|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 2, 2004 12:35:23 GMT -5
I hope that city council doesn't do something stupid again as they did in the case of the Mission Greenway and proceed with its plans before they have the full agreement of all parties concerned. I'm talking about going ahead with Lawson Landing without the full agreement of the Simpson family. The position of the Simpson family has been made clear as expressed by their attorney Tom Smithwick who was quoted in the Daily Courier saying " I hope the next step is that city council will say it is inappropriate to continue dealing with this application (for Lawson's Landing). I hope push doesn't get to shove; then it becomes even more unfortunate. We're talking about some of Kelowna's important history. They should respect and honour the covenant." If city council continues with its practice of legal clumsiness it will cost all of us as taxpayers plenty. The right and smart thing for city council to do now is to end its support for the Lawson Landing and to counsel Phil Milroy to withdraw the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Feb 21, 2005 11:07:56 GMT -5
I would like you all to read Tom Smithwick's letter to the editor in the Daily Courier, Feb. 21, 2005. Mr. Smithwick, lawyer for the Simpson family, focuses on the critical issue here. The Lawson Landing project was conceived with the full knowledge of the developer, the planning department and city council but was kept secret from the public for months. Allowing a project of this magnitude to reach this stage without public knowledge shows an absolute contempt for public participation on the part of these parties. Furthermore, the major's continuing insistence that council has always been and remains neutral on this issue is an insult to the intelligence of Kelowna residents of major proportions.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 13, 2007 15:56:48 GMT -5
At its June 4, 2007 meeting Kelowna city council gave first reading to a bylaw that would dedicate Stuart Park as parkland which would remain in public hands forever and not be sold. It was stated at that time that if this dedication were ever removed to allow for a change in land use that public “assent” would be required.
The unfortunate use of the term “assent” by some members of city council has created some confusion. In the B.C. Community Charter “assent” clearly refers to a situation where a majority of residents express their will through a public referendum. However, under Section 30 of the Charter dealing with the dedication of municipal property, the removal of that dedication requires only the “approval” of the electors which can be obtained either through a referendum or by the use of the alternate approval process (AAP).
Given city council’s dismal track record on involving the public directly in decision making, it is a foregone conclusion that if a situation ever arose where council wanted to change the land use of Stuart Park that the AAP would be invoked. After all, when council had the opportunity recently to allow residents to vote on the issues of the Mission Aquatic Centre and Westside governance in both cases they decided to avoid giving the public a direct say. In fact it has been around 25 years since Kelowna had a public referendum on anything!
So council’s pledge to take any future change in the land use of Stuart Park to a public referendum should be viewed as a meaningless public relations exercise designed to gain public approval for their scrapping of the Simpson Covenant. If it ever came right down to having a referendum, their past actions suggest that the public would once again be denied their say with council having the legal means at their disposal to do just that.
|
|