The Southlands (formerly known as the Spetifore farm)

[Tarzan]

 

      "Then you go on to tell about how this proposed development will mitigate
        an already problematic traffic condition. Would it not make more sense to
        simply not add to the traffic rather than attempt to create mitigating
        features?"

So exactly what are you saying here - you don't want to mitigate existing traffic problems?

The mitigation occurs in two ways - people in the existing community will drive less and walk and bike more; and people in the new development will to a lesser extent not be commuting through the tunnel. Those sound like good things to me - and they can't come about without the development.

What I am trying to say is that, like the rat poison mentioned in another post, adding to traffic (no matter how great your new development is) still adds to the problem. It can't get any simpler than that.

Here's another wake-up call: Do you really think people will not need to drive outside this new community for clothing, furniture, appliances, building supplies, electronics, etc.? They need an automobile for that and since they have one, will they really abandon it because you said they should walk? Just watch what happens when the weather turns ugly and/or they are rushed for time as so many people are these days! You have been lulled into a dream. It is time to wake up and face the fact that the automobile is like feet to most North Americans. It will take a long time to change that behaviour and dependence on the automobile.

Here is a good resource: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm100.htm
I think we should start by fixing what already exists before introducing new problems.

[Tarzan]

Any costs for new sewage treatment, water supply, and other infrastructure support will be cost-recovered from the new residents. I don't see how these costs will be transferred to the existing community and in some cases, economy of scale can occur to ensure upgrading and retrofitting of future facilities will actually be cheaper for the existing community.

Really! The new residents are going to pay a per-use fee for the libraries, hospitals, street upgrades, water supply, policing, fire services, etc.?

Please show me one large urban centre where taxes have been reduced because of the extra population.

Adding to our population will only give the mayor another excuse to increase her salary.

[Tarzan]

The closure of the bowling alley, the Theatre, and the high-class restaurants occurred well before the current recession. Businesses are closing and new ones not opening up simply because there is a declining trend in demand with no upside as our community stagnates. We can address the problem in two ways - by allowing some modest growth - 80 units every year for 25 years or by attracting tourists who come to visit because of something we have to offer - accessible beaches, excellent walking and bike trails, unique restaurant and boutiques, and a new arts centre.

If you give it some more thought, you will find there are actually more than 2 ways. You are over-simplifying this complex situation.

[Tarzan]

Well, I don't disagree in principle with your comments above. Disneyland was created by a man with vision who built it and the people came and came and came and eventually the farms were squeezed out by all the supporting businesses that sprung up. But to compare the development being proposed here to Disneyland is a real stretch. I think we will attract folks from afar to come down and share in our space and commerce but never to the extent of what Walt Disney created.

I'm not comparing the 2 projects at all. I am simply showing you that your logic in associating businesses failing with a lack of  development is misleading at best and deceitful at worst. Either that or you really haven't a clue what you speak of and are simply repeating the rhetoric you have previously heard.

I'm sorry to have to say the things I'm telling you, but you opened this can of worms with the harsh criticizism of all those who disagree with your point of view. You can't just tar everyone with the same brush. If any good comes out of this, I hope it will be that the public realizes this very complicated subject cannot be properly dealt with by making assumptions and blindly following dreams. This is real people with real lives we are messing with here and the outcome will be forever! Let's look hard and long at the positives and the negatives (without the rosey-coloured glasses) before jumping to conclusions. Like I said before; I can be swayed, I just need to be sure that it is for the best of all mankind.

[Tarzan]

             
Calling Sean Hodgins a greedy developer is equally rude. Sometimes rudeness must be met with rudeness. I consider the statements attacking Sean and the 24 citizens who helped him formulate this plan and the lies and misconceptions being spread to be ignorant and selfish in their own right. Why did people refuse to even read my flyer? Some called me an idiot without even reading the flyer as they crumpled it up and threw in my face. Despite being polite and stating that the flyer was my own personal opinion paid for by myself, one lady told me she wouldn't use my flyer for "toilet-paper". When people close their minds and refuse to even discuss, we have entered a realm far beyond rudeness. When people yell at volunteer speakers and try to take over a well-run event such as occurred on Saturday, once again this is well-beyond simply being rude. My target group was not the small-minded naysayers who have closed their minds to any type of sensible planning for the Southlands. The group who will understand what my flyer was about are the new people - the younger people - who see that their future hinges on a development such as this one. I hope there is enough of us this time and they will stand up and be counted. 

I am truly sorry that not everyone is polite and friendly. Unfortunately, that's the way things are. Your accusations of lies and misconceptions being spread by others is no different than the misinformation you yourself have printed. Each side most likely believes they are telling the truth. And in some respects, it probably is somewhat true! That is why I felt it was important to have a public discussion board so that opinions can be expressed and debated. Perhaps it is naive of me to think that a consensus can be ultimately reached, but I am an eternal optimist. The hope is that by supplying documentation to back our positions, everyone will be wiser in the end and have a whole lot more information when it comes time to make their vote known. There will always be those who cannot be influenced once they make up their minds, but I believe there are a lot more who just follow the whim and fancy of the day without really giving too much real thought to what the truth really is and of the consequences that will come from their lackadaisic approach to such important matters. My goal is to provide the information to those people so that they can see how important this subject really is and how complicated it is to find the best solution. There are so many points of view and only good solid information will provide the best answer. The intent is to strip off the emotional reasons and go with what makes logical and practical sense.

As for those who yelled from the back of the room: I can state that I was not impressed, but I can understand the frustration. The event was billed as a public consultation process. We were told at the start that this was to be about agriculture as it affected our community and that we were NOT going to discuss the Southlands. The heading on the agenda reads, "Tsawwassen Area Plan Review, Public Forum #5: Urban Agriculture and the Urban - Rural Edge, Future of the Southlands." I believe a lot of people came with the expectation of having some input into the future of the Southlands. The schedule shows 1:00, yet we had to wait until 2:00 for it to start and then we are presented with a one-way informational presentation rather than a 2-way consultation.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you again. You stated that this was a well-run event. I beg to differ. I find the whole process to be manipulative at worst or just plain badly run at best. I voiced my concerns from the very first meeting but nothing has changed in the subsequent meetings. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone on the committee can come to a proper understanding of how the public feels from the process used. The questions on the questionnaires are ambiguous (how can anyone give a proper answer if we don't understand the question?) and the summaries that will be used as a reference only state what was discussed, but no details as to what the public stance was on the issues. Sometimes the stuff that went into the summary was just plain wrong because the presenter of the summary goofed up. If these presentations were billed as informational presentations and not as part of a consultation process, then I could agree that it was done OK. The information was interesting, but lacked the depth and diversity to prepare the public for what they need to take into consideration on such an important subject. It is for that reason that I took the bull by the horns and opened my forum to this topic.

I do agree with your comment that the future of the younger generation hinges on the future of the Southlands, but not the way you think. I can see farmland consumed by developers bit by bit by bit until we are totally dependent on foreign foods. At that point we will be at their mercy and they can charge anything they want and we will gladly pay it. One has to say, "Stop! That's enough." at some point or we will surely perish as a species. When will 'we' be aware enough to realize what is happening? How desperate must things become before we awaken from our oblivious stupor?

And finally, my last comment on your lengthy response:
If Sean were struggling to feed his family and the only option he had was to do what he is proposing, then I'm sure that those who understand the full consequences would have some sympathy for the man, despite the fact that his actions will ultimately hurt others down the road. However, that is not the case by a long shot. Sean was blessed with an advantage that many would envy. He has many other choices but chooses (for whatever reasons) to follow this one goal that he learned from his father. He asks the public for co-operation and collaboration, yet holds steadfast to his original intent, and that is to put housing on farmland. If it were true that he really has the best interest of Tsawwassen in mind, then I would think he would do the honourable thing and apply to put the remaining land back into the ALR (where it rightfully belongs) and apply his smart-growth principals to the town Centre and other properties that are non-agricultural. It really need not be a trade-off.

[Tarzan]

Are you just being silly with this one or did you not listen to the presentation of Aging Populations. The only way we can reduce the trend in an Aging Population is to encourage young families to return to our community.

Although I can at times be silly, I am dead serious here. The Baby Boomers are aging! That is a given and there is nothing short of killing them that will stop that. As I have already stated earlier, moving people around will not change the world's demographics.

The Nov. 6, 2009 Real Estate Weekly had an interesting little article at the bottom of the front page: According to the article, the TD Canada Trust Generational Homeownership Study showed that young people are NOT purchasing new homes, but rather older homes that they can fix up. It goes on to clarify that these people prefer a single-family home as opposed to a condo or townhouse. So you see, those new units proposed to be built on the Southlands will not attract the younger crowd anyway!

[Elvis Glazier]

The Nov. 6, 2009 Real Estate Weekly had an interesting little article at the bottom of the front page: According to the article, the TD Canada Trust Generational Homeownership Study showed that young people are NOT purchasing new homes, but rather older homes that they can fix up. It goes on to clarify that these people prefer a single-family home as opposed to a condo or townhouse. So you see, those new units proposed to be built on the Southlands will not attract the younger crowd anyway!

I believe this is true. I am in my thirties and I moved to Tsawwassen for the same reasons the majority of people come here and that is to get away from the hustle and bustle of metropolitan life without being too far from it. In comparison with other municipalities Tsawwassen and Ladner are far more affordable than most. I lived in Abbotsford and was commuting over two hours daily to Tilbury for work. I lived in Vancouver and I was scared to go to the park after dark. When you calculate the costs (financial, mental, and emotional) of commuting for over an hour each way you can't tell me housing is too expensive. I now work in Richmond and my commute is 20 minutes. The best twenty minutes of my day is driving back to Tsawwassen and spending all that extra time with my young family.

Talking about attracting a younger demographic is pure rhetoric. The demographics in Delta are no different than the demographics anywhere in Canada. Life expectancy and smaller family units has created this phenomenon, not lack of housing. The only way we can stem this is by asking people to stop living so long and for us young guys to have more babies. I can only help with half of that solution.

As for the older detached homes, it's true. I know from my group of friends that there are many young families moving to Tsawwassen. None of us want to live in these new developments because we know how poor building practices are. We look to the older neighbourhoods to find value and quality. My house is circa 1971 and everytime I do a renovation I am pleasantly surprised by the workmanship that I find behind every wall. It's so rare nowadays. These new developments are junk to say the least. I have yet to talk to someone who hasn't been riddled with building defects anytime they purchase a new home. It's an equation developers count on in their rush to cash in on there speculation. I can say with great certainty that if the Southlands will be no different.

It's like the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when the Scottish Lord says to his son, "Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp."

[Dana Maslovat]

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dana Maslovat and I am Tsawwassen resident who is concerned about the proposed development of the “Southlands”. In short, my concern is that there does not appear to be an avenue for public opinion to be heard regarding this proposal.

Given the recent release of the Tsawwassen Area Plan “Ideas” document, myself and other concerned residents hope to organize a unified voice opposing any change in designation of the Southlands in the Tsawwassen Area Plan from agricultural to Study Area or some other designation that would clear the way for development. If the current designation of ‘Agriculture’ is changed in the Tsawwassen Area Plan, it will make it easier for the landowner to apply for rezoning to match the new designation in the Tsawwassen Area Plan.

To this end, we have booked the auditorium at South Delta Secondary School on Monday, March 22nd at 7:00pm for a short (1 hr) meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to outline and develop a strategy to make our voice heard and identify residents with similar concerns.

Although I understand everyone is busy, we feel the timeline to take action is rapidly approaching (the public information meeting regarding Southlands is scheduled for March 31). It appears from the current “Ideas” document that Delta is planning to change the designation of the Southlands in the Tsawwassen Area Plan very soon. It can be stopped only by strong public opposition. If you are concerned with the process undertaken to date or wish to assist in ensuring public opinion is considered for this issue, please attend this meeting.

Thank you in advance.
Dana Maslovat

[Elvis Glazier]

There are a number of facts that always seem to be missing when talking about the old Spetifore farmland (now renamed the Southlands).

This land was in the ALR but was removed by a secret cabinet order behind closed doors. Since then, there have been a number of failed attempts to develop the land over the years and they have all included some amount of land being handed over to the city. It's typical of all large development plans and the plan brought forth by the Century Group is no different.

The land is currently zoned as agricultural by the City of Delta and is in the 'Green Zone' in Metro Vancouver's area plan. Both Delta city council and the Metro Vancouver land use board would have to revise their respective area plans to allow for development of the Spetifore farmlands. After which, the Century Group would have to put the development plan before city council as there is no development plan before council at this time. If the Century Group's plan was passed by Delta Council they would have to then convince the Metro Vancouver board to allow this mass development.The developer has to go through two more levels of government before he will be allowed to develop the land and that is only if the area plans are revised to allow it. It is very unlikely that this will occur given the political backlash any politician who voted in favour of this would have to endure. The numbers just don't favour it happening. You have to think, as a politician are you going to appeas one person (Sean Hodgins) at the risk of having yourself tarred and feathered by every environmental, agricultural, and conservationist group on top of the majority of your constituency? Highly doubtful in this era of 'green' politics.

Then there is the extreme tax burden that would be placed upon the entire citizenry of Delta for the major capital projects that would have to take place to accomodate the additional population in South Delta. Developers build infrastructure out as far as their property lines but it would be the municipality (the entire municipality not just South Delta) and the province that would have to collect more taxes to pay to upgrade roads, transit, sewage, water, recreation facilities, garbage collection, electricity, police, fire departments, ambulance, and medical services. Couple that with having to maintain the land that the Century Group would 'donate' to the city and the tax burden gets ridiculous. The argument that the additional taxes collected by the new subdivision would offset this is not even close to the truth when we are talking about expenditures in the hundreds of millions. So when the facts are presented properly now the local politicians will be forced to face the ire of the fiscal conservatives and there are a lot of those in Tsawwassen.

In essence the chances of the Century Group being given permission to build 1900 or so homes on the Spetifore farmalands is very unlikely. That being said there is a fight brewing and I for one am confident that the people of Tsawwassen, Ladner, Delta, and North Delta are up for it.

[Tarzan]

All valid and good points. It never ceases to amaze me how many folks will speak up and spout off that these extra taxpayers are going to help Delta! Sure they will... once the debt for the entire project's required infrastructure is paid for by all the other taxpayers FIRST. For those who claim the extra population will reduce your burden, I ask you this: With all the growth Metro Vancouver has had, have you EVER seen taxes go down? THINK about it. Don't just listen to the spin doctors!

As for that glorious picture painted of the proposed development... That is just a dream! How can the developer ensure that those purchasing properties in his development will actually farm and ride bycicles? What happens when the land turned over to Delta isn't managed properly? Good reason to make a few more $$ and develop that too! After all Delta will need a new revenue source for all the extra infrastructure it is required to provide.

Do you think Stanley Park would exist if it was not protected parkland? Can we (as a species) continue to take, take, take from Mother Earth and expect to continue to survive? If we don't stop spreading like a virus of Mother Earth, we will surely destroy the thing that enables us to exist. We are quickly reaching and exceeding the balance where we overpopulate the Earth and cause our own extinction. NO, we do NOT need to accommodate any more people here! Tsawwassen is full.