Peachland says no thanks to new prison
by Dave Preston
The provincial government can cross Peachland off the list of possible locations for a new prison.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman sent a letter to the mayors across the Okanagan in December asking for assistance is finding a location for a future prison. Tuesday was the first meeting Peachland council held after receiving the letter.
“I see some benefits,” said Coun. Peter Schierbeck, who pitched the idea of a prison at the old Brenda Mine site.
“We could spruce up that area and bring economic benefit to our community,” said Schierbeck.
Mayor Keith Fielding said he had a meeting with former mayor and former Brenda Mine manager Gordon Harris.
“He came up with several reasons why it would come with excessive cost,” said Fielding.
There is insufficient road access to Brenda Mine, no drinking water and no sewer system, said fielding. He added the site averages 10 degrees cooler than at the valley bottom, necessitating higher heating costs.
“The broader question is whether we want to be associated with a penal facility,” said Fielding. “It becomes part of our identity.”
“These are well paid people,” countered Schierbeck. “It could be quite a benefit to us.”
Coun. Terry Condon said he has doubts about the Brenda mine site or any other site around Peachland.
In jest, Coun. Vern Moberg suggested council could kill two birds with one stone by buying up the McDougald Road gravel pit properties and offering them to the province as a suitable prison site.
Coleman listed several criteria for a future prison site, including:
- Buildable area of 20 acres (eight hectares);
- Serviced, including electricity, gas, water and sewer;
- Minimal negative environmental conditions;
- Minimal probability of a First Nations claim to aboriginal title;
- Not in the ALR.
Council agreed to send a letter to Coleman, explaining that Peachland does not have appropriate land that meets the criteria.
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Would the following idea perhaps satisfy the naysayers
Welcome the prison to the Brenda Mines area on the proviso that the name “Peachland” never be associated with the prison itself. Were it to be known as the “Peachland Provincial Prison” or something similar, then two outcomes would be guaranteed:
1) Property values in Peachland would drop as potential buyers look elsewhere as nobody really wants to live in a town associated with a prison.
2) Tourism in Peachland would diminish as what tourist would wish to holiday “next door” to a prison. Think of the danger to the children!
If the association could somehow be avoided by insisting it be referred to as the “Brenda Provincial Provision” or something similar, then jobs would come to Peachland without having the negatives that come with a prison as well.
Any comments on the concept? Or would the hugely negative association with Peachland be inevitable no matter what the facility were to be named?
Just got home, printed off and read all 23 points, and finally, we do have a point we wish to air.
Thinking of the Brenda site for a prison; still sounds reasonable to us!
Sanity does make valid points; however, we would suggest a “99 year lease” of a portion of the area up there! Leave the tailing pond untouched. A little more fencing will not be considered out of place.
Xstrata Copper would continue to own the property; leasing it back to the Provinical Government for the penitentary. Xstrata would have the responsibility (in perpetuity) to measure, to moniter and treat the tailings water.
Xstrata Copper is a business. They are here to make money also, thus they will not turn down income from their investments.
Thank-you Sanity for giving us the details.
Many times in life, I’m sure that most of us would not fly off the handle for “a cause” if we only had the true facts.
I really don’t like talking about something, and end up getting the feeling that I’m not getting the WHOLE truth on the subject.
Fact is, I just don’t bother talking to ‘the half-truth sayer’ anymore… MY, am I ever getting old in thought, and single minded! Not a good trate…
Cudos to Sanity for presenting a lucid, informed perspective on Brenda mine. Amazing what a little research can do for clarity.
Seems like all potential sites for a prison are outside the District of Peachland.
Fine by me.
\
Not in your back yard we know the drill
Ladies/gents…
In the ‘broader question’, I would like to see a whole whack of jobs and new, young families in the Peachland area. The current population base being primarily retirees, and the new real estate developments targeting more retirees along with wealthy ‘summer folk’ is not, in my opinion, the way to ensure Peachland as a vibrant community. A prison (or a west-side hospital) would really fit the bill.
From my mental image of prisons (movies, etc.), and tours around Okalla prison and BC Pen as a kid in Vancouver, I would suggest that the gravel pit site and chip loading site(s) are far too small to be viable. In addition, they are hampered by having the only road access (2 lane rural) passing through a residential area.
The Brenda mine site on the other hand…
With the greatest respect to Mr. Harris, the sewer, power and temperature concerns are not the issue. They are simply ticks on the Value Engineering ledger. Nor is road access, as there is easy access available from the Connector.
My concern on any development of the Brenda site is twofold:
(1) Water. a large slice of Peachland gets their drinking water from Trepanier Creek. The creek also flows into Okanagan Lake. The owners of Brenda are required, in perpetuity, to treat, measure and monitor run-offs from their operation. Disturbance of soils, tails, etc. allowing heavy metal contamination could potentially destroy Trepanier Ck.
(2) Ownership. Brenda is still considered a ‘mine’ under the Mines Act. The current mine operator (Xstrata Copper) is obliged to follow a comprehensive closure and reclamation plan (including the aforementioned Water treatment and monitoring). If the Government was to purchase this site, it would allow Xstrata to walk away with clean hands, and have the BC Taxpayers responsible for the 34 million cubic metres of contaminated water in the open pit, the mitigation of toxic discharge and for the maintenance of the 140 meter high by 2km-long tailing dam, forever. IMHO, this would be foolish.
Having said this, I think a Brenda-type site, out of town, but with easy (less than 30 minutes commute on a good highway) would be ideal.
Why just south of town, there is a sign for 250+ acres for sale…..
Sanity?
Peachland Council why are you saying NO to Brenda Mine area for this , This is Provincal Not Peachland Municipality area
I think Slick Lizzy got it right ( Which issue; saying no to having the right piece of property, No to the prison, or just No to everything.)
Just waiting for next Election
The comment from “teabone” has been weighing heavy on my mind all evening.
“Not in my backyard”! >>> I really hate that trait of the human race…
That is the mind set that has flowed through Peachlander’s veins for the last 20-25 years! and, it wasn’t the long-time Peachlander that would say that phrase; it is inevitably someone that has “landed” in someone before them’s backyard… and now, they want it NOT to change …no way/no how!!! That is except for the gentle breezes of relaxation/the quaint tea houses and the pristine walkways.
But somewhere in gentle Peachland there is the working bloke that takes a beating from all the high class attitude and genteel spirit.
A few years back, I remember that a prison was almost finalized in the very outskirts of Kelowna (BUT) it WAS to be build (figurativelly speaking) at the end of a family occupied culdi-de-sac of Windfield!
Funny how that seemed ok the the “think-tank” of Kelowna!
Back when a prison was first a topic here on this blog, I stated that I thought (and still think) that if something of this sort is going to be built here in the Okanagan; then Brenda Mines is my suggestion. OUT OF THE WAY of the general public. If you did the crime, then nothing special/you do the time!
I wasn’t aware that the property on McDougald Road was for sale?
The last thing I heard it was a Gravel Pit with a life span purposed longer than the time frame in which the jail site is needed to be found. Where is this idea coming from?
Unless the town led by Mr. Moberg is planning to purchase the property for such a use.
You may have missed the part from Coun. Moberg where he talked about the gravel pit jokingly.
Joking or not if the town wanted to have more commercial area they could have purchased the property years ago when it was for sale.
I think no matter what is purposed on that site we will always here “Not in my back yard” If people want to keep everything on hold then pull out your cheque book everything is for sale for a price. That way you have control over what you own, if you don’t want it then it’s yours to do as you see fit.
Once people seem to move on in they want to stop everything that could happen. What was the area their house is on before; I am sure back in the day it was a peaceful little corner of paradise to but now is a paved concrete roof topped jungle.
Not in my back yard – council got this one right
teabone
January 19, 2011 – 5:36 pm
“Not in my back yard – council got this one right”
Which issue; saying no to having the right piece of property, No to the prison, or just No to everything.
If the McDougal site and Brenda Mine are so untenable, then why not use the ‘wood-chip’ site opposite the compost site? I believe it is owned by one of the local garden centres(Bylands?). Obviously it lays beyond the municipality boundaries at present, but who knows what is possible when you put your mind to it?
Your facts are a bit off; a logging company has rights on the land. The scale and weigh house are still on site.
It would be nice to see the old mine site and logging sort yard come to life again causing many new opportunities.