The Candidates – Seniors Housing
Peachland News asked the candidates for Peachland council questions about themselves and important issues. Below is a question asked and the unedited answers received.
Question 10
A. Should council continue to offer potentially millions of dollars of land for the project?
B. Should the matter go to referendum?
 |
Peter SchierbeckA. This project is to look after those who have built our community, currently our senors are having to move to other communities as they age. This facility will keep them at home close to their families and friends. Peachland has taken the plunge and acquired the real estate as requested by our Provincial and Federal Governments, they are to come up with construction costs. I believe that this will happen in the near future and Peachland will be a much better place for it.
B. A referendum must be held if the municipality is to borrow money and take over 5 years to repay it. There is no requirement for Peachland to borrow money on this project. I believe the majority of Peachlanders will appreciate this facility. |
 |
Ernie HurdA. NO….I think we should sell the land and put the money towards affordable housing…let’s be a leader.
B. NO |
 |
Eldon KerbesA. Any facility or complex whether it is for recreation or seniors can only be achieved if the land required is donated by the municipality.
B. If borrowing is required a referendum is required by law. |
 |
Eric HallA. The justification for donating such an expensive piece of land must be based on the facility being available to Peachland residents. The project has been handed over to the “Good Samaritan’s Society” without that provision being made clear.
B. We should start with a public information meeting and full disclosure. |
 |
Keith FieldingA. Yes: the project will not proceed without the municipal land contribution. However, the land is will be leased and not “given” to the project.
B. Refenda do have their place but they are expensive and often divisive with win-lose outcomes. My preference is to build consensus through public information sessions and effective community consultation. |
 |
Ken WhiteleggA. Darn you. Seniors housing is certainly one of major dilemmas. What we are talking about is a fair chunk of Land and I for one do not believe the town owes me something if any one does it’s our kids [just a joke] [try and collect that] but I have to say that I have heard people say they would not have gone elsewhere if there was a place to go here. Clearly there is a need but Peachland has a dismal amount of flat land and must be used to its greatest advantage. We have to have significant amount of 20% dollars from the Govt funding there is of course special corporations that handle such development it’s there, we just have to dig for it.. The present approach is being looked at is how can we reduce the foot print and look at something higher the limit of wooden structures is six stories one storey for parking 5 stories above providing beautiful views of the lake even if is set in the back. A very good idea.
B. I believe it should go to referendum after due diligence has been completed. |
 |
Lee SawchukA. I have difficulty in council offering millions of dollars of valuable real estate to a select group at no charge. I believe this particular land should be sold as its prime real estate that could bring much needed revenue into our town. The Senior’s Society project could be relocated on lesser expensive property
B. A referendum is an expensive option, but perhaps a necessity to find out what Peachlanders want . Other options (less expensive) as in mail ballots may suffice. |
 |
Terry CondonA. This is a lease arrangement only so no loss to Peachland. Senior housing will allow residents to stay.
B. Referenda are for issues related to borrowing money, and would not apply here |
 |
Grant EisworthA. Who owns the land? The District, or the Taxpayers of Peachland? Is the district in the business of land ownership or development? Any lands owned by the taxpayers should be used for the benefit of the taxpayers, or am I missing something here?
B. Any time we can get the voters and taxpayers of Peachland to participate in the decisions which affect us all, then by all means. However, we must caution on spending unnecessary funds for the smaller decisions which can and should be made by the council which has been voted in to do just that (and that is run the district on behalf of the voters/taxpayers). |
 |
Lindsay BellAnswers not received. |
 |
Charlette BroadowayA. The district is not “giving” the land away but the land contribution will ensure the project is even viable. The senior’s need a facility that will allow them to stay in the community. The project is planned to bring a number of service groups and community services for seniors and others in the community under one roof. It will benefit many…not just a small group of seniors.
B. The necessity for referendum is needed to borrow money. We are not planning on doing that. It is clear to me that the public needs more information as to the outline of the project and where it stands currently. |
 |
Cindy FortinA. We have a growing population of seniors and we need to take care of our seniors. We definitely need more senior housing in Peachland and in an area that is not too distant from the downtown. I would be in support of some land contribution in this area, with some assisted living units as well. Seniors should not be forced to pack up and leave their community because they need some support.
B. Referendums are expensive, and I do believe the point of electing council members is for them to listen to the people and then make the decisions. But in this case, where millions of dollars of land is involved, it may be a good idea in order to give a greater voice to the residents and taxpayers of the community. It may be called the “District of Peachland’s contribution”, but in fact, it would be the taxpayers’. |
 |
Vern MobergA. The size of our town if we want to do it know we need a partner
B. No I don’t think it is needed |
Answers submitted by candidates after publication will be added to this post.
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
it is plain to see that perhaps we should have an audit done on this council’s spending etc..
Peachland Voice of Reason- Very interesting comments and questions. I’m only looking at the tip of the pile and see a few discrepancies. You on the other hand, have delved a little deeper. I would like to see a few of these questions answered also. Just like the rink- there were alot of untruths coming out from the club about financing but council tried to put it through anyway. This pile has a familiar odor to it.
Just Sayin’
Will the current 50+ Building be turned into a open community facility… Boxing Club/ Boys and Girls Club , Peachland Players, Peachland Art Society even the Visitor information centre or the new City hall comes to mind, if the $10,000,000 senior complex is built. I assume from the very limited information available that this new facility will provide all the services and very much more than the current facility provides for seniors.
This election would have been a great time to discuss these sort of details on the Vision of Peachland that might be less than 3 years away.
Conflict of interest is spelled out in the Community Charter. For the most part there has to be a pecuniary (financial) interest involved. The seniors housing committee was set up by council, like many other committees in the past. They are set up to have their own meetings, do their thing and report back to council. It is very common for there to be council members on the committees.
It would be a conflict if anyone on the committee or on council had a financial interest in the project (for instance, one of them owned land that could be rezoned). That is not happening here, so being on the committee and/or council is not going to bring some kind of personal financial gain.
Dave
A committee is different that a society.
The Society has been announced as signing the agreement with the Good Samaritan Society. Why the Society and not the District?
Were there any council members on the board Board for Life society? There were none on the Peachland Curling Society despite all councillors supporting it and Peter Schirbeck being the assigned council representative. Peter made sure that he did not make any council/district commitments to the Society.
This project is clouded in secrecy.
Why was a Society formed? The Society has been announced as signing the agreement with the Good Samaritan Society. Why the Society and not the District?
Note that Mr. Fileding and Mr. Schirbeck have chosen not to answered my follow-up questions that they should have the answers to:
What is the land lease agreement?
What data/study exists to show that the subsidised Senior housing will be used by Peachland seniors? How many Peachland seniors are on the waiting list?
As the Senior housing has a good chance to be built over the next 3 years this election would seem likely the last chance for the people of Peachland to have any voice or influence on the project.
It is very concerning when the main supports of the project don’t want to provide any details and have stated they don’t want or need a referendum once the details are made public.
I missed somewhere that this society signed the agreement with the Good Samaritans. Might be worth checking into, although I still don’t see a conflict of interest (and I’m going by the legal definition of conflict of interest in the Community Charter).
Being on council and on the seniors’ housing committee is not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would only be present if council members voted on a motion that the council members had a personal financial interest in.
She’s obviously not going to vote against the seniors complex so I only assume there is some sort of “biased” interest there. Sorry if I’m wrong Dave. I guess it comes down to semantics.
p.s Both Fielding and Broadaway should have no chance to vote on any issues concerning seniors housing since they are on the board for the seniors housing. Extreme conflict of interest. Kinda’ like a drunk voting to raise the legal limit to drive. Might consider voting for Broadaway if she resigns her post with the senior housing though. Could be a little stressful for her (playing both sides of the fence). Don’t have to worry about Fielding- he’s gone.
Just Sayin’
Was just windering how putting a seniors complex on Beach Ave. will help our thriving economy instead of putting something of more economically viable on location. Give your heads a rattle. Is this so Fieldings’ friends can have an easy stroll to the seniors center? Is there not something more usable for the entire community that could possibly attract visitors other than that (dare should I say) minority wanting facility. I don’t see any other place around here putting a seniors facility on their “money street”. If we have to put one up, then do it. But not with an ounce of my tax money and not in such a valuable place. Again and again… we could possible put up a very profitable athletic center and keep alot of money here in Peachland. Many in Glenrosa have shown interest in such a facility. This could be a state of the art place where hockey, baseball, football and other athletes could be attracted to. There is a very small place in Westbank where world class athletes are drawn to…
Just Sayin’
Mayor Fielding
” However, the land is will be leased and not “given” to the project.”
What will the municipality get from the lease? 10% of the land value – $350,000/ year would seem to be a reasonable lease rate. Can we start talking about how Peachland will spend this new revenue? Lower Taxes? Pay for Primary school renovation? extend Beach Ave Pathway?
” My preference is to build consensus through public information sessions and effective community consultation”
And yet the project has proceeded to the point where a third party ” Peachland Senior Support Society” can enter into a agreement with the Good Samaritain Society when the people of Peachland have little to none public information on this huge project.
When do you feel would be appropriate time to inform the people of Peachland how their money is being spent?
Mr. Shierbeck…. “currently our senors are having to move to other communities as they age” . This is a true statement, but would you be able to share the actual quantity of Senior Peachland Citizens that have moved to other senior centres just because one was not available in Peachland? There would be a significant group that have left Peachland to be closer to their family and would continue to do so in the future.
What is the expected users of this facility? How many senior Peachlanders are on the waiting lists for this type of facility?
As a real life example how many residents of the current Sutherland Court are long time Peachland residents (20 years) and tax payers? What is the waiting list for this facility?
Would this project be comparable to Summerland Senior Village? Would this facility be competing with Summerland Senior Village?
Do you really believe that the senior complex is the highest priority for Peachland? By this I mean here are no other projects that would deserve the $3.5M of District assets? When asked about the most pressing issue for Peachland you or any other candidate did not even mention Senior complex, yet it appears as though you are willing to commit the largest amount of Peachland’s “discretionary” assets towards it.
PS Eldon Kerbes came closest “Affordable housing to attract young families and /or to allow seniors to downsize while remaining in the community”
Even Mayor Fielding and Vice president of the Peachland Senior Society who are the prime movers for the seniors complex does not consider the seniors complex the highest priority.