LETTER – Trying to sort out the facts on the Build Kamloops announcement
(Image: Station One Architects)
June 25, the City put out a news release titled City Announces Details of Build Kamloops Program.
I’m trying to take a neutral stance on this very important topic but I must address several disturbing issues within this release. Firstly, with such an important and controversial subject matter I would think it would be incumbent on the authors to get the details correct and refrain from propaganda, but no.
For example, the release once again states that Kamloops is Canada’s 3rd fastest growing city; this is a falsehood. Kamloops is far from this, in fact we weren’t even in the top 13 fastest growing cities in B.C. with populations over 35,000, we were 14th in this list of 26. It’s the metro area of Kamloops that was tied for the 3rd fastest metro area in the country, but the metro area won’t be paying for these items, the City will be and Kamloops has only increased its population by .7% more than the the entire provincial average has. Moreover, our 8.4% increase is less than the 11% increase in the rest of the Thompson Okanagan region.
“Kamloops has grown by 40,000 since we built our last major capital investment.” In 2006 we were building the TCC Fieldhouse and McArthur Island expansions at a cost of $38 million, at this time our population was 80,400, our latest population figures from Stats Canada show that Kamloops has a population of 97,800 or an increase of 17,500. This number is not close to 40,000.
“Kamloops’ only dedicated theatre space — the Sagebrush Theatre — was built when our community was almost half the size we are now”. The auditorium was actually built in the 1950s and was renamed Sagebrush after a renovation in the mid ’70s, Kamloops had a population of less than 10,000 when the theatre was first built.
If you can’t get the little things right then why are we to entrust you to accomplish the difficult?
“The Kamloops Centre for the Arts was identified as the number one priority by residents, interest holders, and user groups.” Really, what evidence do you have to justify such a claim? The referendum eight years ago said no and as recently as the 2021 Recreation Master Plan they reported overwhelming support with 98% approval rating for more sports related investment as the top priority, but much less support for a PAC, I find this claim dubious at best. So I ask myself, who is heading this group and why are they making so many mistakes and outlandish claims which can be easily verified?
Additional ice rinks are badly needed but I’ve never heard the suggestion of building one at the entrance to Kenna Cartwright Park, let alone an arena multiplex of any kind. The 2021 Recreation Master Plan stated 1 or 2 ice rinks were needed immediately with an additional 1 or 2 built shortly after for a total of 3 new rinks, but it did not suggest the Kenna Cartwright location, rather additions to Brock or McArthur Island rinks as potential areas.
Furthermore, it said nothing about an arena multiplex, this is new, as is “co-locating indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. The arena multiplex will include four new ice sheets with spectator capacity, community space, fitness facilities, and amenities.” This location seems odd as it is out of the way in a low populated area, but I’m sure having a complex such as this will have a significant impact on land prices in this area.
MAC GORDON
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Thanks for doing the research, Mac. Were the inaccuracies meant to skew the report, I wonder?
Building a multiplex close to the entrance of Kenna Cartwright Park seems to be a bit puzzling. Could there be a hidden meaning to this?
Hence your last sentence deserves a bit more consideration: “but I’m sure having a complex such as this will have a significant impact on land prices in this area.” Is the placement of a multiplex ‘out of the way in a low populated area’ a move done solely for the betterment of our community and the citizens who will be paying for this multiplex through public money?
That is a question that is hanging over us, Mac, and one that deserves further investigation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the reason when we Retired we moved to Salmon Arm because of the penguin suits and the evening gowns pushing for these grand buildings, that the lunch bucket tax payer would be paying for years to come
LikeLike
This was strategically forced upon us an omnibus bill with emphasis on the PAC center. The PAC since it’s inception has been championed by politicians and special interest groups all seeking a plaque with their name on it in the lobby. Other municipalities of similar demographics have also studied PAC proposals and they have been rejected. Vernon is building a multiplex with more sports emphasis. The largest community theater in Kelowna has a capacity of 879, with a population of 132,000 (2017) and a much larger population in the close proximity communities (32,000 West Kelowna, 13,000 Lake Country). Kamloops population as stated in the article is significantly less with Chase at 2,300, Savona 540 and Barrier 1,700. The citizens of Kamloops will be paying another for political bravado. We should focus or money and efforts on what the majority of Kamloops citizens truly want.
LikeLike
Barriere, not Barrier. Since we are correcting each other. But, didn’t the public vote no to this project? Why do we keep wasting tax (our tax) dollars on things only some people will use/enjoy? Was my vote meaningless?
LikeLike
The public did not vote no for a PAC facility and never will, thats not how it works. We voted on a single proposal and shot that one down. That will never mean no one will come up with another proposal.
Referendum like that are never about the idea, but the funding … full stop. Thats how the system works that decides on such things. No one needs our permission to build something, but someone has to agree to pay for what they are being presented with.
A private company building, someone has to decide. A public building under a threshold the government of whatever level can decide on its own. If it is over that threshold … then the govt needs authorization to build that proposal, and in that case it was a referendum.
But at the end of the day, if the finances arent in question, no one needs your permission to actually build a building. Your vote was not meaningless, enough said no, that proposal failed.
Please dont reinforce this idea that ‘we decided no’.
Its just not how the world works.
LikeLike
nothing ever changes except tax payers must pay more……….yet the city allows homeowners to rent out their homes to multiples of 6 or more people for high rent up to $3000.00 per month. These homes are not designed electronically to handle the multiple overuse of energy that circuits blow fuses which eventually could cause a fire, and the yards are maintained as weeds grow to create more fuel in the drought conditions. There should be a bylaw passed to these property owners who care to collect high rent without maintenance of their properties to insure the value of the other homes in the the same street. Our street looks like the slums. So tax these properties and fine them for their lresponsibility I am tired at looking at dead trees and weeds.
LikeLike
Where it is true that the 2015 referendum very clearly voted no to a PAC, that in itself in no way means another proposal is not allowed to try. It was that specific financial borrow/debt proposal that was shot down, not the PAC as a concept. There will never be a referendum to ask if the idea of a PAC is acceptable or not. Referendums dont work that way, period.
Even though many people choose to reinterpret the 2015 vote as a vote against the idea, that is in no way in the realm of reality. I would suggest being careful to not reinforce this incorrect approach in the minds of those who think about it this way.
“The Kamloops Centre for the Arts was identified as the number one priority by residents, interest holders, and user groups.”
Where your conclusion regarding ‘residents’ is fair, it is fair to remind that other 2 groups; ‘interest holders’ and ‘user groups’, definitely … absolutely 100% … endorse the need for a PAC. There is no argument there.
Beyond those, I dont disagree with most of your other points regarding the details of the release, I myself wondered about the ice rinks at Kenna Cartwright Park … had to google maps up that area … never heard of that idea before either.
LikeLike
so at the end of the day, the writer does not want the PAC, and cushion that he felt the need to point out a bunch of other data. we really are such a backwards community in someways.
LikeLike
it doesn’t get more backwards than wealthy people expecting everyone else to pay for their pet projects.
LikeLike
Mr. Gordon, Sir,
You have hit the nail on the head with your article regarding the PAC and the ice rink/sports complex up in Dufferin area. It seems to me that the money is staying over on the South Shore while the North shore get the dregs or the left over monies which isn’t enough to fill a pee pot.
It seems to me that Ms. Neustaeter is the spokesperson for this group which is a lobbyist group that is forcing down the throats of Kamloops.
I just checked CFJC’s poll on this at 1438 June 6th, yes- 47% No- 53%.
Rod Totten
LikeLike
We need to build to keep them from harming themselves…and others. In the the meanwhile a few will make quite a pile of money. I admit a good concert hall would be kind of nice though. But I am not a supporter of spending 140-plus millions for the beer leagues of hockey. Alternatively everyone need to share equal amounts of ice time at the facilities we already have, including the Sandman’s center, and perhaps they may be able to only play once a week. It is not that we have a shortage of other things to do even in the winter.
LikeLike