As readers will be aware, many developers see Peachland as a highly desirable place in which to invest: we are located in one of the most appealing and desirable parts of the Okanagan; we have the capacity to accommodate growth; and, we have (in my opinion) a community that is willing to embrace growth, provided that it is tasteful, sustainable, and likely to complement all that we value as a small town, proud of our history, heritage, and culture.
Clearly, opinions differ as to what is tasteful, what is sustainable, and what is desirable: issues that will no doubt fuel debate well into the future. However, if we accept that growth can bring with it economic and social benefits that would not otherwise be available to us (e.g. affordable housing, business opportunities, local employment, the settlement of younger families, expansion of the tax base to permit amenity and infrastructure enhancement; etc.) then the question that most clearly comes into focus is: How much development is desirable and sustainable?
Major projects currently underway, or proposed for Peachland, include the Ponderosa/Pincushion project; the downtown revitalization project; the New Monaco project; and the Hangingstone project, proposed as part of the Lower Princeton Area Structure Plan. In addition, other smaller projects, and infill development, will continue and will add further to the supply of available housing.
If all of the known projects were to proceed to maximum build-out over the next 20years, we would be experiencing a rate of growth that is approximately seven per cent per year. Historically, rates of growth in the Okanagan have been considerably lower than that, averaging around two per cent per year according to a preliminary paper issued by the Central Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy review. Clearly then, if there is an appropriate match between supply and demand, future market conditions will have to be substantially different from those in the past, in order to match housing supply at the levels proposed in Peachland.
The challenge for Peachland is to manage future growth responsibly and to ensure that growth occurs sustainably, taking into account economic, social, and environmental impacts. With this in mind, we requested the Peachland Economic Development Committee and the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission to assist us in the preparation of Terms of Reference for an independent study of the economic impacts and related issues that arise from currently projected levels of development.
Terms of Reference for the study were approved by Council, and consultants were then invited to submit Expressions of Interest to carry out the study. From the seven submissions received, Council has selected the Vancouver-based Van Struth Consulting Group to conduct the analysis. Their report setting out study findings and recommendations will be presented to Council by year end, following which a further public information meeting will held to present the report to the community and address questions arising.
We look forward to completion of this important study knowing that its findings will be of great value to Peachland in our policy development and decision making, and that its content and timing will benefit from, and complement, work currently underway on the update of the Regional District, Regional Growth Strategy.
Terms of Reference for the Peachland study can be viewed on the District of Peachland website: www.peachland.ca
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry

The simple fact that this study is being done after New Monaco, Pincushion and Trepanier have made it through the stringent development rules, processes and procedures that the District has in place to manage development calls its motivation into question.
It would appear that the anticipated outcome will be that the benefits of development will not be sufficient to justify the District allowing them to proceed. That is the stated position of anti-development lobby as expressed in a Letter to the Editor – http://peachlandnews.com/blog/2011/05/23/concerned-about-growth/
Would it not be simpler and provide a clear direction if Mayor Fielding would come out and say that there will be very limited development in Peachland while he is Mayor? If he is clear about his position and has a mandate from the electorate then we do not need the charade of wasting taxpayers money on studies that can reflect whatever position the consultants are directed to provide.
I was unable to find any reference to the single largest financial commitment that the District of Peachland has made.
The District has signed a Memorandum of understanding with the “Good Samaritan Society” which I believe commits $3,500,000 of District owned real estate to the development of subsidized senior housing. (details of the Memorandum of understanding might be found on http://www.Peachland.ca but are well hidden)
I would imagine that that would be a top priority item on any study of the economic impact of development to Peachland. Will this project generate jobs, employment etc equivalent with the public investment?
It is by far the largest financial commitment the District has taken. It is targetted to attract low income individuals to the area and have a spin off effect in increased publicly funded social services. Should this not be studied to see if it will impact the District’s ability to provide traditional services without huge tax increases? or will it be self sustaining and increase the tax base?
The District is NOT giving a direct gift of $3.5M to Pincushion, Trepanier or New Monaco that are obviously the focus of this study.
The mayor states: “Terms of Reference for the Peachland study can be viewed on the District of Peachland website: http://www.peachland.ca”
In consulting this statement is called hiding in plain view. It is commonly used to bury information from external auditors.
It is not an outright lie, but you need an hour and are familiar with the Peachland.ca website.
The mayor could have pointed to
http://www.peachland.ca/cms.asp?wpID=31&Yr=2011&Mnth=6&Dy=28&evID=824
The Council of the Whole (COTW) agenda June 28, 2011 (pages 33-57)
or perhaps a different document that I was unable to find.
I agree with the above…
Just read the Peachland View on the town council’s great challenge of what to do about planning for the best outcome for this thriving metropolis.
Dave/city planner now getting help from Van Struth and Co.!
We vote— “Baffled with bull ****”