There is a petition circulating asking Area H residents to support their democratic independence within the regional district. Here is what the information sheet says:
A referendum for Princeton together with the diverse communities of Area H is scheduled for September 24. The process is flawed. The amalgamation of the Town of Princeton and Area H into one voting district is wrong. This is a subversion of the democratic process. As it stands, people in Area H will not be able to decide for themselves.
Here are some relevant facts:
If all Princeton residents vote yes, and all Area H residents vote no, then the referendum would pass and Area H residents would have to pay for something to which they have poor access and, in many cases don’t want. The ability to decide is unbalanced.
46% of Area H residents are seasonal. Many will be away when voting occurs. It is highly likely that they will not hear about this in time and thus not be counted.
Princeton has a higher population than Area H. The people who live there stand to gain the most, as well as pay the least. They’re getting a good deal and will probably vote accordingly.
Most people in Area H pay property tax, including low income residents, and there are very few people renting. Many residents in Princeton Town are renters who will likely not be concerned about a parcel tax.
Area H covers 4,815 square kilometres and the average time to get to Princeton from most communities is half an hour each way by car. Princeton covers an area of 10 square kilometers and most residents would be within walking distance of the proposed facility.
There are 1995 taxable parcels in Area H and only 1496 in Princeton. That means that Area H will pay much more towards this proposed Aquatic Centre.
Princeton will pay $508,640 per year. Area H will pay $678,300 per year.
With more voting Princeton residents than Area H residents, there is a real possibility that this referendum will pass, yet costs and benefits are unmatched to the different areas.
Please sign the petition to get RDOS to give us back our independence.
You can download a copy of this information sheet by going to the Resources -> Area H Petition link at the top of the page.
Editorial note: The above numbers are no longer correct. On July 28 RDOS released new numbers showing there to be 1291 parcels for Princeton and 2053 parcels for Area H. This makes the disparity much greater than was originally reported on the above quoted information sheet.
Outram Echo 
Russell Barton
August 2, 2011
If area H has 1995 taxable parcels, and Princeton has 1496, and we get one vote per taxable parcel, it sounds like area H has the majority here.
Why does princeton have more votes, and a majority?
Ole Juul
August 3, 2011
You don’t have to own land to vote. If you’re renting you can vote. The only criteria is you have to be over 18, lived in BC for 6 months, Area H for 1 month, and be a Canadian Citizen. It is difficult to figure out exactly how many voters there are and I don’t think anybody has reliable figures on that, especially when you consider the 1 month rule. However, the population is relatively stable and the last census in 2006 should be fairly close and those figures show Princeton as having 2677 and Area H 2208. You can get those figures and more at http://www.PrincetonAquaticCentre.com.
The figures for the number of parcels quoted in the article has actually been updated since then. They were the tentative figures given out by RDOS at the time. They have now done a more accurate count and also determined that the trailer park pads, which previously were thought to be liable for the tax, are not. The new, more accurate figures are quite different. Area H has 2053 parcels that will pay the tax, and Princeton has only 1291.
I’ve got a current editorial on the Coalmont Courier (http://coco.coalmont.net) about the imbalance that causes to the proposed referendum.
Cheers,
Ole Juul
Ray Kielan
August 10, 2011
My family lives in the lower mainland. Our cabin in Tulameen is summer recreational property. We will never be in a position whereby we would be using this facility. I am against this proposal. Those benefiting from this aquatic center should cover the cost.