It’s unfair to change height of building after bid awarded
I have been following media coverage of the controversy surrounding the current proposal by the developer for the former RCMP property on Doyle Avenue and feel compelled to offer comment.
It is my observation that the use of rhetoric and insinuations of personal agendas are unhelpful to forming a facts based opinion and are aimed at steering public opinion in one direction or another.
As a resident and taxpayer of Kelowna, I am interested in decisions made by the city being in the interests of the city.
That does not mean pleasing everyone, but it does mean making decisions and executing processes that are fair and leave the public with a perception of fairness.
So the question I pose is, whether the current proposal for the former RCMP site is fair to the taxpayers and the developers who bid or contemplated bidding under the terms of the bidding process set out by the city?
The essential facts as I understand them are:
— The city asked for proposals to build up to a 13-storey building on the city owned land, which would be leased to them. — Kelowna awarded the bid.
— The developer subsequently made public a proposal that generally, was not well received for its design and although it met the 13-floor requirement, it did not meet the bylaw requirements in a number of ways. In particular, it was reported to be a doubling of the maximum allowable floorplate. (To a layman like me that translates to significantly increasing the square footage available for building.)
— The developer went back and revised the proposal addressing the floor-plate requirements and increased the number of storeys to 25.
I am not a developer, but common sense tells me that a property where you can build 25 floors is worth a lot more than a property which is approved for 13 floors, other things being equal.
Consequently, it seems straightforward that a process that leads to a building height change to 25 floors from 13 floors, without going through an open bidding process, would be unfair to the taxpayers and the developer community, and at minimum appears to result in unjust enrichment.
Hal Vatne, Kelowna