Some personal reflections on the meeting of September 13th, 2006

 

Not in any order or emphasis:

 

  1. While most of the SCAF members were there in a mood to be informed and not to be confrontational, it was hard for the crowd not to migrate to something pretty negative or cynical.
  2. First blunder was Phillip’s presentation where in he pointed out that the Seaside bit was changed from the Terraces but then (while sweeping his hand over the map section above and to the east of the golf course) he said this all remains just the same. Pardon me! 1100 or more extra homes in a resort setup with strata management and maintenance and design, etc. The only common factors are the golf course and location – everything else has changed.
  3. Somehow, somewhere the phasing changes were made at the “request of Council” so as to open up the waterfront first. I have never heard of this and wonder what meeting council had to decide this. To this observer it appeared rather that the single family dwelling aspect was taking a back burner as the market changes. Instead they want to build the “resort” first – golf course, pier, rental condos and commercial space (lumped together it forms a credible hotel with fractional ownerships). Later if the market is OK; then the houses.
  4. The traffic chap did not come over as credible and much of this rests on the premise of 25% or is it 30% or is only 50% occupancy. Now if it is 50% and 575 units are built then that is 288 homes. There are currently about 600 homes along Sechelt Inlet Road so that is a 148% increase in homes. The traffic however will only increase by 2.5% or 5% or something.
  5. The issue of public transportation seemed to illicit the answer the person wanted to hear only. When asked about access to the affordable housing the pitch was that thanks to the Silverback there would now be enough homes to make a full bus service practical to the main project,  the affordable housing and even Sandy Hook or beyond. Yet a few minutes later the review of traffic again confirmed only 25% occupancy and that because these were golfing adults in condos the research showed they traveled much less – so where is the mass to encourage bus service. Moreover, I think it is fairly reasonable to conclude that these wealthy condo owners would have arrived with a car and would not take/support the bus in any event. Later when questioned about the lack of bus stops in the proposed residential area on the narrow streets the idea of full bus service was dropped altogether and instead the answer was for a commuter mini-bus service. To where and when was not discussed but this seemed to now replace the full bus service touted earlier.
  6. A question regarding rentals was not properly answered. It was pointed out that the rental described was against the DoS bylaws – no short term ones in multi-family buildings (reference The West hearings). The answer given was there would be no rentals of single family dwellings - just of the condos (multi-family). Pardon me!
  7. When is a hotel not a hotel? When the suites and rooms are just rented out for overflow crowds at a golf tournament! I saw no regulation to this affect though so the question of the separate governance and bylaw avoidance stands.
  8. Voting strength of the development was pointed out and it was revealed that there were options. It took a direct request (by a second party) to have a limitation verbally agreed by the developer. Where will this be in the development bylaw? How many other ‘secret’ things should be requested since there is apparently no volunteering of enhancements for Sechelt by this developer.
  9. Nothing was agreed with respect to infrastructure costs as the project starts and matures.
  10. No commitment to widening the Sechelt Inlet Road for bicycles or walking or even for the five turn-offs.
  11. Even the project developer expressed relief that the fire rules had forced him to revert to maximum 6 story buildings yet Phillips continued to emphasize that IF the fire rules could be cleared then they would go back to 12 storey buildings. I guess the architect quits then!
  12. Also what did the Phillips reference here to a fire hall up on the now abandoned prior low income housing plot mean? Is the project to put in a fire hall to get 12 stories and do the taxpayers of DoS pay for that? Don’t know as it just slipped by.
  13. An audience member alluded to many public presentations and hearings the project has gone through. There has been one show opening at the Seaside Centre and now this meeting. All other meetings were for the Terraces or for the earlier plans.
  14. Overall the audience moved from some interest to very negative as the evening progressed. Part of this, I suspect was due to the answers to questions which just raised more questions and it is too much for this type of meeting. There needs to be grass roots consultation between the developer and public committees set up to deal with various aspects slowly and methodically.

 

Lastly, over and over again the question arose in one form or another – what do the current resident’s of Sechelt get out of it?

·    Employment for Sechelt?: there is more work then enough for the trades (try and get an electrician).

·    Trade for the Village stores?:  SilverBack shopping will be directed away from the Village to the SIB mall by the bypass and the commercial space in SilverBack may draw spending from the Village.

·    Community Support?: according to SilverBack these will all be ‘foreigners’ who will only drop in for about 3 months a year so they will not get involved in improving the community of Sechelt.

·    A larger tax base?: We saw no figures which showed that there would be any net gain for the DoS. There may be three million in new taxes but what will DoS have to spend on expanded police, fire, schools, hospital, roads, parks, garbage disposal, and contingency funds for failure of services in SilverBack – who knows.

 

To repeat - what do the current resident’s of Sechelt get out of it? Please name one thing at least.