 | ||||
| 12 pages... |
Because the Mayor is certainly not appealing to Coldstream`s acreage owners.
Downplaying the future tax burden on urbanites--in whose areas the only growth will occur--will eventually wake them up too.
Encouraging residents "to read through the articles and provide feedback to Council and staff", Coldstream's Mayor Jim Garlick begins the newsletter with "...your opportunity to stay informed on news, issues and events..."
Yet for those residents who did provide feedback to Council and staff--in 2011 and half of this year--attended council and committee-of-the-whole meetings, and open houses and all candidates' forums during election campaigns last Fall, this newsletter entirely glosses over the serious issues this council created.
If you're one of the residents of Coldstream who hasn't attended more than one or two municipal meetings in the last few years, or you're someone who has never attended, be prepared to read between the lines of this smoke-'n-mirrors newsletter.
Many residents have done their part. Many provided feedback to the distasteful and callous Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, many residents provided feedback on the proposed Agricultural and Rezoning Amendments, (two letters were conveniently omitted in the Comments). Yet amendments proceeded.
This Mayor and Council's hunger to be the municipal poster child among Victoria's bureaucrats and government officials has led to the rezoning of the area's predominantly private acreages. Under the guise of protecting agriculture, our elected officials stated early on that the Agricultural Land Commission--the provincial judicial body--had been inundated with subdivision requests. So Coldstream's Mayor and Council appear to have fixed the ALC's paperwork load by entirely removing landowners' access to the ALC. Acreages eligible to access the ALC would now be a minimum of ~24 acres under RU10 and ~74 acres under RU30.
No others need apply! Plain and simple. Easy peasy.
Last year Council sought to enact a bylaw that was triggered with any renovation or building permit where the resident would pay for bike paths along their roadfrontage, calling it needed infrastructure. The hue and cry that resulted from residents has led to today's "off-site works are now limited to drainage works alone and limited to specific areas of Coldstream with identified needs." So a list of Coldstream Streets was drawn up where residents--upon applying for a building permit for a renovation whose face value exceeds $50,000--would "trigger" the drainage "contribution" (now reduced to "a maximum of $2,500").
Despite residents' input, the term "directly attributable to drainage impacts" remains in the text. Imagine that you're doing a $50,000 renovation, with neither an increased building footprint nor roof size ... your renovation is considered to directly affect drainage. Nonsense!
And that's not all...read between the lines of the Mayor's phrase "These are the first steps toward a more long-term plan to address drainage issues...". Second steps, maybe third steps? Looks as though Coldstream has found entirely new ways of digging into residents' wallets.
Let's face it...Coldstream is broke, approximately $3 million in debt. Despite Councillor Kiss' announcement that "we can borrow up to $19 million", residents remain seriously concerned that debt -- when combined with the intentional stymying of growth from the forced rezoning of RU10 and RU30 -- will be Coldstream's undoing.
Ignoring warnings from residents and builders and real estate representatives that building renovations will 'go underground' (to avoid triggering the $2,500), Council turns a blind eye and states it has completed its review of the bylaw.
Plain and simple, easy peasy again.
So residents' drainage contributions will be on streets and roads the municipality owns. The intent, says the mayor, is to `have any required works benefit the homeowner as well as the District`. They`re setting up a drainage fund, but the bylaw includes a proviso that Council doesn't have to do the work right away (so much for the drainage urgency), so they'll just collect money. Some residents believe they`ll use the funds for other stuff.
Back to the rezoning of ALR and non-ALR lands.
Mayor Garlick states ``...the recent interest ... is an important matter.``
No kidding, Sherlock!
Residents are furious this Council is affecting families` lifetime investment plans.
Before concluding his community message, our Mayor then uses the word `viable` three times when talking about farmland.
The word viable in Botany, for example, means ``able to live and grow``.
``Some acreage owners remain able to grow things,`` offers Kia, ``it`s the living on Coldstream acreages that`s become untenable under this Mayor and Council.``
For even more smoke `n mirrors, read the 2011 Annual Report here, beginning on page 49.
From that document, their Mission Statement:
We, the Council of the District of Coldstream, are committed to a long-range plan for Coldstream, which fosters orderly growth and which enhances rural living at its best. Our mission is to make this a living plan supported by efficient fiscal management, appropriate policy and procedure development, and effective delivery of service.Orderly growth...heck, maybe none at all.
The most disturbing is this Council's desire to give public access to private lands in Coldstream. At a meeting last month the Mayor was noted to say that the District wanted to ensure that private lands were available for public access. I guess he wants to create a bylaw that ensures that kids can cut through your yard to go to school? It shouldn't be surprising given the erosion of property rights in Coldstream, but it is still shocking. Imagine knowing that your local government actually thinks it can force you to allow people to walk on your property whenever they like. They may be taking their lead from Jamie Kidston's liberal access of his orchard to the public. But, Mr. Kidston no longer allows public access on his property and why should he? That is why we BUY land, Mr. Garlick - to have a refuge from the world and some privacy. This Council, Peter McLean excluded, seem to think they can enact legislation, not manage the mundane like keeping our roads repaired and ditches cleaned out to prevent the flooding that they cause routinely. The Subdivision and Development Bylaw is bogus and its purpose is similar to the re-zoning of land. Its a money grab and shows that Council is merely interested in power rather than good governance. It is extremely important to note that the actual legislation - the Local Government Act - states explicitly that works and services apply to the subdivision of land - as a first order. So considering this Mayor is going to stop anyone from subdividing, legally he can't ask for anything under the bylaw. The idea that a building permit is now Development (with a big "D") is a manipulation of the intent of the Act and should be struck down but it is linked to this whole rezoning scheme. Because it means that people will be forced to go to the District to apply for subdivision and believe me, they'll get it if they pay enough "development" money. All it takes is a little cash and a little negotiation. Perhaps you offer to build a public space on your land. Presto, even under the new re-zoning, they'll go for it. In fact, they may even borrow money for you! But in the long run I think this rezoning is to make sure that no one can do anything without paying a very high price. That may end up being access to your waterfront or your acreage. Now you may think this doesn't apply to you - you live on Middleton Mountain or in another subdivision. But it does apply to you, because if acreage owners can have their rights removed, you just did too. Its time to get informed about the dark underpinnings of the decisions of this Council.
ReplyDeleteColdstream mayor/council are control freaks.
ReplyDeleteBTW, doesn't a TREATY come along with CEDING land?