Non-Confidence in District of Coldstream's Mayor and Council

A scant four months after local elections, the following three letters (approved for distribution) prove momentum is gaining for a political backlash against Mayor Garlick and Council here in Coldstream.

March 4, 2012, written by Donna Anderson to Mayor Garlick, Council and Staff:
I have attached my prior letter to Councillor McClean, as it is now to be redirected to include Mayor and Council.  In my prior letter to Councillor McClean, I had pointed out various issues that would make the implementation of the Current Bylaw 1535 (2008) including single and double family dwellings, detrimental to the residents of the District of Coldstream.

The current delays by council and staff at this point in time, has damaged my ability to sell my property.

To date, I have now lost two potential sales due to Bylaw 1535 (2008) not being settled.
My house is 1900 sq. ft., but the current trend is for larger homes.  Both interested buyers, have expressed interest at adding on to the current house, as they are very pleased with the area and my property.  The realtors have done their due diligence, by advising them of the current status of Bylaw 1535 and the potential impending consequences.  With the current unknown and possible financial implications to the buyers, they have backed away, not only from my property, but others in Coldstream.  (note attached letter from my realtor).

February 29, 2012, I spoke with Mr. Stamhuis regarding this issue.  When asked what potential costs would be levied against the buyers, if they submitted a Building Permit for over $50,000.00, Mr. Stamhuis could not answer, as he did not know.  The reason he did not know is because council has still not decided on the outcome of this Bylaw 1535.  Mr. Stamhuis did state that none of the current homes on Kalavista Drive, whether building or renovating, past or present, have been levied with any charges on Works and Service on infrastructure.  So now, a precedent has been set on Kalavista Drive.  He also stated that in the case of drainage, the only time you would know what the additional costs would be is upon submission for a Building Permit.

Our council is expected to be fair and just to the community as a whole.  This is a clear indication that this is not happening.

By council not making a decision in a timely fashion, it has already affected me financially, in not being able to sell my property.  I'm sure it has already affected others.  This is far from comforting to the residents of Coldstream during these trying economic times.

My understanding from Keri-Ann would be that this issue may not be addressed until April.  I would request that council consider this issue sooner and I will expect a reply back as to what I could do in the interim.

I now urge council now to do what is right, 'DO NOT' include single and dual family dwellings in this Bylaw and do it soon, in order for people to get on with their lives."
(signed Donna Anderson, etc.).

Letter written by John Kristian, Re/max Vernon to "To Whom it May Concern" (at Council):
My name is John Kristian and I am a Realtor with Re/max Vernon.  I am also the listing Realtor on the property...on Kalavista Drive...owned by Donna Anderson.

The past 2 showings have lead me to conclude that the implications of Bylaw 1535 are having a detrimental affect on the sale of this property.  In both cases the potential Buyers had great interest in purchasing the property but would need to add more square footage to the living space of the current dwelling.  Both parties were informed of the details of this Bylaw and the costs that could be incurred because of it.  As a result, they have backed off from this and any other properties in the Coldstream area that would require renovations to suit their needs.

It is my opinion, based on these factual experiences, that Bylaw 1535 will continue to have a detrimental impact on the sale of this property, and all real estate sales in the Coldstream area.  I sincerely urge Coldstream council to consider the loss of revenues (real estate sales, construction, renovations, etc.) which will continue to result from the affects of Bylaw 1535 and to make positive amendments to mitigate such losses."
Yours truly, (signed) John Kristian.

Previous letter by Donna Anderson, addressed to Councillor Peter McClean (who--for the record--stated during the municipal elections that he would rescind the "Homeowner as Developer" designation).
(To) Peter McClean, I would like to commend you on your effort at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of February 20, 2010, to allow Judy Paterson to obtain her Building Permit.

Given the way that Council was moving ahead, looking at Bylaw 1535, things did look very promising.  Your logic was concise, accurate and well articulated.  To say the least, the outcome was very shocking and spoke volumes of a personal vendetta.  This is not only my opinion, but also, the general consensus of the audience.

My understanding of the original change to the Bylaw in 2008 by Jim Garlick and Glenn Taylor was to put restrictions on Coldstream Meadows.  This Bylaw stayed in place until it reared its ugly head for the first time, in 2010, to stop the Patersons' Building Permit in order for Council to have a tool to achieve what they wanted from the Patersons.  This Bylaw has been twisted in every which way in order to make it sound legal and binding to achieve what they wanted for a multi-use pathway on Kidson Road in front of the Patersons'.  But the Patersons stood their ground and I commend them.

I was surprised at the meeting, as I had been away for a month.  Now, I was hearing about drainage problems and this charge being imposed on identified areas that applied for a Building Permit.  That was a new one for me.  I vaguely heard mutterings about the Patersons not negotiating with Council, and Kidston Road having a drainage problem that was the Patersons' responsibility.  Is Council now grasping at straws?

"...it will bankrupt Coldstream, thus forcing us ultimately into amalgamating with Vernon."

My personal opinion of the original direction the Bylaw had been taking, was a complete destruction of any form of improvements in Coldstream by penalizing individuals.  Since our economy has taken such a nose dive, individuals that just want to keep up their homes, either won't be able to or will be driven to doing their renovations and repairs without building permits.  Now, we have a really slippery slope!  I'm not sure I actually need to continue with an explanation of what this means in the future, in regards to insurance, resale, etc.   Hopefully we are smarter than that?

Improvements mean not only a sense of pride in a community, but a draw for new people to invest.  A place where people are proud to live, attract a growing population, and increase the value of properties, resulting in a greater tax base.  Not a difficult concept to grasp!

I must commend Judy on her effort to protect our community from the senseless, onerous tax grab that could be imposed, which would jeopardize Coldstream's ability to attract new people.  If Council continues to do this type of thing, it will bankrupt Coldstream, thus forcing us ultimately into amalgamating with Vernon.  There is no logic to continuing in this direction of self-destruction.

Yours was the voice of reason last night, clear and concise.  Your complete summarization of what was needed to give validation to your direction was greatly appreciated.

I have sat on and attended a great deal of meetings in my life.  Last night, (ed. note: CoW Meeting Feb. 20/12), I was totally put off by the tone set or complete 'body language' of the setting.  The way the tables were set, the way the audience chairs were set, to the microphones conveniently not being operational.  The topper was the so-called 'white paper' of a different unavailable recommendation distributed, which when read by the Mayor was not audible to the audience.  (Was this recommendation passed at any point in time, and if so what was it?)  This in itself is a very loud and clear message to the residents that have taken the time to become involved and attend this meeting, that their right to be present was obviously not respected.  The audience was respectful and did not speak, as required, at least in the future council could be respectful of the residents attending.  The residents are showing an interest in the direction Coldstream takes, as they 'ARE' Coldstream.

I live on Kalavista Drive and made the decision a year ago to put my home on the market.  I am an Alberta resident, own my own company and this is my second home.  I have always loved what Coldstream had to offer.  My husband passed away in 2009 and the amount of yard and home maintenance required for this size of property is too much for one person.  The logical decision was to downsize.  To date, my home has not sold for any number of reasons, location, size, price or economic downturn.  We have owned this home since the early 80's and have noticed a dramatic change in the neighborhood.  The changes are to say the least not enhancing.  My husband and I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to keep our home up to date and appealing thru renovations.  Given the same set of choices now, with the 2008 bylaw, and the negative changes made in our area, we would have moved first and possibly not invested any further in Coldstream.  I'm not sure I wish to reinvest in Coldstream, the way things have been handled over the past few years has made it very objectionable.  Residents need to be listened to and their concerns be taken into account before things are rammed down their throats against their wills.

"...it doesn't take too many people like myself leaving

to change what Coldstream could look like in the future."

I hear the negative comments made by Council and staff about the monster homes being built, what is the problem?  Do these people not invest money into our community?  Do they not pay their astronomical property taxes?  Do they not attract the type of money required to keep Coldstream running?  Is this NOT what we want?  It is always a plus to attract money into a community as opposed to driving it away!


A previous comment made by Mayor Garlick comes to mind "it's time for the rich to give back" no, it's not, it's time they paid the same as everyone else without all the extra concessions handed out at the expense of everyone else.


One comment made twice to me at different occasions by Councilor Enns sums it all up for me..."Well, if you don't like the way we do things here, maybe you should think of moving somewhere else."  This was made in regard to questions asked of Bylaw 1535.


Hmmm, when and if I sell, I'm not sure that I want to re-invest in Coldstream.  What part of a probable tax increase of over 6.5%, because of cost overruns, poor planning, and remarks like this entice me to stay?  What part of this continuous outpouring of money on non-essential items at my expense would entice me to stay?  Please don't forget the District of Coldstream is a business and I am an investor, I'm not sure I need to have my intelligence insulted further.  Food for thought, it doesn't take too many people like myself leaving to change what Coldstream could look like in the future.


Don't get me wrong, our councilors are well-educated and smart people, or should be, but what is the problem and what is this crazy new rationale they seem to have taken on?  The CoW meeting of Feb. 20, along with many others have left a lot of residents with a bad taste in their mouths.  Let's clean up our act and get back on track and back to the business at hand.  We are not children and bullies are not well tolerated."
Thank you. Donna Anderson.

Ed. note:  The residents of Coldstream are indebted to Judy Paterson, Donna Anderson and John Kristian...and to Councilor McClean.

The solution demanded by residents is this:   remove the homeowner as developer designation from Bylaw 1535 (2008) and remove off-site works and services for single and two-family homes--and NOT change the municipality's tactic to "drainage".    After all, the Municipality itself is the only drainage offender with the recent much-engineered Kidston Road Multi-Use Path.  All this while the roadfrontage of Judy Paterson's home remains dry as a bone.

In other words, leave Bylaw 1535 (2008) unamended.

Mayor Garlick and Council are damaging Coldstream's reputation, but it's not yet beyond repair if they act quickly and decisively.

"The last repair we can do ourselves," offers Kia, adding "it's called Impeachment."