Media  &  correspondence

 
 
Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society c/o 2112 – 5 St. N. Cranbrook, BC V1C 4Y3 (250) 489-4412 www.livablecranbrook.org May 7, 2010 Mayor & Council City of Cranbrook 40 – 10 Ave. S. Cranbrook, BC V1C 2M8 Re: “City of Cranbrook Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 3689, 2010” Dear Mayor Manjak & Members of Council: With respect to the proposed bylaw regarding geothermal heating systems within the City of Cranbrook, we would like to commend Council for taking the initiative in making provision for the development of alternative energy sources within the City. We agree with the approach to restricting open loop systems within the aquifer development area. However, we believe that this restriction to open loop systems should apply throughout the city. The benefit of an open loop system over a closed loop system is strictly a matter of cost. What is at risk is the possibility of depleting our increasingly valuable aquifers and the potential of contaminating or depleting aquifers, which are now, or may in the future, be required for domestic and commercial use. Under these circumstances, we believe Cranbrook should follow the lead of other jurisdictions, such as the province of Alberta and not allow open loop systems. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Yours truly, Sharon Cross, President Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society c/o 2112 – 5 St. N. Cranbrook, BC V1C 4Y3 (250) 489-4412 www.livablecranbrook.org June 14, 2010 Mayor & Council City of Cranbrook 40 – 10 Ave. S. Cranbrook, BC Dear Mayor & Council: “We have always said that development will pay for development . .” Scott Manjak (June 4, 2010 Townsman) The Five Yr. Financial Plan was approved on March 22, 2010. At that time development at Wildstone was already stalled. The need for the city to pay to extend services through Wildstone to a connection with Shadow Mountain must have already been known before this document was approved. Why is this only being addressed now? Why did the City give subdivision approval to Shadow Mountain, and allow the developer to sell the lots, enabling owners to build before services are hooked up? How are the new owners going to respond if they have constructed houses they cannot occupy? Could the City face legal action from these new owners? The City has no option but to pay the $1.1M (more or less) for a costly extension of services to make good on its premature subdivision approval. There is already a record of the City having to rescue homeowners from premature subdivision and occupancy approvals. This particular development is a speculative high-end recreation project. Should the City financially support this form of development while little is done to address the more urgent need for affordable housing? Housing that would meet the needs of full-time residents? It’s the full time residents that work in, and support our local economy. To pay for this extension, $633,000 will be taken from DCC (development cost charge) Reserve Funds, $346,000 will be taken from Water and Sewer Fund Accumulated Surplus, and an additional $121,000 will be contributed by the City as a “developer assist”. It is claimed that the depletion of reserve funds “will be recovered in its entirety through connection fees when development of the Havaday (Wildstone) lands proceeds.” With DCC’s at only $2,032 per lot, and with residential development being the lowest of the city’s six property tax categories, we could be waiting for a long time to see any significant recovery of the costs of this project. When we consider that the City also contributes an 11% (taxpayer funded) assist of $121,000, it begs the question - Does development really pay for itself? Over the long term, it’s the citizens that pay for leapfrog development and poor planning. Yours truly, Sharon Cross, President Cc: Cranbrook Daily Townsman Kootenay News Advertiser Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society c/o 2112 – 5 St. N. Cranbrook, BC V1C 4Y3 (250) 489-4412 www.livablecranbrook.org June 16, 2010 ATT: Mr. Wayne Staudt, CA, Director of Finance & Computer Services City of Cranbrook Submission Re: Proposed Amendment to Five year Financial Plan (2010 to 2014) Bylaw No. 3683, 2010 The Five Yr. Financial Plan was approved on March 22, 2010. At that time development at Wildstone was already stalled. The need for the city to pay to extend services through Wildstone to a connection with Shadow Mountain must have already been known before this document was approved. Why is this only being addressed now? Why did the City give subdivision approval to Shadow Mountain, and allow the developer to sell the lots, enabling owners to build before services are hooked up? How are the new owners going to respond if they have constructed houses they cannot occupy? Could the City face legal action from these new owners? The City has really no option but to pay the $1.1M (more or less) for a costly extension of services to make good on its premature subdivision approval. There is already a record of the City having to rescue homeowners from premature subdivision and occupancy approvals. This particular development is a speculative high-end recreation project. Should the City financially support this form of development while little is done to address the more urgent need for affordable housing? Housing that would meet the needs of full-time residents? It’s the full time residents that work in, and support our local economy. We understand that to pay for this extension, $633,000 will be taken from DCC (development cost charge) Reserve Funds, $346,000 will be taken from Water and Sewer Fund Accumulated Surplus, and an additional $121,000 will be contributed by the City as a “developer assist”. It is claimed that the depletion of reserve funds “will be recovered in its entirety through connection fees when development of the Havaday (Wildstone) lands proceeds.” With DCC’s at only $2,032 per lot, and with residential development being the lowest of the city’s six property tax categories, we could be waiting for a long time to see any significant recovery of the costs of this project. When we consider that the City also contributes an 11% (taxpayer funded) assist of $121,000, it begs the question - does development really pay for itself? Over the long term, it’s the citizens that pay for leapfrog development and poor planning. Once again, the City’s actions have placed the taxpayers between a rock and a hard place. By not following due process during the initial stages of development of Shadow Mountain, taxpayers are faced with no alternative but to pay for construction that should have been paid for by a developer. This situation makes a total mockery of this public comment process. How can Council in good conscience remain objective, when as a result of premature approvals, the decision has already been made? Yours truly, Sharon Cross, President The 2009 debate over the East Hill boundary expansion issue was divisive. The fact that the City took a position to support the application without providing opportunities for informed public consultation contributed to the controversy. The City has a history of dismissing those with differing points of view (click here.) The following letters were published or circulated during the lead up to the referendum and afterwards: Re: The East Boundary Expansion Referendum: I am surprised at what I see are the actions of our city council except one strong soul, who has the nerve to stand up for himself. I have had my own experiences in government, having served for ten years as the Director for Area E in the Regional District., and understand very well how intimidating the peer pressure can be. Good on you, Bob Wetham, for sticking to your guns. It has the appearance to me that our Mayor and most of our council could be pulling the wool over our eyes by attempting to slide through this very major change in the structure of our city. There are just too many actions that have been taken that should raise the suspicions of every citizen: *One, the attempt to slide through this issue during the lazy days of summer. This is not an uncommon practice of government. How many of us even noticed the last expansion? *Two, all the "pro" advertising we have been inundated with. How can this possibly be construed as "public information"? The advertising bill for the yes vote must be enormous, and I am offended that it is completely biased, and even more offended when I get a flyer that tries to guilt me into voting yes by saying I don't care about my children's future! Oh, please! I care that my children will inherit a city that is well planned, with an eye to efficiency, and protection of lands and resources from unnecessary development. *Three, the lie that the landowners outside the city may develop any way they want to. As a former director in the Regional District, I know this to be untrue, as the Regional District and the Province have many well established regulations in place to protect us from improper or poorly conceived development. *Four, the statement that indicates that we do not have the available land for development. I cannot believe that with all of the undeveloped land in our existing boundary, and developed land that should be annexed, that we need this land to support what is projected at most to be modest growth in Cranbrook *Five, the urgency with which this action has been undertaken. Why the big rush, folks - we have a community plan that we paid for, and it seems wrong to believe we know the right way to do something without even checking first. As Mr. Haine said in a previous letter, why would anyone pay for a home evaluation and then not bother looking at it to take out a mortgage anyway? I am not so wise as to say whether or not the East Boundary Expansion would ultimately be a good thing or bad for Cranbrook, but I can think of many reasons why it is likely very bad, and I cannot think of a single reason why we need it. And, if we need it sometime down the road, I bet the land will still be there. I am thankful for our democratic process, and that there are those who will give their time and efforts to represent us in governmental matters. However, I am offended when those elected citizens begin to think I do not care about my community, and that I am not smart enough to see what is going on. Our elected officials should be representing all of us, and not just their business interests. I will be voting against the East Boundary Expansion. Randy Tapp Published December 15, 2009 To the Editor:     Re:  Boundary extension petition, Townsman, Dec. 4   It appears many of our businessmen and women are so busy selling houses, cars and land, giving investment advice or moving equipment that they haven’t got time to watch what they sign.  Some developers have yet to accept the workings of democracy, while some petitioners timidly signed “anonymous.”   But what excuse do two former city councilors have for signing a throw-away petition that signers hoped would somehow overturn the results of the Nov. 14th democratic referendum?  And how long does one have to work for government to know about elections?   One would think the two co-chairs of the Yes Committee would know that a referendum is an election.  When City Council, as a legislative body, passes a bylaw referring a proposition to the highest authority—the people—the results stand in any democracy.   Change comes hard.  Nonetheless, I am delighted to see people taking the opportunity to receive a lesson in democracy by signing onto a futile venture.  Better this than having a bunch of sore losers. It’s a win-win for Cranbrook.   William G. Hills Cranbrook, BC 489-1108  http://www.livablecranbrook.orghttp://www.livablecranbrook.orghttp://www.livablecranbrook.orgValley_Echo_Sept._2007.htmlMedia_&_Correspondence_files/Randy%20Tapp%20re%20East%20Boundary.docshapeimage_2_link_0shapeimage_2_link_1shapeimage_2_link_2shapeimage_2_link_3