A number of false statements and assumptions were made at the Monday night’s Cranbrook Council meeting. Most of these statements were directed towards Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook. We are pleased that our concerns are sometimes being taken to heart and are being taken seriously even though they are not always agreed with.
However we are not pleased with statements that are completely untrue.
Sheldon Isaman of Summit West Developments stated Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook were making political hay with his East Hill Proposal, which only became known to those who read Council Meeting Package Notes on Friday September 3rd.
If notifying interested residents of a proposal, which has in the past, been known to be of high interest to many citizens is called ‘political hay’ we are proud to think we alerted those citizens to what appeared to be a deliberate, last minute reveal for something which would have a large impact on Cranbrook.
Sheldon Isaman had obviously taken many concerns to heart because what he verbally presented to Council on Monday evening was changed considerably from the written package received three days prior. It is our understanding this proposal has changed many times since June and it is hard to know what Council voted in favour of (not objected to) at this time. For a Councillor to vote on a verbal proposal as large and complicated as this, which has not been read is highly unusual, certainly at a Municipal Council Meeting.
It is even more unusual for a Council to vote against its own bylaw. Councillor Wavrecan argued that because the electorate chose not to bring this area into the city in 2009 that the 10km clause is null and void. Yet, the City has used this same bylaw to deny other rural development applications. No amendment has taken place to change this in the OCP bylaw and there may be, in the future, another proposal, which is different from Mr Isaman’s enormous original proposal. There are still other options for this land under the current OCP, which still exists and is part of the planning structure. To ignore it is to show blatant disrespect for its own and taxpayers bylaws. This decision is in the hands of the RDEK but they requested honest input from the residents of Cranbrook through their Council. City representatives at the table have approved a large revision to the Rockyview OCP based solely on a verbal presentation.
Mr Isaman made these statements:-
CLC is anti-growth
CLC is anti-development
CLC is anti-investment
And CLC is betting on the livelihood of residents.
These statements are inflammatory, completely and utterly untrue and spread malicious unfounded gossip. We can only be grateful he made them at the Council Table for all to hear.
Mr Isaman has put a lot of work into the project but that does not make it right. He knew what the zoning was on this land when he purchased it. He had not examined what the future of Cranbrook might look like or what the residents of Cranbrook might like to see in how their community develops.
Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook stand for smart, sustainable growth, which has been planned by the community at large and based on proven need. To that end we have invited well-known and respected development experts to Cranbrook on a number of occasions. Bob Sanford, (Canadian Chair of the United Nations International “Water for Life” Decade, and author of “The Weekender Effect: Hyperdevelopment in Mountain Towns”, Greg Halseth, (UNBC Community Development Institute), Jeremy Sturgess, (world renowned architect) have all presented to the CLC membership and many members of the public. We have presented free movie nights with relevant documentaries from other jurisdictions to large audiences. Council was invited to all events and only one member of Council other than Councillor Whetham ever came to one presentation. Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook are most concerned about the livelihood of residents which is why we examine and read all municipal documents including the Growth Management Study and Economic Development Strategy which both have supported our concerns and call for careful responsible use of residents tax dollars as well as long term economic drivers.
Councillor Scott made the comment that the Shadow Mountain and Wildstone Developments got us through the last few years of economic downturn. Yet with many Boulder Creek Properties in arrears, a much reduced Wild Stone Golf Course and Shadow Mountain being just a small shadow of what was planned this comment defies reason. Short-term construction jobs do not an economy make and deceive a community into thinking everything is stable when it is not. Development is only good when it is necessary and can be sustained in the long term with long-term employment.
Councillor Denise Pallesen seemed to object her phone number being listed so that residents could contact her. Most other municipalities have contact information for their councillors listed because councillors are elected to serve their constituents. Councillor Pallesen went on to ridicule a named member of the public for phoning her and then apparently did not understand one of the concerned citizen’s questions and so ridiculed that. She then went on to incorrectly associate a resident’s letter to the CLC. These actions hardly create an open, welcoming climate with citizens.
We are left wondering WHY the majority of Council is pushing this development so vehemently.
Citizens have every right to ask questions about matters, which concern our community. We are hoping for a more welcoming, inclusive atmosphere at the Council Table after the upcoming election – an atmosphere based on truth, honesty and enthusiasm for all members of the community regardless of their viewpoint.
Post Note
There is a meeting at the RDEK Offices on Thursday evening October 6th at 6:30pm when Sheldon Isaman will be making another presentation to the RDEK as part of the process within the RDEK. The public may wish to attend.
Stay the course. Keep up the good work. I too wonder why this mayor and council are so obsessed with the East Hill issue. I also shake my head at the ridiculous comments by Councillor Scott re Shadow Mountain and Wildstone, and remind Councillor Pallesen she was elected to serve ALL citizens and was not elected as the member for the Chamber of Commerce.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who attended last night's Council meeting, I was surprised and disappointed at the attack on the CLC and the personal attack on a member of the public for expressing his concerns to the Mayor and members of Council about the proposed development.
ReplyDeleteWhy is everyone so opposed to growth. Being anti change is what CLC has presented as their face. They were against bringing the East Hills into Cranbrook. It is ridiculous to think they can put their nose in both ends of this property being developed. They cannot have thier cake and eat it too.
ReplyDeleteI find a lot of misinformation from CLC. Growth is good. Everything needs to grow and change to improve and evolve. They fear mongered everyone into voting no to have the east hill within city limits.... It is now not on their hands bit that of RDWK. Let it be and move on to something else.
Quit attacking someones livelihood as sure you would not appreciate someone doing that to you.
Councillor Pallesen expressed the endorsement of the Cranbrook & District Chamber of Commerce at my request. She generously agreed to do so. As an organization representing nearly 500 member businesses, the Chamber welcomes new investment and development to the area. Summit West, through its progressive consultation process, is building a community that will bring families, employees and shoppers to the area throughout the life of the 5 to 7 year build-out. This development has the potential to very positively impact our business community.
ReplyDeleteSean Campbell
President, Cranbrook & District Chamber of Commerce
Residents of Cranbrook and throughout the RDEK must know that in this globally depressed economy, every other municipality in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan are going to want to woo the likes of Fort McMurray workers to their areas, as does Mr. Isaman. To add yet another large development close to Cranbrook, on that premise, would water down the housing sales opportunities that presently exist throughout our entire regional district, as well as within Cranbrook, and more recently the vacant housing in Boulder Creek (formerly Wildstone - many in tax arrears), and the Shadow Mountain properties. Quite simply the population growth and job markets do not support yet another large speculative land development in our region. Build the homes and they will come? How's it working for us so far? Let's look at economic growth that can be accommodated on what is already developed within Cranbrook and our area communities.
ReplyDeleteLook at Kimberley... It hasn't grown because of tree huggers like CLC who want to pick apart everyone that could improve the community. Kimberley may as well be a ghost town. Why would we want Cranbrook ending up the same. Its getting worse we need something new and to give people jobs and a future. Is CLC going to oppose the college turning into a university as well? Thru don't want what's best for Cranbrook they are just old and stuck in their ways and what Cranbrook to reflect that.
ReplyDeleteCLC wants to fear monger, spread untruths, interrogate anyone they can to get their way. Pathetic.
Good to see some lively discussion and different points of view on the topic of the proposed Summit West development. As someone who supports sustainable growth, I'm curious to know why the President of the Cranbrook & District Chamber of Commerce believes that "Summit West, through its progressive consultation process, is building a community that will bring families, employees and shoppers to the area throughout the life of the 5 to 7 year build-out. This development has the potential to very positively impact our business community." after reading what appear to be equally valid points raised by Worldtraveller, who comments, "Quite simply the population growth and job markets do not support yet another large speculative land development in our region. Build the homes and they will come? How's it working for us so far? Let's look at economic growth that can be accommodated on what is already developed within Cranbrook and our area communities."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Worldtraveller...we have heard no concerns expressed about the business case for this development from the developer or from local real estate agents. I think that if the people who are investing in the development and the people whose livelihoods will be buoyed by the development believe in its prospects for success, then your efforts to save them from themselves might be misguided. And while many other communities will "woo" those Fort McMurray workers, which include many well-paid professionals, tradespeople and their families, our airport, Integra Air service, lifestyle and environment make our area a very attractive competitor for their attention.
ReplyDeleteJust did a quick check of Fernie, Kimberley, Creston, Invermere and Golden (I'd go on but I think this is enough to prove a point) - none of the councilors' personal phone numbers are listed on the city websites. Perhaps because they are entitled to privacy like the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteNot all Councillors list their phone numbers but contact information is given on most municipal websites.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.town.golden.bc.ca/contacts/index.php
http://www.fernie.ca/siteengine/ActivePage.asp?PageID=41
http://kimberley.iwebez.com/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=18
http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/index.aspx?NID=191
http://www.salmonarm.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?pageid=236
Anonymous might want to check their facts. Does Anonymous mean to imply that making it convenient to contact your elected official is not appropriate?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sparwood.bc.ca/government/mayor-council (all contact information given by clicking on the link)
http://kimberley.iwebez.com/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=18 (home phones given and e-mails)
http://www.fernie.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=39 (e-mails given by placing cursor over the Councillors name)
All of the municipal websites that are quoted provide contact information through the municipal offices, NOT the Councilors` home or cell phone numbers. Take Salmon Arm for instance, either they all live at the same address or people are directed to the City office. Or take Kimberley, the phone number for the mayor and council is the same as the phone number listed for the city office at the website provided by Rockies Man. (check your own facts, mine seem quite solid).
ReplyDeleteThere is no problem with contacting any public official in any office through proper channels, which is often quite convenient enough for most. The CLC crossed a line by encouraging the use of personal contact information rather than properly contacting them through the City.
To the CLC:
ReplyDeleteIf all of the websites to which you have directed us list the city or town office contact information for their public officials, why do you feel that it is appropriate to give out the personal numbers of the City of Cranbrook Council?
Congrats to the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society for permitting a lively discussion, including views with which it may not agree. Kind of punctures the spin by some that CLC does not want any views but its own heard. I might just add it goes with the territory that once in public office, one gives up much privacy. If councillors can't take the heat from callers, best maybe they return to private life.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to reiterate, since my last post was NOT put on the blog, that this is not a lively debate but a series of corrections of both what the CLC and other commenters present as facts and serious flaws in logic. I would further argue that this could hardly be presented as expressing differing points of view if the CLC are going to cherry pick the posts.
ReplyDeleteComments are moderated and we did choose not to publish four comments although they are kept for the record. Incoherent ramblings or comments such as “xxxxxxx must not have a brain in your head” or accusations of “lies and fear mongering” without qualification were considered inappropriate. If those whose comments were not published would like to resubmit them and be specific about the ‘lies’ and ‘fear mongering’ they protest us to be responsible for and if the comments are respectful we would be glad to publish them.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time understanding the debate. What is negative about the project on the east hill? What do you the CLC think are the negative affects to Cranbrook if it goes ahead? All I can see is jobs and prosperity, the financial risk is completely on the developers shoulders. I keep reading from the CLC, that the development is negative, "we" do not need it. Well, "we" have no right to an opinion anymore, "we" voted to not have control of these lands. "We" should have voted in favor of these lands to come into Cranbrook, then "we" would of had a legitimate voice. It's very sad to see a community torn on such an issue as land expansion.
ReplyDeleteThe last poster says that he/she "is sad to see the community torn on such an issue as land expansion" and yet is "having a hard time understanding the debate". That is one of the reasons why the community is torn, many people can't understand why the other side doesn't see it their way! In other words, if everyone just saw it my way, and did what I said, there would be no problem right? My advice, take some time to listen and learn and try to look at the other side from their point of view. Then put your self in their position, then help them understand your position without hate or anger or judgement. Maybe if we all chilled out a little bit and tried to really listen to each other we might all be a little happier. I realize there is no way to make everybody happy but there will be a point somewhere near the middle where most of us will be mostly okay with the way things went. Hopefully.
ReplyDeleteI believe the pro-development Council Members logic is flawed....
ReplyDeleteI believe most citizens voted the way they did because the threat that this development posed to our current way of life, and didn't want something so large in scale cannibalizing our City.
By the pro-development Council Members logic, we should have embraced the development into our city limits, only to then squash it.... which I personally believe would have been unethical.
Isn't the RDEK seats now a tool to follow through with our concerns about this development? Please honour our resident's concerns.
We completely agree that seeing the community torn is difficult. It started when our City spent $20,000 of taxpayers money to support one side of an issue.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the application is in the hands of the RDEK now and the decision rests there. Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook are not opposed to rural development within the current zoning. We have stated many times that we promote sustainable responsible growth that has economic, cultural, social, and environmental consideration. Our Society has held many events to increase awareness of the necessity to look at growth from a different perspective, as many cities globally are finding that sprawl is creating debt.
This proposal contravenes the current Rockyview OCP, and the City of Cranbrook’s current OCP (which has been used to turn down smaller developments than this in the last few years, so that raises questions around selective use of a bylaw). The creation of a separate community in close proximity to a large city raises concerns such as:
• Transportation and connectivity - see the City’s own Growth Management Study, which does not recommend building to the east. There are references to the need for three connecting roads to Cranbrook that will adversely affect the Cranbrook Community Forest and adjoining neighbourhoods.
• Throughout western Canada there are hundreds of other communities vying to attract gas/oil workers from the north, and they too have very desirable amenities and access services.
• According to the Growth Management Study, Cranbrook has enough land available within the current boundaries for the next 57 years at 1.2% population growth. Where is the demonstrated demand for more housing? Short-term construction jobs do not provide long-term sustainability.
Hopefully this very short explanation helps clarify your questions. Nobody wants to see investors lose their money. However, as in the stock market, and given the global economy, speculation is risky. Cranbrook alone is facing two such speculative land developments that are suffering.
The owners of this land must have been aware of the zoning in place when they purchased it. Since the time of purchase residents and planners of the RDEK have reviewed the Rockyview Official Community Plan, conducted open planning sessions with the public, and the zoning put in place.
The bylaw still exists and has not yet been rescinded or changed. It therefore still applies and has been used to turn down other applications.
ReplyDeleteYou are interpeting the by law incorrect and I suggest you look up the definition of "should" and "restrict". Your organization implies wrongdoing by the city. How about publishing the staff briefing on the decision and recommendation. Or are you afraid that it will prove you wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlso can you provide me with one development in the city that you supported. This would at least show you are not anti development Rather than oppose. Be the leaders you state to be and provide your input through the planning process.
Thank you Anonymous for your interest and comment. In answer to your questions - we have published both the bylaw and the staff recommendation. We have never opposed any development within the city, only the lack of process by which one development was achieved. The decision is now in the hands of the RDEK Board of which two members are Mayor Scott Manjak and Liz Schatschneider who are residents of the city of Cranbrook. We differ in our opinions and we accept that.
ReplyDeleteI have only one comment after reading all of the above. The CLC should make it mandatory that the names of the posters appear or otherwise the comments not be printed. It is pretty easy to hide behind " Anonymous "
ReplyDelete