EDITORIAL – BC Housing’s done-deal approach simply isn’t acceptable

(Image: Mel Rothenburger)

An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.


Maybe it will prove to be a good location for housing the homeless but, maybe not.

BC Housing‘s long-term plans are a bit vague, and Kamloops City council has every right to be cheesed off about the way the decision came about, announced by way of a government press release saying 40 units will be developed into “temporary supportive homes” and that BC Housing “will work with the City of Kamloops and the community on a plan for permanent use of the property.”

That seems to be the way BC Housing works — buy now, spring the surprise, consult later about a done deal.

By way of another example, the City of Penticton issued its own media release yesterday, saying it intends to move forward with a lawsuit against the Province over BC Housing’s handling of property acquisitions in that city.


Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops and a retired newspaper editor. He is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the opinion website, and is a director on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. He can be reached at

About Mel Rothenburger (9357 Articles) is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

4 Comments on EDITORIAL – BC Housing’s done-deal approach simply isn’t acceptable

  1. Bob Gamble // June 24, 2021 at 7:06 AM // Reply

    Reply to John

    John there a slight difference although the outcome is the same. The Province didn’t bother with the charade of seeking public input.

    • John Noakes // June 24, 2021 at 11:42 AM // Reply

      Yes, Bob, you are correct about the outcome. The only thing that’s missing is for both processes is “Gene, Gene, the Dancing Machine”.

  2. John Noakes // June 23, 2021 at 12:39 PM // Reply

    I guess this means the municipality has never shoved a development upon a neighbourhood even when residents have gone to the trouble to get numerous residents to sign a petition again such a development?
    Something in Dallas went that way, if memory serves me right.
    Chances are, it has happened in other places where several people have voiced opposition to a “development property” and their concerns were ignored.

  3. When all the “T’s” are crossed and all the “I’s” are dotted this “deal” is more than likely the best of all outcomes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: