Time to object to 12-storey building is now

Editor:rnMany of us will readily agree that we would like to see something nice happen on the former packinghouse property. Of course, the best idea would have been for the Town to buy the property when it was first offered for sale in the early 1990's and have it turned into additional parkland. But, at one million dollars, it was then considered too expensive. Now that the property price has been reduced to $5,995,000 (according to the realtor LandQuest website), One Million Dollars looks like a giveaway today. We, the Town, could STILL buy the property, if each of our 5,000 residents would be willing to fork out about $1,200.
Many of us will also readily agree that any developer who might buy this land is likely to want to maximize his investment and grab as much profit as could be possible. However, NONE of us would be likely to agree that such profit grabbing should be done at our expense!rnFew of us have come to this pleasant little town of Osoyoos to spend our last days, just to see it turn into another Kelowna! And, I imagine that many of the first families of this community and region are already grimacing at the surge of development that has occurred in the past 15 years.
The possibility of every day and night viewing a 12 storey tower rising like a behemoth from our downtown core is too overwhelming to contemplate! Not only would it look incongruous amongst all our other quite tall enough structures in our community, but, it would look downright foolishrnThere are local people who still resent the height of the White Sands development. It was around the building of these condos that a 4-storey maximum bylaw was agreed upon. So far 4-storeys has been the norm.
But, if increased heights are allowed, this would set a precedent and we can be absolutely certain that more developers would find more waterfront property to build even higher!rnThe Lakeside Resort in Penticton is 6 storeys (counting the ground floor); the Grand Okanagan Lakefront Resort in Kelowna is 10 storeys; and, this proposed tower in Osoyoos would be 12 storeys! Why ever in the world would we want to be in competition with those larger communities for inordinately high storey buildings, closing out the views of our little jewel of a lake and dramatic mountains?! From every point, all over our end of the valley, we would be bound to see that tower! Is that what we want?rnIn addition to the above, such a tower would create a huge shadowed area throughout the winter and change the wind pattern in the whole area.
And, can the ground so near the shore and under such a tower be engineered to tolerate so much weight?rnAnd, then there's the parking! Why would anyone assume that a large portion of the users of the restaurant and licensed establishment will be guests in the hotel and therefore these uses will not require as many parking stalls as normally regulated in the Zoning Bylaw (as reported in May 25/05 Osoyoos Times). If, indeed, the hotel guests use up the parking spaces provided by the hotel, WHERE, then, will one-day convention attendees park, when they come to town? I can foresee all the side-streets and alleys filled with out-of-town parked vehicles during a one-day convention ” as well as downtown business parking spaces. If such were to happen, there would be many objections come forth from ALL of us! On a continuing basis! Then, would we be faced with parking meters? That would probably be deemed to be the next solution.
What bond or guarantee would the proposed owner/applicant (now listed as a B.C. Ltd number) give to the Town in the event that this project was started but not finished? (as has happened with the last several developers of this site).
The present architect of this project is a small firm located in The Galleria on Granville Island. Is it large enough and effective enough to see such a demanding project completed so the community will be happy to have it dominating our downtown core?rnOf course, if/when this proposed project is completed, will the developer and architect run away with profits in hand? Or would they be staying to live through the long-lasting changes they've brought about and the ensuing consequences?rnSo MANY questions to be asked ” and ” the answers can forever affect the character of the small community in which we want to live.
If we feel this 12-storey tower will be an overwhelming monolith and dominate our community, the time to object to it is NOW ” or we could spend the rest of our lives complaining about it.
Has this 12-storey proposal been made just to soften us up and be grateful when it is withdrawn? And, a new 6-storey, or, 8-storey proposal is made?rnOr, would acceptance of 12-storeys lead to 16- storeys, etc., etc., further down the road?!rnAnd then, first, last and always we have to remember that we are living in an arid land! The more population we attract to this region, the less water there will be for each and everyone of us. Our water is our limiting factor.
Come to the 7 p.m. Thursday June 9/05 Public Hearing in the gymnasium at the Sonora Community Centre and be ready to make your views known on this matter.
Gwen MonteithrnOsoyoos

Editor:
It's been some time since I've heard from perennial candidate Andy Shadrack (Shame on local MP Jim Gouk for personalized insult of Stronach, June 1). While I do enjoy hearing opinions from constituents, those who are politically motivated should make an effort to be more accurate in their remarks, especially when those remarks are coming from someone who used to teach political science at Selkirk College.
Contrary to Andy's accusation, I have not made any sexist statements about Belinda Stronach's sell-out to the Liberals, in exchange for a cabinet position ” nor do I know of anyone in the Conservative caucus who has. There were some objectionable characterizations made in the media, but they were made by individuals outside of our control. Really Andy, if someone who supports the Green Party makes an objectionable comment, should you or your party be condemned for it? Surely not.
Andy goes on to slip in an unconnected use of the term sexual orientation. I have to assume he is referring to our objection to changing the traditional definition of marriage. It is true that the vast majority of our party does not agree with redefining marriage. However, we are the only national party that has allowed a full free vote on this issue, and we have gone out of our way to ensure our members don't use inappropriate terms or statements when debating this issue in Parliament.
As to his concluding comments about our allying with the Bloc being a threat to the future of our country, Andy is showing either his ignorance of the facts as they have unfolded or his willingness to ignore the truth to make a cheap political point. The Bloc may be voting the same as us on certain bills, but there is no coalition whatsoever. In fact, just recently the Bloc joined with the Liberals and NDP to strike down a Conservative motion that would have allowed the Gomery Commission to name names and assess blame in the sponsorship fiasco. Some coalition!rnThe only thing that has raised support for sovereignty in Quebec is the scandalous behaviour of the Liberal Party. The sooner they are removed from office, the sooner we can begin the reforms necessary to regain the support of federalists in Quebec. Quebecers must be given a better choice than a separatist organization or a criminal organization. We will give them that choice.
Jim Gouk, MP
British Columbia Southern Interior

Editor:
Regarding your editorial of June 1, 2005.
Unless you, or your staff, has been doing some intensive investigative digging on your own, finding facts of which the general public is not yet aware, I must assume that you are following a Party Line.
It is known that a clique of bureaucrats, that are now facing criminal charges, are the ones who are corrupt, and, as promised by Prime Minister Martin, will pay for their crimes. The only elected official known to have been involved is Mr. Gagliano, who has been fired.
To say that your staff at the Times is as biased as their editor would be a wrong assumption on my part, just as your assumption that all Liberals are corrupt is wrong on your part.
You acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publications Assistance Program. Strange! You are taking Sponsorship money?rnI am a proud Canadian. Incredulous that you can print false information with impunity, and proud I have the right to challenge you for proof of your assertions.
Mary HopkinsrnOsoyoos

Editor:rnI awoke from a nightmare the other night. In my dream, it seemed someone had built a 12 storey building on the old packing house property.
It was good to wake up and find it was only a dream, as no one in their right mind would really do this. If they did, Osoyoos would never be Osoyoos again. The small town, Okanagan charm of Osoyoos, is fast disappearing and yet, that charm is what attracts people, as our many condos and diminishing water supply tell us. I'm sure there is no greed connected to this, well almost sure.
If there must be a building on this property, an assisted living one is much needed, as a large majority of our citizens are seniors. There would be enough parking for two storeys, but, for 12 storeys? No way.
Anyway, it would be wise for all of us, young or old, to attend the public hearing on June 9, and any follow up meetings.
Marguerite Scott, Osoyoos

Editor:rnAfter reading the town notice of wanting to sign four five-year leases to Osoyoos Golf and Country Club for one dollar per year I wondered why such a long term legal deal?rnBeing a designated spray effluent area this surely will restrict the ability of the town to implement flow changes or need changes, which might be necessary in the near future. With everyone involved being good samaritans and wanting what is best for Osoyoos and our parks, a one year or two year lease with a supportive agreement of the future should be enough. Jim Shawrn