58 replies to this topic

[Ryan Windsor]

Seems to me from the above image that there are a good number of businesses labelled that also seem to have lots of cars at them. Are there more opportunities? Sure there are, so lets get to talking about them.

As far as Senanus goes there were two issues, fire and potable water. The district spoke of fire protection, while the residents spoke of potable water. Both are desirous sure but the Official Community Plan stipulates that areas outside of the Urban Containment Zones are not entitled to water. Some people have chosen to look upon this as punitive. The problem with that is that the real reason for the clause in the OCP that limits access to municipal water servicing is to keep costs low. Economy of scale is the determining factor, the merchants on Keating clearly represent an economy of scale that would merit upgrades to water pressure for fire fighting. Marrying that with the expense of putting a new satellite firehall in the actual Commercial/Industrial zone of Keating were it would make sense to address insurance premiums would be a good approach. (Reading the 2002 study paid off)

The OCP does allow for water in cases where the water is not potable - this is how the Senanus folks viewed there situation. My only question about whether the right decision was made is this - do we have lab tests from MB Labs confirming the non-potability of the water? In the face of concrete evidence we should all pay to fix the situation. If it exists then I have absolutely no issue with the line. If it does not then the economy of scale should be the only determining factor. Or perhaps we should provide fire service to every corner of the municipality at huge expense???

[Ryan Smith]

If you believe that looking at an aerial photo of an industrial area for a vehicle count is the sign of successful business, you have even less business acumen than people think. If this is an indication of a successful industrial area, then why have so many retails pulled out?

The answer to that question is within the question in case you are struggling a bit with that answer. It is because you believe retail has a place in an industrial area. If you truly support business, why don't we hear you talking about the two other commercial areas in Central Saanich, Saanichton and Brentwood, where retail is much more likely to be successful. What is your position on strengthening these two retail areas to encourage an overall strong economy within our own municipality?

I have posted this already, with no real response. If that sort of commercial land use planning works so well in other municipalities, where industrial and retail are separate, why do you ignore it and think you know more about this topic than what other municipalities have already proven.

Honestly, if you were investing a million dollars in new business where location was a significant factor in that business being successful, would you invest in Central Saanich or one of the other municipalities much more accommodating to their commercial land owners, such as Sidney, Saanich, Victoria, Colwood, and Langford?

[Ryan Windsor]

As it happens I met with the Village Association in Saanichton this very evening. I also once again spoke with more business owners on Keating again today.

Saanichton is an area that needs some work done to improve the overall appeal to local shoppers and visitors. The SVA is working with landlords to try to encourage upkeep of frontages including tending to landscaping which attracts people to the businesses. I would be surprised if you disagree that a business gains more customers by being visually appealing.

As for Keating Mr. Smith I am hearing your argument about the mix of Commercial and Industrial not being viable. The problem is that I keep being told by businesses on Keating that they WANT the retail stores that are there to stay and for the other sites along the frontage to be developed as commercial.

The advantage, from their perspective (this is what they told me) of having a blend of commercial and industrial is that the employees of the Industrial businesses can meet their needs for goods, services and food in the area.

In several separate conversations today the same ideas came up for a partnership between the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, the municipality and the businesses for a B2B (business to business) website to promote the businesses to each other because they often not aware of each other. A couple people even mentioned that despite a downward trend in the business on Keating (I am acknowledging your point) they have nonetheless seen a small amount of new business materialize from Social Media, so this is another approach that we need to develop in partnership with the Chamber and businesses.

Frankly I would rather work with you and the businesses down on Keating than fighting. If you are interested in such an approach then by all means I am willing to listen. Remember I am only one person and I am trying hard to get a sense of what other people have to say. It may sound like I am coming off as someone who has all the answers, but most of what I am sharing has come from input given to me by others. I welcome your input to finding solutions as well. I recognize that you feel strongly about not mixing Commercial and Industrial activity.

[Ryan Smith]

First of all, in your last post on Keating Industrial Area, I think you are confused on commercial and industrial. I find this a bit surprising given that you say part of your platform is revitaling Keating Industrial Area - I thought one who had this much interest in issue as part of their campaign would have a stronger understanding. All land within the Keating Industrial Area is for commercial use - however it has many (too many in my opinion) commercial uses- industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, food service, retailing, office, gravel pit, etc.

There are two main types of retailing that I have seen in Keating Industrial. One type is retailing directly to the employees within the area (as you noted) such as the food services. Others are (were) retail to the residential consumer - Home Hardware, Brick, Fence Company, Co-op, Benjamin Moore, etc. The retailers that target residential consumers are the ones that have been pulling out. How can you present a platform of revitalizing Keating Industrial Area when you clearly don't understand this? In my opinion, response after response of yours has proven this. Retailers with a target market of residential consumers need to be located close to residential areas with friendly access to residents (both walking and driving). An industrial area does not compliment this. Central Saanich needs to recognize this in their longterm planning, and in order to do so needs council members who have this vision. These areas need to include Brentwood and Saanichton.

I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question above about where you would rather invest your own personal money in a business. Does this mean you would invest in an area other than Keating Industrial?

On a different topic, how much did the ratepayers force Central Saanich to spend on legal fees to fight the legal challenges relating to the water line going to Senanus? In my opinion, it was a complete waste of taxpayer money and would like to know the dollar value. If you truly believe in prudent fiscal management in our municipality how can you justify this as effective spending? Please don't even try to justify the water line as not needed - residents were transporting potable water in by truck because their well water was not consumable. All residents have a right to potable water in their homes one way or another.

[Ryan Windsor]

Hi Ryan

The following is a the master planning and zoning map found on the Central Saanich website and available to the public at http://www.centralsa...idents/Maps.htm .

It clearly shows that the lands in Keating are zoned

I1 - light industrial
I2 - extraction industrial
CD4 - Comprehensive Development Zone 4
C4 - Commercial Service Station (Co-op gas)
C3 - Neighbourhoud Commercial (covers the Integrity Sales lands which I think most would agree is a valuable part of our community - I've spoken with Dwight et al)
C2 - Arterial Commercial (the same zoning discussed for the location at rezoning of the RE2 land at Keating and West Saanich)

I do business with a merchant in that C2 zone and spend money on promoting that relationship. Maybe that does not mean anything to you but it means something to me and my family.

You want to talk about removing the commercial zoning. Lets the discuss that when I'm on council. I will consider the case you make with an open mind.

Again you say I do not understand the different types of business. Home Hardware left due to an unfortunate disagreement with the owners of the building, yet another Hardware merchant was set to move in there (Rona) but ultimately could not come to terms that were acceptable to the tenant. Every merchant I speak with down there is frustrated by the lack of a hardware store. If you have got an idea about how to fix that situation I am all ears? Or should I go back and tell every single merchant on Keating that their desire to see a hardware store is wrong? Home Depot almost always locates in or near industrial zones. Maybe you think a company the size of Home Depot has got it wrong. Brentwood Bicycles moved from Brentwood Bay to the C2 commercial zone to improve there business. I will go back and tell them that they should move back to Brentwood and have the problems they had before.

It takes the average person 5 minutes to drive from Brentwood (with the highest number of homes) to Keating and less time for residents of TANNER AND COOPER RIDGE. Shall we build a new commercial zone to cut that time to 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Do you think people in Brentwood would walk to the new Co-op if they were able to build it on West Saanich at Keating? There was space for lease in Brentwood recently and Benjamin Moore did not move - I'll go ask Jean the owner why that is.

I mentioned I have invested time and money in Keating. It isn't much but it is what I am doing.

Ratepayers did not pursue the Senanus issue that was the Mount Newton Neighbourhood Association and if you review the records you will find that they won the original case. The municipality changed its tactic and proceeded. The issue is done at this point, the line is built. I had nothing to do with it. I want you to understand something I had NOTHING at all to do with that case.

If there is support for a project in this municipality that requires spending large sums then it should have to pass a referendum. If it passes referendum you eliminate the need for lawsuits and if someone does not get what they want out of the referendum they cannot sue. Want to eliminate the problem, put the couple of items during a council mandate that count as large new spending items to a referendum. Or perhaps your going to tell me that we should not go that route because referendums cost something? You did already state that you think litigation is costing too much. Would you support a solution that eliminates the need for them?

Thanks for all the input by the way. It is very useful.

Ryan

[Ryan Smith]

Ryan,

You site in your post a reason for Home Hardware not being in Keating Industrial anymore (the real reason or not, who knows), you also site a reason for Rona not going in (the real reason or not, who knows). I can tell you one thing though, if a business feels it has a good return on investment, it will find a way to make it work. It is all about risk and reward - and given the present state or Keating Industrial and the reputation of Central Saanich council being very difficult to work with in terms of supporting business, my guess is in both cases, the risk was not worth the reward (ie: it was too risky in this municipality). Based on the number of vacancies and from the length of time these locations have been vacant, it appears there is not a lot of interest in new business coming in. Why is this? Perhaps this municipality is considered too high risk for a business to be successful due to the lack of co-operation at the municipal government level? If so, this needs to change, and in my opinion requires politicians with business acumen to make this change a positive change.

You mention that you spoke to a number of business that were frustrated with the lack of a hardware store in Keating industrial. Did you ask those businesses you spoke to WHY they were frustrated? My guess is they would then have hardware items close at hand for their own business to purchase from. Again, this goes to one of my previous posts where you argue that retail should be able to thrive in Keating Industrial area and this is the place in Central Saanich where retail should be. Again, there are two types of retail customers presently trying to be served in Keating Industrial - those retails whose customers are the present industrial businesses (and their employees) and those whose customers are the residential consumer. Perhaps you weren't listening, even though you strongly advocate that you are listening? Perhaps you don't understand? You have asked for me to provide some solutions - I have already and I will say it again - both don't mix! Look at how other municipalities plan retail and industrial. And before you state your same argument as before where you say you have spoken to the businesses, think about who the residential consumers are, and ask THEM where they want to shop. That is where the answer is for this retail segment. But I am likely already telling you something you know being as you are a Marketing Director (as per the TC).

Since you bring up Brentwood, I think past council did a wonderful job in revitalizing the look of Brentwood. Now it is time to revitalize the commercial activity in Brentwood, in order to complete the job. Perhaps council should consider expanding the commercial footprint in Brentwood to allow for greater retailing opportunities - this would bring more traffic into the area and all retails would benefit. It is also walking distance to agreat number of residential consumers.

So if the ratepayers had nothing to do with the legal challenge of Senanus waterline, what is your personal position on this? If it was in fact the Mt Newton Neighbourhood Association that initiated the legal challenge, did you support their position, again requiring the municipality to incur extensive legal costs?

[Ryan Windsor]

The businesses on Keating including the industrial ones want a Hardware store to bring more people to Keating from outside. I agree that the municipality should not dither on appropriate taxation levels or permits for new businesses wishing to locate with the Keating Business Park - these are the two main powers of the Municipal Government.

I am tired of seeing coffee shops opening in Brentwood there are enough there so it is time we say no more permits for coffee shops so that a shoe store or some other type of store can find space in one of the new buildings going in to the commercial centre of Brentwood. Saanichton will need work and I have met with the Saanichton Village Association to learn from them about what can be done in the Village. If the residents are in favour of more opportunities then absolutely, but only again if they want it.

Your idea for surveying potential customers is a good one and should be included as a survey on the district website that people would be directed to visit for input. Survey data being collected openly through the district website would help inform the discussion.

I am clear on the waterline issue. Here is a section of the OCP:

Most areas of the District are either supplied with water or have water available if a developer,
property owner or a group of property owners wishes to extend the system (so long as the
property is within the Urban Settlement Area). The major exception is the northwest section of
the District. This area has already been developed to a very low density with large rural
residential lots and large agricultural parcels. This will make servicing the area with a
distribution system very expensive on a "per property" basis, no matter what the source of
supply.

The following is on Page 73:

Policy 1 Detailed expansion of utility services should be in conformity with overall
land use and development policies of this plan. As a general principle,
water and sanitary services will be available in areas designated within
the Urban Settlement Area shown on Schedule A, Land Use Plan.
Policy 2 In general, do not support the provision of municipal services to areas
outside of the Urban Settlement Area in accordance with the Regional
Growth Strategy. (Cross reference Section 12)
Policy 3 Maintain a five-year capital works plan for the construction and upgrading
of municipal utilities and infrastructure.
Policy 4 Support in principal municipal or regional infrastructure improvements
that will benefit the municipality as a whole and are complementary to
the policies of this plan. Where possible, seek provincial cost-sharing and,
potentially, public-private partnerships to reduce financial impacts for
Central Saanich taxpayers.
Policy 5 Consider increasing the supply of potable water for bona-fide agricultural
purposes where it can be demonstrated that this will not jeopardize the
water supply for current users.
Policy 6 Co-operate with CRD to supply farmers with information about best
practices in agricultural irrigation and water conservation.
Policy 7 For safety and community design considerations, require all new
electrical services to be provided underground rather than overhead.
10.2.2.

If there is a bona fide case of contaminated well water that cannot be remediated using other solutions then it would be reasonable to pursue district water. The case only needs to be proved by taking water samples to MB labs once in the winter and once in the summer to prove it. Show me the evidence and I will happily invoke the UN declaration of clean water as a Human Right. Satisfied?

[rjag]

I am tired of seeing coffee shops opening in Brentwood there are enough there so it is time we say no more permits for coffee shops so that a shoe store or some other type of store can find space in one of the new buildings going in to the commercial centre of Brentwood

Its that type of comment that bothers me....what gives you the right to determine the success of an entrepreneur? If an area can handle 5 coffee shops then 7 will open, 2 will close shortly and the natural order of things will keep things in line. If demand for a shoe shop or childrens toys is there then it will happen...but its not your neck on the line, you dont sign the personal guarantee to the bank, they do. You as a potential civic leader are supposed to help open doors and encourage success by ensuring the infrastructure is there and the zoning is up to date for the community to prosper....it most certainly is not to act as God and proclaim "this space shall be a maternity store and that space shall supply dog food"....the market determines that.

I have worked in Keating since basically 1982 and full time since 1988 so I've seen a few businesses come and go....if a hardware store was that much in demand then there would be one....except CS PUT UP SO MANY ROADBLOCKS REGARDING BRINGING THE BUILDING UP TO CURRENT CODE THAT IT BECAME COST PROHIBITIVE. and the current council....led by a farmer just didnt care.....lots of words but no action.

Keating needs that interchange from the highway....Costco offered to pay a portion...CS and CS Ratepayers chased them away....bad move.....that interchange is the solution to this....not forcing some store in that will fail in 6 months, yet CS has about as much influence with the Province and Trans and Highways as teats on a bull.

This is the main road to a world famous attraction and it looks like crap. Even on the municipal land on Keating its the most dull and unimaginative road out there and for me is a true testament to the vision of past mayors and council.

[Ryan Smith]

Ryan,

I saw this post on your Facebook.

"This past weekend my large election sign on Keating was stolen at the same time as the two other large signs, one for Terry Siklenka and one for Cathie Ounsted were vandalized and many lawn signs were kicked over. Fortunately most of the signs have been replaced, unfortunately for me the vandals stealing my sign has cost my campaign since I do not have money in the budget to replace a sign that will cost $70 to replace."

It's unfortunate that this happened, but the fact is it's going to happen when there are hundreds of campaign signs all over the municipality. Consider it a cost of doing business. However, I have to ask, why would you be upset enough about a $70 sign to actually bring it to peoples attention when we have local special interest groups wasting what is likely to be well over $100,000 in taxpayers dollars by forcing legal suits on the municipality? I would think that as a potential councilor this sum of taxpayer money would be a far more important issue than $70 on a campaign sign. How does it feel to have someone waste your money when you had no say in how it was being used? Perhaps similar to how the majority of residents in Central Saanich feel about how their tax dollars were spent in unnecessary legal fees when they had no say in the matter?

[Ryan Windsor]

@RJAG

I'll concede the point to you about supply and demand regarding Coffee Shops, in most cases this is exactly right. Occasionally things do need to have some civic intervention as a last course of action, but it should not be a first course. I do disagree with Mr. Smith that ending mixed use is a panacea for Keating since yet another merchant I spoke with said clearly that after being ousted from Brentwood due to Landlord-Tenant issues he would have left Central Saanich had he not found space on Keating. He might argue that by one leaving another will come, they may well come but will they provide the same entrepreneurial opportunities or will they simply employee people at minimum wage which provides little benefit.

@Ryan Smith

Still haven't seen those numbers on the legal fees of the district and by the way the RRoCSS having lost the decision has been asked to cover the costs. So please stop trotting out that argument.

By the way vandalism is illegal and in this case targeted several candidates who are simply trying to create awareness about themselves and the civic election. Pursuing ones right to jurisprudence on the other hand is legal and is guaranteed by the Charter. As far as I am concerned outweighs the petty concern about legal fees which by the way are likely not nearly as high as you are suggesting anyway.

If elected, even without your vote, I am still willing and eager to work with you Ryan.

[Ryan Smith]

Ryan,

I heard that at the Peninsula Chamber all-candidates meeting, both you and Sue Stroud stated during your closing comments that you are both on the Board of RRoCSS. I see on your campaign website that you have recently stated that you are no longer on their board. I also see that you, Sue Stroud and Chris Graham's positions on the ratepayers Website under their board page are noted as "vacant" - this is also a very recent change as I personally saw you three listed as directors only a couple weeks ago. Why is this? Do you not think this sudden change is strange in appearance given the RRoCSS recently had their AGM where they surely had director positions filled, as is standard at any associations AGM. Why are you suddenly trying to appear as disassociating yourself from this association? Is the bad publicity the ratepayers must be getting due to wasting taxpayers' money on useless lawsuits against the municipality finally catching up to your campaign?

Regardless of your efforts to change your appearance, I suspect the majority of voters will truly see it as that - an effort to change your appearance. Are you still a member of RRoCSS and therefore support their actions?

[Ryan Windsor]

Hi Ryan

I resigned from the Board of RRoCSS at the outset of the campaign, the website is maintained by volunteers and was not updated. I paid membership dues in January of this year of $7 which would technically take me through to January of 2012. I informed all boards that I am on which includes

Peninsula Streams, Residents and RatePayers, and Growing Young Farmers that I would be inactive through the duration of the campaign for council pending the outcome of the election. I am not changing who I am. Sometimes I agree with other Residents and Ratepayers board members and sometimes I do not. The same is true amongst the members, several feel differently on different issues.

I have serious concerns in the case of the Vantreight rezoning about the effects and future repercussions for Central Saanich councils down the line. Primarily this stems from the perfect example of Residential Housing and Agricultural uses on Old East Road here in Central Saanich coming in to conflict because residents are rightfully upset by smells and traffic resulting from the operation. Others out there simply see it as a case of making the financial viability of that farm operation, I understand that point of view but I feel I cannot ignore the other repercussions which will one day materialize.

I am not changing that position and I am never going to stop caring about it either. Too many people resign themselves to things we know won't work or accept the other consequences. Plenty of voters here in Central Saanich are built the same way as me, you I appreciate are not one of them and that I am willing to accept. I am never going to stop advocating for those who are passionate as I am about watching out for problems like this one. I will also never stop advocating for environmental protection and habitat restoration as one of the single most important activities. The legacy I want to leave for all future generations is one where we simply did not accept one environmental compromise after another. I am sorry that this may be different from the vision you have but there is no point in me telling you that I am going to roll over and stop working to protect the environment simply to try to get your vote since it simply would not be honest.

I remain a card carrying member of RRoCSS through the end of the year as well as Peninsula Streams, KENNES Watershed committee, Victoria Riding for the Disabled, Growing Young Farmers, Wine Island Vintners Association, and the Rotary Club of Sidney.

[EllenGruenbaum]

I was at the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce debates on November 3rd,,, all of the candidates were talking about transparency and how important it is when the last speaker, James McNulty stood up and let the crowd know that 3 of the people running for council are on the board of the rate payers association. An association that sued the municipality because they didn't like the way a democratically elected new council had voted! I looked up the numbers, it turns out that Sue Stroud, Ryan Windsor, Chris Graham and the rest of the ratepayers association has cost the municipality over $100,00!!! $48,795.19 to defend the first lawsuit, and another $57,804.21 to defend the Ratepayers second case in the Court of Appeals!!!

Ryan Windsor is either flat out lying or just ignorant when he and others say anything else.

The fact of the matter is the municipality only expects to recover roughly $18,000 of the total cost of $106,000 (as per municipal clerk Susan Brown). McNulty pointed out that none this information is anywhere on their personal websites, and he asked them to explain why that is. The only one who answered was Stroud who said, "we did what we had to do". The sheer arrogance of that statement! They blatantly ignored the will of the community as expressed in a democratic election! Do we seriously want these people in council?! It was interesting listening to hypocrites talk all evening about transparency and then finally get called out on it. I'm glad to see that people are starting to hear more about what the ratepayers association has done to our community.

[Ryan Smith]

Ryan - if the municipality is only expecting to recover $18,000 of the $106,000 in legal fees (spent on the Vantreights project alone), why were you so quick to request that I stop mentioning this issue? Your reasoning was because the ratepayers would be responsible for the costs, however from this most recent information it looks like they will be responsible for only a small portion of the cost. In fact, it looks like the taxpayers will be responsible for the majority of it. Thus my points were very valid! Or are the ratepayers going to voluntarily pay all of the $106,000? For some reason i highly doubt it!

Here is some other information on legal costs that I saw come from the municipal hall. These are the annual legal fees incurred by the municipality - why the sharp increase in 2009, 2010 and 2011? Is it a co-incidence that the timing lines up with RRoCSS and the Mt Newton Neighbourhood Association taking on frivilous legal challenges of the municipality?

2008 $108,068

2009 $185,540

2010 $296,125

2011 (YTD) $202,641

[Ryan Windsor]

http://wcel.org/medi...over-water-line

Here is part of the answer MNNA won the suit on the Waterline and was awarded costs. RRoCSS had not involvement.

As for the Vantreight development, Central Saanich staff advised that the development application and necessary rezoning were inconsistent with the just completed Official Community Plan bylaw (2008). Council ignored the advice of staff, ignored the democratically formulated OCP from 2008. The OCP is actually more democratic than what council did as it saw hundreds of people provide submissions to help in the formulation. Those who stayed home and did not voice an opinion during the process cannot be claimed as supporting your views, sorry but no one can claim to know what the silent majority is thinking since they remain silent.

As you don't agree with the above to you the court costs are wasted money. I have talked to hundreds of people (I am only one person otherwise it would be more) who disagree vehemently with your position and support the use of those court expenses because the understand why it was needed.

The rest I am not responding to as it is just baseless character assassination.

Its been very educational speaking with you folks I just don't believe that your views truly represent a large number of the people in this municipality.

For those of you who contributed ideas and took the time to ask me questions I thank you. Mr. Smith, I appreciate that you did not simply go away and that you continued to challenge, clearly our viewpoints are considerably different on many issues. I am still confident that there may be some issue that we could work together on we just did not find it in this forum.

Cheers
Ryan Windsor

[Ryan Smith]

You are not going to replay based on it being "character assassination". That sounds like a cop out based in those facts proving what is likely to be your true character ... If you are as honest and transparent as you say you are, you will let the truth be known.

The real you is starting to show and the election facade is fading.

[rjag]

As far as I know there is no law that mandates that the OCP 'must' be followed...personally I think it should be a guideline/yardstick to use but to say it is the only way is forcing the square peg in the round hole.....there is no way that anyone will compose a visionary statement such as an OCP and assume it will be accurate for every eventuality.

This is so obvious, yet when folks dont want omething such as Vantreight then they will grasp onto anything to justify their position....sorry RRoCS were wrong in this situation, but they should not be condemned because of it as I'm sure they have good intentions.

[Ryan Smith]

Ryan - I was talking to a friend of mine this morning who told me that her child's grade 3 class at Keating school had a candidate for council speak to the class a day or two ago, handing out campaign pamphlets, and asked the kids to tell there parents not to vote for anyone who doesn't live in the municipality. Was this you? If so, i cant believe anyone (well except for you) would stoop to this level in their campaign to try and influence grade 3 students, and tell them to go talk to mom and dad about who they should vote for.

[EllenGruenbaum]

That is absolutely disgusting. Ryan Windsor should be ashamed of himself.

[LJ]

That is absolutely disgusting. Ryan Windsor should be ashamed of himself.

Do you know that it was him????