[Anonymous] ~ The overly hasty decision of the pool committee to proceed with the referendum after the RDOS Board’s decision last Thursday exposes the whole process for the political sham that it has been from start to finish.
The degree of anger at splitting the vote shown by the mayor, the [Redacted], the recreation centre staff and others, is a direct measure of their seemingly deliberate intention to put one over on Area H taxpayers. With hindsight of the events leading to the Board decision and the committee’s reaction, it appears they were aware right from the very start that unless they could con Area H into paying most of the cost for 20 years by having a combined vote and unfairly weighting the ballot in the Town’s favour, it is extremely unlikely that Princeton, on its own, can afford an indoor aquatic centre. The proposed design (or any of the “concept” alternatives) is extravagant to say the least and yet still inadequate to meet our real needs. One has to wonder why Council so badly wants unfettered authority to borrow $6 million.
I choose to believe that this state of affairs developed because they were gullible and maybe even naive. They were led to this point by the consultants who appear to have knowingly withheld important affordability data that they made available to other municipalities in their feasibility reports. To a Council more astute than ours or someone more adventuresome, there might be fruitful ground for a court case here.
At this point the best move that we, as a town, can make is to recognise the reality of the worldwide economic and financial crisis and to cancel the referendum outright on those grounds. The last thing any prudent community should want to do right now is to enter into further long term debt. It appears that the pool committee will not change their minds and make this sensible recommendation because they are so emotionally and politically involved in their pipe dream. What a disingenuous and defeatist strategy! They now seem to only want to pass blame for the failure of a hopelessly flawed concept to the people who least deserve it – the so-called naysayers. These are the people on fixed incomes with more loyalty and thoughtfulness for their ageing community than some visiting slick consultant with a fistful of coloured drawings.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be gained from proceeding with the referendum at this stage except driving a wedge between the Town and Area H even further. I have never understood the logic of rushing unprepared into a referendum just before the municipal elections and now see even less what that can achieve. I don’t even believe there is some clever or devious political objective. It is simply a total waste of time and money. In the end, it will just degrade the quality of future cooperation between our communities.
Then again, as things stand, it isn’t over yet, and nobody can tell how people will vote until the ballots are counted. If, as pointed out by Bill Newell, the RDOS CAO, voters don’t know what they’re really voting for (see link), there could always be a surprise result. Of course, an added issue now is the arena service tax that is already a done deal and will add in the order of a hundred dollars to most people’s tax bill. Mine turns out to be $160 extra starting in 2012. When the community sees that, in addition to the $360 for the extravagant indoor pool proposal they’re not going to be very happy.
Oh, they didn’t tell you about that yet? So what else didn’t they tell you about? There’s a lot that needs to come out.
Outram Echo 
Bob Sterne
August 13, 2011
Extremely well written; it’s a pity local politicians and special interest groups have stooped so low. It would now appear that all that is left to them is to assign the blame for them not achieving their pipe dream, rather than accepting it for what it was.
I’m not against having a Pool – the simple fact is we can’t afford it.
W. S. Brodie
August 13, 2011
It is a real shame that this project has been so mishandled. If other communities can afford to have a year around pool facility then why not Princeton? We are one of the oldest communities in British Columbia and Heaven knows we do have a strong employment situation. The failure here stems from dealing with the type of organization that a very large community typically deals with. Consulting firms that suggest a cost of approximatly 1.8 million dollars for design work are exactly what this community can ill afford, and a series of mistakes like this have cost this community any potential to have the project succeed. In addition this mishandling has driven a wedge between the population and any future proposal for such a facility. The truth of the matter is that this community has the potential through it’s existing tax strategy to develop an aquatic center, but the council has made the decision to spend these funds elsewhere.
AC
August 14, 2011
Even though all of us would like to have an affordable indoor pool, the first task at hand is to ensure that we have an informed vote on the current proposal in the referendum. If this turns out to be “No” even in Princeton too, such an outcome will register the voters decided dissatisfaction with the recent botched process.
The second task, then, is to sweep the misguided politicians who landed us in this mess and the bureaucrats with vested interests who aid and abet them, from their jobs and seats on Council. This can start to happen in November if we have suitable strong candidates to stand against them.
Then, with a freshly elected Council, staff and RDOS Directorate in place, we can form a joint responsible and prudent local community committee without vested interest to look at viable alternatives for establishing an indoor pool facility exactly as was done with the second nine holes at the golf course. Sound process is essential.
Chief among the alternatives will be a serious look at revitalising the Centennial Pool as was done here (http://tinyurl.com/3d3m6ux). Addition of a splash pad and possibly a roof designed by local contractors to extend the swimming season by at least four months should re-enable the project to succeed. So don’t give up hope too soon.
It is a time for cooler and greyer heads to prevail and to prove that we are not the naysayers they believe us to be.
Dierra Maynard
August 16, 2011
Whomever is hiding behind the obsurity of Anonymous is making slanderous comments. I have copied the message and it has been sent off to the Black Press lawyer. No one at this site contacted me or the Spotlight office to ask my opinion. I am an Area H resident and taxpayer and have represented both sides of the Aquatic Centre debate in my articles. No where did I express anger at the split vote. I attended both Penticton Area H meetings and reported on the facts. This post is a direct defamation of character. Please remove immediately any reference to myself or my professional title by tomorrow or the company lawyer will be in contact. P.S. I have copied and pasted this for evidence.
Editor
August 16, 2011
“Please remove immediately any reference to myself or my professional title . . .”
Done, as requested. – Editor