Our new city council

I want to congratulate all the winners in the civic election especially Angela Reid and Charlie Hodge who’s presence bodes well for the new city council to be more progressive than the last.

I have already commented on my dissapointment at the low voter turnout, a drop of 35% from 2005. With that large difference from the last election in the number of eligible voters who actually voted, it is difficult to make comparisons of the candidates’ showing on the basis of the actual number of votes they received. However, among all the candidates who ran both three years ago and this year, only Graeme James and I had an increase in the number of votes cast for them.  All other candidates experienced a drop in votes with the incumbents suffering the largest decline (Robert Hobson -5068, Andre Blanleil -5043, Brian Given -4027, and Michelle Rule -2371).  It is probably most meaningful to compare candidates on their percentage of the total vote. There Graham James fared the best with a gain of 80.3%, I came in second with an increase of 61.8%, Joe Gates gained 36.6%, Mary-Ann Graham picked up 18.2% and Charlie Hodge advanced 10.8%.  The incumbents all had a decline. Lastly, I want to congratulate the first time candidates such as Kevin Craig and Toby Pike on their strong showing.

Kelowna civic election — the big winner is apathy

Apathy was the big winner in the Kelowna civic election. With only one out of five eligible voters bothering to cast a ballot and many important issues still to be decided like the downtown CD Zone and the new Official Community Plan, it seems like the majority of residents just don’t care. But this is largely the consequence of the kind of community that Kelowna city council has fostered in the past decade. They have turned Kelowna into a retirement haven for the wealthy where people come to live out the last ten or twenty years of their lives without any interest in the community beyond that time frame.

Mayor Sharon Shepherd says the problem is the way we vote and suggests that a modified ward system will spur residents to become more interested in their community. But the only kind of interest that will encourage is an unhealthy and insular “my neighbourhood first” mentality which is already a rot in our body politic. No, there is no way to organize apathy. It has to be cut out like a cancer if it hasn’t spread too far, but it looks like it may already be too late and that the patient is terminal.

Results of the Kelowna 2008 Civic Election Survey

Total responses = 88

 

Q1. How satisfied are you with the current city council?

 

Very satisfied 6%

Somewhat satisfied 14%

Neutral 22%

Somewhat dissatisfied 19%

Very dissatisfied 40%

 

2. What are the most important issues to you in this year’s civic election (choose a maximum of three)?  (number of actual responses)

 

Growth and development 40

Downtown redevelopment 35

Traffic congestion 31

Lack of trust in city council (Simpson Covenant) 31

Crime 28

Affordable Housing 24

Sustainability 23

Other 10

Use of the AAP (Mission Aquatic Centre) 6

 

4. Do you think that members of city council should make public how they voted on the decision to appeal the court ruling which affirmed the legality of the Simpson Covenant?

 

Yes 85%

No 15%

 

5. Do you think the public should be consulted through a referendum on whether or not to carry out the proposed multiple highrise project for a four block area of the downtown?

 

Yes 69%

No 31%

 

6. Do you want the final decision on the downtown multiple highrise project to be made by the newly elected city council after the November civic election instead of the outgoing city council?

 

Yes 80%

No 20%

 

8. Are you a resident of Kelowna ?

 

Yes 99%

No   1%

 

9. Do you intend to vote in the upcoming Kelowna civic election?

 

Yes  95%

No 5%

 

10. Do you intend to vote for John Zeger for city councillor?

 

Undecided 33%

Of the decided:

           Yes 63%

            No 37%

 

11. ( late addition, R= 36) Having reversed itself by now agreeing to drop the appeal of the Simpson Covenant, has city council restored your trust in them?

 

Yes 28%

No  72%

Letter of support

IN SUPPORT OF

J O H N   Z E G E R

For Kelowna City Councillor

 

In my opinion, over the past 34 years, the Citizens of the City of Kelowna were most fortunate to have had a variety of outstanding, dedicated, committed individuals Elected the Office of City Mayor and Councillor.  Some of these individuals were outstanding in the achievements that were accomplished.  These people have spent many hours of their own personal time, well over and above the expected normal time spent, attending meetings, committees, meeting with the concerns of Kelowna Citizens, etc., all on behalf of the quality of life of the Citizens of Kelowna.  Existing Mayor Sharon Shepherd is outstanding too and I hope that she will be our Mayor for many years into the future.  I thank these individuals for their contribution.

 

We have now reached a point in time, where change and major re-focus is needed on the City Council and with the direction the City of Kelowna will follow.  It’s time for a major change in thinking and planning of Kelowna’s Future !  We now have a good Mayor and we now need a good Council, a Council that will work together as a Team, who will build back the respect of the Citizen’s of Kelowna and who will give the necessary direction to the City of Kelowna Administration Staff.

 

*    The Community Spirit of Kelowna Resident’s that was so outstanding during the era as a smaller community, was respected by all age groups of the entire community. This type of Community Spirt has rapidly eroded and has been discontinued and replaced by current Council thinking that does not have a focus on the quality and lifestyle of the majority of Long Time Residents/Average Families, Seniors and the Young, the roots, that built this community. Kelowna Citizens that want their concerns brought to a Public Council Meeting should have their business placed first on the agenda and not have to wait until the end of these meetings.  Council should exercise full democracy. 

 

*    Population Growth is Now Rampant.

    The City of Kelowna can no longer properly plan and budget Municipal Infastructure, including road maintenance, service maintenance/up-grading improvements to existinh established neighbourhoods and many similar needs, without large Property Tax Increases.  With the Rampant Growth, Police and Fire Staffing Resources, City Employees are being strained.  Many Service Requirements, are put on hold, but actually need to be expanded.  Affordable Housing is being poorly handled, with little results accomplished.  Many Residents no longer feel safe on the streets at night with the crime.  Traffic flow through the City is in sad condition.  Agricultural land needs to be preserved. New Industry is required in Kelowna, Including Employment and Jobs.

It is important for the City of Kelowna to build it’s Tourism for All Seasons of the Year, which helps to generate good cash flow to the Hospitality Industry and subsequently builds Employment and Jobs too.

*    The Simpson Covenant was poorly and disrespectfully handled by the previous council in conducting this type of City Business behind closed doors.  We need a new council that will be transparent to the Citizens of Kelowna and demonstrate respect, to this major contribution made by the Simpson Family.

 

*    Downtown Comprehensive Development Zone. 

    A very important matter to all residents of the City of Kelowna, which was rushed through City Council and was not givem adequate time for the Citizens to digest.  Recommend this import business be delayed, put on-hold for up to 5 years, to allow input from the entire community and that only local Architects and Planners be used.  Not handled by City Council in a very Democratic manner.

Recommend this matter be presented to the Citizens of Kelowna in the form of Referendum in the Fall of 2012 or Spring 2013.

 

*    Okanagan Mission Sports Centre & Swimming Pool.

    These recreational facilities were badly needed in this section of the community, but the approach taken by City Council is another example of not having the costs and design building these facilities included in a Referendum, for the Citizens of Kelowna to make the decision.  The approach take was not Democratic.  Further municipal facilities should be included into a Full Referendum Process for the Citizens of Kelowna to make the decision.

Perhaps the B.C. Municipal Act should be amended too to remove the Alternate Approval Process?

TOURISM & COMMUNITY  LIFESTYLE

*    Annual Kelowna Regatta & Parade. 

    This event was downsized due to past problems with riots in the downtown area, mainly as a result of the sale and consumption of alcohol in the City Park.  Hopefully lessions were learned from mistakes and corrections can be made to restore the Regatta to it’s original status.

The Kelowna Regatta was famous in the past throughout the entire Province of B.C. and brought Tourists into Kelowna with a magnitude.  It is unfortunate that the old original old Aquadic/Regatta Building in the City Park, burned down and was not rebuilt. This old Acquadic Centre was outstanding for centralizing Water Sports  We understand that the Insurance Coverage Claim  for the Old Acquadic Building was not adequate and that these funds were contributed towards the Construction of the Parkinsons Recreation Centre.  Not the same for Kelowna.

Hopefully the Regatta can have a full time year around office to centralize and to promote tourism.  Hopefully this could be included in the pending New Kelowna Yacht Club Building.  It would be great if the Regatta were turned over to the Jaycees with their skill in these areas ?

*    The Wake Festival.

    The Wake Festival was discontinued by the current City Council, in their wisdom due to problems and concerns. We understand the City Council will be giving the Wake Festival further consideration and hopefully can be reinstated for next year ?

*    Children’s Fat Cat Festival.

    Hopefully this too can be revived, as it was successfull from day one.

 

Vote for  John Zeger

IT’S  TIME  FOR  A  CHANGE

As a resident in Kelowna since 1974, I have voted in every Municipal Election.  Over the years we have seen a number of New Mayors and Councils come and go.  Some good, some not so good.

I am supporting  “JOHN ZEGER”  as a candidate for City of Kelowna Councillor and encourage you to do the same.  “JOHN ZEGER” has an Outstanding Background, including leadership skills and I know that he will be an Excellant Hard Working Team Player and Spokesman on the New Council, for all of the Citizens of Kelowna and for every area of the City of Kelowna. 

 

Don Mortison,

Okanagan Mission,

Kelowna,  B.C.

 

 

 

 

San Francisco knows how to keep a good thing going

San Francisco has one of the liveliest, most interesting waterfronts in the world attracting 15 million visitors annually. Their city council is smart and knows how to keep a good thing going and has thus limited the height of buildings along the waterfront to 84 feet (7-8 storeys). What does this say about Kelowna’s city council?

Elect a new city council that opposes CD 21

Citizens for a Livable Downtown is endorsing a group of candidates that we are supporting for the November 15 civic election. Our organization would like to see the downtown redeveloped with structures built to human-scale so as to preserve the present character of the downtown especially along the waterfront. We also would to see the Downtown Plan revised for the whole of the downtown prior to city council considering the CD Zone. Finally, we would like a public referendum on the issue so as to make this a community decision rather than a political one. These are only some of our many objections to this proposal.

 

The CD Zone has not yet received 4th and final reading which is expected to happen after the new city council takes office. There is still a possibility that this proposal could be defeated on 4th reading and be sent back to the drawing board. However, the nature of the modifications that are made to the plan could range from minor changes to outright scrapping depending on who gets elected.

 

Citizens for a Livable Downtown sent out a questionnaire to all candidates and we have also reviewed responses that the candidates made to questionnaires of other groups and organizations as well as statements made by the candidates themselves. We have used this information to make a list of those candidates that we can confidently recommend to the public as having a strong and multi-reasoned opposition to CD-21. These candidates listed in preferential order are:

 

Mayor

Sharon Shepherd

 

Councillor

John Zeger

Angela Reid

Matthew Reed

Andrew Powell

Gunnar Forsstrom

Bill Vaughn

 

We are also giving an honorable mention to some candidates who have expressed a more limited opposition to the downtown CD Zone. This group, listed in alphabetical order, includes:

 

Dorothee Birker

Kevin Craig

Janice Henry

Robert Hobson

Charlie Hodge

Mo Rajabally

Michelle Rule

 

I would also like to give my personal thumbs up to Donald Forbes.

 

 

Although Citizens for a Livable Downtown did not approve an “avoid list”, here is my list of candidates to DO NOT VOTE FOR:

Joe Gates

Brian Given

Mary-Ann Graham

Jerry Hlady

Graeme James

Perry Mack

Shelley Nicholl

Toby Pike

J. C. Rathwell

Jason Rock

Lisa Simone

Luke Stack

Mark Thomsen

Scott Yule

The great swindle of the downtown CD Zone and density bonusing

I am providing a link to a recent article in the British newspaper The Evening Standard about London, but the article could just as easily be about Kelowna and how a certain developer pulled the wool over the eyes of an inept city council and convinced them to approve the downtown CD Zone.  Do people really want to re-elect these weak-kneed politicians who are readily and willingly conned by one developer after another? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23582125-details/The+great+planning+swindle/article.do

Did Given and Blanleil originally vote in favour of appealing the court decision upholding the Simpson Covenant?

 

As Kelowna City Council has yet to pass a resolution to make public the vote held in August to appeal the decision of the BC Supreme Court to uphold the legality of the Simpson Covenant, it is fair game to make educated guesses on which councillors voted in favour of appealing that decision.

 

One piece of useful information in making such educated guesses is the responses to the questions asked of all the candidates by the Okanagan Mission Residents Association. When asked “Do you support the appeal of the Simpson/Sawmill Covenant decision by Madame Justice Catherine Bruce?” most candidates answered in a clear manner which would indicate that they either favoured the appeal or they didn’t. Here are the responses by Councillors Andre Blanleil and Brian Given:

 

Blanleil – “I think we need a public process to clarify land uses available to the City for the land in question. I think that land should be protected for Municipal purposes.”

 

Given – “I released a public statement calling for a resolution to this issue, and it will be coming to council on the public agenda Oct 27^th.”

 

Notice, neither candidate gave a direct response to the question but rather an answer that was already looking ahead to council’s decision on October 27 to abandon the appeal and to initiate a public consultation process. I think that it is also very telling that Given and Blanleil were the mover and seconder, respectively, of the motion at that council meeting that effectively abandoned the appeal. Was that their mea culpa?

City council’s decision to drop the Simpson Covenant appeal does not exonerate them

 

On September 27 Kelowna City Council voted to drop its planned appeal of the BC Supreme Court ruling upholding the Simpson Covenant and thereby reversed the decision that council made in August. In addition to voting to drop the appeal, Council decided to initiate a public consultation process and ask the public to help clarify the municipal purposes for which the former Simpson land could be used. There would also be a public referendum on the outcome of that process in 2011.

 

While most residents applaud council’s action on Monday, it is fair to ask some questions about what has just transpired. The first question is why was this done? Is this a genuine new-found respect on the part of some on council for historic agreements involving the City or, coming as it does less than three weeks before the civic election, an insincere and thinly veiled attempt by some councillors to avoid defeat at the polls? And were it not for the proximity of the election, would this have happened at all?

 

A second question is, if going to the public to clarify the allowable uses on the former Simpson land was an option all along, why wasn’t this option chosen in August instead of council’s decision at that time to pursue a court appeal? The third and most important question is, has anything really changed with our city council so that they are once again deserving of our trust? I think the answer to the last question is “no,” as I don’t think that there has been any fundamental transformation in the style or thinking of some councillors who are running for re-election regarding matters such as transparency of decision making and public involvement. They are still the same people, and I don’t believe that what happened this week is anything but an opportunistic attempt, as Sharron Simpson put it, “to protect their political assets.”

 

This council will continue to make decisions in-camera even though they have the choice not to. This council will continue to avoid involving the public directly in decision making. And this council will continue to be guided by political expedience rather than principle. Nothing has changed. This council is not deserving of our trust. And in order to allow the public to be able to separate the sheep from the goats, council should pass a resolution to make public how individual members of council voted in August on the original motion to appeal the court ruling on the Simpson Covenant. The public has the right to know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The presence of the Gospel Mission is the obstacle to the revitalization of the downtown

Daily Courier Managing Editor Tom Wilson asked in his editorial of October 21 for opponents to the Downtown Comprehensive Development Zone to propose an alternative plan for the redevelopment of the downtown. I cannot speak for all the opponents of CD 21 here but only for myself.

 

I acknowledge there is a need for redevelopment in the downtown but I don’t think the cause of its present state is due to a lack of density but rather to the concentration of social service agencies on Leon Avenue. In fact, at the top of a list of weaknesses of the downtown identified in the Spaxman report presented to Kelowna City Council in June 2007 is “The street activity generated by the Gospel Mission.” The key to the revitalization of the downtown then is the relocation of the Gospel Mission which was suggested in another report to council two years ago. City council accepted the recommendations of that report and even offered to give the Mission some city owned land to facilitate the relocation. However, city council never had the backbone to follow through with this plan and has since withdrawn the offer of land.

 

A new city council should make as a priority the relocation of the Gospel Mission. Once it is relocated, the concentration of social service agencies dispersed, and the nightclubs in the area better regulated, the obstacles to redevelopment will disappear and developers will once again be eager to commence with new projects in the city core. I reject the absurd notion that we need densities in excess of what is present in Vancouver and building heights of up to 27 storeys in order to achieve this revitalization. I think it can be accomplished using mid-rise buildings between 6 and 8 storeys which will still preserve the historic character of the downtown. In fact, anyone who has been to our downtown lately has noticed the recently completed and fine looking Worman Building at Pandosy Street and Leon Avenue which at a height of 6 storeys plus a penthouse is a welcome addition to the area. If developers need 27 storey buildings and ultra-high densities as an inducement to build there, no one told builder Shane Worman.