OCP changes should be put on hold

The recent public hearing on the proposed 12-storey development at the former packinghouse property is just another example why this town desperately needs a new community plan.
There was a very clear message sent at that meeting – the majority of people do not want a 12-storey building on their waterfront.
The question we have, however, is what do they want developed on that property?
And that is the key to the problems currently facing this community. There is absolutely no clear direction, no clear plan and, most importantly, no clear mandate from the community's taxpayers as to what direction Osoyoos should be headed.
Destination Osoyoos seems to have its own vision for Osoyoos. Chairman Arnie Polischuk said the community's Economic Development Strategy and Tourism Development and Marketing Strategy both recognize the need for a project of this nature . . .rnJudging from the chorus of boos that greeted the end of Polischuk's speech it is hard not to question just how representative those strategies are of this community. In fact, we really have to question just how much community support currently exists for Destination Osoyoos and whether or not the town politicians should also be questioning where they spend their economic development and tourism dollars?rnFor some time now, we have been hammering away at the need for an Official Community Plan and once again we want to reiterate that concern. While we know the town currently has a committee working on it, there has yet to be any input from the public in terms of meetings or hearings. This has taken far too long, considering this current council made the committment to update the plan in the last election, almost three years ago.
What we suggest then is that any proposed changes to the OCP (such as a 12-storey building) be put on hold until the new plan is put in place, without exception.
That might inconvenience developers, but we have to live with these developments forever, thus asking them to wait a few more months certainly isn't unreasonable.