Cuba proves Coldstream Council wrong

Call it uncanny.
Or knowledge karma.

It happened two days after the Agricultural Open House in Coldstream at which the new RU10 and RU30 zones were unveiled.

A reprinted article from 2007 in the March/April 2012 issue of "North of 50" appeared on my desk today.
Flying in the face of our community's knee-jerk reaction to an agricultural application--also in 2007 (*more on that later) -- this 5-year old article's revelations equate to an Aha! Moment.

The late Dr. Paul Phillips wrote The Cuban Agricultural Revolution:  The Future of Agriculture?
(his profile:  Paul Phillips (1938-2008) was a long-time faculty member of the University of Manitoba community, a superb teacher, a widely-published researcher and author, a proud union member, an effective labour negotiator and arbitrator, a culture aficionado and opera singer, and a long-time board member of the Winnipeg Folk Festival).  His article is reprinted here:

Agriculture as it is now practised in North America is simply not sustainable.  The rising price of oil and gas means that farmers will not be able to afford to produce food at prices that consumers can afford to pay.  In the US, 85% of all water is absorbed by agriculture and many river systems are virtually running dry.

The most immediate threat to our food supply is the rising cost and increasingly insecure supply of oil and gas.  Industrial agriculture requires ten calories of fuel for every one calorie of food produced, not including the energy used in processing, packaging and shipping the final product.  In North America we currently consume 40% more energy than we receive from the sun, the only ultimate source of sustainable energy.  Most of that 40% comes from fossil fuels.  If the world's population is to be fed using only the sustainable part of solar energy, we can only support a fraction of the current population. 

Petroleum is not only the source of fuel for agricultural equipment, tractors, trucks and irrigation systems but also the feedstock for pesticides, herbicides and insecticides, while natural gas is the feedstock for commercial fertilizers.  In North America, industrial agriculture directly consumes over a sixth of all energy consumption.

What happens when we begin to run out of oil or when oil prices rise precipitously as demand rises faster than supply?

We do have an example:  Cuba after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  Cuba initially adopted the industrial agricultural model:  large scale, mechanized collective farms, mono-cropping emphasizing exports of cash crops, heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.  By the late 1980's Cuban agriculture had become highly reliant on Soviet supplies of cheap fuels and petrochemicals, and dependent on exports of cash crops -- sugar, coffee, tobacco and citrus fruits.  By 1989, 55% of food consumed in Cuba and 97% of animal feed grain were Soviet-subsidized imports.

By the 1980s Cuba had more tractors per hectare than California, increasing its dependence on cheap Soviet oil.  This was unsustainable with the fall of the Soviet Union.  Cuba's GDP fell 85% and food supplies collapsed.  The average Cuban lost 20 pounds, and malnutrition, especially among children, became prevalent.  Food consumption went from 3000 calories per day to 1900, the equivalent of skipping one meal.

"...50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city..."

"Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers."

"...there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels."

Cuba faced a stark alternative.  It chose to revolutionize its agriculture rather than capitulate to American imperialism.  Industrial scale, energy and chemical-intensive production was converted to local, small scale, primarily organic agriculture.  Tractors were replaced by animal (oxen) power, more efficient on the smaller plots, particularly after 1993 when the large state-owned, Soviet-style farms were broken up and land distributed to the compesinos.  Some 200,000 oxen were trained to plow.

Secondly, local, renewable production, particularly in the urban areas, was promoted.  Some 50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city, perhaps as much as 90% in and around Havana -- 300,000 tons of produce in 2004.  Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers.  Officially, there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels

These urban gardens also absorb greehouse gases and improve urban air quality, attract bees that produce honey, and also produce herbs to treat cancer, colds and diabetes.  Pesticides and insecticides are prohibited in urban centres.  All this drastically reduces the energy required to process and transport food to market.

The third transformatiom of Cuban agriculture was to organic, or near organic, farming.  Approximately 60% of non-sugar farmland in the country is now organic.  Given the Soviet collapse, Cuban scientists were propelled to develop biological pest control and soil fertility enhancement.  Plant fertilizers, intercropping, biological pest and weed control and vermicompost (worm castings, 10 times as effective as cow manure) have been developed, in addition to a national program of fruit tree planting.

The result -- a gradual return to an adequate and productive agricultural industry sufficient to maintain a sustainable, subsistence food supply.  Moreover, most of the food raised in Cuba is organic and therefore amongst the healthiest in the world.  The Cubans got their third meal-a-day back and have adequate calories to maintain a healthy diet, though they still want more meat and milk since the Cuban climate and soil does not support livestock."

Here's the Aha! Moment:  Coldstream Council would drool at the thought of nearly 94,000 small urban family garden parcels, especially those using rooftops!  And 3,600 smaller intensive gardens.


Oops!  Too bad, so sad.
This Coldstream Council--with RU10 and RU30--are going the other way...to larger parcels.

Re the earlier story comment:  (*more on that later):
Seems the seeds of RU10 and RU30 began here around the same time that Dr. Phillips first published his article in 2007.  A Buchanan Road application (among others) was submitted by applicants Asif Mohammed, Kashif Mohammed, Abid Mohammed, Nadeem Akhtar, and Razie Ali to subdivide the family's 100 acres into 7 family parcels for intensive agriculture.

The Agricultural Land Commission denied the request, stating intensive agriculture could more easily occur on the 100 acre parcel than on 7 parcels where housing pressures would reduce the land available for farming.

That 100-acre Buchanan Road parcel has been for sale for a number of years.
If a family with 7 adults can't make a go of it, how does this Council expect one family to farm a 74-acre parcel under the newly-imposed RU30 agriculture zone?


"So will Council have an Aha!Moment too?" asks Kia.


Maybe an  Oh No! Moment.

Thanks, North of 50! for your important reprint.

RU Insane?

The first hit by Mayor Garlick and his council on a family's pocketbook--Subdivision Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535 2008--saw First, Second and Third readings on Monday, March 12th, 2012.

The second hit--this time to families' lifelong investment plans with the creation of RU10 AND RU30 land zoning--was presented at an Open House on Wednesday, March, 14th.

Glossy maps and full-colour flipchart pages adorned display stands and tables, and bureaucrats were available to answer questions from the public.  Even the mayor and councillors attended.  A bonus.

Many people, most of whom were elderly residents, walked around viewing the displays.   The odd jaw dropped here and there, but not from speech.  From what they saw was happening to their family's property investment...their homes.

Never mind that the changes "support agriculture".
Never mind that you can have chickens now.
Never mind that farm workers won't have to live in tents while picking fruit.
Never mind that you can have 3 directional signs so the public find your "Hay for Sale" gate.

In the supreme interest of supporting agriculture--a phrase used so frequently by this Mayor and Council that it might as well be emblazoned on their foreheads--they're even changing the zoning of land that isn't agricultural (not locked against subdivision within the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve).

Really?  Yup, and just because it's NEAR agriculture.

So if Mayor Garlick and his council are supporting agriculture with these changes, who is supporting the non-agricultural lands?  

Apparently nobody.

Non-agricultural landowners didn't apply for any zoning changes.
Likely many farmland owners are being forced to accept zoning changes.

The 20+ pages of the new bylaw, with 10 additional map pages and official community plan amendment, read like an insurance policy.

Council is creating RU10 and RU30 zones.  Some lands used to be able to be subdivide if they met the previous minimum of 4.94 acres.  On some lands, that's now changed to a minimum of 24.71 acres.

The non-agricultural lands that have been zoned RU2 will stay RU2...but don't breathe a big sigh of relief yet.  There are new rules on how you can/cannot impact adjacent agriculture. 
As though my BBQ would scare a goat.

Some agricultural lands were able to subdivide previously; now they cannot subdivide unless they're (RU sitting down?) 74.13 acres.  No matter that a portion or all of their lands have, since 1973, been locked in the ALR!

This Council is even encouraging consolidation where numerous farm titles exist under the same owner.

Where previous--and objectively-focussed--mayors and their councils decided that farmland would be valley-bottom and growth would occur on sidehills along the valleys, several months ago Councillor Maria Besso was quoted saying "we don't want mile-long subdivisions".  And, overhead--and obviously in reply to an unheard question from a resident--Councillor Enns was heard to say: "...we can do this, it's to our lands here."  Let me guess what may have prompted that response:  "I own--not rent--my land; how can you do this to my family?"

That may be, yes, but a previous mayor and council whom we trusted said we could have mile-long subdivisions.

It's as though Mayor Garlick and his pack are blending the Occupy Movement with the Growth Management Strategy.
They've set the blender on PUREE.
And this unrecognizable soup is the result.

Seems the Mother Ship wants to remove not only the ability--but also the temptation--to subdivide.

"The Mother Ship?" asks Kia.

RU not listening either, Kia?  Apparently people are still allowed to apply to the Mother Ship for variances.


  "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Winston Churchill, on misplaced idealism.

On the Street Where You Live...

Doubt that songster Vic Damone, or Willie Nelson, had Coldstream in mind when they crooned: 

"I have often walked down this street before;
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before"

Well, residents' feet were off the pavement at Monday night's council meeting.  And again on reading Jennifer Smith's recap in the Morning Star today.  But not from love.

The entire tone of the meeting--residents' continuing outrage--was ignored by the Morning Star.

But that's all right.  We can always count on Councillor Gyula Kiss to appear frustrated with any dissent.  He didn't disappoint, finally blurting out:  "Council looked at the old bylaw because it was wrong and we now have problems with drainage.  We're not looking for confrontation."

Three things:  the old bylaw being wrong, NOW having drainage problems, and Council not looking for confrontation.  

• The old bylaw wasn't wrong.  If you were not subdividing your land, you paid no off-site service costs because there was no directly attributable impact on infrastructure.  A kitchen renovation didn't put "extra poop in the pipe" to put it bluntly.  That old bylaw didn't call residents developers and charge them for an unlimited scope of off-site works (which the first and second drafts of the re-write sought to charge, depositing residents' money into this council's empty coffers.)

• NOW having drainage problems, to use Councillor Kiss' emphasis, are we Coldstream residents oblivious to a mountain-building event and the entire community used to be flat during the old bylaw?  Drainage and its effects have been around since the glaciers retreated.  Drainage is why we have drinking water year round.  Water runs downhill, and will for some time, at least until December 21st of this year, according to the Mayans.

• And not wanting controversy?  Huh?  What did the insightful minds of this mayor, council (and reporter Jennifer Smith) actually think would occur with the District's headlong plunge into our wallets...that residents would champion discrimination?  That we'd sit quietly by and allow the imposition of an onerous new tax whose face value wouldn't be known until residents actually submitted a building permit for a renovation? 

Funny how words and phrases pop into--and out of--draft versions.  A new word has popped up in the proposed bylaw (in addition to renumbering the bylaw, perhaps to bury the evidence of this monumental year-long fiasco). 

The new word is SAFETY.  Maybe--like the mountain-building example--people behaved more safely under the old bylaw and didn't require protection by local government. So the new bylaw's inclusion of safety will then allow residents to act with complete disregard--indeed reckless abandon--to their, and their family's, safety because the District's bylaw will protect them.

Doubt that includes a bylaw officer escorting a resident home after a twilight stroll--flashlight in hand--to ensure he's safe.  More likely, safety added to this bylaw will include, for example, roads identified as being too narrow, or too steep, or too broken, or too littered by leavres from a tree on your property...on and on, and where it stops no-one knows.

In the meantime, specific roads have been named as "drainage concerns", with the bylaw's activation triggered by a $50,000 renovation permit, maximum per residence contribution of $2,500 for drainage:

1. Buchanan Road (entire length).  Remedy:  ditch realignmemnt/culverting.
2. Cottomwood Lane (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
3. Fairmont Place (entire length).  Ditching north side/infiltration chamber.
4. Howe Drive, north of Kal Lake Road.  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
5. Kalavista Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
6. Ponderosa Way (entire length).  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
7. Rendell Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
8. Rockland Drive (entire length).  Ditching north side/catch basin at curb/infiltration chambers.
9. Scenic Drive (entire length).  Catch basins/infiltration chambers on north side.
10. Springfield Road (9900 block).  Infiltration chambers.
11. Tebo Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
12. Torrent Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
13. Upland Drive (entire length).  Culverting/storm sewer.
14. Westkal Road (entire length).  Infiltration chambers/drainage easements.
15. Kidston Road (entire length).  Ditching/culverting.

Before you sit back and utter "whew" at not seeing your road listed, remember that the District of Coldstream--even under this revised bylaw-- still does not have the authority to demand off-site works and services unless the permit requests the subdivision of land and that the permit is for a complex building or variance that places new demands on existing infrastructure.  So this newly revised bylaw is still not allowed.

But to get a feel for the outrage of residents at Monday's meeting (since the newspaper omitted that), check out these questions posed by residents, and the answers (if they can be called that) received that night.

Question: The Mayor was asked if the residents on these roads had been notified of the change in permitting fees.
Response:     No, the residents were not informed.

Question:      Does Council feel that they should have contacted the impacted residents?
Response:      They probably should have been informed but they were not.

Question:      Do these property owners have any input on this new “tax” on their land?
Response:     No, the property owners had no input on the new fee/bylaw.

Question:     Does Council need the homeowners’ consent to pass this bylaw? 
Response:     No, Council does not need the homeowners’ consent.

Question:      Can Council add to this list of 15 identified roads without any other consent or input?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    Council will levy a $2,500.00 fee for single and dual family home standard building permits (no variances, subdivision, etc.) over $50,000.00 in value, but can Council charge more?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    When can Council change this value?
Response:    Council can change it at any time and they do not need consent or input from homeowners.

Question:    As homeowners, we purchased our property, we pay taxes, and we have rights on our land. If Council can do this, we might as well rent the land. Is this correct?
Response:    Council did not respond to this question.

Final Comment:  The new Subdivision bylaw gives the Approving Officer the ability to determine what drainage works are “directly attributable” to a standard building permit. The wording is vague and unclear and you are telling us that any permit on these streets over $50,000.00 becomes “directly attributable” to paying the $2,500.00 fee no matter what type of permit it is. A kitchen renovation is seen to be directly attributable to drainage problems on the road, and that homeowners have no say. Municipal government is supposed to be open, honest, and transparent.  We are not seeing that tonight.
Response:    Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak?



So with that, Mayor Garlick and Council--and even the Morning Star newspaper--buried the old bylaw.
The new one received First, Second and Third Reading.
They expect it to be finally passed (their phrase) at the March 26th, 2012 council meeting..

Oh, and the bylaw's now called:   Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw No. 1535, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1608, 2012, Amendment No. 2.

But residents have their own name for the bylaw.  
And tune.

"For there's no where else on earth that I would rather be," intones Kia, adding "he's not singing about Coldstream, that is clear to me."
 

Homeowner as Developer is morphing into Homeowner as Drainage Scapegoat

The District of Coldstream continues to tweak Subdivision and Development Bylaw 1535 2008.

In reality, little has changed as the tweaking went on.

Coldstream's Mayor and Council haven't backed off on wanting residents to pay for works and services when a renovation or construction permit is applied for.  To suggest that a garage or bathroom reno may have "directly attributable" impacts on road infrastructure, road safety, and road ditching is a manipulation of the Local Government Act (LGA) and Community Charter, among other things.

Even though this new version of the subdivision and development bylaw is going for first, second and (yup!) third readings on Monday, March 12th, 2012, Judy Paterson's building permit to construct a garage is still being withheld.  Why?  Presumably this is so the District can impose the new "directly attributable" characteristics that Coldstream has identified as problematic to her permit.

But this isn't just about Judy's permit, folks.

Individual families should not be expected to contribute to the repair of roads, and fix safety and drainage issues created by the District in the first place.  Isn't this what our annual property taxes are for?  Like previous draft (unpassed) versions, this bylaw will adversely affect Coldstream's property values and the financial situation of its residents.  Remember:  you cannot get a mortgage or buy insurance for property you do not own, so where is residents' money for this new tax going to come from?

The District of Coldstream continues to grasp at straws.

Residents will be scapegoats for drainage work on  roads.

You know...that area below your fence on the road frontage...land you don't own. 

This Mayor and Council have been spending money like there's no tomorrow.

They've spent almost $2 million on Urban Systems consultants (of Kelowna, of all places!), they want bike paths all over the community (stating that it'll be the panacea for diabetes, global warming/carbon footprint, etc. on and on it goes!)

Even with an almost 6 per cent tax increase scheduled for 2012, it's simply not enough to fund the insatiable appetite for your money from this Mayor and Council.

So they continue to come up with novel ways to have you pay them even more of your hard-earned money.

Having seen the error of their ways with charging residents to pay for non-infrastructure items such as bike paths with the first few drafts of the bylaw, if this proposed bylaw amendment (starts on page 27 of 84...the link takes a moment to load) sees third reading on Monday night, you'll now be footing the bill for drainage improvements.  It even names roads (see page 30 of 84 at that link) on which any renovation/construction permit over $50,000 will trigger off-property drainage demands.

Huh?

Drainage?

At the northern tip of Canada's only quasi-desert where 86 per cent of precipitation evaporates?

In an area where retreating glaciers carved out drainages?

In Coldstream's rainshadow of the Coast Mountains? 

In an effort to ram this through 3 readings on Monday night, here's what your Mayor and Council have adopted so far:

"THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that staff be directed to bring forward an amendment for Council's consideration to the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535, structured with a table generally based on the City of Kelowna's 'guidelines for determining servicing requirements' modified to suit District of Coldstream infrastructure requirements and an attached schedule identifying specific roads where drainage works would be considered as well as roadways where (*)specific safety issues would be considered.  In addition, a clause where if triggered by a building permit, that the contribution to (**) necessary offsite works would be limited to a (***)pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, with a (****)cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required." (asterisks by blog author)

Plus "specific safety issues"?

Plus "necessary off site works ... limited to a pre-determined percentage ... with a cumulative maximum of the estimated total value of works required"???

OK, let's do an example:

Joe Blog on Buchanan Road applies for a building permit, value $50,000, to renovate his kitchen.

No increase in building footprint, no increase on infrastructure demands, no extra septic capacity...just a new kitchen.  Not a complex building (because it's under 64,600 square feet) and isn't commercial or institutional usage.

Here's what could happen (and probably would) if the bylaw gets 3 readings:

Joe Blog gets his building permit.

What are Joe Blog's actual paperwork and renovation costs?

Follow along with this folks...

Kitchen renovation $50,000, Building application $100, building permit fee $643, each inspection or reinspection $100 (for this example, we'll assume the renovator did it right the first time), occupancy permit $100.

Total so far: $50,943.  But hold on.  

Here come the additional costs with the proposed bylaw.

The Approving Officer -- Craig Broderick, a bureaucrat at Coldstream -- determines either on his own, or after discussion with other bureaucrats (none of whom are elected) that there are directly attributable costs to Coldstream's infrastructure from Joe Blog's work.   It'd be damn nice to have a bike path for the *safety of people walking/biking adjacent to a **newly-scraped out deeper drainage ditch because twice in 35 years the ditch has overflown with water.  But since the bylaw doesn't state what the predetermined percentage is (***) pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, let's assume Joe Blog is charged 50% of his building permit value.  But, on the bureaucrat's reasoning, the amount could increase to (****) cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required.

Revision One to Joe Blog's costs:

Expected Costs $50,943.

* Bike path along his road frontage: $200,000

** Newly-scraped out deeper ditch: $ 20,000

*** oops, says Coldstream, let's make it 100% of his building permit value because we didn't pre-determine (set) the percentage = $50,000.

**** oops, says Coldstream, since we're installing dual--separated--water lines and fire hydrants, plus curbs and catch basins for water on the road, let's get Joe Blog to pay for that cumulative max value of the estimated total value of works = $200,000.

Joe Blog's expected costs of $50,943 have--with this bylaw adopted in this form--risen to ten times what he expected:  $500,943.

And Joe Blog can't go to the bank and ask for the extra money to complete his renovation; banks don't give money for work on land you don't own...ever.  

And insurance companies won't insure work you've paid for adjacent to your building on land you don't own.

Nonsense, you say?  The District of Coldstream surely wouldn't do that.  

A whole bunch of residents on Tassie Drive would argue with you.  About 10 years ago, the District of Coldstream levied them each a charge of $12,000 for a 3-inch concrete curb along their ~80-foot road frontage.  So?  Well, if you ask any concrete curb contractor today...10 years later...that work would cost no more than $2,000.

Naturally, Joe Blog withdraws his building permit application and lives with his old kitchen.

For a while.

Until he can get the hell out of Dodge.

Or, until he can attend the meeting to fight the bylaw and this Mayor and Council's lust for our money.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. (at Lavington School).

Then on Monday, March 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at Coldstream Municipal Hall Council Chambers you can attend and listen to the Mayor and Council crying that the public stopped them.

"Or see them smiling because residents didn't show up," offers Kia.

Note:  Councillor Peter McClean is the ONLY councillor who is against homeoners being charged with these horrendous extra infrastructure costs.

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." 

How many engineers does it take...

...to design a Multi-Use path?

Obviously more than were involved!

Recent efforts by the District of Coldstream to extort homeowners' road frontages for a  multi-use path has now been shifted to the apparently more palatable--and presumably less discriminatory--focus on drainage. 

But it's not a joke what two days of mild weather have created in Coldstream.

Despite having paid over $2 million dollars to consulting firm Urban Systems of Kelowna (designers of the Kidston Road multi-use path and the upcoming Mechanics' Shop) in the last two years--and the final sign-off by Coldstream's professional engineer Mike Stamhuis, perhaps such a project takes 4, maybe even 5, engineers to get it right.  Maybe 6 engineers would do it. 

Remember how Judy Paterson's Kidston Road property is being blamed for drainage issues?

Councillor Kiss lives across the street, so he's likely thrilled he isn't mired in mud (at least from drainage).  Here's Judy's frontage today, during early morning of Sunday, March 4th (click photos to enlarge):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry as a bone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driving 200 feet further towards the recently-constructed Multi-Use path, evidence of ineptocracy speaks loudly.

The day after the flood, at first glance, the Multi-Use path looks fine, hugging the hillside:

A closer look shows what all these engineers have achieved: 

The District of Coldstream will need another engineer to calculate how much gravel has been lost over the other side. 

And meanwhile, on Kalamalka Lake Road at Aberdeen:

Not a politician or bureaucrat in sight, clean-up work is left to...well...the workers (likely at Sunday double pay scale).

This link takes you to some excellent active flooding photos taken at the Multi-Use Path on Saturday, March 3rd.

So...how many engineers does it take?

We honestly don't know.
But based on the photos, an engineer with a farming background would've been preferred.

Or maybe just one farmer.


"Maybe we can get a rebate from Urban Systems," suggests Kia.

It's certain that taxpayers deserve a credit...or new governance.

District of Coldstream's INEPT-OCRACY

 An Anonymous submission to this blog.
Certainly worthy of print.
 

The ‘new’ District of Coldstream Subdivision and Development Bylaw 1535 (2008) is still in development. It is likely from what I hear, that it will not be put forward to any committee including council until well into the spring. I’m not sure why exactly but it’s a challenge in more ways than one.

It doesn’t have to be difficult though. The rules and regulations are all laid out in the Local Government Act and the old bylaw – the one before 1535 was just fine. It conformed to all the expectations of government and the public. What happened?  Well it could be that we have been inundated with ineptocracy. Yes, you heard that right. Ineptocracy. It’s a new word. It’s not in the old Webster’s Dictionary but you can find it on line.

Here’s the definition:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

How harsh is that?! Before it looks like I’m pointing fingers and name calling, there is something here. Our elected officials are not necessarily the people who are exceptionally good at business. In fact, as Dave Hrabchuk saw in the last local election, his abilities as a businessman were seen as a detriment by many voters. I recall reading about Dave as a “profit-driven developer” suggesting that Dave had ulterior, or at the least suspect motives for wanting to be Mayor of Coldstream. The truth is that Dave, as a profit-driven developer Mayor, would not be permitted by the legislation to actually have a vote on anything he might gain from. Like councilor Peter McLean, who excuses himself from discussion or voting on an issue currently before council because he might benefit from the decision. Peter’s example is how local governments are supposed to work. Anyone who might benefit financially or otherwise, is seen as biased whether they are or not. And, perception is everything.

"Dave Hrabchuck (last election's District of Coldstream mayoralty candidate), was chastised for being a 'profit-driven developer'."

So do we vote for people who have no business experience? Do we vote for people who have no real knowledge about complex issues involving the environment, government, fiscal responsibility, or policy? People take years and years to become successful in understanding some of these complex issues.

It seems we do just that!

Why the name-calling when informed people should be seen as a resource? Prime Minister Harper does this. If someone complains about the current government direction, they get called a name – labeled a whale-watcher! an environmentalist! a profit-driven developer! or simply just rich people, mean people. That makes it okay apparently.  So the word ineptocracy has something to tell us about the direction we are going. If you begin to call people names when they have a legitimate concern, then you stymie their complaint.

That’s what the ‘new’ direction in Coldstream is effectively doing – stymie-ing property rights, depressing real estate, discouraging people from contributing to the community, and pushing people out.

It doesn’t bode well and it won’t matter how beautiful the view is.

"I suppose that makes me 'kibbles-driven'," muses Kia.

Coming soon to a Google Maps satellite searchword result:  "ineptocracy".

Presto!   Pushpin atop Coldstream!

Coldstream Destroying Private Property Rights

Excellent letter from Ken and Karen Dahlen, reproduced with permission:

My name is Ken Dahlen and my wife and I own Keith Dahlen Construction located in Coldstream, and we also own 15 acres located on Aberdeen (Road).

As Council knows, we were the contractor chosen to renovate the Paterson's home on Kidston Road.  During the planning process we met Coldstream's planner, Craig Broderick, and the Building Official, Bob Bibby.  This is a common practice for most construction companies to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the bylaws, rules and regulations.  Keith Construction was very clearly advised that if we stayed within the current bylaws and required no variance, or re-zoning that the District of Coldstream would have no issue with our permit application.  We also discussed the possible proposed bike path and again Mr. Broderick advised us that if we stayed within the current regulations that the District of Coldstream would not ask for upgrades or improvements.  We all know we are now almost one year later and no building permit has been issued.  So at this time we have only two possible questions that require answering:

1. Did Mr. Broderick and Mr. Bibby act on their own and make a mistake in the interpretation of the bylaw?
2. Or was this set up as a trap for my clients so that they would have no choice but to give in to the demands of Coldstream?

"The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream..."

As a professional contractor it is critical that we have clear, transparent guidelines to follow.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being invested in personal homes.  For most clients this is their life savings and their last safe holdings for themselves and/or their families.

I believe it is also important for everyone to understand that the District of Coldstream started their demands with the Patersons by the following:

1. The building permit was conditional that my client upgrade Kidston Road in front of their property, some 300 lineal feet to current standards, (when this did not work)
2. The District then asked for gifting of the land required for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
3. The District then proposed to purchase the required land at the tax assessment value for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
4. The District then proposed  to purchase the required land at market value for the proposed bike path.

I would like to make sure we all understand that the Patersons were adding on a garage and renovating their home.  That was it.  Hundreds of other homeowners have done so with no issues and no requests for land, or upgrades.  There is no increase on the infrastructure as it is still a single family home and meets all the regulations of the zoning.

There is no impact on the community.  The benefit we will have is a new, improved home that would increase the District's tax base.  I believe this is a good thing, right? 

When you look at how the demands have changed by the District of Coldstream it would seem to me they are doing whatever they can to try and extort this property for a bike path and in doing so, hold up my client from their buiding permit.  The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream.

I would ask that Council take a moment and reflect on the property owners of Coldstream.  I believe they know what is right and what is wrong and for our community to steal property from one homeowner for the benefit of the community is wrong.  If we as a community feel we require upgrades to roads, bike paths, wheelchair access to the beach, or a new Works Yard building then we should be advised, understand the costs, negotiate a fair deal and proceed as a community.

I do not support this Council trying to change and manipulate a bylaw so we can play "Robin Hood" and take from those who choose to improve their homes and/or build a new home on property that is already zoned for that exact use!

As a building contractor I am really not sure what to tell new clients when asking about new projects.  This should be a very simple review of the bylaws and very transparent.

"I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk..."

I would ask Council to open this review of the subdivision bylaw to the public.  I feel that the past "Technical Review Committee" and the new "CoW" is another way of changing bylaws without everyone knowing what is happening.  There seems to be no interest in getting professional input for this review, just Council and staff strategizing on how best to change the bylaws.  I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk, and you need to be very clear and make them understand your request to change this bylaw.

As a property owner in Coldstream and in Canada, I feel the following points need to be addressed:

1. Property ownership comes with rights.  When you own your land and pay your taxes it comes with the rules and regulations that allow you to improve your property or build structures based on the zoning of your land.  I believe we live in Canada and owning property still stands for something.
2. No one can change your zoning if they don't own it, you own it and you have legal rights so stand up for your rights.
3. When you purchased your land, the roads, sidewalks, sewer and water are installed and owned by the municipality.  The land owner does not own them unless it is a strata development.  The property owner pays taxes each year for the use of and for upgrades as required to the infrastructure.
4. In your own building permit regulations it states that no permit shall be withheld as long as it meets the current regulations that are on title for this property.
5. I also believe that you cannot ask for a second development servicing charge on your property.  As long as it stays with the current zoning.
6. So knowing that land owners do not own the sidewalks, roads, sewer and water, it would seem to make sense that as a community we budget for the repair, maintenane and upgrades as the need arises.
7. Individual land owners should not be at risk of major upgrades and or gifting of land to the community just to have the right to renovate or build their home!  We already have that right to build and renovate our homes, but the District of Coldstream is trying to suggest that they want the right to check in on all building permits and see if they want upgrades, or land, etc.  I would like to be clear on this also:  A single family renovation and/or home construction is not a development.  Single family home owners are not developers.
8. How will you handle this if a home burns down and the insurance funds are for replacement of the home only and the District is now wanting curb and gutter or upgrades included?  If the client does not have the funds and the insurance company has confirmed they do not cover sidewalks, curbs and gutters, how does the homeowner rebuild?  The insurance industry has stated clearly that you cannot insure what you don't own.  So how can the District feel entitled to this requirement in their new bylaw?

In closing, we feel that we have lost focus on what is really at stake here.  It is not about one building permit for the Patersons.  It is not about the proposed bike path.  It is about the District of Coldstream using its powers to change the bylaws on our land to allow them to make standard building permits conditional as they choose to see fit.  They are twisting the current bylaw and using the Subdivision and Development bylaw and trying to apply this to a standard single family building permit.

This is an erosion of our property rights and should not be allowed as long as we own our land in its current zoning.  Banks and Appraisal companies value our land knowing we have the rights to upgrade and build on our land, they are not counting on property owners having to gift land and/or upgrade municipal infrastructure.  If you change this, how will they know how to value our property?

The property owners have rights and I believe this Council needs to understand that we did not elect them to change the bylaws on our property.

Your jobs as councillors should be simple, to ensure that the bylaws, rules and regulations are regulated fairly, openly, and honestly.

Thank you.  (Signed) Ken and Karen Dahlen

(Ed.note:  "bold" text blog author)

"Mr. Dahlen only left out that we're still a democracy ... last time we looked anyway," offers Kia.

Coldstream's Committee-of-the-Whole meeting

I'm an idiot.

I attended tonight's Coldstream meeting, pen and notebook in hand to jot down the long-anticipated resolution to the contentious Subdivision Servicing Bylaw 1535.

Plus I wanted to be present, if only to hear that Judy Paterson would, on this one year anniversary of her application for a standard building permit, be receiving her approved permit in the mail.

I actually had felt that Mayor Garlick and Council--after having received their legal opinion in this year-long fiasco--would see the error of their ways; even rescinding the bylaw in its entirety.

How utterly foolish of me to believe sanity and fair play would prevail with this bunch.

It dawned on me tonight that this Mayor and Council--with the exception of newly-arrived Councillors Cochrane and McClean--are themselves an extremely biased special interest group, made up of the founding members of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association.  Each has met the prerequisite for membership:  narrow-mindedness, honed long ago as they circled the wagons to fight Jack Borden's plans for Coldstream Meadows.

They proved tonight they still possess that trait, if not the wagons.

This little clique, this little band of wannabe elitists has its own vision for Coldstream.

What I heard tonight made me wonder why I had been optimistic.

No resolution to the bylaw. 
Indeed the bylaw's to-and-fro machinations will see it remain in Draft version for a long time yet.

No building permit approval, despite a motion by Councillor Peter McClean to grant the permit and deal with other issues of drainage and safety on the road separately.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Pat Cochrane.  With only two supporters, the motion failed.

This mayor and council have been caught with their hands in the jar of their Golden Goose...the Patersons.
And are mad that the Patersons have challenged them and won the popular vote.
So, in the style that is customary with this council, the Patersons "must pay", in more ways than having their building permit withheld.

Council appears more intent on saving face than doing what their lawyer suggested...they could request--but not demand off-site charges.  

Disgusted, I had heard enough.
I walked out after an hour of their blathering nonsense.

Meeting four other attendees in the vestibule, who said they had also heard enough, phrases such as "morons", "idiotic", "lunacy", "bullshit" spilled from strangers' mouths as, one by one, people nodded in agreement.

We left the building, shaking our heads at this abject travesty masquerading as democracy.

Coldstream is going to hell in a hand-basket.

Nulli secundus ...second to none.

"For treating residents like vassals in a feudal system," offers Kia.