Westside governance

[John Zeger]

As reported in the Daily Courier on Aug. 15, 2005 the Province has pledged $100,000 to the Westside governance committee to assist it in its mandate of helping Westside residents choose among the options for future governance. In the article Westside regional director Aaron Dinwoodie is quoted as saying "I don't feel the status quo is an option" referring to the present arrangement whereby the Province is responsible for roads, sewers and other infrastructure there. This would leave two remaining options -- incorporation of the Westside as a separate municipality or amalgamation with Kelowna.

The Westside has grown to the point that its destiny affects Kelowna and vice versa so it only makes sense to operate as one unit. The Westside has grown tremendously and its growth has had a bearing on important issues that affect both such as bridge traffic. The price that residents on both sides of the bridge will have to pay is higher property taxes. This is an obvious example of the fact that growth costs and those that say it doesn't just don't know the facts or want to keep their heads in the sand.

Perhaps if Kelowna and the Westside had been one municipality all along the Westside would not have been allowed to grow to the degree that it has bringing with it huge problems such as bridge traffic congestion. This is an error that CORD and the Province are responsible for. It is unconscienable to me that the Westside has been allowed to become a huge bedroom community of Kelowna and that thousands need to cross the bridge daily to get to their place of work or to shop. The Westside has been planned very poorly and more employment and retail opportunities should have been created there from the beginning to cut down on bridge traffic. But that is all behind us. Now we must face the future and it would be better to face it as one municipality and to make sure that the mistakes that have been made in the past do not get compounded.

[John Zeger]

Letter to the editor (Capital News, March 11, 2007):

Having recently spent a few weeks in the U.S., I upon my return went through back copies of the Capital News to learn what had transpired in Kelowna during my absence. I read stories about rising taxes, soaring housing costs, plant closures, relentless crime in the downtown, and the continuing crisis at the KGH. More recently I read forecasts of increased traffic congestion this summer due to road construction necessitated by the city’s uncontrolled growth. I thought to myself that nothing had changed.

This is all happening at a time when there is a debate on both sides of the lake concerning Westside governance. On the Westside residents seem almost evenly split between wanting incorporation or amalgamation, while in Kelowna the city administration and the majority on city council are salivating over the prospect of extending their dominion across a larger area.

What puzzles me is that so many Westside residents would want to put their fate in the hands of a group that has mismanaged the affairs of the present land area of Kelowna, let alone an expanded city. Most members of Kelowna city council have been there for quite a while now as the city’s problems have gone from bad to worse, a situation that they’ve watched with an attitude of benign neglect. If I were a Westside resident I would be loathe to let these people determine my future, and would turn thumbs down to the prospect of amalgamation voting instead for an opportunity to choose a new crew and to chart a different course.

[Rick Shea]

Given the record of our current city council, and of recent past councils, I have to wonder how anyone in their right mind would wish to have them "governing" the Westside (read "governing" as wide open for developers and speculators, and to heck with the current residents and with the community).

However, if the municipal voting structure is such that the people from the Westside could conceivably determine their own future within amalgamation, then perhaps that is a viable option.

Regardless, the decision about the future of the Westside is, first and foremost, theirs to make in a democratic fashion. If the choice is amalgamation with Kelowna, then I hope that the residents of Kelowna have a say in the matter too.

[John Zeger]

Kudos to Tom Wilson for his editorial “We’ll take our time deciding” (April 2) where Wilson writes that the Daily Courier will continue to consider all the issues before taking a stand on Westside amalgamation. I only wish that Kelowna city council had adopted the same reflective impartiality while awaiting the results of the survey to examine public attitudes on the subject. Unfortunately, despite statements to the contrary by some on council such as Brian Given who said that “the city is not trying to influence anybody”, it is readily apparent that city council has already made up its mind on the subject and is actively selling its position having done everything to prepare for the takeover except signing on the dotted line.

One doesn’t need to look farther for evidence of the city’s bias than their expensive full page newspaper ads that purportedly seek public input. Featuring an alluring blue-eyed brunette asking us if we want to amalgamate, the ads state that “Kelowna City Council has given support in principle to amalgamating with the Westside” and goes on to make six arguments in favour of such a union without listing any of the disadvantages. So much for council’s supposed neutrality.

It is apparent that city council’s public consultation on the matter of Westside amalgamation is just so much tokenism. I doubt that even if a majority of Kelowna residents surveyed expressed that they wanted a referendum on the subject that city council would hold one. Just as with the issue of the Mission Aquatic Centre, Kelowna city council does not want to give the final say to the public on any subject and continues to jealously guard all power for itself.

[John Zeger]

Although previously I have been neutral on the issue of Kelowna amalgamating with the Westside, I am becoming more concerned about its negative ramifications. I am concerned that with both sides of the lake under the control of the same growth-crazed council and administration that such a merger will only serve the interests of developers and others with a vested interest in growth who are presently well represented by those in power in Kelowna. Although I'm not sure that an independent Westside would elect officials who are more sensitive to quality of life issues there, at least with it being a different municipality there is some potential for that happening. I am also concerned about the ramifications of Kelowna city council's decision to give the Westside two guaranteed council seats that this will give the Westside special status on Kelowna city council. As that status is not enjoyed by any other neighbourhood in Kelowna, I am fearful that one by one other neighbourhoods will begin to demand the same for themselves which will only benefit those NIMBYs in our community who don't care about anything that happens outside their immediate neighbourhood. If the asymmetrical ward system that Kelowna city council has created in the event of amalgamation becomes a full ward system, that will result in a fractured city with city councillors working not for the common community good but only for what is good for the neighbourhood that they represent.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the local media, and to Kelowna council.

Dear Sir:

Regarding the seven to one vote by Kelowna council to embrace the Westside as part of Kelowna, why do I get a mental image of a pack of 7 dogs sitting at the east end of the bridge and facing west, salivating profusely?

In this thinly-veiled attempt to influence the outcome on the Westside, Kelowna council (with the notable exception of Norm Letnick) is clearly demonstrating a lack of respect for democratic process, again, and a lack of respect for the democratic rights of the citizens of Kelowna and the Westside, again.

Barrie Clark even seems to want Kelowna to spread like a cancer to encompass even more of the surrounding area, in Ellison and at the end of Lakeshore Road. Instant sprawl, with no citizen input!

At some point, I hope that democracy returns to Kelowna, but that point clearly is not now. And the Westside wants to become part of this?

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[John Zeger]

I am disappointed but not surprised at Kelowna city council’s decision to not hold a referendum for Kelowna residents on the issue of a boundary extension to include the Westside. Shelley Nicholl (“Democratic tool is ignored,” Capital News, Apr. 13) is correct in her observation that an issue of this magnitude merited a public referendum and that polling is not the proper foundation of democracy.

Elsewhere in the same issue, Jennifer Smith attributes the absence of a Kelowna vote on amalgamation to public apathy. Although I don’t dispute that many city residents are apathetic, I think that much of the blame for that goes to Kelowna city council for not involving the public more frequently in decision-making as it has been almost a quarter century since the city had its last public referendum.

I hope that in deciding on the future governance of their area that Westside residents consider the track record of Kelowna city council on matters of meaningful public participation. They should consider that had the same people that currently comprise Kelowna city council been on the Westside Governance Committee, residents of the Westside would probably have been denied the opportunity to vote on their future as that decision would have been made exclusively by those same politicians. Westside residents should ask themselves if they want to be governed by a group that consistently slams the door shut on opportunities for direct democracy and who want to make all the decisions themselves.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to local media today.

Dear Sir:

Well, it wasn’t a resounding vote, but the Westside vote to incorporate rather than amalgamate was still a vote of non-confidence in Kelowna. That was not just a vote against Kelowna’s present mayor and council, who actively interfered to try to influence the outcome of the vote, but it was also a vote against what Kelowna has become over the years, and how unsustainable our current ways really are.

I hope that they can chart a different future for themselves – one that builds a sense of community, and one where the word “sustainability” really does have meaning, other than as a smokescreen for profiteering.

They might do well to look at Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island, which has recently implemented a population cap in order to maintain their quality of life. The example here in Kelowna shows how destructive growth really is, and how developers and their friends on council will say anything at all, and do anything at all, to try to keep the growth machine running.

I wish the people of the Westside well.

Rick Shea,
Kelowna

[John Zeger]

In a surprise outcome, a majority of Westside residents decided to forego joining the City of Kelowna and instead opted to create their own municipality in spite of the prospect of paying higher taxes in order to do so. This can only be viewed as a repudiation of Kelowna’s city council and administration and their policies. Instead, Westsiders determined that they want to build on their own identity and to chart a different course.

As a Kelowna resident I have to applaud Westsiders on their decision. Having witnessed a marked deterioration in Kelowna’s quality of life in the four years since I have moved to this city in terms of increased traffic congestion, a soaring crime rate, a loss of sense of community, and disappearing views, open space and wildlife habitats, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the decision makers at City Hall are to blame for this state of affairs.

Now Westsiders will have a chance to do things differently and create a distinct community by choosing new leaders and pursuing different policies. I hope that they make the most of this opportunity and not just become the mirror image of Kelowna on the other side of the lake. I am confident that they can do better as it would be very hard to do any worse.

[Rick Shea]

Well, as typically happens, my letter just above this, where I mentioned a population cap, brought out the typical mindless response, with Chicken Little alarmist cries about unaffordable housing, mobility rights and, most telling, a question about how such a cap could be implemented. Given Kelowna's history, it's easy to see why understanding this concept is difficult, but here is the response I sent to Castanet.


Dear Sir:

L.B. asks “How is a city able to implement a population cap” such as the one in Qualicum Beach, Okotoks, Banff, and a growing number of other towns and cities? Quite simply, it’s done through careful planning, through zoning, and through actually adhering to that plan.

L.B. trots out all the typical alarmist myths about such a cap – myths which have clearly been demonstrated many times over to be false. With a cap, people can still come and go as we move through life’s cycles. With a cap, affordable housing can be created with careful redevelopment as buildings age. With a cap, prices don’t necessarily increase, as studies in the U.S. have shown.

Indeed, if you want to see a textbook example of how to drive up prices and make housing unaffordable, you don’t have to look any farther than right here in Kelowna, where recent rapid growth and speculation have led to record increases in housing prices and already created L.B.’s dreaded “elitist society” where only those with high salaries can afford a home.

L.B.’s idea is truly the radical and unsustainable one. Infinite growth on a finite planet is simply not possible, and at some point we have to come to terms with that – hopefully while there’s still something of quality left for us.

L.B. is also wrong in his assertion that “there is no way to stop the demand” from people wanting to live in Kelowna. That will take care of itself as Kelowna becomes more crowded, polluted, unfriendly, crime-ridden, and generally full of the social ills that accompany growth. By the way, is L.B. going to the housewarming for the new Hells’ Angels chapter?

In so many, many ways, growth is the problem and not the solution.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea,
Kelowna

[John Zeger]

L.B. asks a valid question in his letter to the editor of June 20 (“Population Cap”) where he responds to Rick Shea and queries how a city with population growth controls can produce homes that an average person can afford.

To answer this question one only need look at what has been done in cities that have such controls like Boulder, Colorado or Davis and Tracy, California . In these cities inclusionary housing bylaws have been implemented in conjunction with growth controls and developers there are required to produce between 15% and 25% of units in all housing projects at affordable prices. If one compares the record of these cities with that of Kelowna , where developers can do as they please with the blessing of city council, they will see that these growth-controlled cities produce far more affordable housing units per year than does laissez-faire Kelowna .

Finally, in regard to L.B.’s comment that implementing growth controls would create an elitist city where only the wealthy can afford to live, he need only look at present day Kelowna which has already become such an elitist place as a result of the lack of intervention by those in power. In fact, the average price of a home in Kelowna now exceeds that of Boulder, Colorado where population growth has been slowed to less than 1% per year!