Panorama funding: Final decision is obvious An attempt by Central Saanich Mayor Ted Jones to dispel accusations of stalling actually brought forward evidence of a long process for an issue that should be solved already. Jones explained the process his council will use to gauge public opinion on contributing municipal tax dollars to the Operation and proposed upgrade of the Peninsula’s only recreation facility for hockey, figure skating and swimming — Panorama Leisure Centre. Jones cited a report written by Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants, commissioned by Central Saanich and the Peninsula Recreation Commission, that was received by council last month. He says that “after careful considera- tion of the financial impact associated with two options (contributing to Panorama or building Central Saanich-only facilities) the council has decided to stage public information meetings to conyey the contents of the report and explain the available options.” Those meetings will only be the start of a process. Additional information will be solicited through a ques- tionnaire, to be sent to property owners only through tax notices. Those notices are scheduled to be sent out “at the end of April or in early May.” Results will be tabulated by the middle of May at earliest, but more likely at the end of May. Then council will have the option of putting the question to referendum, as was done in the late 1970s. Should that happen, the process will be extended even more, and if the official community plan process is any indication, it will be 1993 before any decision will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, users of the leisure centre who live in Central Saanich will be paying 30 per cent higher user fees than other Peninsula residents. Jones position is fiscally responsible. His actions will likely save the municipality a considerable amount of money. The longer the council waits to become a full partner, the longer its money stays in the bank. If the public information process circumvents the referen- dum requirement, more money is saved. But it is naive to believe that Central Saanich could responsibly do anything other than become a full partner in Panorama. And that fact should be no surprise to council. The PERC report council officially received in January contains the same recommendation as PERC’s recreation facilities master plan, commissioned by the municipality alone in April 1990. It recommends that council become a full partner in Panorama “in part because of increased coordination in the delivery of leisure opportunities, but also due to the obvious long-term cost savings that will accrue to Central Saanich.” PERC estimates it would cost Central Saanich $7.15 million (less provincial funding) to build its own facility, similar in size to what Panorama is now. An expansion of Panorama would cost almost $6 million (less one-third provincial finding) shared three ways. There is also a philosophical reason. After riding on the coat-tails of the two other municipalities for almost 15 years, it’s time Central Saanich made recompense. User fees have been held at one level for all and priority registration for North Saanich and Sidney residents is just now being rigidly enforced. We urge Central Saanich residents to send their council a clear message, quickly. *° Review Serving the Saanich Peninsula Since 1912 9726 - First St. P.O. Box 2070 Sidney, B.C. V8L 3C9 Sidney, B.C. V8L 3S5 656-1151 Publisher: Rory McGrath Editor: Glenn Werkman Reporters: Valorie Lennox Advertising: Brian Wyatt Girard Hengen Corrie Morozoft Production Manager: Tamie Sargeant Office Manager: Lori Fitzpatrick Circulation Manager: Wendy Denison AN ISLAND PUBLISHERS NEWSPAPER 93 PRIZE Wie, BCYCNA DIAN COmm mee aS << >. BRITISH COLUMEIA ~~ AND YUKON ve @cna COMMUNITY nies, a oe S NEWSPAPERS A teRs A550 SSS ASSOCIATION Papers COM CONTROLLED Volume 80 Issue No. 9 2 ' GARGAGE DUMPING FEES INCREASE, LIMITS DECR l Platiyesenermere ‘All (HI li 4 our CLASS {S Se ONS ECOLOGY THIS WEEK, DAD ‘LIN ING" ING — OR COMPOSTING’? 4 las Protesi pledged Editor: Since I am returning to Ontario tomorrow, I wanted to write about a very important conversation I had last night with my family: About this time last year I purchased a property on the Saa- nich Peninsula to retire in next year. There were so many com- plexes to choose from, but I did finally choose Sidney. At the time of my visit, my granddaughter had told me about this property on McDonald Park Road that she and her husband had hoped to be able to buy in. | followed all the articles in The Review, the pre-election platform (re affordable housing) and felt quite confident that my family would be able to purchase a starter home in Sidney. What is happening with this project and why has the mayor and council been scared off after such positive feedback was heard by all last year? Now I hear through my friends in Sidney that some developer is trying to get his permit through to build on the Ellehamer site. I suppose he will have support on the grounds that the sewage output is less than it would be running as a factory? If this goes through before the affordable housing on McDonald Park, I and my family, babies and all, will lay down on Malaview to protest. What right does council have to neglect the younger generation and create even more housing for the elderly? We have condos coming out our ears that are vacant. You have not heard the end of this. Mrs. H. Hughes Toronto, Ont. Stop high density near Saanichion Editor: At present, the village of Saani- chton boasts three important examples of rural charm and char- acter; the Saanichton fairgrounds, the Nimmo stone house property and Centennial Park. Two of the three are now “earmarked” for multiple family (translation — high density) development. The third, thank goodness, cannot be changed, although the vista Centennial Park now commands could soon be altered forever. Presently on East Saanich Road from Mt. Newton Crossroad to Hovey Road (a distance of less than one kilometre) there are six multiple family developments. When and if similar develop- ments are added to the northern (Saanichton fairgrounds) and southern (Nimmo property) boundaries of the village core, Saanichton proper will be framed on three sides by these sub- divisions. Yet the current (proposed) area plan states that council intends the village area to “remain largely a single family area.” Preservation of rural character in Saanichton can only be achieved through attention to existing her- tage structures, green space and uncluttered outlooks. This, of course, is completely contrary to the motives of high density deve- lopers. Central Saanich already displays two of the most brazen examples of developer’s greed that exist on the Peninsula. One backs onto the Pat Bay highway, for everyone to see. The other, more shocking example has forever ruined the view by boat and ferry into Bren- twood Bay. This is the previous council’s legacy. We recognize and accept the need for change, and the demands placed upon council to accomme- date the ever-increasing migration of the Peninsula. We also view it as critical to the future of our community that any development in these two “tar- geted” areas should not only be tasteful, but should incorporate at least some emphasis on single family dwellings and traditional lot sizes. It may already be too late to save the fairgrounds site from multiple family dwellings, apartment build- ings (gasp) and commercializa- tion. But hopefully, it is early enough in the game to prevent the same from happening to the Nimmo stone house and property as well. Development that is consistent in nature with the small hobby farms on the south side of Hovey Road would be ideal. The land is already parceled to accommodate this. scenario. If Centennial Park is to remain the jewel in the Peninsula’s park system, providing not only athletic facilities, but unparalleled beauty and charm, it is essential that it not be fronted by 10 acres of row housing. The Nimmo property Tuns adjacent to more than half the length of the park’s open area, and provides the park much of its feeling. We urge our elected officials to display some foresight (and back- - bone) in holding the line of this issue. Please do not forget the platforms you were voted in on, and the trust that the community has placed in you. Bill and Carol Graham Saanichton Time for our own municipal police Editor: Re Stats show high increase ii residential break-ins (The Review, Feb. 5). How many residents of North Saanich and Sidney are aware of the fact that in the early morning hours, when most break-ins occur, there is only one RCMP member available to patrol the entire area. Why only one? Is our local RCMP forced to operate with a shortage of man- power on a continual basis mainly because they are a federal agency and not a local municipal police force? Here, in North Saanich and Sidney, the ratio of police versus population is approximately 1/ 1,000. Right next door, in Cen Continued on Page A8 f\Wy