Coldstream's Duplicity infects Regional District

Suddenly the District of Coldstream wants a Letter of Support from the North Okanagan Regional District concerning the extension of the Kidston Road multi-use path (no such request appears to have been made for the first segment completed last year).

So Mayor Garlick--a director of Greater Vernon Advisory Committee (GVAC) which meets regularly at the Regional District office--asked for it.

And he got it, according to today's story in The Morning Star.

But Coldstream's Mayor Garlick should not have received that support. 

Firstly, because the Regional District's administrator, Trafford Hall, is relatively new to his administrative post and would be unaware that a standard building permit was withheld for one year in order for Coldstream to be given the land for the path by the permit applicant.

Mr. Hall should have been apprised of the project's unsavory history.

Mr. Hall should ask Mayor Garlick why that was omitted.

Judy Paterson (the permit applicant) explains it better than anyone, and her reaction to The Morning Star story follows:

"The article today on the Kidston Road Multi-use path as posted on the website does not provide links to the year long fight that my husband and I had with the District of Coldstream regarding their illegal actions over a building permit in order to force us to give them land for their "path". I wonder why?

For your information, our case was (and still is) followed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Homebuilders Association, various municipal and BC and federal government agencies including the Ombudsman's Office who are reviewing it now, as well as a large number of contractors, businesses, and interested people in the Okanagan Valley as well as Vancouver, North Vancouver and Richmond. The opportunity that the paper has to expose irregularities in municipal process are huge and yet you

(Ed. note: The newspaper) remain silent.

The reporting of this latest initiative is discouraging to say the least. We currently have a complaint in to the Ombudsman's office with regard to the District's prejudicial actions (which included according to an insider source, of looking into our financial background). The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has even met with Jim Garlick on our behalf to bring their concerns to his attention.  The District of Coldstream could have our land for their path (and Marie Besso's tea house that she told me two years ago should  be what was on my property, not my home) as we have put our property up for sale.

And yet they (Ed. note: The District of Coldstream) do nothing, perhaps waiting for another homeowner to naively show up asking for a building permit. The rhetoric about how we are making it unsafe for school children to go to school because we won't sacrifice our frontage to the "greater good" is nonsense if the District is only prepared to try to extort property rather than purchase it lawfully.

Now the GVAC is apparently in support of this wonderful project.  The fact that the provincial government will no longer provide grant money for it should give everyone pause.  The grant applications for this project were manipulative and contained false and unverifiable information and failed to inform the (Ed. note: the BC gov't, the issuers of grant money) government of the true facts of the path (including the phasing of the work which is not permitted under gas tax funding). The District has maintained in grant applications that this is not a phased project, in contravention of the terms of the gas tax grant applicability.

Coldstream has effectively devalued our home and land to the point that no one will buy it and we will be forced to abandon it.  It is shocking to me that the paper isn't reporting this issue in a more reflective way.

If a municipality or other governance can use extortion and manipulate homeowners/taxpayers (illegally holding up a permit so they can pass a bylaw is strictly prohibited by the Local Government Act is just one of the actions of the District), then everyone should be concerned.

If my rights are not enforceable, yours are next.  This "path" - basically a third lane along a country road which will destroy old growth trees and add tons of asphalt to the environment, is shameful, especially as it is built on extorting land from people (in effect taking away their retirement income and destabilizing real estate).

And the idea that you can ride horses and bicycles and have babies in buggies all safely passing each other belongs on another planet.  Bikes, babies and horses don't mix.

It is obviously a political legacy project that takes none of the safety issues and property rights of homeowners into consideration.  Mr. Garlick wants to spend other people's money on large projects that require significant amounts of concrete. Period.  All in a rural country setting with no hope of extending the tax base to cover these projects.

The District is also taking away property rights (and devaluing people's savings and equity in their land) with their latest re-zoning "initiative" under the guise of protecting farmland.

Isn't it time we asked ourselves why our governments have to be so deceptive?  What is it they are really trying to achieve? 

If the North Okanagan politicians think that these actions are for the "good" of people we need to remind them that of the pitfalls of that thinking which is the erosion of rights and the ability to live free of excessive governmental intrusion.

Every homeowner in this valley may be at risk for some government project on their land with no compensation because once the Kidston Road path is done, there are many more paths in the works.  

Mr. Garlick stated at a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting this year that the District's goal is to ensure public access to private property.

And he is very persistent.

It doesn't just mean my property. It means everyone's."

 Judy Paterson

Hopefully, Mr. Hall, the Regional District's new administrator will do some digging into these facts.

And hopefully the other directors will reconsider hastily issuing a Letter of Support for the next segment of the path.
At least until they're assured that the District will treat its taxpayers/landowners with procedural fairness and natural justice.

One question that may be appropriate for Mr. Hall to ask Mr. Garlick:  "Why was a Regional District Letter of Support unnecessary last year, but is now deemed necessary for this extension of the path?"

"Looks like Garlick's seeking a partner in Coldstream's duplicity," offers Kia.