A further response to Duane Tresnich

I would like to thank the Daily Courier for giving me this opportunity to respond to a letter written by Duane Tresnich and published therein on June 24th where he accuses Citizens for a Livable Downtown of “passing on wrong and false information” and of “misrepresenting the facts” in its petition drive to get a referendum on the downtown Comprehensive Development Zone.

 

In his letter Tresnich accuses a community nurse, who was collecting signatures and who has since identified herself as Maggie Getz, and our group of wrongdoing in regards to several matters in particular of “using one sheet to gather signatures so the person signing would not know exactly what they were signing” and of conducting a petition “for two different causes.” First, let me say that Mrs. Getz is an honourable woman and one of the finest people I know and that she has a different account of events.  Specifically, in regards to Tresnich’s accusation that people were signing a petition for something other than what they were being told, let me point out that the petition clearly states at the top of every page and fully visible to all that “the undersigned petition Kelowna City Council to consult the electors of Kelowna through a public referendum on whether or not to enact the proposed Comprehensive Development Zone in the downtown.” This is exactly what people are told the purpose of the petition is prior to being asked for their signature. But then, how would Tresnich know as he never bothered to read the petition himself? For Tresnich to accuse our group of misrepresenting the purpose of the petition without ever having read it goes beyond the bounds of ethical behaviour.

 

It is obvious that Tresnich is engaging in a smear campaign and attempting to discredit our group and, in particular, myself by inferring in another part of his letter that I am a liar. It saddens me to think that Tresnich’s enthusiasm for promoting the downtown Comprehensive Development Zone has caused him to abandon decency and to stoop to telling falsehoods. I hope that from hereon in he and his Move Kelowna Forward group will concentrate on promoting their cause in a positive way and end the gutter politics that they have been engaging in.

 

Note: In an indirect but clear reference to Tresnich’s letter, Daily Courier Managing Editor Tom Wilson’s editorial in The Okanagan, Saturday, June 28 (“Legal minefield of words”) states:

 

“The letters to the editor page is probably the most dangerous part of the newspaper. … We try to allow letter writers to say what they want in their own words — and most letter writers are capable of governing themselves accordingly — but some people go over the top.  Not to be confused with free expression, defamation gets unnecessarily personal. It goes too far in an attempt to discredit someone’s opinion or actions.”

Response to the letter by Duane Tresnich

Duane Tresnich

I would like to thank the Capital News for publishing my letter responding to Brian Dycke in its Sunday, June 22, 2008 edition and placing it after a letter written by Duane Treshnich. By placing my letter where it did, the Capital News gave me an opportunity to respond to both letters especially where I say “it behooves me to point out how individuals like Dycke are so weak in their logic and their knowledge of the facts that they have to resort to extreme exaggeration and telling outright falsehoods to bolster their otherwise shabby arguments,” as that statement applies to Tresnich as well. I will not dwell on Tresnich as this insignificant character is not worth the time or the amount of cyberspace that I could devote to him except to say the following. I appreciate that there are people on both sides of this argument who are passionate about their cause. However, I do not appreciate when their passion causes them to stray from promoting their cause in a positive way but rather turns into defamation. Treshnich has chosen to take the low road as his favoured approach having repeatedly tried to impugne my character. Fortunately, in our society, there are legal remedies for defamation which I will be exploring.

Response to the letter by Bryan Dyck

Bryan Dycke recently wrote a letter where he referred to a gentleman running for city council with a petition regarding the Comprehensive Development Zone plan for the redevelopment of part of the downtown. That gentleman was me and I recall my conversation with Mr. Dycke and how I was trying to get away from him for over ten minutes as he persistently lectured me about how economics and not community character should be the determining factor in considering the merits of development proposals.

I probably should leave matters alone as Mr. Dycke has done enough damage to his credibility with his far-fetched and ridiculous comparison of me to the Taliban that it likely isn’t even necessary for me to say any more. But it behooves me to point out how individuals like Dycke are so weak in their logic and their knowledge of the facts that they always have to resort to extreme exaggeration and telling outright falsehoods to bolster their otherwise shabby arguments.

Dycke writes that the petition that I am collecting signatures for is “opposing the downtown redevelopment” and is “very negative, opposed to redevelopment, opposed to the helipad.” Well, it is obvious that Dycke was so busy pontificating on how Kelowna should emulate big city downtowns that he didn’t even bother to read the petition as it is none of those things.

The petition simply asks “Kelowna City Council to consult the electors of Kelowna through a public referendum on whether or not to enact the proposed comprehensive development zone in the downtown.” In other words, it requests that there be an opportunity for the voters of the city to directly decide the fate of this project which will reshape the character of our city for better or worse for the foreseeable future. What could be more democratic? What could be more fair?

I invite others to come and read the petition and to decide if it is the things that Dycke says it is or rather an attempt to involve the public more directly in the decision making on a massive character changing development proposal. I and other members of Citizens for a Livable Downtown will be at the Sails every weekend for the next few weeks (weather permitting) between 1 and 4 p.m. to collect signatures. Please come down and sign.

My presentation to the APC on the Doyle Avenue High-Rise Project (June 17, 2008)

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission:

 

One year ago when the applicant came before you with a proposal to redevelop the subject property, the response of the Commission was that it was unhappy with the nature and number of variances that the applicant was requesting and it instructed him to revise his plan after consulting with the planning department.  He is before you again tonight with a somewhat modified proposal, but one that is no better than the original proposal but rather worse in its most important aspects.

 

The applicant’s original proposal was for a single structure that was 21 storeys in height that occupied 97.4% of the site with an FAR of 7.92. The setbacks from the street were 6.9 meters facing St. Paul Street, 3.96 meters at the rear, 5.33 meters facing north and south. In his new proposal there are two structures, one at 22 storeys and the other at 26, the FAR is 8.92, and the setbacks are 2.66 meters facing St. Paul St., 3.3 meters at the rear, 4.6 meters to the north, and 1.5 meters to the south.

 

The building heights in the new proposal are taller than the original structure by an average of 2.5 storeys, the FAR is greater, and the setbacks from the street less with the latter corresponding to an increase in the floor plate of the building beyond the already excessive amount that appeared before. The only improvement is a small reduction in the site coverage from 97.4% to 91% in the current proposal. The planning department is prepared to accept  variances when the architectural quality of the project merits the increases that are being asked for, but in this case they have stated in their report to the Commission that “The variances requested by the proposed project, in the estimation of ,staff, are not justified by the quality of the design” and “these [newly] incorporated elements, while considered improvements to the initial submission, do not sufficiently elevate the design to a level where the variances can be supported based on architectural merit.” In fact, in my opinion, the improvements that the applicant has brought back to the Commission are more than negated by newly offensive aspects. In sum, I think that the Commission should feel insulted that the applicant is wasting its time on a proposal that obviously raises the same objections that the Commission had before.

 

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of this new proposal is the building heights that the applicant is proposing on the subject property which exceed the maximum allowable under the C-7 zone by nearly 50% and do not conform to the existing building heights nearby, most notably the Madison immediately to the west which is 15 storeys tall. Commenting on this, the planning department in its report identified some objectives for development within the Official Community Plan and the fact that this proposal does not meet them. As stated in the OCP, “All development should be an appropriate response to its physical context, or anticipated future context where an area is designated for increased density or land use transition in the OCP (this project is not).” And “All development should contribute to a sense of community identity and sense of place (integration of development within larger community, belonging, community cohesiveness) (this project does not). Commenting on the conformity of the proposal to the City’s Guidelines for Development within Urban Centres and in regards to the topic “Building Massing,” the planning department’s report states “The proposed building is NOT compatible with the massing and rhythm of the emerging streetscape.”

 

On the important subject of density, although the proposal is within the maximum density allowed under the C-7 Zone at a density of 8.92 (the maximum allowable being 9.0), the density of this project should still be considered excessive as in the words of the planning department, “The FAR [in this zone] was intentionally set high with the expectation that no development would ever approach this upper limit.” Therefore, given that admission on the part of the planning department, I think it is fair to say that just because this project’s density is within the allowable amount that does not mean that it is acceptable as the reference density of 9.0 is admittedly excessive.  And since the density of this project is almost equal to the reference density, that makes the density of this project excessive as well. Accordingly, I think the Commission should require that the applicant stay within the maximum allowable building height under the C-7 zone and plan for a density that conforms to this height and with other requirements of the zone such as building setbacks and floor plates. Additionally, the structures should also occupy only enough of the site so as to not create a bulky look.

 

As the applicant has come before the Commission a second time having failed to do this, I request that the Commission recommend against all applications before it in regards to this proposal including the applications for a rezoning, a development permit, and all the requested variances.

 

Thank you.

Kelowna’s sustainability — a local version of the emperor’s new clothes

I find it most amusing how lately the City is trying to create the illusion that Kelowna is on the path towards sustainability by using that word to describe just about all of its activities. The latest example of this is the departmental reorganization at City Hall whereby three divisions will be created with two, Community Sustainability and Corporate Sustainability, bearing that term.

 

My amusement turned to a guffaw upon learning that the City Planning Department will be part of the Community Sustainability Division.  That department is presently undertaking a review of the Official Community Plan, wherein the public deception continues in regards to the population projections that are being used to calculate our growth between now and 2030.  The assumption in the OCP is that the city’s population will grow at an average annual rate of 1.57% over that period.  That certainly sounds sustainable if it were true, but it’s not. The truth is that for the past three years Kelowna’s population has grown by at least 3% per year with BC Statistics estimating that the city grew by 4.2% in 2007.  If that rate of growth continues, our population will be closer to 250,000 by 2030 than to the 160,000 that is being projected in the OCP.  So how do our planners figure that our growth will magically slow to a modest 1.57%?  The same way that the city administration is making Kelowna sustainable – by just saying it will.

 

The master propagandist Joseph Goebbels said that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Such is the case with the lie of Kelowna’s sustainability — a lie that sharply contrasts with the reality of increasing traffic congestion, a high crime rate, a critical shortage of affordable housing, and diminishing community character and social capital. The City can try to dress up Kelowna’s uncontrolled growth in the finest garment of sustainability, but I think the public is smart enough to see that the emperor has no clothes.