Burke development endangers trails

Councillor Terry O'Neill replyed to my message

" With respect to your recent message about Burke Mountain land, I believe you are referring to two of the parcels that the provincial government is selling. Coincidentally, the city of Coquitlam only yesterday distributed a public notice in response to questions about the status of Council-approved land use plans covering the properties in question. It summarizes in one place the status of the properties affected which is of interest to potential purchasers and to members of the public, such as yourself. Please see the attached document and map.
Best,
Terry O'Neill

I'm unable to upload the 4 page attachment he sent me as it is too large for this forum.
I cant find the notice on the city's website to link to.
Any idea how to post it here?

Are the 4 documents linked from this page?
http://www.coquitlam.ca/city-hall/news-media/14-01-29/Provincial_Land_Sales_in_Coquitlam.aspx

Are the 4 documents linked from this page?
http://www.coquitlam.ca/city-hall/news-media/14-01-29/Provincial_Land_Sales_in_Coquitlam.aspx

That's it, thank you. I did not look in news and media, and keyword search didn't work. The notice was dated yesterday.

That's it, thank you. I did not look in news and media, and keyword search didn't work. The notice was dated yesterday.

It is linked from the bottom of the index page, it might not have been there when you looked.

Mayor Richard Stewart took the time to reply

Thanks for the note, Len. Unfortunately, one of the things that our
current Council has inherited is the land use designations for that area
of Coquitlam. For a couple of decades now, the provincial land marked as
parcels 1 through 9 in the current land sale process has been designated
for residential development. In that context, while it would be possible
for us to try to force the province to set it aside from development, the
province could simply override us (as local government is a child of
provincial legislation). And given that they've set such a tight closing
date (five days from now) for the land sale process, they are clearly very
set on their decision to sell the land for development.

I've asked staff to report on the impact that the development of those
parcels would have on the trail network, and how we might mitigate that
impact.

You may wish to contact your MLA to make sure he/she is aware of the uses
that these parcels are put to.

We've made it clear that development of these particular parcels would not
proceed for a few years, given that a detailed land use study and plan
have not been undertaken. Nonetheless, I cannot tell you that the land
will not be developed, as the province has all the cards in that regard.

Richard

Thanks for passing along Richard Stewart's reply. I have sent him a follow-up email on behalf of TORCA.

http://www.thenownews.com/news/a-shortsighted-sale-1.813595

The sale of one of the largest tracts of undeveloped land in Metro Vancouver could cost B.C. taxpayers millions during the next decade, according to politicians from three different levels of government.
The issue relates to the provision of future school sites to be located within the 584-acre (236-hectare) parcel of land up for sale on Burke Mountain.
School District 43 officials, Coquitlam councillors and the NDP’s finance critic are worried that once those Crown lands are sold, the province will have to buy them back from developers at an inflated price when schools are ready for construction.
“This is a case of selling off a bunch of lands to meet financial targets for a short- term balanced budget, for short-term political objectives, as opposed to taking a longer-term view of what’s in the best interest of the taxpayer and how we could maximize a Crown asset,” PoCo MLA and NDP finance critic Mike Farnworth told the Tri-Cities NOW.
At issue are two sites — which are planned for a future elementary and middle school — encompassing roughly 15 acres (six hectares) in Coquitlam’s Partington Creek Neighbourhood Plan.
School district and city officials hoped provisions would be written into the bidding process that would allow the province to buy back those lands at today’s costs, minus inflation, to avoid higher prices in the future.
In fact, School District 43 Supt. Tom Grant said Monday the district had reached a tentative agreement with the Ministry of Education and the city to do just that.
“We thought we had an agreement, but at the last minute [the provincial government] made a decision to go forward. It looks like we will have to again buy from a developer down the road, lands that we should have been able to at least secure today at today’s prices,” said Grant, who characterized the policy reversal as “short sighted.”
Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart noted the lands in question are about three years away from being developed. More planning work, let alone road construction and servicing provisions, needs to be done before any concrete changes are made to the city’s Official Community Plan.
However, planning for those school sites has been going on between the city and the school district for years.
“This kind of stuff really infuriates the taxpayer and it really infuriates me. I want tax dollars to be used wisely,” Stewart said.
Burke Mountain resident and Coquitlam Coun. Craig Hodge said the situation playing out in his backyard is remarkably similar to how the development of the Westwood Plateau played out in the early 1990s.
“The whole mountain was sold off, and then 10 years later we had to go and buy those properties back at higher prices,” Hodge said. “It’s basically like selling it at a wholesale price and then buying it back at a retail price.”
However, Coquitlam-Burke Mountain MLA Doug Horne defended the sale in an interview Tuesday, arguing services must first be added to the area before those plots are sold back to the province.
“When we buy the school sites [back], as they become sites, yes, we will pay more for them,” he said. “But the fact of the matter is right now we’re selling off bush. When we purchase those school sites back, [they will] have electricity added, a sewer system added, a road in front in front of it and all of these other things. And surprisingly enough, all of these elements cost money.”
Horne added developers will be hamstrung in trying to sell those lands without services in place, and characterized calls to the contrary as “absurd.”
“It isn’t serviced. It’s bush right now. There are trees there,” Horne said. “This is the absurd part of that argument — in order to have a school site you need a road to the school, you need electricity to the school and you need all of these other things to make that work. That doesn’t exist today.”
For his part, Farnworth characterized Horne’s claims as “nonsense” and suggested he will bring the issue forward in the Legislature in coming weeks.
“To say, ‘Of course, we’re going to have to buy it back at a higher price’ is garbage,’” Farnworth said. “Let the city do its planning work. Let the city look at how they want to see the area be developed. Let them determine density and zoning, and let them come up with a comprehensive plan on what they want to see.”
© Tri-Cities Now
- See more at: http://www.thenownews.com/news/a-shortsighted-sale-1.813595#sthash.tKO5Xe5y.dpuf

By "bush" he means in tact forest.

And I guess by school site, he means hardscape where kids are not encouraged to understand nature. You need roads not nature to learn it seems. Can you believe it? How could you put a school there? I mean, there's trees and sh!t.

At this point……If we get a few more years like the Mayor says, I'd be ok with that.
The land where the trails are will be developed all at once. The land that was just sold and the existing private land.

MLA Doug Horne's long term planning probably extends only to the next election

Here's an update from TORCA:

http://ymlp.com/zoguC9

That's a sad area to see developed, but the timber cruises are happening.

The sadness will truly be realized when the people move in and realize the current local infrastructure is already overwhelmed.

Well I was going to say that on a positive note. All the trails in the Burke Pinecone Provincial park will be saved :clap:
Bad news: A bill was passed that allows commercial exploitation of Provincial Parks.
How many Provincial Parks turn a blind eye to private trail building?
I always considered the trails built on private/crown land were temporary. The big notice boards saying private property have been hanging for years.

Well I was going to say that on a positive note. All the trails in the Burke Pinecone Provincial park will be saved :clap:
Bad news: A bill was passed that allows commercial exploitation of Provincial Parks.
How many Provincial Parks turn a blind eye to private trail building?
I always considered the trails built on private/crown land were temporary. The big notice boards saying private property have been hanging for years.

The bill that was just passed I believe was a Federal bill to use provincial park land for resources. Mining, etc.
Unless there is a copper vein or something our trails are ok.
The trails on park or crown land stand a much better chance than private land which I would consider temporary.
But then, Crown land may be sold as we have seen here.
It would be great to save some trails outside the park, and by not doing anything we dont stand a chance. Good on TORCA for stepping up.

From what I read our trails will be safe for ten years.

Should we believe them?

Lets hope they are more forthcoming than the city of Port Moody was a few years back when they paved the back yard trail that comes out of Randys, after they told TORCC they would consult them first.