Vantreight Public Forum

Click on the image above to watch an Overview of the Vantreight Development Proposal & an alternative Click on the image above to watch the Vantreight Development Presentation

Click on the image above to watch Arguments For the Vantreight Development Proposal Click on the image above to watch Arguments Against the Vantreight Development Proposal

Central Saanich Discusses Development Videography and editing by Andrew Ainsley.  News brief by Lisa Nickol. July 14, 2010 The District of Central Saanich held a forum on July 14, to consult the public on a development proposal made by Ian Vantreight and Vantreight Farms. The proposal, the Vantreight Hill Plan, includes 57 lots at a maximum of 407 square metres each; 32 acres in total. In order for the development to proceed on rural land, council would have to rezone it from A1 to RE5. The proposal also includes 36 per cent of the site for park use. The public forum, which lasted for just over six hours, saw speakers providing council with public opinion both for and against the development. This development does not comply with the Regional Growth Strategy, the District’s Official Community Plan (OCP),  or the Urban Containment Boundary. Central Saanich District Council will debate the rezoning bylaw at a future council meeting. Related Links District of Central Saanich: http://www.centralsaanich.ca/Home.htm Agenda for Public Forum: http://www.centralsaanich.ca/Assets/Central+Saanich/Agendas/Public+Hearing/2010/10Jul14+Public+Hearing+Agenda.pdf Vantreight Development Website: http://www.daffodil.com/hill_plan/Welcome.html News Articles: http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/98555779.html http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/97402929.html http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/98282824.html

• 

3 comments to Vantreight Public Forum

• Lori Waters

  August 4th, 2010 at 10:19 pm

  Since B channel has published the Vantreight’s side of the argument via the development website, it would be very nice (and in my view more fair) if websites on the other side of the argument were also published. I have pasted some examples below, such as the Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society, whose membership is comprised of a significant percentage of Central Saanich Citizens from all walks of life, which has published on their website a position and rationale against this development. There are other anti-Vantreight development websites as well, which indicates to me that there is groundswell opposition to this development, and I believe those views need to be broadcast for people to hear both sides, not just read Vantreight’s information, which in my view is nothing more than smoke-and-mirror propaganda.

  Community websites:
  - http://www.rrocss.org/vantreight-faq.shtml
  - http://dogwoodinitiative.org/media-centre/media-releases/community-outraged-over-vantreight-development-project
  - http://saveourruralland.blogspot.com/2010/02/crd-committee-against-vantreight.html

  Additional news articles:
  - http://www.mondaymag.com/articles/entry/the-last-bread-basket/news/
  - http://m.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/a-flowering-builder/article658531/?service=mobile&template=shareEmail

  Thank you for taking the time to read my request.

  All the best,
  Lori Waters, MFA, MScBMC

• Chris

  August 6th, 2010 at 8:05 pm

  Thanks for the links. We have always the intent to be fair in our coverage, and will make every effort to improve coverage to reflect that. That’s one advantage of online media, that we can change these things as new information comes forward.

• Ryan Vantreight

  August 9th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

  Fair’s Fair – but let’s focus on the facts

  I respect the fact that Mrs. Waters would like to offer “the other side of the argument” on this proposal by pointing people to her links, however, I must point out that the vast majority of information on these links refer to outdated information, inaccurate details about what we are actually proposing and do more fear mongering rather than delivering accurate facts. Within these links offered by Mrs. Waters there are a number of outdated references to past plans that have long been changed to address community and council feedback.

  - The rrocss link is talking about a housing mix and proposal that is no longer. Also, the Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society’s membership is NOT “comprised of a significant percentage of Central Saanich Citizens” as Mrs. Waters has stated. I am a member of this society and the current membership is around 140 people which represents less than 1% of the appox 16,000 residents of Central Saanich. Not to mention that there are a number of members who do not live or work in Central Saanich but are active members nonetheless.

  - The Dogwood link to the “town hall meeting” was not a municipal meeting called by our Mayor and Council at Municipal Hall, it was organized and run by the people most opposed to our proposal and geared towards gaining support for opposition. Calling it a “town hall meeting” misleads the public into thinking this was an official meeting organized by our elected officials, which it most certainly was not. Mayor and council were not there.

  - The saveourruralland link, again, is in reference to a past proposal that no longer exists. They have a picture of our hill and fields on this site and I would very much like to take this opportunity to point out the fact that this is NOT your rural land. This is not public property it is private property. People use our hill and our surrounding fields as their dog, horse and family walking rout only because we allow that use. It is mostly the farmers of the area that provide the rural lifestyle that you enjoy, please remember that.

  It is important point for anyone wanting to learn more about what we are actually proposing is that the proposal has changed numerous times to address concerns heard at council and public meetings over the years. The most current details of what we are actually proposing is on our website http://www.thehillproject.ca and on the presentation coverage that B Channel has posted on this site from our consultants http://bchannelnews.tv/?p=6417.

  To say that our information “is nothing more than smoke-and-mirror propaganda” is unfortunate. We have had an open door policy since the beginning of this process and we have been very open and truthful about what we need to do to save our farm and why. We have worked extremely hard to find a viable solution to this impossible situation by hosting 7 open houses on the farm for the community, we have revised the plans over 80 times over the past three and a half years and have attended countless meetings to come to the point where we are today with what we feel is a reasonable proposal. What the opposition fails to offer is accurate facts, as the links above have shown, about what is actually being proposed and what the alternative is if the proposal to build on 32 acres of non arable non ALR rock fails. The only other alternative for our farm and family is to sell our ALR farmland. If that were to happen the active agricultural uses of that land will be uncertain and our family will no longer be farming on the Peninsula. That is not smoke-and-mirror propaganda, that is a fact.

  Thank you,

  Ryan Vantreight
  General Manager
  5th Generation Farmer

Leave a Reply

Cancel

  Name (required)

  Mail (will not be published) (required)

  Website

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CAPTCHA Code

Copyright © 2010 bchannelnews.tv - All Rights Reserved info@bchannelnews.tv
Powered by WordPress · Atahualpa Theme by BytesForAll