Dear Editor:
I have been thinking about the Banks Crescent development a great deal over the past several months.
I served on the Advisory Planning Council in Summerland — for a dozen or so years — and more often than not found myself in support of variances and rezoning that would make way for potential development.
After all, development was good for generating local jobs, and new homes brought families to fill schools, and my place at the APC table was that of school board liaison.
The lake view from our home was significantly affected by the development of Tuscan Terrace, yet we did not oppose or try to stop the development as we saw the potential to create jobs and bring people to Summerland.
We try to ignore the view of boarded up decks and metal storage units that we see before us now — but that is another story.
Over the 35 years that Bob and I have lived here, we have observed that Summerlanders are pretty good at polarizing when it comes to land development issues. It seems that the Banks Crescent project is no exception, as the potential size, location and magnitude of the development is unprecedented.
Given comments that I have heard from some members of council individually, I suspect that you will not approve the proposed development if the Trout Hatchery cannot be guaranteed a sure, safe and reliable secondary water source at the developer’s cost.
Risk to the aquifer water quality is a significant concern to many of us, and we are not necessarily convinced by assurances from Lark Group that everything will turn out just fine.
I mention this because if appropriate environmental plans and assurances are not established, the project will be a non-starter.
I know that the $400,000 to $500,000 in additional tax revenue each year is very tempting for council.
They have fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Summerland, and may view the additional revenue as a way to reduce the tax burden on all of us.
The problem with that line of thinking however, is that additional expenses would result from the 600 or 700 additional residents located a couple of kilometers away from the downtown core.
Not only would fire protection, policing and road maintenance costs increase, so would pressure on other existing services.
Even staffing at municipal hall would be affected by a six per cent increase in resident numbers.
My point here, is that the additional revenue is not free and clear money, as demands for increased services would (and in fact should) consume most or all of the additional tax revenue.
Banks Crescent residents would potentially approach council with expectations of their own.
Therefore, I would suggest that council not be steered by potential revenue, but rather by a vision of how we want to see Summerland grow.
Our current policy document for growth and development is the Official Community Plan.
If that plan is no longer relevant or no longer reflects the wishes of the community, then in should be replaced.
Growth in our town should be led by opportunities that fall within the vision set out in the Official Community Plan.
Since the Banks Crescent development is such a significant departure from the OCP, rather than have the tail wag the dog I would respectfully suggest that council pause, and engage with the citizens of Summerland in a process to establish a shared vision for the future.
The public hearing attached to the development process is not designed to adequately consider the bigger picture, or greater vision for the town that we love and call home.
The Banks Crescent developer understandably wants to get on with the project, as they have invested a lot of time and money into planning thus far.
While I suspect that the proponents will be disappointed, I doubt they would be surprised if council were to decide against the development until and unless it becomes part of Summerland’s vision for the future.
Connie Denesiuk
Summerland