Peter Schierbeck
by Dave Preston
A group opposed to aspects of a proposed downtown development is asking Peachland council to reopen the matter based on a perceived conflict of interest between a council member and the man behind the project.
The named councillor said there is no conflict of interest and Peachland’s mayor said council will not be taking any action based on the group’s request.
“In a communication to district council, the Peachland Residents Association contends that Coun. Peter Schierbeck’s associations with Stephen Allison obligate him to make a disclosure of conflict,” states a letter sent to PeachlandNews.com from Dora Stewart.
Allison is behind a proposed development that would see the Edgewater Hotel and Aegean Grill buildings replaced with a new three-storey building. He is also president of TNI The Network Inc., which would become the largest tenant in the proposed building.
Peachland council recently voted in favor of a parking covenant associated with the development proposal. The covenant will allow occupants of the new building to use 57 parking spaces in a district-owned lot on Second Street in exchange for the developer upgrading the currently gravel property and paying for about three quarters of future repairs and maintenance.
Mayor Keith Fielding confirmed Tuesday that the municipality had received a letter from the residents association.
“The… letter (to council) urgently requests that the district council revisit the approvals of the TNI parking covenant and parking licence agreement granted at the special council meeting of July 4, because of Peter Schierbeck’s participation in the vote of this approval,” states the PRA letter to PeachlandNews.com.
At the July 4 meeting, approval of the parking deal was passed by a vote of four to three. Schierbeck voted in favor of approving the covenant.
Schierbeck said Tueday the PRA’s request is “gobbledygook” and they have “not a hope” of getting anywhere with it.
“Do I know Steve Alllison? Yes,” said Schierbeck. “Have he and I had a beer together? Yes. Did we play ball together? Yes. Did I work with him for a short time? Yes.”
Schierbeck added, “Do I have something to gain? No. Is he a close friend? No.”
Fielding said, after reviewing the letter he received from the residents association, staff sent a reply that included copies of the relevant legislation that governs conflicts of interest.
“We have said that Coun. Schierbeck did not declare a conflict because he has no direct or indirect pecuniary interest,” said Fielding.
Fielding said he considers the claim of conflict of interest irrelevant and council will not be taking any action based on the claim.
Editor’s Note: Dora Stewart’s letter was sent as a letter to the editor, however given the nature of its contents, PeachlandNews.com chose not to publish it as is. Instead, the decision was made to include relevant parts of the letter and responses from Coun. Schierbeck and Mayor Fielding together.
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
To Anon2: Holly isn’t missing a darn thing. This building is the start of revitalization, it’s something Peter stands for, it’s why he voted the way he did, and it’s why WE as a community voted for Peter Schierbeck. I would have felt let-down if he stepped aside. Council is carefully balanced and as a community we democratically selected them balancing our different views through our votes. Obviously we can’t have reckless, rampant development and obviously we can’t have stagnancy either. That’s why there is a council, not just a mayor only. We as individuals can’t just call someone down because we don’t like they voted. Peter voted for what he stood for, just like he was supposed to, and I feel ashamed that WE as a community are questioneing his loyalty and integrity.
An ex-councillor told me once that if you want a conflict of interest in Peachland, just wake up and get out of bed! It’s a small town. Everyone knows everyone! If we pulled up each case, there’d be no one left to vote. Mr. Schierbeck has no financial gain here. This is just desperate mudslinging!
The Peachland Residents Association (PRA) used to be called Citizens for Responsible Community Planning in Peachland (CRCPP).
Maybe the previous name of the PRA was CAVE – Citizens Against Virtually Everything? I’ve heard many a Peachlander speak about the CAVErs…and yes, I know that’s not a “real” group, but it is fitting.
No that is what Dave named them! Maybe also can be called a little bit of “mudslinging”!
Let us get things straight. I do not care whether Mr. Schierbeck is honest or not. But he as a TNI contact should have NOT had anything to with the TNI development voting and should have (left) the council chambers during the TNI discussions. Plus the Mayor should have seen the possible Conflict of interest as that is what it was.There is no doubt from a legal point it should be decided. To clear the air..
Am I missing something? Are people that upset that the Edgewater Hotel is going to be replaced with a new and decent building, with an upgraded and maintained parking lot at zero expense to my tax dollars that we are willing to drag the council members that we voted for down? I don’t get it people! Peter Schierbeck is voted in legitimately and he made a decision representing what his voters would want. He is a straight shooter and a good person. It has been said before, it is WE the people that make this town and as a person of this town, I would rather see a new building and parking lot then a bunch of people mud slinging the names of good people.
Yes you are missing something. This is not about a building being ‘nice’ or not. It is about following
a process and guidelines which the Council voted on. We spent money and time on a charrette process to determine how the downtown should be developed. We are now ignoring it, the argument is not about a building, it is only about the design of the building. It is a very nice building but does not match our OCP. It would take some small changes to the design to do this. But the response from the developer, is something to the effect that as it is Mr. Allison’s building he can do what he wants with it.
There is NO ‘mudslinging’ at Councilor Schierbeck, but as a former employee and regular softball team member it may have been ethically wise, to step aside from any decisions in regards to TNI. So that there could be NO perceived conflict.
Giving away our only downtown parking lot to Mr. Allison, effectively for free, for his exclusive use for 10 years, boggles my mind. He could easily set up pay parking and we would be paying for our own parking lot! Nothing in the contract precludes this!!!
Anon2, sorry, but all that you said, “It is about following a process and guidelines which the council voted on. We spent money and time on a charrette process to determine how the downtown should be developed. We are now ignoring it, the argument is not about a building, it is only about the design of the building. It is a very nice building but does not match our OCP” is simply not true. You should go online and read the charrette report and the OCP. Its all there, unless the facts are getting in the way of your drivel. In the comments for TNI Development subject to ‘peer review panel’, ”Positive” listed a bunch of points from the charrette report Im sure they wouldnt mind me borrowing them here
Page 46 B3 Focus commercial development on Beach Ave first
Page 46 B4 Redevelop the Edgewater Site (which by the way, is already 2 lots wide)
Page 46 B5 Locate residential units above ground-floor commercial
Page 47 B10 Build zero- and minimum-lot line developments.
Page 47: B11 Make all new buildings in Beach Ave South mixed-use
…In Beach Ave South, make all new buildings mixed-use with RESIDENTIAL and OFFICE above GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL
Page 47 B13 Vary building heights between two- and three-storeys
Nothing will match the charrette reports recommendations completely but this sure seems pretty close. For those who are saying things like “it CLEARLY doesn’t meet the charrette report…” get a life. And dont even get me started on the “Giving away our only downtown parking lot to Mr. Allison, effectively for free,…” In last week’s View, the mayor stated the developer had to pay to pave the lot, about $200,000 or something like that. The town still owns the land. Tni have to pay their share of the maintenance. He said it cost more for their use of it for 10 yrs than previous businesses have paid for in lieu of parking forever. Get over it.
“You should go online and read the charrette report and the OCP. Its all there, unless the facts are getting in the way of your drivel.”
For those who are saying things like “it CLEARLY doesn’t meet the charrette report…” get a life.
‘Put downs’ and insults in an argument are usually attempts to intimidate and bully, as an alternative to presenting a reasoned case.
I have read the Charrette report and I participated in it. I also contacted one of the planners of the report for clarification. You cannot just pull out bits and pieces of the report and say, yeah we are following the report. That is not what it is about. The charrette set a tone for the kind of downtown we want. A large monolithic building does not meet the overall guidelines of the report. Remember, it also suggested a Hotel to replace the Edgewater. I am not arguing about this, it is a detail and is not necessary in order to comply with the overall charrette guidelines.
Parking lot…… again I suggest you read the OCP. In 10 or 15 years, if the Municipality continues to try to implement their OCP, this environmentally unsound expanse of tarmac will have to be removed! Remember at present we all have access to this parking area, but soon, it will be for the exclusive use of a numbered company owned solely by Mr. Allison for a period of 10 years. Mr. Allison could choose to set up some pay parking, we would then pay for it, but the money would go to Mr. Allison not to the community of Peachland which owns the land!!
It is not true that the parking lot will be for the exclusive use of one company.
Councilor Schierbeck is a fair and honest man; his vote reflects his ideas for the betterment of Peachland, not any perceived conflict of interest. Get a grip people. You’re really just grasping at anything you can as ridiculous as it may be and Councilor Schierbeck does not deserve this kind of treatment. Who is this Peachland Residents’ Association anyway, and what is their mandate? Who do they represent? Their ideas certainly do not represent mine and I’m a resident of Peachland. We voted for Councilor Schierbeck not this PRA so would you nine or ten people whomever you are get used to the fact that your ideas do not represent those of the majority of the Peachland residents.
I think it might be the same group that was once called ‘ Peachland Society, Citizens for Responsible Community
Planning’, that Keith Fielding was a board member or president of, just before he was first elected as Mayor.
I’ve tried to do a ‘google’ search of the name…and only find old info from 2009.
“your ideas do not represent those of the majority of the Peachland residents.”
Well {Removed/admin: Not allowed} maybe a referendum is a good idea?
Nobodies ideas represent the majority of what Peachlanders want.
I would bet that there is not a majority of Peachlanders who support keeping and subsiding the Museum for instance.
More people would rather have extra parking down-town than the museum. Referendum?
Primary school house? Subsidized senior housing? +55 building? Even the Community centre was defeated a couple of times in referendums.
What exactly do you want this referendum on?
Here is another equally absurd referendum that might give you and the PRA a comparable to how they are trying to impose their will on TNI:
I think that all houses in Peachland should be peach colour stucco….
All members of the PRA (and pchlnd) should have their exterior changed to Peach coloured stucco at their own cost so we can see how it looks.
Now that would give Peachland a distinct image and cache….. Extra great that it is not my money being spent to make it the way I want it.
PRA has run for council in the past (and outside of Mayor Fielding who basically denounced his membership) were soundly defeated.
No one who ever was proud member of the PRA has ever or will ever get elected to council…. and all you need is 760 votes out of a possible 4000.
The absolutely highest portion of Peachlanders the PRA can possibly claim to represent is 17% that an openly PRA representative got in the 2008 election.
As the PRA realize they represent a small minority view they use these drive by smear / guerrilla tactics to impose their will on the rest of us.
When Peter Schierbeck got elected in 2008 he wasn’t able to make it to the all candidates meeting and still got 25% more votes more than the PRA candidate….. now that must really hurt and explain the dirty irrational attacks on Mr. Schierbeck.
Mccarthyism- the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.
I suppose this is the modern day voice of reason!
Does the Arts Council in Peachland represent all the artists in the community?
Does the Chamber of Commerce represent all the businesses in Peachland?
I cannot see any ‘dirty irrational attacks” on Mr. Schierbeck. Conflict of interest is usually about appearance. Legally according to municipal policy there is NO conflict of interest. But ethically there may appear to be a conflict.
McCarthyism???
I wouldn’t label what the PRA is doing as McCarthyism..
They are not questioning Mr. Schierbeck of ” disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.”
Are they?
After all he did freely admit, under interrogation, that he has indeed shared a beer with Mr. Allison (who has already been established as an evil 1%er).
Mr. Schierbeck directly benefits from the Edgewater re-development: if the downtown renewal get done he will can get re-elected Councillor (or even Mayor) whenever he wants.
That is an obvious benefit for him. He must declare conflict of interest and not vote on any issues that make him look good.
@Voice of Reason: but you are accusing the PRA of these things. When was he interrogated and by whom?
One thing is clear, according to our Municipal bylaws and charter, Councilor Schierbeck is not in conflict of interest. Neither was our former Mayor, when a month after he resigned he became a paid lobbyist for New Monaco and within three months a lobbyist for the Ponderosa development. However, this would not be the case for all jurisdictions in Canada! For some these situations are defined as conflicts of interest!
Reply to Mr. Dyck…..I have been following this fiasco for some time and at NO time has the PRA involved in desparate Mudslinging. The Question is a Conflict issue. Council has NO opposition to contend with, so tell me, what is wrong with PRA or others as they have always done in the past putting up opposition. That is what we call in Canada ,Democracy. Mr.Schiebeck no doubt is an honest person but he by voting for TNI project when he has connections, no matter what, with that group, places himself in a difficult position. Councillors and Ministers have to be seen as ‘Sqeeky clean’ . Yes maybe we are a backwoods town but things have changed of late. The poor devil would be criticised regardless. That is the problem. No Question. Of course they have done similar things in the past. There are Provincial Guide-lines on the subject.
My feeling is that the project may be an asset and I am not opposed.The fifty parking spots are over done when we locals have difficulty find spots at times, We shall see.
But does Mr Schiebeck gain financially from this vote? Does he still work for TNI?
He is just one vote on council…I guess PRA was hoping to have Keith Fielding break a tie, assuming he would go against it?
Perhaps it would be better to have someone from outside of Peachland, someone with no stakes in the lifestyle of Peachland to develop the Downtown, that way there would be no issues with past employees knowing the ‘developer’? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and questioning Mr Schiebeck’s ‘connections’ is fine too…and I believe Keith Fielding addressed it and based on the guidelines of conflict of interest there was none. Some people just don’t like the answer.
http://peachlandnews.com/forum/archives/candidate-for-councillor-peter-schierbeck/
Check out the archives of this forum. Others were concerned about Councilor Schierbeck’s relationship with TNI during the last municipal election.
If Schierbeck had excused himself from the vote on giving away our downtown parking lot, it would have been defeated.
TNI web page….Not where’s Waldo, but where’s Peter?
http://www.tninetwork.com/events/view/2005-TNI-Christmas-Party.html
http://www.tninetwork.com/events/view/TNIs-2005-Team-Building-Pool-Party.html
Keith Fielding was a member of the PRA or whatever they were called before, and I think he was more than just a member, does that mean Keith is still ‘close friends’ with the present members now too? You could say there is a conflict there too?
If he wasn’t a close friend of the PRA would he be spending taxpayer money on a Peer Review Panel to appease them?
Of course that’s why he is doing that…He may even have planned the whole thing!
Schierbeck added, “Do I have something to gain? No. Is he a close friend? No.”
On the archive forum, I only saw one person comment about “Schierbeck’s relationship” with Steve Allison.