The comment occurred during the All Candidates forum at OUC last week.
Ostensibly offering a reason for the now-obvious singling out of Judy Paterson's building permit application--which triggered the contentious Servicing Bylaw for off-site works of a Multi-Use Path along her roadfrontage--the Mayor stated "six hundred people on Kidston Road approached us..."
Huh?
Do six hundred people even live on Kidston Road?
Click on the link and have a look for yourself.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Kidston+Road,+British+Columbia&hl=en&ll=50.213287,-119.272513&spn=0.009269,0.016844&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=38.417382,68.994141&vpsrc=6&hnear=Kidston+Rd,+North+Okanagan+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&t=h&z=16
Six hundred people?
The incumbent Mayor qualified the nearly $300,000 cost to Judy Paterson for off-site works with that statement, offering that any group of people, on any road in the area, could "get a petition together" to submit to Council asking for improvements to the area that would, unknowingly (until it was too late), trigger the bylaw to a single homeowner? (Judy Paterson has now, understandably, cancelled her permit application).EDIT* 5:55 p.m. Judy Paterson has not cancelled the building permit application.
Holy cow, to put it bluntly.
"Maybe they counted the cows," offers Kia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow... they can barely scrape together 15 people to attend a council meeting and yet 600? people will band together to demand a bike path? I'm speechless.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like some people are deciding how they want things to go forward. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on Saturday. Don't forget to vote!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.okanaganpolls.ca/more/coldstream-elections-2011.asp
People need to hold Garlick to his words (perhaps tonight at the forum), as statements such as this are pure manipulation designed to force special interest projects through.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to not that Councillor Guyla Kiss has a property on Kidston Road... which was recently rebuild following a tragic, and devestating fire.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Mr Kiss, council at el is
"Was Mr Kiss's reconstruction given a building permit? If so, did Mr Kiss give any money towards the construction of the Multi-use path? Furthermore, does Mr Kiss believe that the district, going forward, should be taking a position that families who have suffered from a disaster should be responsible for development fees, in addition to the cost of reconstruction?"
In order to receive the Provincial grant money to complete this bike path, the District was required to produce a report demonstrating that it was good use for the fuel tax grant. According to the report, this bike path will "permanently remove" 900+ vehicles from the roads in Coldstream.
ReplyDelete900+??? Let's analyze that for a sec. This is by no means scientific but let's throw some numbers out there. There are approx. 10,000 residents in Coldstream. Let's assume there is one car per resident just to err on the cautious side. In that case, we will permanently remove nearly 1 in 10 vehicles from our roads by constructing a 2-3km bike path (if it's even that long) that doesn't actually go anywhere. I believe there are around 130 homes that directly benefit from this path. So using that figure are we to assume that each of these homes will dispose of 7 vehicles so they can ride their bikes from Kal Park to Kidston School and back?
This creative accounting and falsified study places Coldstream in an awkward position should the Province investigate their multi-use path report. At best I suppose we could count on the grant being denied, at worst the District has fraudulently acquired these funds and we will have even more criminal charges against our town.
A selection of recent Garlickism's:
ReplyDelete"Why don't you go live somewhere else." (comment made to candidate Hrabchuk)
"You haven't lived here long enough to have an opinion" (comment made to a ratepayer with opposing views to Garlick)
"Because legislation says we can." (ref. to the requirement for Judy Patterson to sell land to the district for a bike path)
"MY Community Matters!" (On his campaign signs)
"I'll be here on the 28th" (ref. to unfinished council business at the Nov. 14th meeting - he is assuming he will be re-elected).
And let's not forget the embarrassment our community suffered when he made an unprofessional personal attack against Mayor Lippert of Vernon.
At best, one would describe this behavior as arrogant. At worst, if anyone dare have an opposing view to Mayor Garlick they will be told publicly and in no uncertain terms exactly where they stand with him.
I'm sure there's many, many more, let's hear them!
Wow, a selection of out of context quotes to make someone look bad. How original. Enough of the gutter politics. The only thing of value here is from a posting: the question about Councillor Kiss and his property. That's relevant and a fair question.
ReplyDeleteI would respectfully disagree with the last comment. Politicians, and our municipality, should be held to a higher standard. Mr. Garlick is certainly entitled to his opinions but must be held accountable for what he says publicly.
ReplyDeleteIf the comments previous, regarding manipulated data, are accurate we should be very concerned about the impact that could have on our community's finances.
I would hardly call quoting a politician "gutter politics". If Mr. Garlick chooses to be be publicly contemptuous to his constituents he gets what he deserves.
umm... it would appear the poster of the "garlickisms" has provided context to each one of the quotes. just sayin
ReplyDeleteHere's an "out of context" quote: "you should leave, I see a tea house or agritourism business where your house is" (Marie Besso to Judy Paterson, context: at the Multi-Use Pathway Open House this spring). Or when Craig Broderick assured us that the District could not request land for the multi-use pathway on a building permit (because it is not permitted under the legislation). Another "out of context" quote. How about "rich people need to be prepared to give back" - Mayor Garlick 2008, meeting with land owners on Kidston Road affected by the Multi-use Path proposal. Please note, none of the other land owners on Kidston Road have given up their land for the path from Palfrey Road East to the Red Gate. I could go on and on...
ReplyDelete"You should leave, I see a tea house or agritourism business where your house is", THOSE were words that were ACTUALLY spoken? Council should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES! That's disgraceful! Get out and vote Coldstream, let's get these conceited, manipulative, deceitful and conniving thieves out of here! How do they sleep at night?
ReplyDeleteThe Kidston path petition was signed by 370 people and accompanied by a few dozen emails, perhaps making it the largest petition outside of the Spicer Block petition this district has ever seen.
ReplyDeleteI've used the Kidston path a number of times. It's great! Thank you mayor Garlick for having the courage to make our community better. You have my vote.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad anonymous likes the path. Did anonymous have to pay for some of the path and would they like it quite so much if it came out of their pocket? I was told that no one who was canvassed by the District was prepared to pay for the path. They just wanted a "free" path. I wonder how many people like the notion that because of this path, some families are paying or it financially and by being deprived of their property rights (and civil rights). Just as a warning to all, if it can happen to some, it can happen to any one of you. The next council may decide it is your property or money they want. As Mr. Dirks repeated himself so many times at the candidates meeting - the users need to pay for what they use. These 370 people (or whatever amount it was) haven't paid for a thing. The Paterson's, of everyone in Coldstream, have had to pay in the 100s of thousands of dollars for this path. I hope you love it! Because it cost us dearly. The actions of Coldstream Council are not supported in law (there are fair ways to do this but Coldstream has chosen extortion instead), and it is important to remember that we live in Canada. This council forget that. Anyone who thinks they know what the process has been for this path, does not have the paperwork, the assurances from staff to go ahead and apply for a permit without penalty, the bills, nor the legal opinion. No other municipality in BC has done this because it is unlawful. We are a first! Thats something to hang our hats on isn't it?
ReplyDelete