Cable bay golf resort and spa

[Rickj]

First of all...you are right in that only 97 acres is in Area A...but if it so insignificant why did they need it?

Secondly if the groundwater is contaminated by activities in the CON I am sure it will not recognize the boundary and contaminate those areas outside the CON.

Lastly.... the motion at the RDN was "MOVED Director Burnett, SECONDED Director Holme, that RDN staff send a letter to the City of Nanaimo requesting the City to hold a public information meeting on the City of Nanaimo’s boundary extension application. This will allow RDN residents of Electoral Area ‘A’ whose interests are affected to be consulted and their comments recorded and provided to the Ministry as information, documenting the opinion of residents whose interests are affected."

This was not a motion for a public hearing as there is no provision for this in the local government act. The reason that the motion was defeated is because the CON councillors stated at that meeting that they would refuse to hold such a public information meeting.

This is hardly a "vote in favour" as you put it.
Roughly translated... CON doesnt care about those residents opinion. Yet supposedly we are part of a regional area that is supposed to work together.

[Smokey©]

One thing to keep in mind is that while an area may not be part of the bigger Quadra Sands the key thing is whether or not the local residents get their water supply from groundwater. Whether we call it Quadra Sands or not really isn't the argument. It is whether or not the residents of the surrounding area get their water supply from groundwater.

The argument in question was that it was CLEARLY STATED that the Cassidy Aquifer would be affected by the Cable Bay Development. This is not the case at all. Then after the Cassidy Aquifer was dismissed it became the Quadra Sands which again is not the case.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that the ground water with the confines and neighbouring on the Cable Bay Development most likely will be affected by the chemicals used on the golf course. That is probably the reason why they are stating they will follow within the guidelines of the Audubon International (not the main group - Audubon Society).

The issue is that a few residents of Area A (Cedar) will be affected by groundwater (those in the immediate area that are located downhill from the golf course, or whose water wells are below the level of the golf course) runoff versus the thousands that rely on water directly related to the Cassidy Aquifer who will not be affected.

My main issue in this discussion has been the misuse of using the Cassidy Aquifer as the victim, where it is NOT.

[Rickj]

Oh ok.. Now I understand where you are coming from regarding Cassidy vs Quadra Sands vs unnamed acquifers.

I guess it is alright to sacrifice a few non-Nanaimo people so that Nanaimo can reap the DCC's of the development. I can assure you that if someone suggested doing this development outside of the City that the City of Nanaimo representatives would be voting against it.

Note to Smokey... the sarcasm is directed at the CON and their experts not at you.

[RelaxedIslander]

The 97 acres is owned by the developer who has the right to have apply for this, thats why it is they need it in the city boudaries. I never said it was "insignificant"...
Again, this is not public property, the developer could log most of the land if he wanted to right now, or make changes to the property to stop people from using the trail.

Basically the RDN did not want to hold another public hearing now, because once the 97 acres is annexed (which will happen) and a development permit and zoning changes will be needed for the golf course and surrounding development, another public hearing will be held.
I see that they are already selling lots out there, not sure about all the details but it looks like they are pushing forward...

Just because the land is out near Cedar doesn't give the Cedar residents the right to have all the say in what happens, and that is the attitude I get from my friends living out there...it's the NIMBY attitude, not in my back yard. Funny that many of those same residents will end up using the golf course once built.

Some people are just anti-development, but seems to love to reap the benefits down the road of the work done...whether it be services or tax benefits.

[Rickj]

Sorry if I thought when you said "Only 97 acres" that you implied that it was insignificant.

As as for Public/Private property I fully agree that the owner of a property can restrict access etc. However, zoning and land use is a privilege given to a land owner by the community. In this case the surrounding community representative and the locals who have spoken out have said they do not want it in their community.

As for Nimbyism... gotta love it... Anytime someone says they do not want something in their neighbourhood someone brings out the "Nimbyism" charge. Would I want a golf course and 1800 new homes where I live... No way... I dont live in Cable Bay area but I respect the wishes of those that live there to create/or not create their own neighbourhood.

As for anti-development... These people live there because they dont want to live in the city like environment and people should respect that.

How about if we use a new phrase for those that want to put something in someone elses neighbourhood... BOTNOH (Botnos) Build Over There Not Over Here

If we wanted to put a highway past your house would you complain? Would you then be a NIMBY?

[dilligaf]

As for anti-development... These people live there because they dont want to live in the city like environment and people should respect that.

They want to live near the city, have all the benefits of the city but then keep out anyone who wants to live in their area. I have mine and everyone else can go away.

Not much to respect there.

[Smokey©]

I wonder how many people that have responded both with negative and positive comments towards the Cable Bay Development actually live within the area affected by possible ground water contamination? If they are only against the development because of their own personal usage of the Cable Bay Trail, perhaps the alternative of losing the trail in it's entirety could be the reason for their outcry

[Rickj]

There is a huge difference between having a neighbour on a property similar to yours as compared to 1800 residences on small lots with commercial/golf courses/ tourists etc. If someone was proposing a development that was similar in nature then I would say "quit your whining" but this is a development that changes the whole nature of the area.

As for living close to the city for the amenities but not having to be in the city.... what is wrong with that? That is like saying "if you want to go to the city you have to be like the city" Why?

Smokey, I am sure some of the people are against it because they have been using the trail and dont want to lose that. I personally dont have much sympathy for them. If you want a public trail then have the public buy it.

[Smokey©]

Smokey, I am sure some of the people are against it because they have been using the trail and dont want to lose that. I personally dont have much sympathy for them. If you want a public trail then have the public buy it.

Well lucky for them, with the name being Cable Bay Golf Resort and Spa, the developers are going to leave the Cable Bay Trail entact. " FORE! "

[dilligaf]

As for living close to the city for the amenities but not having to be in the city.... what is wrong with that? That is like saying "if you want to go to the city you have to be like the city" Why?

The point was that living near the city and not expecting or wanting the city to grow to you is either very selfish or very naive.