The following appeard in the Western News:
By Steve Kidd - Penticton Western News
Published: July 17, 2008 10:00 AM
Updated: July 17, 2008 6:34 PM
The Penticton League of Sensible Electors and School District 67 finally have something in common.
They’re both going to have to wait a little bit longer to find out if a B.C. Supreme Court judge will grant an injunction delaying SD67’s plans to demolish the auditorium and north gym at Penticton Secondary along with the rest of the old school buildings.
After two days at Supreme Court in Kelowna receiving affidavits and hearing arguments from both sides in the ongoing dispute over the future of the Pen High buildings, Justice Geoffrey Barrow reserved decision on the matter, saying he would render a verbal opinion on July 22.
The court proceedings were started by PLEASE after they felt they had exhausted all other means to convince the Board of Education that, separated from the school, the gym and auditorium could still be valuable assets to the community.
One of the main arguments presented to Barrow concerned whether the school board had done due diligence in terms of allowing for public input over the future of the building.
PLEASE lawyer Tom Johnston presented the argument that while there had been public consultation over the planning of the new school, the board of education had not fulfilled obligations for public input regarding the disposition of surplus buildings.
“When assets are built that have a larger public value, they have a responsibility to consult with us,” said Tom Siddon, a PLEASE member, saying that SD67 should not just be responsible to the needs of students and the educational community but to the larger taxpaying public as well.
Given their chance to rebut, Geoffrey Litherland of Harris and Co. argued that during a process spanning several years, a great deal of public consultation had been done. He presented affidavits from superintendent Gary Doi, former board chair Connie Denesiuk, director of maintenance John Hickling and secretary-treasurer Frank Regehr, all of whom were heavily involved in the consultation process.
“It has been a five-year process. There’s been a lot of board work done” said Regehr, who felt they had provided Barrow with a well-researched package of information.
If the court approves their injunction on Tuesday, PLEASE chairman Dave Shunter said the group will begin work on a business plan and ways of raising the millions needed to preserve the old buildings. But if the judge doesn’t grant the injunction, he added, PLEASE won’t be giving up — they’ll just begin work on another plan.
“It isn’t over yet,” said Siddon.
“That’s my bottom line.”
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Friday, July 18, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Denis O'Gorman: Strategy needed on auditorium
The following letter appeared in the March 28, 2008, edition of the Western News. Mr. O'Gorman is a community planner and a former Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
In his letter published March 14, Gerry Karr raised the spectre of a public policy hijacking by a special interest group. His target was the group advocating retention of the Pen High auditorium. However, the advocates for a whole new centre, the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society, are already beneficiaries of a $2.5 million land grant plus significant funding for both feasibility and business plan studies from the city, suggesting they have made substantial inroads on setting public policy in Penticton.
Rhetoric about hijacking is unhelpful at a time when détente, analysis and dialogue would seem more valuable. As starting points of agreement, most parties including the above key groups would agree that Penticton’s downtown needs enhancement; an arts precinct and corridor could be a valued contribution to downtown vitality; and a new arts facility could help meet cultural aspirations, enhance livability and potentially also tourism.
Realizing these high objectives, however, requires a fuller downtown design strategy, a clearer picture of realistic tourism goals in a very competitive market and focused analysis of realistic cultural expectations. These have yet to surface.
Regarding a city-funded “needs assessment,” this, to my knowledge, has yet to be made available to inform the thinking of Penticton’s taxpayers. Similarly, a study which allegedly confirms financial feasibility has yet to be made generally available. There is considerable reason for skepticism given the extensive commitments to the events centre, rising property tax levels, and denial of an appropriate level of financial support to existing cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan.
Moreover, there appears to be the assumption by the arts facility society of considerable federal and provincial contributions without the sources for such funds being identified. Finally, the issue of potential internal competition with the events centre should be openly examined as part of a market analysis.
A starting point for the city would be to post the completed studies (on both cultural needs and financial feasibility) on the city’s website. This should be quickly followed by a preliminary design study to establish general physical feasibility of an Ellis Street site.
Similarly the deliverables from the $50,000 allocated to the performing arts facility society should be specified. This is a reasonable expectation given that most organizations develop their business plans using internal resources and available templates.
In the meantime, the reality of the Pen High auditorium and north gym, as “birds in the hand” should not be dismissed. Of course, they don’t represent “auditorium beautiful” and supporters acknowledge several shortcomings such as inadequate foyer and backstage space. However, the present auditorium and gym are standing and apparently upgradable. Moreover, upgrading costs are more likely feasible in terms of overall taxpayer impact. Plus an existing auditorium (and gym) can meet diverse community needs while carefully considered financial and development plans for a more permanent venue are developed.
A considered “side-by-side” analysis of the upgrade and new facility options including capital and operating costs would be especially helpful. It should identify funding sources and the respective implications for the city’s finances given clear funding assumptions. This information might even help guide a voter referendum on the question.
Certainly choice should not be pre-empted by a rush to demolish the Pen High auditorium and gym as is apparently being pursued by the school board. Sure, it’s Plan B from their perspective but overall public benefits of having an interim (10 years perhaps) auditorium and accessible gym may well warrant a sober second look.
And should provincial funding formulas be the driving concern of the school board, couldn’t they and any associated policies be revisited? With the help of our MLA, perhaps a staged building retention and transition strategy to best represent the overall civic interest might be forged. Constructive collaboration, as was done for ball field upgrades, would seem to present Penticton taxpayers their best option, at least while a consensus-based strategy on cultural needs and facilities is developed with both the city and school board actively engaged.
In his letter published March 14, Gerry Karr raised the spectre of a public policy hijacking by a special interest group. His target was the group advocating retention of the Pen High auditorium. However, the advocates for a whole new centre, the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society, are already beneficiaries of a $2.5 million land grant plus significant funding for both feasibility and business plan studies from the city, suggesting they have made substantial inroads on setting public policy in Penticton.
Rhetoric about hijacking is unhelpful at a time when détente, analysis and dialogue would seem more valuable. As starting points of agreement, most parties including the above key groups would agree that Penticton’s downtown needs enhancement; an arts precinct and corridor could be a valued contribution to downtown vitality; and a new arts facility could help meet cultural aspirations, enhance livability and potentially also tourism.
Realizing these high objectives, however, requires a fuller downtown design strategy, a clearer picture of realistic tourism goals in a very competitive market and focused analysis of realistic cultural expectations. These have yet to surface.
Regarding a city-funded “needs assessment,” this, to my knowledge, has yet to be made available to inform the thinking of Penticton’s taxpayers. Similarly, a study which allegedly confirms financial feasibility has yet to be made generally available. There is considerable reason for skepticism given the extensive commitments to the events centre, rising property tax levels, and denial of an appropriate level of financial support to existing cultural facilities such as the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan.
Moreover, there appears to be the assumption by the arts facility society of considerable federal and provincial contributions without the sources for such funds being identified. Finally, the issue of potential internal competition with the events centre should be openly examined as part of a market analysis.
A starting point for the city would be to post the completed studies (on both cultural needs and financial feasibility) on the city’s website. This should be quickly followed by a preliminary design study to establish general physical feasibility of an Ellis Street site.
Similarly the deliverables from the $50,000 allocated to the performing arts facility society should be specified. This is a reasonable expectation given that most organizations develop their business plans using internal resources and available templates.
In the meantime, the reality of the Pen High auditorium and north gym, as “birds in the hand” should not be dismissed. Of course, they don’t represent “auditorium beautiful” and supporters acknowledge several shortcomings such as inadequate foyer and backstage space. However, the present auditorium and gym are standing and apparently upgradable. Moreover, upgrading costs are more likely feasible in terms of overall taxpayer impact. Plus an existing auditorium (and gym) can meet diverse community needs while carefully considered financial and development plans for a more permanent venue are developed.
A considered “side-by-side” analysis of the upgrade and new facility options including capital and operating costs would be especially helpful. It should identify funding sources and the respective implications for the city’s finances given clear funding assumptions. This information might even help guide a voter referendum on the question.
Certainly choice should not be pre-empted by a rush to demolish the Pen High auditorium and gym as is apparently being pursued by the school board. Sure, it’s Plan B from their perspective but overall public benefits of having an interim (10 years perhaps) auditorium and accessible gym may well warrant a sober second look.
And should provincial funding formulas be the driving concern of the school board, couldn’t they and any associated policies be revisited? With the help of our MLA, perhaps a staged building retention and transition strategy to best represent the overall civic interest might be forged. Constructive collaboration, as was done for ball field upgrades, would seem to present Penticton taxpayers their best option, at least while a consensus-based strategy on cultural needs and facilities is developed with both the city and school board actively engaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)