Declaring my intention to run for city council

 

I am declaring my intention to run for city council this fall. I am doing so at this time in order to help draw attention to two very important issues of great concern to me – the multiple highrise comprehensive development zone being proposed for the downtown and the new Official Community Plan that is currently underway.

 

Both issues are important in that their outcome will have a profound impact on our community character. At this time Kelowna is at a critical juncture in its history and the direction that is takes from here will determine its community character for the next hundred years and more. Although some would argue that “growth in inevitable,” we have a choice as to how quickly we grow and what our ultimate population size will be. Other cities have said “no” to rapid growth by limiting the number of building permits issued annually or implementing adequate public facility bylaws which automatically trigger growth moratoriums whenever there is a significant gap between population growth and the supporting infrastructure. We could and should do the same here.  We also need to begin a study on our optimal population size in relation to environmental factors such as future water supply and sociological ones such as the impact of size on social capital.

 

The multiple highrise Comprehensive Development Zone being proposed by the City for the downtown core poses a more tangible and immediate threat to our community character by potentially creating a big city downtown on the waterfront which will send us hurling towards becoming a big city almost overnight. I strongly believe that this issue should be decided directly by voters of Kelowna through a public referendum to ensure that our community character isn’t hijacked by those developers, land owners, and merchants whose only interest is short term profit.  I believe that both of these issues should be the focus of the upcoming municipal election campaign in which I intent to speak out strongly and unequivocally on the side of retaining our small city charm and livability.

 

Kelowna badly needs some different perspectives on city council as there are presently too many councillors who regularly capitulate to interests that would sell out our beauty, community character, and quality of life for the short-term profits of a few. If elected, I believe that I would provide such a new perspective.

Get involved in shaping the new OCP

The City of Kelowna has commenced a review of the Official Community Plan which will also extend its time span to the year 2030. The OCP is our chief planning document and is used to determine the overall form of growth and development. The City is presently inviting the public to provide input into the goals and objectives of the new OCP through a public survey, and it is important that all residents get involved in the planning of their community by taking it.

 

In the last few years Kelowna has witnessed an acceleration of growth unparalleled in its history. This rapid growth is threatening our community character, lowering our quality of life, damaging our environment, and increasing our taxes. Some would argue that “growth is inevitable” and all that can be done to mitigate its negative impacts is to channel it into high density urban centres and to “grow up, not out.” Indeed, such thinking has been the basis for the city’s present policy of accommodating rather than controlling growth.

 

However, such a “smart growth” solution creates more problems than it solves and only serves to increase traffic congestion and crowding while destroying the beauty of our city with a proliferation of highrise buildings which block residents’ views and diminish our magnificent natural surroundings. And although “smart growth” seems to be the way to contain sprawl and preserve agricultural land, the experience of cities that have gone this route such as Portland, Oregon has been that it is impossible to contain all the growth pressures within such urban centres and that sprawl continues anyway.

 

The City is presently affording residents a rare opportunity to be heard on these matters.  I urge residents to speak out and say that you are tired of suffering with the negative impacts of rapid growth and that our growth needs to be controlled and slowed like scores of other communities in North America such as Brampton, Ontario have done by limiting the number of building permits issued annually. In addition, this is also the time to tell our planners that it is foolhardy to think that growth can continue endlessly as our environment only has a finite amount of resources to support us and a finite capacity to absorb our wastes. It is time to start talking about setting an optimal population size for our community as has been done in Okotoks, Alberta and elsewhere. Get involved, add your voice and complete the survey at www.kelowna2030.ca.

Changes to Downtown Redevelopment Plan insignificant

 It was much ado about nothing as the City unveiled the latest changes at its recent open house to the downtown highrise behemoth or the Downtown Revitalization Initiative, as the City prefers to call it, thereby giving it a positive spin that it is actually accomplishing something more than just destroying our city character. No, there wasn’t much change – the building heights are still dizzying and with densities that would make most people choke. 

 

At the open house consultant Graham McGarva insisted that his plan would not result in the Vancouverization of Kelowna, but the uncanny resemblance between his plan for our city and the Concord Pacific Place project that his firm designed for Vancouver belies that suggestion. McGarva said that one critical difference between the cities is that the allowable densities in our city are already higher than in Vancouver, which to me is a real good argument for reviewing and lowering them to something far more appropriate for Kelowna as the present astronomically high densities allowable in the downtown core must have been the idea of some planner high on LSD.

 

One particularly sad note from the open house, and I use the term “open” very loosely here, is the way project manager Doug Gilchrist used a heavy hand to make sure that there were no embarrassing questions or comments directed at him or McGarva after the presentations in the Mary Irwin Theatre by just not allowing any questions at all. It seems he was still smarting from the previous open house when around a dozen people who were completely unbeknownst to one another offered a series of critical questions and comments which shattered the illusion that Gilchrist was trying to create that everyone loved this project and that there was no significant opposition. It was indeed a sad night for freedom of expression and the open public exchange of views.

Santa Barbara residents move to lower allowable building heights

“smart growth” — Kelowna in 50 years

 

At a time when building height restrictions seem to mean nothing in Kelowna and government bodies such as City Council and the Advisory Planning Commission are only too happy to comply with developers’ requests for taller and taller buildings, there is a movement underway in one North American city to go in the opposite direction and to reduce some already modest building height standards.

 

For decades Santa Barbara, CA (pop. 90,000) has had a 60 foot height restriction in place, but recently, following the construction of numerous buildings in the downtown that have pushed the limits of those heights, residents have decided to take action. A group by the name of Save El Pueblo Viejo, a term for their historic downtown meaning “the old village,” has been organized in an attempt to preserve the heritage of the downtown, its aesthetics, and the small town atmosphere of the city which residents see as being threatened by allowing buildings that are even 60 feet tall. And the group has met with considerable success having gotten 4,000 signatures on a petition to reduce those buildings heights to 40 feet downtown and 45 feet elsewhere and the support of some city councillors.

 

Are Santa Barbara residents a bunch of radicals who are out of touch with modern urban realities? No, they just are just dedicated citizens who appreciate their beautiful city nestled between the mountains and the Pacific Ocean and the Spanish architecture found in their historic downtown, the value of which was being compromised by the large, bulky buildings going up there. What a contrast to Kelowna where money is the only thing that seems to matter and people who care about their city character are said to be obstructing “progress” and are labeled as NIMBYs!

 

I think that Kelowna residents might have something to learn from what is happening in Santa Barbara, hopefully being inspired to renew their appreciation of our own considerable assets in terms of Kelowna’s natural beauty and community character and to take action before what makes our city unique is gone forever.