2343 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

So much for the group's pledge to maintain its fight. The owners of the website got what they wanted and that's the end of their harbour saving efforts. If only Joe public realized that many of these anti-development efforts have a hidden agenda perhaps we wouldn't see so much knee jerk reaction every time someone decries a proposal as a threat to the "community at-large" (i.e. walkers and joggers losing out, in some weird contorted way as the harbour savers would have us believe).

[rjag]

I wonder what effect this will have on the coming Municipal elections this fall. Will it even be a discussion point or have all the social engineers moved on to more exciting things?

[jonny]

Again with this nutty assumption that boats can only detract from a water view. Would it also be unfair if the marina improves the view significantly and ultimately raises their property values?

This is one thing I don't get...one of the things I really like about going down to the harbour is all of the activity...the big boats, small boats, Coho, Clipper, float planes, harbour ferries, kayaks, etc. All of these man made things enhance the harbour.

[aastra]

There's a lunatic fringe that seems to think the best water view is the water view that's absolutely devoid of activity. No boats, no planes, no ships, no noise, no people. Just still water. Like an isolated lake in the wilderness.

There are countless isolated lakes in the wilderness of BC; there are a couple of busy downtown harbours. Yet these people choose to live beside one of the busy downtown harbours, and then complain about it.

(It would suck to have your view blocked, I agree, but nobody has demonstrated that any views would actually be blocked in this instance. Adding new elements to an existing view does not automatically equal a blocked view or a ruined view, or the end of the world.)

[jklymak]

^ I think these people think their view will be blocked. However, I say "too bad" - a marina was in the master plan for this site when you bought, you should have expected there to be a marina.

My only objection to this proposal is that I think it'll be an empty parking lot (well at least views won't be blocked) which seems a shame. The original master plan called for something like Granville St., not a parking lot for a few big yachts. I can't see this being very vibrant.

[jonny]

These people have such a distorted view of reality and their surrounding community it's borderline insanity. Complaining about a marina being built in a downtown harbour is stupid. Trying to rationalize their irrational stance by saying these boats will block views is patronizing to their audience and an astonishingly weak argument at best. Go down to the inner harbour today and show me yachts that are detracting anybody's view of anything. Even the damn Coho doesn't block views.

[Bernard]

Complaining about a marina being built in the location that the City plans had called for one in the 1980s and onwards is crazy. People knew from the plans this is a working harbour and that the foreshore of the Songhees were specifically intended to be a marina.

[Nparker]

Sounds to me like Council is trying to stall this to appease the NIMBYs:

http://www.timescolo...7465/story.html

[Knot-A-Yacht]

So much for the group's pledge to maintain its fight. The owners of the website got what they wanted and that's the end of their harbour saving efforts. If only Joe public realized that many of these anti-development efforts have a hidden agenda perhaps we wouldn't see so much knee jerk reaction every time someone decries a proposal as a threat to the "community at-large" (i.e. walkers and joggers losing out, in some weird contorted way as the harbour savers would have us believe).

Yes our website did disappear for a couple of days but that has been fixed and the thousands of supporters are back. Also (in case you did missed us on Facebook) our Facebook site disappeared for a few days ( and thousands of other sites) but that has been restored as well. We thought maybe we had been hacked but it appears to just have been another of Facebook's unannounced "upgrades". I did not notice it right away as I have been out boating and not on-line.

[rjag]

I did not notice it right away as I have been out boating and not on-line.

I hope you dont park your boat where homeowners can see it....hehe just joking, hope you had fair winds

[gumgum]

Actually, rjag makes a really good point.

And I hope you don't have a car, KAY. You're car could block someone's house. God All Mighty, it could be mine!

[Mike K.]

By the sounds of it council was confused and did not have the correct information on-hand at the meeting. But other than that the proposal looks like it has the go-ahead from the planning department. In short, the project looks like it's finally a go.

[aastra]

John Alexander, lawyer for the proponent, said following Thursday's committee meeting that parking is secure and should not have been an issue.


The developer owns 48 spaces in the parkade at the adjacent Royal Quays condominium project.


"Since 1990, at the requirement of the city, these parking spaces under Royal Quays have been assigned to and specifically for these two lots. The city required that and they wouldn't create the two lots until that took place," Alexander said.


"The lease is in place. It's a 200-year lease and it says unequivocally that Community Marine Concepts has unobstructed, 24-hour access to those spaces, so there's no uncertainty."


Trying to be a good neighbour, the developer has consulted with the Royal Quays strata council to try to ease their concerns about whether an interior security gate can be installed, Alexander said.


But their lease is clear, they have 24-hour access.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1VmMeDBil

Say what? So we're saying 48 dedicated parking spaces have been sitting there for the past 21 years waiting for a marina that some people claim was never supposed to exist in the first place?

So what have those 48 parking spaces been used for all this time? Have residents been renting them?

[Bingo]

Say what? So we're saying 48 dedicated parking spaces have been sitting there for the past 21 years waiting for a marina that some people claim was never supposed to exist in the first place?

So what have those 48 parking spaces been used for all this time? Have residents been renting them?

Could it be that the residents are more concerned about loosing those parking spaces than they are about loosing a bit of their view?

[Mike K.]

Could it be that the residents are more concerned about loosing those parking spaces than they are about loosing a bit of their view?

It's not clear what the current situation is. Are those spaces being used, or are they sitting there unused? If they are being used and there are more vehicles than there are units then I can see the parking situation being a sticking point.

Knot-a-yacht, can you confirm the parking situation?

[aastra]

But how can that be a sticking point if that excerpt from the article is true? Either it's true or it isn't, right? If it's true then it's hardly the marina's problem to worry about where condo owners are going to park their extra vehicles.

[Mike K.]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the developer has done or proposed anything that contravenes current zoning or the lease. By sticking point I mean between residents and WAM, not between WAM and the city.

The 48 parking spaces are there and conform to the City's demands, but, if residents have taken over the parking spaces I can imagine there is a lot of contention over their upcoming reassignment.

Bingo brings up a very valid question that I hope Knot-a-yacht can provide an answer to.

[Marina-man]

The 48 parking spaces have been managed on behalf of the developer by Robbins Parking for many years now. Robbins rents the spaces out on a monthly basis. Some are rented by Royal Quays condo owners, but most are rented by either condo owners from surrounding buildings, or third parties just looking for undercover parking. In other words, the parking spaces have been available to the public for monthly parking for years.

[Mike K.]

Thanks, Marina-man. Would you say that some of the opposition to this project is the result of nearby residents frustrated over the potential loss of parking once the 48 spaces are reallocated for their originally intended use?

We've heard opposition to the project for reasons other than parking, but realistically speaking the parking issue is likely one of the more contentious issues for the most vocal nearby residents (albeit undisclosed or rarely raised because it's not of the concern of the community at-large and therefore unmarketable compared to the arguments that yachts will [allegedly] block views, make the harbour unsafe, etc.).

[Hotel Mike]

the parking issue is likely one of the more contentious issues for the most vocal nearby residents (albeit undisclosed or rarely raised because it's not of the concern of the community at-large and therefore unmarketable compared to the arguments that yachts will [allegedly] block views, make the harbour unsafe, etc.).

There are many other reasons, not disclosed, which figured in to the opposition to the marina. Could it be that certain real estate agents promised Songhees buyers that there never would be a marina in front of them, and now they're seeing their credibility dry up? What they don't realize is that their area is about to improve a whole lot, once the marina and its two buildings are open for business. From a dead zone, to an active one.