative attack with NO positive plan is anything other than a feeble-minded, mealy-mouthed attempt to lash-out at councillors and a mayor who stood up for Kelowna instead of their wallets? 
  • A revenge slate.  Are those the minds and souls you want to control where your family lives and grows?




1 comment:

  1. I love the concept drawings - if implemented that way, it would be attractive and functional. My fear was something that looked like the roads under Chicago's L lines. If we put together another package and asked a more Kelowna-friendly council (without the Blanleil, James and Stack elements), it would be seriously looked at again. If we decided we loved the idea and were committed to it, and we lobbied hard for it, I haven't heard the reasons why it =wouldn't= happen yet (other than the stock answer: no money.) For it to be defeated, there would have to be a practical reason it's not feasible - and I haven't heard one yet. Keep plugging away at it, Barry! Persistence always yields results (even if sometimes it is more eventually than originally anticipated.)

    ReplyDelete