My Name is Ron Bolin and I reside at 3165 King Richard Drive in Nanaimo.
Mayor Ruttan, Councillors, Citizens:
I come before you this evening to ask that before making any precipitate decision regarding the expansion of the Cable Bay project by giving first and second reading to OCP Bylaw Amendment Bylaw 2009 No. 6500.004, that answers to the following questions be provided to the public:
1. Why should the City of Nanaimo and its citizens consider this proposal when the applicant did not have sufficient belief in his own project to proceed with a referendum on a similar request for expansion at the last municipal election? Such a referendum would have cost an insignificant amount of money at that time and the developer would have had adequate opportunity to convince Nanaimo residents that this was a good deal for the public as well as for him. Why does the proponent always look to our Council rather than to our citizens? Because the developer owns adjacent land which would provide any needed extra space for its golf course but has thus far refused to either accept a split jurisdiction or to undertake the referendum process necessary to bring that land into the city, is it not incorrect for the staff report to assert that the subject area is needed for the project to be feasible?
2. As we have learned in the case of the Conference Centre, any large project can lead to unforeseen risks. In the case of the VICC the city did not undertake an independent risk assessment of the project and we are now left holding a rather large bag. The City and its taxpayers are potentially liable for servicing costs to this very large project. As it lies so far from the built up infrastructure of the city, these costs could be very great. An independent risk analysis of the city’s potential liabilities in this development should be undertaken before any further decisions/obligations are made or accepted. How much might services cost and how much might new taxes bring in, given pessimistic as well as optimistic assumptions? The new development of the last few years seems to have brought only higher taxes with it. Will Council undertake to see that a professional independent risk analysis of the project is performed before making any further decisions in this matter?
3. Have the recommendations regarding industrial land contained in the 2007 OCP study, City of Nanaimo Land Inventory & Residential Capacity Analysis, been carried out and if so, what are the results? That study notes that much of Nanaimo’s industrial land inventory is either already developed or “constrained by water feature setbacks and slopes” or “located in lands that are believed to be unavailable in the short-term”, or “have been acquired for future use”. In conclusion this report notes that the city has only about 100 ha of available land zoned I4 (heavy industrial) and about 47 ha of light industrial land. It goes on to note that: “Ensuring that the City’s industrial land base is maintained is important to the continued economic prosperity of Nanaimo, as well as the broader regional economy.” Is it not misleading to speak of a 2.8% reduction in our industrial land when we are actually looking at a decrease of over 20% in our available heavy industrial land inventory? This example is particularly significant as we are looking at heavy industrial land that is directly adjacent to existing industrial dock facilities which could greatly reduce transportation costs for any industry choosing to locate there. Why was this additional information not presented in the staff report?
4. The author of the City of Nanaimo Downtown Urban Design Plan and Guidelines noted during the presentation of his report to our last Council that there has never been a case where a downtown revitalization has succeeded when major development is being undertaken at a city’s periphery. Why is his warning not mentioned in the staff report?
Before we buy any more pigs in a poke, please ensure that adequate due diligence is performed.
