Higrises in Rutland

[John Zeger]

CRCP opposes the construction of highrises in Rutland as highrises increase traffic congestion, obscure views, alienate residents from community and nature, lead to social pathology, and are an architectural style not in harmony with our natural setting. They will lead to more highrises throughout the city as rezonings cause increased land speculation and higher land prices making housing more expensive for everyone.

For more questions on this issue and to tell city planners what you think of this proposal, please attend the staff presentation Wednesday, June 8 at 7pm in City Council Chambers, 1435 Water Street.

[bo916]

again you are stating someone's oppinion as fact.

i believe that you have already tried to mention these points somewhere else on this board.

i have heard nothing but positive feedback regarding highrises in rutland from rutland citizens.

if they want highrises let them.

unless you are a rutland resident, then you have no right to tell Rutlanders who want the highrises that they can't have them.

[John Zeger]

Because what happens in Rutland or any neighbourhood in Kelowna has an effect on the entire city, any resident can be heard on any issue anywhere in Kelowna. The erection of highrises in Rutland will no doubt facilitate their proliferation to other parts of the city, so it affects eveyone here.

[bo916]

if you lived in downtown Vancouver, would you complain about a highrise being developed in Kitsilano?

[John Zeger]

As I've maintained you and your friends from MoveKelownaForward are using Vancouver as a model for Kelowna and that's what you want to turn Kelowna into. If you like Vancouver so much, just move there!

[bo916]

please don't make that connection.

i am not trying to turn kelowna into vancouver.

my analogy would have worked regardless of which city

Sardis to Chilliwack, Radville to Weyburn, Kasugai to Nagoya

anyways, i go back on my question, because knowing how much you like to complain, you would say that putting a highrise in vernon is too close to Kelowna, and that the environmental effects will be deadly on us small town kelowna folk who only wish to be left alone in our little 50's village where people can live in harmony with the the mountains and lake

[bo916]

Rutland was actually a seperate city from Kelowna at one time, but anyways, my point is that from what i have heard from rutland residents, they support the project.

so if people who live where the developement is going to be like it, then why should people living far away in the mission or something be complaining saying that rutlanders shouldn't get their developement?

i'm hoping that the same thing doesn't happen to them as what happened with sarson's

(a little different though) in the case of sarsons, i live right near the area, and i could have gone to pick up groceries, and been home in 10 minutes. now because of some other people, whom i believe lived further away from the area than i do, i won't be able to do that.

i don't know if i'm expressing my point very clearly, sorry

[John Zeger]

I read of some people in Rutland who want more population there to increase the demand for commercial services. CRCP doesn't oppose residential development
in Rutland but why put highrises there? Why not go with the existing Official Community Plan which calls for 4 storey apartments? Obviously city planners were thinking that 4 storey apartments were appropriate for this area as recently as January 2004 when the OCP was revised. But all of a sudden because of the urging of Robert Hobson, the technocrat on city council, all this planning should be thrown out the window. And if Hobson as quoted in the Daily Courier can't think of any other community of 30,000 people that doesn't have highrises, he can't think very far. However, I personally can't agree with apartments of any kind at the corner of Highway 33 and Rutland Road as the volume of traffic noise there would make it unsuitable for residences. At that location only commercial development should be allowed.