Editorial
So said over half of City Council at Monday evening's Council meeting – not in as many words but an amended version of the new draft sign bylaw was approved by Councillors Scott, Davis, Pallesen and Warner defeating those Councillors who sought to improve the aesthetics of the strip by supporting the introduction of a new sign bylaw. The amended version will include existing billboards and even more portable signs in addition to the changes already made to accommodate those businesses, which prefer some of the old standards.
One must wonder who these four Councillors really
represent when over twenty letters of support from the public for the original
draft bylaw were received by council and when one of the most common tourist
and resident complaints about Cranbrook’s strip is its clutter. Some might say
we have the appearance of a sign hoarders paradise where nothing stands out in
the over abundance of visual noise. If a citizen group from the community had
put together a lobby group as the Chamber did, would it have made any
difference to these Councillors?
Did these four Councillors read the letters, listen to
anyone who works in an office, for government, the College of the Rockies,
Tourism BC, airline industry, tour operators, teachers, doctors, electricians,
plumbers, woodworkers, nurses, students or visitors?
Vision, aesthetics and the opinion of Cranbrook residents
who are not members of a group of business owners do not appear to matter to these Councillors.
Do the other Councillors listen to the business community and how they are struggling to keep business going? They are wanting better signage to attract patrons. What about all the power lines that also block the beautiful mountain view on the strip? The power lines are by far more of an eye sore than the signage. The city should be doing something about that.
ReplyDeleteThe Chamber has a job and that is to help the business community. They did the right thing to put out that survey. Why aren't you posting things like our taxes are going up every year for the next 5 years, or the city is not taking on the fireworks for Canada Day. Yet again it is the tax payers that are needing to help fundraise for this event after paying higher taxes and nothing to show for it. What Cranbrook needs is more businesses and businesses to be more profitable (shopping locally). A lot of the business owners do a lot for Cranbrook because they care what happens to Cranbrook. If our population does not grow, our taxes will just keep going up with again nothing to show for it and more people will leave. The more people that live here and open up businesses here, the better it is for everyone. For the citizens that do not want growth, imagine living in city that has tons of empty buildings and no one living here. What kind of a community would we be? More and more people will have to leave because their will be no jobs and they can't afford it.
I personally know that the three city officials who didn't vote for billboards are listening to the business community and a couple of them have given me some really good ideas for things we can do to encourage more business. I would suggest that if businesses are struggling it has little to do with signs. You might look elsewhere for shortcomings. Perhaps the Chamber could help the business community with that. To think that billboards and more portable signs will now be allowed and was introduced by these four Councillors as a way to encourage more business is misdirected. Just more visual clutter on that stretch of main road. As for your comment about growth, population is only one way a community grows.
Delete"population is only one way a community grows"
DeleteWould you mind sharing some other ways?
Cognitive growth would be first. Secondly, growing an economy through advancing our social/health care supports; built or manmade recreational facilities/features; and cultural and arts events/facilities. Attracting visitors here (if we can get them past the ‘Strip’). The long held belief that if you build it they will come, has had the effect of empty homes and failed developments, which become vandalized and increase policing costs, and does nothing for sense of community. Shadow Mountain is an example. Wildstone substantially lowered their prices and is slowly getting some occupancy. Historic building and boundary expansion has been to accommodate an obvious growing population. What has happened here and elsewhere is to expand and build for a population that doesn’t exist, or is way beyond the annual population growth rate. How many contractors have been left in the lurch on many of these developments? Not so good for economic growth. That is what you want isn’t it - economic growth?
DeleteBlah blah blah - growth without a strong business community and more people is impossible.
DeleteIt's nice to see 4 councillors standing up for freedom and people's ability to make choice. Glad to see some not just saying no.
ReplyDeleteWell done to the 4 councillors with vision.
I'm unsure why the views of the 20 people that wrote are suddenly worth more than the views of the 50 people that showed up to council meetings and were opposed to the original draft of the bylaw? Does democracy not count anymore? Or just when it's handy?
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question although you don't know how many offered their views verbally or in another context and you don't know how many people in the audience at the other Council meetings where the topic was discussed were in favour of the original bylaw. It seems at all levels of government it is hard to deal with the complacency that is so rampant. Although we may not like the outcome we certainly respect the dedication of those who stood up for what they wanted to see.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, your article written above doesn't seem to respect the dedication of the councillors who weighed public sentiment and came to a conclusion that CLCS and some others don't agree with. It is very difficult to accuse the community of complacency on this issue. Do you respect all who stood up for what they wanted, including business owners and the volunteers at the Chamber of Commerce, who you have dismissed as a lobby group? Or do you only respect the dedication of those who share your point of view?
DeleteBy the original post of this blog it is completely untrue that you "Certainly respect the dedication of those who stood up for what they wanted to see." The entire article was written to demean 4 councillors who voted for what they believe will make a better Cranbrook.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDeleteI am sorry if you take offence to my differing opinion. I most certainly do respect the dedication of the lobby group who did their homework and there was no intent to demean the Councillors whose opinion I happen to disagree with. If you took it that way I am sorry. In my discussions with many residents including some business owners and visitors I perceived the majority to feel differently. These Councillors perceptions were obviously not the same as mine.
Jenny Humphrey
Jenny, I don't take offence to your differing opinion. I'm not sure that it differs so much from mine. However, the tone of your article was very disrespectful of the councilors and the business whose opinion differs from yours. I don't think that I'm the one who deserves your apology.
DeleteIt's interesting that it took a group of volunteers to beautify the 'strip', not the business community. So who has the vision for a better community?
ReplyDeleteYou are actually suggesting that the business community has not participated at all in improving the image along the strip? You should actually visit the Chamber of Commerce building (on the strip) to check out the new sign, waterfall feature, cared for lawn, etc. Many businesses have contributed to the effort.
Delete