The proposed ‘TNI’ development. (PeachlandNews.com file photo/Dave Preston)
There is a group in town that is working hard to stop the first significant development in downtown Peachland.
A number of years ago, some people organized a group and called it Citizens for Responsible Community Planning in Peachland (CRCPP). That group gained a reputation as anti-development, with its members regularly speaking out against the majority of development proposals.
As time went on, the CRCPP changed its name to the softer, nicer sounding Peachland Residents Association (PRA). For some time, the PRA was fairly quiet. They were rarely heard from. That is, until Steve Allison proposed a new building for downtown Peachland.
Some known PRA members have become increasingly vocal in opposition to the project. There are also some people who are equally vocal but it is not clear if they are PRA members. Collectively, they are The Group.
What differentiates The Group from others who may not be keen on the development proposal is the vociferous, spiteful way they go about professing their opinions. Members of The Group have both acted like bullied children and bullies.
The Group is small. It’s membership roster is not exactly known, but 10 or less would be a good guess.
This group, this small group, has managed to convince the mayor of Peachland to change the normal development approval process while accusing a council member of wrongdoing and attempting to blur real issues through a cloak of dirty tactics.
For about a dozen years, Steve Allison has been a businessperson in Peachland. In that time, his business has grown, he’s taken advantage of that and bought land in the downtown core. During that time, no one in Peachland was going after him or his business. There were no vengeful campaigns, no outcries at council meetings. It wasn’t until Allison proposed a new building to replace the Edgewater and Aegean Grill buildings that he became an evil despot in the eyes of The Group.
Why did this happen? Because Allison went from businessman to developer (apparently the evilest of terms to The Group). The moment he became a developer, The Group went after him, his business, his proposal and now, people allegedly associated with him.
The Group has managed to convince Mayor Keith Fielding that their views and opinions on the proposed development have not been heard in a respectful manner. This led Fielding, on his own (there was no council vote on the matter) to declare that three professionals (likely from outside of Peachland) will review submissions from the public and the form and character of the building and make recommendations to council.
Respectful? Members of The Group attempted to hijack an Advisory Planning Committee meeting for their own agenda. They were continually told what the meeting agenda was and they refused to stick to the topic.
One of the key members of The Group sat in a council meeting and, out loud, said senior staff were “lying”. That same person, during another meeting, kept muttering “shame, shame, shame” as council members spoke. Is that respectful?
Members of The Group have thrown a red herring in the mix by raising the spectre of a casino. On this website and another, comments stated Allison said in a newspaper article that the proposed building would become a casino. When that untruth was exposed (Allison never said that in the article), comments then shifted to the like of, “Well he could try and build one.” He could also try and build a nude foot massage parlour, but if he did, it would all come out as normal and everyone would have their chance to voice their opinions on it. Raising the casino issue was nothing more than a weak attempt by The Group to cloud the real issues and get people worked up over nothing.
Then there’s the conflict of interest. The Group is trying to create an issue out of one councillor’s relationship with Allison. It is hitting below the belt and shows a complete misunderstanding of the law.
Yes, Peter Schierbeck used to work for one of Allison’s companies. He played ball on the company team. If that was all today, there could certainly be a conflict. It isn’t today, it was years ago.
But its the perception of conflict of interest that is important, says The Group. No, it is not. How municipalities and council members conduct themselves is covered under two pieces of provincial legislation: the Local Government Act and the Community Charter. Conflict of interest is dealt with in those acts. It has to be, both to let council members know what they can or cannot vote on and to let the public know that perception does not matter but the law does.
Knowing someone is not a conflict of interest. Having an association with someone is not a conflict of interest. If they were, small towns like Peachland would be in an awful bind, because council members know and associate with a lot of people.
Although the acts do cover potential conflicts if a council member votes on an issue involving a close friend or a relative, the big one is whether the council members has a pecuniary interest in the matter at hand. In layman’s terms, if the council member votes on a matter, could he or she gain financially by the decision? That’s the test and it’s really the only one that matters.
Peter Schierbeck has been put in a negative spotlight by The Group, simply because he knows and has previously associated with Steve Allison.
The only reason Schierbeck’s past has been raised is because The Group is desperate to stop the proposed development and they will apparently resort to any kind of tactic, dirty or otherwise, to advance their cause.
Real conflict of interest is a journalist’s dream. There certainly have been cases in the past and they make reporters salivate. A previous newspaper publisher in Peachland told the story of how he was reporting on a rezoning matter in a small town in Alberta when he discovered that one of the council members who voted in favor of the rezoning, through undisclosed means, owned part of the property. He stood to gain a huge financial windfall by voting on the development. That is conflict of interest.
Knowing someone in Peachland is not conflict of interest. If it were, it could be exceedingly difficult for council to get anything done.
Imagine for a moment if The Group’s definition of conflict of interest was the law. Vern Moberg may not be able to vote on much at council. He used to drive a school bus. Clearly if an issue came before council for a vote and a person involved in the issue had his kids driven to school by Moberg and, heaven forbid, that person said, “Good morning,” to Moberg day after day, Moberg could be associated with that person and would be in conflict of interest and would have to step aside.
Eldon Kerbes is a member of the Peachland Lions Club. Should Kerbes be allowed to vote on a matter involving a person that Kerbes served a hamburger to at World of Wheels? What if Kerbes served a burger to a developer and they talked for 45 seconds?
Terry Condon was the first person to donate money to the Board for Life Society, which was trying to build a skate park years ago. He associated with members of the society. If one of those members today came before council, apparently Condon would have to recuse himself.
This could go on and on. If one digs deep enough, one could find all sorts of ridiculous conflicts of interest in Peachland. That’s why provincial law spells it out. It doesn’t matter if you think there is a conflict. All that matters is whether provincial law has been broken.
Using The Group’s criteria, there is one more potential conflict of interest that should be disclosed, and it is a biggie.
Years ago, Keith Fielding was a member of, or certainly heavily associated with, the Citizens for Responsible Community Planning in Peachland, which later became the Peachland Residents Association, which has several members in The Group.
If Peter Schierbeck can be hauled on the carpet by The Group for a conflict of interest in Allison’s development, then Keith Fielding has a problem of his own.
The Group is the same group of people who complained that their views were not heard in a respectful manner. That resulted in Fielding declaring there would be a new step in the development process for Allison’s proposal.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Keith Fielding was associated with members of the CRCPP years ago. Some of those people are now members of the PRA and at least several of them are members of The Group.
Members of The Group complained their opinions were not heard. Fielding has associated with some of those members. Fielding decided to add an extra step in the development process to placate The Group. Fielding is, according to The Group’s criteria, in a conflict of interest.
The extra step should be deemed null and void and cancelled. Fielding should recuse himself from making any decisions related to The Group.
People are allowed to not like an aspect of a development, several aspects or the whole project. They have the right to express their views. They should not mask real issues with red herrings and try to drag other people into the mud.
P.S. A letter in this week’s Peachland View, though having the headline ‘Theoretically speaking…’ speaks to the casino issue. It reads:
Hold on to your seats folks, the destruction of Peachland’s downtown as we know it, is about to begin if the hotel property is developed as planned. Mr. Allison made it quite clear at a chamber of commerce annual general meeting held in the Gasthaus on May 16, 2011 that he was planning on building a casino.
That’s right, a casino in the monstrous new 40,000 sq. ft. building on the Edgewater and Chinese Laundry properties.
Author: Richard Smith
Lies, damn lies, and mudslinging.
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Reply to Dave… The topic was… NO one listening as Anon referred to. My blog shewed that in the past that The Mayor does not Listen. He just tells you what you want to hear. It is ‘do not confuse me with facts.. My mind is made up … If this offends you. Erase.
The topic here is the editorial above. Water bills, generating electricity and signage have nothing to do with this topic.
{Removed/admin}
The PRA in the past like other citizens have expressed their views. Likewise others have the opposite opinion.. Many in these blogs have pushed ones Rights and Freedom, however one reads these blogs and it applies to a certain few.
I am not a member of any Peachland Organisation and I believe I can express my views. Do I have that right ?….
As for TNI the public will have to live with it,. Good or Bad. Fifty parking spots seem a lot. Even in Vacouver employees do not enjoy free parking. Never mind the Peachland Tax-payer that has trouble finding a parking spot in their town in the Summer. Council did not consider the problems that were evident when they turned Peachland into a Mecca. Who would purchase a home on Beach Avenue ?. Who would want have cars and noise outside a million dollar home. Not anyone in their right mind.
Peachland attracted me some twenty years ago, a lovely little town that in the last few years has changed. Nothing wrong with progress. But how one achieves the push forward.
Mr. Shierbeck without a doubt may be an honest and sincere gentlemen. No dispute. But in todays world one has to back-off in situations involving Council decisions as in this case. Would he vote against TNI ?,,, That is the question. No matter which way he voted he would be criticised. {Removed/admin} The Mayor should have offered guidance, as it was obvious that a negative view would be the outcome by many in the form of a Conflict of interest.
As for ‘ lies and mudslinging”… That is Politics. If you cannot stand the heat the job is not for you……….
If I have to pay for parking or it is a nuisance to find a parking spot, that is money that Westbank will get instead of our local business. That is my solution that works for me. Very bad for local business though. Why can’t the whining and snivelling hoard sit down at a table and help council come up with solutions. We all know how the Grand “Poo”ba instills trial and error efforts in HIS decisions with no real logical outcome. So let’s try and come up with something. This council is just a bunch of good ol’ boys that got voted in be cause there was no one else. I think the paper guy gets more money than council members. So you get what you pay for. No business degrees, no architectural and design degrees, no financial degrees etc. You get my drift. So what is the problem? The problem is that no one wants to listen and everyone wants to be heard and everyone “is right”. Start with a common goal… and work from there. There are a few backbenchers here with some very end education that have offered some insight. There are also a few chest puffers that should just keep their head buried along with their pre 70′s fanaticism. Forget about all the crap and innuendo. Just stick to the facts already.
I have to agree with Anon regarding the information and Dreams that eminate from the Town hall.
My pet problem is Beach Avenue traffic situation and how the Provincian Traffic Act is ignored.
Last June I questioned the Signage with the Mayor, Sure the sign was changed to two converging lanes
with a vehicle following a Bike. Which means you follow bicycles. Not over-take. The Code
States that you leave at least three feet when overtaking or passing a bike. You must not cross the centre
line unless it is a broken line. The Mayor stated to me that he overtakes and like most runs at 40
Kpm. Now he agrees with the situation on Beach. See article in Peachland View.
The Water situation.Last year at the opening of the filtration plant the Spring run-off was bye-passing the
reservoir , spill over weir at approx. 1000 gallon per second. there was an excuse why the Taxpayer could
not benefit by using this extra flow at a lower rate.. Chlorine one excuse, High cost. The Mayor mentioned
that we also allowed the extra flow into the Lake as Summerland and Penticton might need it. They have
their own Licensed Water-shed.
We just received our water bill and an information sheet attached on hoiw to save water. The 2004 and 2009
Urban report mentioned we had a good supply. After the Water meters we reduced water usage and up went
the Standing charge to $55 plus water usage. Yet we are told developements for the future include Ponderose/
Pincushion, Somerset Reach, Aqua Vita and New Monaco consisting some 5270 dwellings We certainly have to
find a larger Water-shed and another and larger Reservior. Which the Developers must contribute.
Fortunately Doug Allin has his view of the future situation, If Council takes notice.
The Dreams about Generating Electricity on the Creek, that will never happen. It cost Lake country Three million
dollars and they had a reservoir. Geo-thermal is costly. Ferranti in the UK back in 1947 tried , but again cost to
possible consumers was too high, as with Solar panels and its equipment to make viable for producing heat and
Alternating current to run present appliances. Even these Windmill type Generators cost more to operate than
conventional Power Stations. Extra cost to consumer.. Europe is experiencing this high cost now.
Perhaps thing will change and some-one will listen
Stick to the topic please.
I’m not concerned with the design of the proposed TNI building, or the development of downtown, it’s inevitable and can only be an improvement. However, I am very concerned with the parking allowance. There are very few parking places in the “business” area now, none in the summer months. Why is Council allocating two thirds of the proposed parking area to TNI for a possible ten years? I wouldn’t object to a one third allocation in exchange, but other business in that area, not to mention local citizens need to be considered as well.
The re-development of the downtown is an expensive thing.
For the last 5 or more years this and the last 3 Councils have reached out and solicited someone who would provide the funding for the urban renewal.
It was clear that they would provide financial support and/or land to be used as part of the overall development plan.
This has been very well known and publicized.
The other businesses in the downtown are likely very excited by the improvement of their surrounding environment. There will be far more people downtown spending more money than is currently being drawn by the Edgewater.
Given a choice between more customer traffic and more empty parking spots I am pretty sure which choice a well constructed business plan would take.
Part of doing business is providing parking for your customers, it is not a government service.
Valet parking outside the downtown area is only one possible solution.
Parking demand could be managed by charging a fee.
As the parking demand exceeds the capacity a parking garage will become a viable alternative, either paid for with business tax revenue or parking fees.
If Parking become a rate determining step, the District owns a great deal of land that is planned to be given to a subsidized senior housing complex. Perhaps the taxpayers of Peachland would be better served having this used as a parking lot and have the Senior Housing being located some where other than the most valuable downtown real estate.
Thank You Dave for expressing the unheard from MAJORITY’S view, of Richard Smith & his cronies spreading of inuendo’s & misinformation, we need someone like you with the Cohones to answer these blatant LIES, I again say thanks on behalf of the silent Majority
……I took this out of an article on why people never admit to being wrong..
” Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.” Now remember there were only 54 people who participated in the C H A R E T T E ….
“There is a group in town that is working hard to stop the first significant development in downtown Peachland.”
I think this comment is:”Lies, damn lies, and mudslinging”
Everyone I know welcomes the development of downtown Peachland, we just want the design to match with the intent of our OCP and the charrette we worked hard to develop in an open and consensual process.
I do not think I am part of any “Group”, but if wanting the above makes me “A group”, then I must be! But unfortunately I do not know who is in “my group” which according to you I am part of!!!!!
The stance that the PRA is taking….. that they will stop the replacement of the the Edgewater with a new building is starting to look like an exercise in power.
The PRA just wants to show that they have control of Peachland and whatever happens goes through them.
I have not seen one coherent alternative put forward by the PRA. They seem to argue that the building violates some obtuse interpretation of a Charette that was carved in ancient Hebrew in stone tablets that they gave to mayor Fielding?
I just have to wonder what is it in it for them?
Do they have some sort of vested interest in the Edgewater? Are they living there? Is there something valuable to them in the building? A nostalgic Biker party?
If this deal falls through is there some hope the Museum could be expanded to the Edgewater and be publicly funded? Do they want to buy the property and build a boutique hotel as was mentioned in the Charette??
Do they have something buried in the parking lot that they don’t want paved over?
I understand that they just don’t want the TNI building which complies with basically all of the requirements of the Charette that they seem to have participated in making.
It is hard to find a logical reason for their attacks and reach some sort of compromise.
These are Mayor Fielding’s old buddies but he seems to have no calming influence on them
Things change.
Finally!!! Someone who writes like an adult!!! Was about time that someone had class when sharing their opinion! All I can say to the PRA is grow up, if I was your children and grand children, I would ashamed of your behavior! It seems to me that the PRA are just grumpy old people angry about life who really need to find a hobby!