|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 24, 2005 12:40:44 GMT -5
The newly created Association of Citizens for Summerland (ACS) is opposing the changes in the new Official Community Plan for Summerland according to CHBC television. The new OCP would allow for a tripling of the number of residences built there and would develop part of their Agricultural Land Reserve. The ACS is asking city council to slow the rate of growth citing factors such as insufficient water supply to service new residents. The group also claims that the OCP was changed without adequate public consultation. Mayor Tom Johnson said that the new development proposed is an example of "smart" growth.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jun 24, 2005 12:52:53 GMT -5
I hope that the members of the ACS are aware of the resources summarized at the CRCP website, and of this discussion forum.
I think that would help them save a considerable amount of energy and time, and let them know that there are many like-minded people, groups, and communities around the world.
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jun 26, 2005 18:25:09 GMT -5
30,000 people in Summerland is way too much. Plus I like that farm area right outside the city, and I wouldn't want it to disappear. But what Summerland needs if they want even a bit of growth is another water source, Trout Creek is maxed out.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 5, 2005 12:55:59 GMT -5
So, let's pin this one down.
You seem to have some criteria for evaluating the carrying capacity of Summerland, so can you please apply them to Kelowna and tell us how many people in Kelowna would be "way too much?"
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 6, 2005 20:36:10 GMT -5
Way to much in Kelowna would be, 150-175,000 in the city alone. But, I am making this judgment on the idea that most of the development would be suburban.
edit* maybe even a little less. 140-160.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 10, 2005 1:32:05 GMT -5
Way to much in Kelowna would be, 150-175,000 in the city alone. But, I am making this judgment on the idea that most of the development would be suburban. edit* maybe even a little less. 140-160. And yet the city is predicting that number of people by 2020. Given the current practices and policies, that growth will include both densification and sprawl. I also have to suggest that we should leave some sort of buffer so that we don't get so close to "way too much" that we are always on the edge of some disaster. And that is one of the very ideas that the CRCP wishes to explore further. In consultation with everyone in Kelowna, what might be a suitable population cap, if there is one?
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 11, 2005 17:59:53 GMT -5
I pray there isn't, but if we somehow get lead into a cap... 150,000 in the city of Kelowna.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 12:58:01 GMT -5
Thanks for having the courage to actually think about the issue and propose a number.
Personally, I don't support the idea of being "lead into" something (and I think that you agree with that). I support a full, thorough, consultative process.
|
|