A risky move quashing debate

We don’t have any concerns about the City of Kelowna’s proposal to allow permanent housing for the community’s homeless in the North End.

As we reported Thursday, our City Hall has partnered with the province and Canadian Mental Health Association to redevelop and rezone two Ellis Street lots to accommodate permanent housing.

It seems like a fitting use of land that’s primarily light industrial. We’ve always backed the Scandinavian approach to homelessness: build more homes, and get people off the streets.

We say this, of course, knowing full-well that view may not be shared by anyone who lives or works in the area.

But given our options, building a three-storey complex with 38 self-contained suites at 1055 and 1063 Ellis St. seems reasonable.

What we take umbrage with, however, is the city’s decision to forego public hearings on the plan.

“The provincial government is using its legislative authority to move this much-needed project forward, without it going through the normal development process,” Mayor

Colin Basran told us. “City council supports this, given the current circumstances we are living in are anything but normal. Bypassing normal procedures will allow the project to be completed much quicker and, in light of the situation, council feels this approach is appropriate.”

Sure, COVID-19 has changed the way we do business, but this is a dangerous decision.

First, consider if you lived anywhere near Knox Mountain Park, or your kids curled or played baseball regularly in the area immediately around these two vacant lots.

Maybe all you would like is the chance to quiz city staff on what these sites will look like, how they will operate, who is running them and how quickly they will become operational.

Those are completely valid questions, and the city has decided to skip the whole process, saying the pandemic and the provincial government are in charge here.

It would seem to us that a scaled-down version, or an online-only consultation, could have been installed.

Instead, all we get is nothing more than a “this is important, we will get you next time.”

The city is no stranger to controversy when it comes to assisted living. It’s handling of a Rutland site garnered 12,000 signatures on a petition and some rather nasty threats against the mayor.

Is this really the time to skip public consultation? It seems to us that’s an obvious, “No.”

The city needs to backtrack on this, and quickly, by providing some form of public feedback. We doubt the residents of the less populated North End can gather 12,000 signatures, but we don’t doubt the city’s move here could raise more than just eyebrows. And city brass will have no one to blame but themselves.