Centralized Kelowna rec centre opposed

DEAR EDITOR:

I am concerned about a major project developing at Kelowna City Hall that will eventually be presented to us as a done deal.

I am referring to the building of a mega recreation site in the playing fields of Parkinson Recreation Centre.

A city staff member mentioned last week that the Parkinson building is too old for restoration.

There is even a video on the city site showing computerized renderings of the new project. Considerable money is now being spent on this unapproved development.

To appease neighbourhoods the proposal will reference activity centres to be built in a couple of communities, a mere diversion to limit opposition.

Vancouver has 19 neighbourhood recreation centres, a more beneficial option to a centralized one, where access requires a car. Many of Vancouver rec centres are well over 50 years old.

I have also researched other cities and it is so clear by the number of neighbourhood recreation centres that they all see their obvious benefit. Some are even free, depending on the location.

I am also strongly opposed to the intention of building the facility and related parking on the beautiful playing fields of Parkinson.

The second proposal surrounding this whole Parkinson/activity centres project is that the required resident approval process for borrowing the necessary money will be the alternative approval process, instead of a referendum. The city wants to put the onus of gathering 14,000 signatures (10 per cent of the city’s population) on working individuals and families and retired people, when we have personnel at city hall who could easily organize a referendum.

Heck, Swiss cantons hold referendums regularly, particularly when it comes to financial decisions. To expect parents who have worked all day, have kids to care for, to then go door to door to solicit signatures clearly indicates that those pushing this folly do not want to be defeated.

Ideally, facilities like the Rutland Family Y can be built in the north end, quite easily done within the old sawmill property, and in Glenmore, and would far better meet neighbourhood, environmental, and social needs.

A north-end one would easily be reached by walking or cycling along the water by all downtown residents, and be partially paid for by a developer.

All work and propaganda must be stopped until a referendum can be conducted on mega-centralized versus neighbourhood-centre options and their financing.

At the moment we are looking at an approximately $300 million project, most of it debt-financing, driven by a handful of staff at city hall, which will go ahead without any control on the part of Kelowna residents.