has any other location ever been considered? they definately should be allowed zoning somewhere, this is a needed thing in PG.

Sure there is another location….Just talk to Murry Krause. He sits on the board of a competing organization that wants to build a women’s treatment centre. When he says “right project, wrong location” what is really meant is HIS location.

He should never have voted on this. He is in a serious conflict of interest.

It is a totally new use in the City’s Zoning Regs I believe. They have not given any consideration beforehand on how to deal with that kind of land use.

This is where a good planning department would be proactive and have known that such use would be requested in the City, as should the Regional District, if they have not done so already. It is called being proactive rather than re-active.

Perhaps they have done so in the new OCP. I really have not bothered to look at it yet. They need to describe the use, indicate why it needs to be differentiated from other similar uses, and explain the type of environment it should/could be located in.

In other communities, such larger facilities appear to be located either quite remote from other uses in idyllic settings such as farms, ranches, waterfronts, hills, etc. or in almost the very opposite setting on arterial and collector roads at corners which lead into residential areas but are not in the inner sanctum of quiet residential areas.

A description as well as a few locations where the city would accept such developments would be appropriate to add to an OCP before it goes to public hearing. If they have not done so, then it is too late and they will have to have special hearings or fly by the seat of their pants …… again … :-(

And yes, these are te kinds of things a proactive City Manager would have asked of his chief planner and the kind of things that a Mayor would have checked up on s well, although the pressure is not that much on the Mayor, it is on the City Manager and the Planning Manager.

I can see your point, soxmalone.

However, if you were to apply that elsewhere, his house was flooded, I believe … so he should not have voted on anything to do with flood protection in this City.

Most, if not all Councillors are property owners, so none should eve vote on a property taxation issue or usder fee issues for city services, swimming pool use if they or their family swim, etc.

That is why every Councillor determines whether they are in conflict or not. They may not have the same answer for similar situations.

From the court records.

“the OCP clearly expresses the desire not to have social services clustered in one part of the city, but rather dispersed throughout the community. Currently, there are no social services located in the Haldi Lake neighbourhood.”

Exactly right.

Nor are there any in the St Denis cluster of houses in College Heights. ;-)

Gus I agree with most of what you have said except for the locations of other treatment centres.

MRTC – Maple Ridge – Residential area
Cedars at cobble hill – Residential area
Pacifica – residential area
Aurora – residential area
westminster house for women – residential are
last door – residential area
the orchard – residential area

These are people. We only have one class of human being as far as i can tell and there should be no area where people are not welcome. Especially people who are sick and trying to get well.

What if it was a seniors centre for 30 seniors? would there be enough water then or would those pesky seniors take it all.

What if it was a child development centre? What then? Would the venom be flying as it has been here?

Over and out….

You know, it is statements like that which cause me to wonder whether any of the so-called planners we have in this community really understand community planning.

No wonder planning in this town has been going downhill for decades. By that I mean urban planning done by private as well as public organizations.

Gus….If a councillor sat on the board of a bar downtown and another bar wanted to open in close proximity and the councillor voted not allow it saying that it was better off way outside of town. I would think that people would generally think that was wrong of that councillor.

This is a matter of direct interest. Don’t forget Murry is in the social service industry.

Its a conflict pure and simple. Prima Facie.

Gus I agree with most of what you have said except for the locations of other treatment centres.

MRTC – Maple Ridge – Residential area
Cedars at cobble hill – Residential area
Pacifica – residential area
Aurora – residential area
westminster house for women – residential are
last door – residential area
the orchard – residential area

These are people. We only have one class of human being as far as i can tell and there should be no area where people are not welcome. Especially people who are sick and trying to get well.

What if it was a seniors centre for 30 seniors? would there be enough water then or would those pesky seniors take it all.

What if it was a child development centre? What then? Would the venom be flying as it has been here?

Over and out….

soxmalone “Would the venom be flying as it has been here?”

Chances are the opposition would have been the same from the community whether it be seniors or children of that capacity on that property. The school did not shut down to declining enrollment.

Obviously you have not taken time to talk to the people in the area in a proper communicative manner. Accusation such as yours are from someone with a closed mind so I will not even bother with your mentality. Many of your post are the ones that show the venom…

For others out there the court case was against the city and how the process was handled, clear and simple. 1 out of every 200 new lots are required to facilite social services. The new OCP has been ammended and now combinds MyPG with the OCP. Much of the OCP is the same…near arterial and collector roads in the URBAN settings. The ones listed are pretty well above – just that… there are more arterial roads etc down south than here as the majority of the places listed are in URBAN RESIDENTIAL not RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Got it? :)

soxmalone “Would the venom be flying as it has been here?”

Chances are the opposition would have been the same from the community whether it be seniors or children of that capacity on that property. The school did not shut down to declining enrollment.

Obviously you have not taken time to talk to the people in the area in a proper communicative manner. Accusation such as yours are from someone with a closed mind so I will not even bother with your mentality. Many of your post are the ones that show the venom…

For others out there the court case was against the city and how the process was handled, clear and simple. 1 out of every 200 new lots are required to facilite social services. The new OCP has been ammended and now combinds MyPG with the OCP. Much of the OCP is the same…near arterial and collector roads in the URBAN settings. The ones listed are pretty well above – just that… there are more arterial roads etc down south than here as the majority of the places listed are in URBAN RESIDENTIAL not RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Got it? :)

I think that it is an excellent idea to put this transition house in the Saints area of College Heights, close to shopping, heck, all services are there. Give them one of those big houses and get a reality show interested in doing one of those TV productions. Man, the city could score big bucks on the royalties. Think they’ll go for it, Laurie?

Sorry, I will make this simpilar: ;) :)

You cannot put these facilities of this size in a Rural residential but you can put a whole bunch in an URBAN area within the city limits.

When Gus mentioned “clustered” it means just that in an URBAN area – meaning they can be spread appart. The city does not want them all located downtown or all on the Hart. The City has a map on their website and in the “New” OCP showing the distinction on URBAN Residential and RURAL.

The old and the new OCP are both clear on what can be done in URBAN & RURAL residential areas.

Sure you can guesswhat!

As long as most of the people in the area have a sense of responsibility to their fellow human. As long as they have love in their hearts and don’t want to throw sick people under a bus or shove them in an industrial area.

For god sake can we just call this what it is. These people just don’t want addicts in their neighbourhood. pure and simple. At least have the balls to say it. If you really feel that way have the courage to say it. Don’t hide behind water or dust etc. Just say we don’t these junkies around us.

heeeee hawwww……jet these alcoholics out of our hood!….pass me a beer Martha…..

Well said soxmalone. Fear and ignorance is why the haldi residents don’t want this. Murrys group will not get their centre going either, they’ve been talking about that facility for years.

>>Fear and ignorance is why the haldi residents don’t want this

soxmalone, I wrote: “In other communities, such larger facilities appear to be located either quite remote from other uses in idyllic settings such as farms, ranches, waterfronts, hills, etc. or in almost the very opposite setting on arterial and collector roads at corners which lead into residential areas but are not in the inner sanctum of quiet residential areas.”

You listed six programs/organizations and indicated that they are all in residential areas. I am not sure if you understand urban land use and why things are where they are. As they say, it is all about location, location, location. That is true for many reasons, not just viability of the land use. There is not a single one of the ones you listed that are located in what I called in my writing “the inner sanctum of quiet residential areas”

1.MRTC – The Maple Ridge Treatment Centre is at the intersection of Callaghan and the Haney Bypass, and arterial road. That puts it into an area I described as “on arterial and collector roads at corners which lead into residential areas”
http://www.mrtc.bc.ca/fr_contact.html

2.Cedars at Cobble Hill on the Island is in a rural area in transition. While the access make it look rural hobby farm like, the buildings are actually within 350 metres of the Island Highway near Cowichan, sitting just 300 metres from an industrial retail development which includes RONA.

It is located at the end of a dead end road (Holland) with the adjacent land use being a series of very basic (inexpensive) plastic covered arched greenhouses, as well as Alpine Stables, well developed riding stables.

There is an interesting sign posted at the end of the road entrance to the facility. “PRIVATE PROPERTY. ABSOLUTELY NO UNAUTORIZED ADMISSION”. The type of friendly place I would love to live right next to.
http://www.cedarscobblehill.com/contact.htm

3.Pacifica – is located In Vancouver between Commercial and Victoria on east 11th at the end of a short SF detached residential street in transition. It is adjacent to the Skytrain which separates it from the retail and office commercial of Commercial Street. That also puts it into an area I described as ”on arterial and collector roads at corners which lead into residential areas”.
http://www.pacificatreatment.ca/contact

4.Aurora was closed about two years ago and reopened in the same location as the Heartwood Centre for Women. Both operations were/are part of the BC Women’s Hospital. While there are residential buildings in the proximity of the hospital, I would not call this location one that is in a residential area. It is, in fact, the previous iteration of locations of such facilities in all of Canada in the past generation(s), part of a large health complex. That is similar to the PG situation which had a detox facility at PGRH.
http://www.bcwomens.ca/default.htm

5. Last Door is a national program with the BC one located in New Westminster. There are two facilities, the youth one is in a transition residential area within 50 metres of Royal, a major arterial with Douglas College Campus located right across Royal.
The facility for men is a few blocks further north on 8th, which is a bus route and collector, across from a Methodist Church. It is one of many 3 storey walk-up apartments interspersed with retail commercial near cross streets. That puts both facilities into an area I described as ”on arterial and collector roads at corners which lead into residential areas”.
http://www.lastdoor.org

6.The Orchard is located on Bowen Island. Not even a City. I consider all of Bowen Island a retreat from urban living at the footsteps of Vancouver. So, the Orchard is located on an island rural, but arterial road with very little development visible. In fact, the Orchard facilities are not visible from the road. Directly across the road from the entrance driveway is the island firehall. I suppose that some firemen might sleep there, so that could be called residential. LOL
http://www.orchardrecovery.com/contactus.php

So, thank you for selecting those facilities.

Each one confirms that they are typically located in a relatively remote area as a retreat from society, or in an urban setting adjacent to or very close to arterial roads, generally in areas that are in transition rather than well established residential areas.

Not a single one is located with conditions which are ideal to elementary school location – centrally located within a residential area to minimize the walking distance of school children from their residences to school, giving consideration for walking safety.

Good sites for elementary schools are not good sites for such treatment facilities.

Good sites for elementary schools are also not good sites for Senior facilites, Northern Health offices and Military Reserve units. The latter two are uses for closed dwon schools. We have a problem not only with the City, but also the SD57 who are not addressing what should be done with those facilities.

anyone hear if those behind the project are going to reapply? Ben why don’t you call Marshall Smith, he must know what they now plan to do.

“Fear and ignorance is why the haldi residents don’t want this”

Leave the poor people and their community alone. They have neither fear nor ignorance. It is those who are bugging them who have the ignorance, for sure. Maybe even fear.

The ignorance is that of not understanding what it takes to live together in a complex community called the city. Many people with many different points of view. That requires rules and regulations in our modern society. One cannot just go ahead and do what they want. Nor can people assume that when you try to put in a development which would be good for a community, that it can go anywhere just on the merits of being a good addition to a community.

So learn something about how things work in modern society. Don’t play the “oh, people don’t respect differences” card. They do.

“Sure there is another location….Just talk to Murry Krause.” Do some research soxmolone. That property is part of treaty negotiations which is not settled.

“SD57 who are not addressing what should be done with those facilities.” To my knowledge Haldi was shut down before the other schools in 2002 mainly due to lack of water not enrollment. Bought in 2004 and rezoned for residential use.

I may be wrong, but some of the old timers in the area say that when the school was built they were told that if anything happened to the school the playground and tennis court area would become part of the park for the neighbourhood. Good luck with that one :)

Mitch2: Is Sutter not the one being the spokesperson now? I heard and read her comments in the media that they would look at their options. Only thing that confuses me is why all the new renovations etc have been removed from the building/stripped about a month ago…?

Soxmalone, to say the Haldi Road people are fearful of addicts is so far from the truth. I will try and summarize. Residents find out at garage sale. Same people involved in Baldy Hughes where the centre was sold to government for huge dollars. Began to connect some dots. Only one community meeting was held. All our questions about how the centre would operate, security, 5 year plan, not answered by the proponents or the city. Not once did the proponents try and have another meeting to address these concerns. The women that were to be involved in treatment went from 8 months clean to a detox program. It was never the women that the residents questioned it was the men that didn’t want these women clean that will now be in the neighbourhood. We are only a 15 min bus ride from downtown. Water was a real concern also. One only has to look at the inaccurate data from the proponent’s water study and compare it to the study done by our community to see the truth. The proponent’s study had wells on their map that don’t even exist. In 1998 a resident wanted to subdivide his property and was turned down. Why? Because it may affect the water table. One family but yet the planning department and council were allowing a facility to hold 30 women with room for expansion. If you were a resident would alarm bells not start going off? Now to get to the OCP. Any facility of any kind does not fit the rural residential part of the OCP. The proponents proposal and the city planners proposal to the council was, IMO, a cut and paste job. Planners took parts of the urban OCP and applied it to rural. The proponents knew, prior to the public, about the dates of 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading. Heck, they even knew when 4th reading was taking place. Talk about conflict of interests. Green has the project manager running her campaign after 2 days of the 3rd reading. Some of the new councillors received money from the proponents for their campaign. Where do you draw the line for conflict of interest? The same councillors that voted down the Coyote proposal for reasons that it didn’t fit the OCP and the city’s strategic plan were the same councillors that voted for the Haldi Road proposal. So do you see how inconsistent the City was during this whole procedure? In the end it wasn’t the women that we were saying no to, it was a message to the city that we are paying attention and that they need to be accountable to the people who elect them.

I wonder how long it will take city hall to change the laws to allow them to do what they like regarding the OCP in the future?

Here is the perfect location for a new center.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/sledhed/Agoodlocation.jpg

I think they are looking for an existing building to refurbish. However, they would have some security there if they raised it a few feet, built a moat, and installed a draw bridge .. ;-)

I wonder how long it will take city hall to change the laws to allow them to do what they like regarding the OCP in the future?

They cannot change the laws regarding the OCP. That is a BC law. It is required to have one.

However, they can change the OCP since that is where the problem was. The notion about the zoning category was written in the urban section, not the rural section. It can be written into both. Of course, now that would be difficult to do since they require a public hearing and I doubt that it would be passed given that attention has now been drawn to it.

OCPs generally have little opposition since very few people are really aware of what is going on. In other communities there is a lot of publi awareness raising going on with ads on outside of buses, community tv channels, etc.

I remember the very first OCP the city had. It was plain and simple to read and the average person could read it and understand it with no problem. The new OCP is pretty well the same. One problem I find is that the MYPG has been added to it making it lengthlier and a lot of unnecessary reading in my opinion.

Gus is right on when he says the zoning the city took was from urban – not rural. This is where the problem was…

The government has a duty to its people to put things in laymens language or simple even for the pros ;). The mindset of the city has been IMHO they are the experts and we the citizens are not. The city has choices. Leave the OCP as is and abide by it or spend thousands of dollars to amend it as public consultation will be needed.

The public needs to remember most people will not read it or care. But when something happens in your neighbourhood – you better scramble fast to see what you can do about it – in most cases you are out of luck because the city does follow certain proceedures and hearings. As Gus said very little opposition to the OCP as people don’t care. But in this case the whole neighbourhood and a lawyer brought forward the problem. City meetings should be like tribunals – if major evidence comes forward – stop the hearing- check the facts – regroup – proceed. Instead, it appeared it was rammed through with the basic proceedures required. The only assistance the people will have is if we have a MUNICIPAL BOARD. :)

Just for your info. The city voted against having a Municipal Board at the last meeting Sept/11. The next one is Sept/12. Have not heard yet how many of council are going this year and spending our tax dollars……….