Land Exchange Comments
|
Here are some comments / letters / emails that were sent to one (or more) of the various recipients whose addresses you can find on our “Write a letter” page. As more and more letters are being sent in, this page will be updated frequenly, so come back regularly ... Please note, that all articles below are the expressed opinion of its author(s) and not necessarily those of Friends of Bridge Lake. |
BC Government
100 Mile House Free Press, 01.06.2011 Open letter to Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Minister Steve Thomson: I am sending this e-mail to register my protest to the Rainbow Island land-swap exchange. Although my husband and I live in Gibsons, we have visited Bridge Lake for years, and now own recreational property on the lake. Bridge Lake is unique, and I expect you are well aware of the various arguments presented in opposition to this exchange. I endorse all of those arguments, so please add my voice to the outcry you're hearing. Crown reserve is our land - the public's land - and there is no basis whatsoever to consider exchanging land held in trust for the public to appease developers. The public owes nothing to the developers behind this project. As stewards of the land on behalf of the public - particularly land that is irreplaceable, as is this parcel - there is no justification for you to consider this exchange. “Families first” doesn't mean benefiting the private sector at the expense of the public. Although we are privileged enough to own land on the lake, the purpose of Crown land is to endow every citizen with the ability to enjoy land, irrespective of their financial means. There are no legitimate bases on which to justify the exchange. Take the trust that the public poses in you - to safeguard their interests and the interests of future generations - and honour that trust. Reject the exchange. Margrett George
18.05.2011 Friends of Bridge Lake May 18, 2011 Honourable Steve Thomson Dear Minister Thomson: SUBJECT: Application by Cariboo Heritage land Developments Ltd. to exchange Rainbow Island for Crown and Crown Reserve land on the south shore of Bridge Lake. The Friends of Bridge Lake Society (FOBL), was legally registered in April 2008 to serve the following three purposes:
At this time, we represent over 120 members. We have been requested by an overwhelming majority of those members to actively oppose this proposed land exchange between the Crown and Cariboo Heritage Land Developments Ltd. (CHLD Ltd.) The reasons for our objections to this proposed exchange are as follows:
It is due to the wisdom of Ministries such as yours that land is set aside as Crown UREP to be protected from development so that future generations will have access to public spaces. Crown land along the shores of Bridge Lake is already at a premium. The vast majority of Bridge Lake shoreline is privately owned. It is absolutely incomprehensible that any Ministry would permit this scarce resource, which was so wisely protected in the past, to pass into the hands of a private developer. On behalf of our members and all the many other concerned citizens of Bridge Lake, we are requesting that you stop this flawed and precedent setting exchange of a private island for Crown land. This land belongs to all of us and we do not want to lose it. Thank you, Friends of Bridge Lake Society
21.05.2011 Steve Thomson
Dear Mr. Thomson, Thank you for your May 9, 2011 email. I am sure that you have confidence in the ministry staff who are giving you information in this matter, and I know that you appreciate the importance of the precedent-setting decision which is in your hands. I would like to respond to some of the statements which you have made, so as hopefully to show you that they are not based in fact. You say that you are “comfortable that the exchange is consistent with ministry guidelines.” This is simply not true. The Ministry Guidelines in “Land Procedures: Land Exchanges (effective date April 30, 2008. Amendment June 10, 2010 File # 11340-00) state the following:
In your May 9 email you argue that “By increasing the area of Crown land contributing to wilderness and recreational opportunities the exchange is clearly consistent with those sections of the Official Community Plan you have quoted.” Again, this statement is simply not true. At present the island is zoned RA1 (minimum lot size 80 acres) and has one uninhabited dwelling on it. Any future development proposal of the island would meet strong opposition and would fail to get rezoning approval. If the island were to be purchased by government and included in the proposed new park, the recreational benefits provided by the island would remain essentially the same as they are today with one uninhabited dwelling in place. People tend to boat around the island and enjoy its pristine beauty, the wildlife, birds and waterfowl in the area. Increasing the total amount of Crown Land because the island is 65 acres and the land being offered to CHLD in exchange is 45 acres is beside the point. This increase in acreage does not mean an increase in recreational values. The area is one of only two large parcels of publicly owned land which remain today, with 2/3 of the shoreline of Bridge Lake in private ownership. Destroying plant species, animal habitat, reducing the wild life corridor and harming nesting areas for birds and waterfowl will diminish, not enhance recreational opportunities. The Ministry’s claim that the environmental benefits of returning “Heritage” Island to the crown are greater that the environmental harm caused by a proposed development is simply not true. The Crown Reserve provides winter refuge for mule deer and moose. It is an important corridor for wild life to access the lake. The 2.5 Km of undisturbed shoreline is home to beaver, otter and mink and provides nesting areas for loons, geese and ducks. The Ministry has offered 18 hectares in the middle of a Crown Reserve, considered to be worth in excess of $4 million in a straight exchange for an island worth approximately $750,000.00. The public is questioning the validity of this appraisal. Will these appraisals stand up to scrutiny? And what of the Crown Reserve, 141.5 acres set aside by the government in 1945 for “the recreation and enjoyment of the public”? This Crown Reserve extends along the lake and is used by locals and visitors for recreation. As time goes by and privately owned land is developed, this area of pristine forest along the lake will be even more valuable to the public. This exchange would cut the Crown Reserve into 3 sections. The Ministry has proposed adding Crown Land adjacent to Highway 24 to the remaining two sections of the Crown Reserve. Increasing the size in this way does not compensate at all for cutting the Crown Reserve into 3 sections and permitting a developer to own the middle section. Recreating beside Highway 24 and walking along trails through a development of 18 year-round homes, with docks and boats along the shore is not the same as walking through pristine forest and appreciating the wild life, birds and waterfowl. The government intended in 1945 that this Crown Reserve should be protected in its natural state to enable the public to recreate in pristine forest along the shore of the lake. I am assuming that you have read and considered Andrew Gage’s legal opinion questioning your legal authority in proceeding with this land exchange. I trust that you will consider the facts and make a decision which is in the best interests of us all and will ensure that these public lands are protected for future generations to enjoy. Yours sincerely, Ann Blades, Surrey / Bridge Lake
06.05.2011 May 6, 2011 Honourable Steve Thomson By Email: FLNR.Minister@gov.bc.ca And: Mr. Ken Vanderburgh
Re: Objection to Bridge Lake Crown Land Exchange I would like to express my vehement OBJECTION to the proposal to ‘swap’ Bridge Lake Crown Land waterfront property for the privately owned ‘Heritage Island’ in Bridge Lake. It is clearly not in the public interest on any level. Financial Inequity Heritage Island isnot zoned for multiple development. It was assessed at $650,000 in 2007. Current zoning and logistics (water access only) has protected and continues to protect it from being subdivided into a multiple home development. A lovely, quiet, non-subdividable 64 acre island in Bridge Lake is what the owner (Julian Kenney) bought, and its lack of development potential was reflected in the price he paid at the time he bought it. The waterfront Crown Land on Bridge Lake that the government has agreed to ‘Swap’ for Heritage Island is worth well over $4,000,000 with the rezoning and bylaw amendments (18 building lots) that Mr. Kenney requires. This Crown land is owned by the citizens -- How does this proposal represent fair value to them? Forty-four acres of pristine lakefront, public Crown property will be lost to development forever, all for undevelopable, water-access only real estate valued at $650,000? Who is doing the Math? If the Crown was able to purchase Heritage Island for conversion to public parklands, they certainly would not start bidding at $4 Million plus dollars! Precedent Releasing Crown Lands for development in this way is not only unjustified, it is extremely unusual, if not unprecedented. The scenario, as I understand it, is this:
Why would we want to set this dangerous precedent? It sends a message to would-be developers that B.C. Crown Lands are up for ‘Grabs’, and at a huge discount. If a government agency wants to trade, swap or sell Crown Lands, then put that initiative to B.C. residents under a referendum and see how popular it is. Most of us strongly disagree with the concept of trading, swapping or selling Crown Lands, most particularly where there is established public rights to such land. But, if that is a direction that the government is taking, then put these lands out for open public tender and give an equal opportunity to bid on, or trade for, Crown lands to everyone, rather than just to one select developer. I, for one, would like the opportunity and am prepared to make a competing bid for these Crown lands. Environmental Impact It does not take an environmental specialist to determine that building 18 residences on the Crown lands will have vastly greater impact on the unique, eco-sensitive area than one or two seasonal (water access only) homes that may, or may not, be built on ‘Heritage Island’ in the future. Neither does it take a specialist to understand that ‘chopping up’ of an established wildlife corridor into three smaller parcels, one of which will be fully developed, damages habitat and limits access to the islands of deer, moose, mink, otter, and a host of other wildlife. Legal I understand that you are in receipt of the Legal Opinion of Mr. Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law dated April 12th 2011. Please be advised that we have had our own Vancouver legal advisers review this Opinion of Mr. Gage, and their opinion concurs completely with that of Mr. Gage. We are furthermore of the view that the market value of the Crown “Swap Land”, with zoning and permits in place, should also be challenged and reviewed by a Court of Law. Conclusion Please take a stand against the proposed land exchange before it progresses any further.
Please protect the residents of Bridge Lake and B.C. taxpayers, and DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN. Mr. Kenney owns this lovely island property valued at well under $1 Million, and if he does not succeed at ‘trading up’ at taxpayers’ expense to a $4 Million+ development property, then he has the option of selling it on to someone who appreciates the beautiful little island for exactly what it is – a charming, quiet, ecologically diverse and scenic (non-developable) gem tucked away in Bridge Lake. Unless Heritage Island is purchased by or donated to the Crown, that will be the inevitable result, and that result will be good for everyone. Sincerely, (signed) cc:
16.04.2011 Dear Mr. Thomson, Thank you for your April 15, 2011 reply to my February 19, 2011 and February 28, 2011 emails. You state that my assumption that “Heritage” Island will never be developed is erroneous and suggest that the only way to protect the island is to return it to public ownership. I would argue that the presence of First Nations settlement sites, the unusual sensitivity of Bridge Lake which makes barging construction materials hazardous, and widespread public opposition will prevent island development in the future as it did in 2008/2009. Returning “Heritage” Island to public ownership is something I am sure most people would favour, but NOT at the cost of giving part of the Crown Reserve to a developer. In the 1970s “Heritage” Island was offered by its then-owners to the crown for free and the crown turned down the offer. When economic conditions permit, perhaps the crown will consider buying “Heritage” Island and making it a park. It is worth noting that while the island has been in private ownership for decades, the First Nation settlement sites have been preserved. One hopes that if the crown buys the island and turns it into a park, there will be a plan to prevent visitors from scavenging native artifacts. You state that your staff “believe that Rainbow Island has greater environmental value than the portion of Crown land offered.” We are not comparing development of “Heritage” Island and development within the Crown Reserve. What is relevant is the environmental impact of development within the Crown Reserve when compared to leaving the Crown Reserve intact. Developing the 18 hectares in this proposed exchange would have significant negative environmental impacts. The area is home to bear, moose, deer, coyotes, beaver, muskrats, eagles, osprey and many other species. The area is an important wildlife corridor through which the animals travel to the lake. The foreshore provides nesting areas for birds and waterfowl. Development would destroy plant species and animal habitat. It would seriously reduce the wildlife corridor to the lake. Increased boat traffic from 18 permanent homes would have a negative effect on the nesting areas in the immediate area and would create increased boat traffic on the lake as a whole. You state that your staff believe that “recreational values” will be maintained since the developer has agreed to keep trails between the two remaining portions of the Crown Reserve which would be cut off from each other by his development. Walking along a path through a development of expensive year-round homes, with their docks and boats along the shore, is not the same as walking through an area of pristine forest. Destroying plant species, animal habitat, reducing the wildlife corridor and harming nesting areas would most certainly reduce “recreational values” on the mainland and “Heritage” Island. Your staff believe that “recreational values” will be enhanced if the island is returned to the crown. I would suggest that this is simply not true. At the moment visitors and locals paddle in kayaks and canoes around “Heritage” Island and the small islands adjacent to it. Exploring the island is possible, as its one dwelling is uninhabited, but most people choose to appreciate the island, the wildlife and birds from their boats. This would likely remain the same if the island were to become crown land. The crown set aside 141.5 acres in 1945 “for the recreation and enjoyment of the public”. When you consider all the areas around Bridge Lake which were available for them to select in 1945, it is obvious that there are reasons why they chose this location to preserve. The crown recognized the unique environmental sensitivities and recreational opportunities in this area and established it as Crown Reserve to be protected for the public to enjoy in its natural state. I trust that you will appreciate the foresight shown by the government 66 years ago, and will act to protect this land for future generations. Ann Blades, Surrey / Bridge Lake
16.04.2011 Honourable Steve Thomson by e-mail: flnr.minister@gov.bc.ca RE: “Heritage” Island land exchange Dear Sir: In 2007, Cariboo Heritage Land Developments (CHLD) bought an uninhabited island in Bridge Lake (near 100 Mile House in the South Cariboo). Their plans to develop it into a 31 lot strata subdivision were met with a furious outcry from local residents. The lake is the headwater of the Bridge Creek watershed, which is the main freshwater source for the municipality of 100 Mile House. The lake is classified “highly sensitive” with a flushing rate of over 62 years, and an accident during the construction would have meant a decades long disaster for the lake and all residents downstream. In addition, there are several documented First Nations archaeological sites on the island. Given its ecological and historical importance, the residents stood up as one at the Public Hearings and the area director responsible on the board of the Cariboo Regional District refused to recommend the necessary rezoning of the island. In an attempt to recover their losses from this failed development, CHLD then approached the Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB, today the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations) to exchange the 63 acre island for a 90 acre piece of Crown Land (a large portion of District Lot 1891) on the south shore of the lake. Not only was the parcel they asked for nearly 50% bigger than the island they wanted to exchange, but it is also the center piece of a Crown Reserve, protected since 1945 by a UREP designation (Use for the Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public). The MNRO has now offered a 45 acre piece to CHLD (see attached map) in exchange for “Heritage” Island. While there is an express desire among the residents to get the island back into public hands, there is an equally strong desire not to lose any more lakeshore Crown Land to private development. This desire was explicitly voiced by the majority of residents during the background studies for the 1980 Settlement Plan and the 2004 Community Plan. Undeterred, the CRD (Cariboo Regional District) has since allowed the residential development of more and more waterfront properties. Today, over 2/3 of the lake’s perimeter is in private hands with Residential Zoning in place, making Bridge Lake one of the Province’s most developed lakes. Only two larger parcels of Crown Land remain today, one of which will be cut into three pieces by this application. This Crown Land is an important mule deer and moose winter refuge. The nearly 2.5 km of undisturbed shoreline are home to beaver, otter and mink, are active nesting areas for loons, geese and ducks and give shade and protection to the various species of fish in the lake, but especially the endangered lake trout species of Bridge Lake. By cutting up this piece of Crown Land for further development, an important wild life breeding ground and year-round travel corridor will be destroyed forever. For this application to go forward an Order-in-Council decision is necessary to remove the UREP designation from this piece of Crown Land. Over 65 years ago your predecessors were prudent enough to set aside this area as Crown Reserve for future generations to enjoy. Please do not undo this wise decision today – for the sole financial benefit of one developer. Further, it is our fear that CHLD will continue to pursue development options for the island currently in their possession. This island is the only one on Bridge Lake in private hands and all of the others are slated for inclusion in a new Provincial Park to be created in the near future. We would ask that you exercise your authority in this matter and seek a permanent solution to this issue by purchasing the island for the Crown and granting it the full protection it deserves. Sincerely,
Map of the proposed land exchange
|
Minister urged to reject swap
BC Government, Local Agencies
16.04.2011 Dave Peterson by e-mail: dave.peterson@gov.bc.ca RE: “Heritage” Island land exchange Dear Sir: In May 2007, Cariboo Heritage Land Developments (CHLD) bought an uninhabited island in Bridge Lake (near 100 Mile House in the South Cariboo). Their plans to develop it into a 31 lot strata subdivision were met with a furious outcry from local residents. The lake is the headwater of the Bridge Creek watershed, which is the main freshwater source for the municipality of 100 Mile House. The lake is classified “highly sensitive” with a flushing rate of over 62 years. An accident during the construction would have meant a decades long disaster for the lake and all residents downstream. In addition, there are several documented First Nations archaeological sites on the island (see Appendix 1). Given its ecological and historical importance, the residents stood up as one at the Public Hearings and the area director responsible on the board of the Cariboo Regional District refused to recommend the necessary rezoning of the island. In an attempt to recover their losses from this failed development, CHLD then approached the Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB, today the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations) to exchange the 63 acre island for a 90 acre piece of Crown Land (a large portion of District Lot 1891) on the south shore of the lake. Not only was the parcel they asked for nearly 50% bigger than the island they wanted to exchange, but it is also the center piece of a Crown Reserve, protected since 1945 by a UREP designation (Use for the Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public). The MNRO has now offered a 45 acre piece to CHLD (see Appendix 2) in exchange for “Heritage” Island. The developer Julian Kenney and his agent Nigel Hemingway met with the Board of Directors of the Friends of Bridge Lake on October 2nd, 2008 to outline their plans for the land exchange. At this meeting, CHLD was informed by the Friends of Bridge Lake that the piece of Crown Land they had chosen for the exchange was designated as UREP (see Appendix 3). This meeting was held a full two weeks before CHLD applied to ILMB for the land exchange on October 15th, 2008. Did this application contain any mention of the UREP? A public information meeting was held on November 22nd, 2008, the timing of which guaranteed that nearly ¾ of the Bridge Lake property owners (and tax payers) would not be able to attend. More than 73% of all Bridge Lake property owners are seasonal residents - they close up their houses and cabins in mid-October and return after break-up (usually early May). At this information meeting – attended by Garth Wakelam and Ken Vanderburgh from the ILMB – both Julian Kenney and Nigel Hemingway denied having any knowledge of a UREP designation on this piece of Crown Land. The result of this first information meeting was predictable: the absence of all the seasonal property owners, most of whom come here to enjoy nature (in many cases for 40+ years) made it easy for local builders, business owners related to construction, fellow developers and land owners to dominate the meeting and the “public opinion”. Holding public meetings in Bridge Lake during the winter will never give you a true representation of the public opinion. Even back in 1978 a CRD background study for the Interlakes Official Settlement plan noted in the analysis of the questionnaire: “This result would be significantly different in the summer months” and “We proposed to prepare alternative plans and present them at a public meeting in the summer, when most temporary residents would be able to attend such a meeting”. While there is an express desire among the residents to get the island back into public hands, there is an equal desire not to lose any more lakeshore Crown Land to private development. This desire was explicitly voiced by the majority of residents during the aforementioned background studies for the 1980 Settlement Plan and the 2004 Community Plan. Undeterred, the CRD has since allowed the residential development of more and more waterfront properties. Today, over 2/3 of the lake’s perimeter is in private hands with Residential Zoning in place, making Bridge Lake one of the Province’s most developed lakes. Only two larger parcels of Crown Land remain today, one of which will be cut into three pieces by this application. The nearly 2.5 km of undisturbed shoreline
By cutting up this piece of Crown Land for further development, an important wild life breeding ground and year-round travel corridor will be destroyed forever. And of course if this application goes through, it will make it easier for future developers to try to acquire the remaining parcels for 'in-filling'. We are constantly seeing (and not only in this application), that no level of restrictions in place on the land is a deterrent for a developer. Just get the “public opinion” on your side and all restrictions will be removed. There has been a hot discussion in the community about the equality of the proposed exchange. We have made every effort to secure details of the land appraisals and have been told that even if we submit a request via the Freedom of Information Act, we will not get the information we need. There is something fundamentally wrong with a Freedom of Information Act that does not provide freedom of information! Despite repeated requests, we still don't have an explanation of the reasons MNRO ignored the key procedures for land exchanges as regulated in “Land Procedure – Land Exchange (General)” from 2008. The responses we have received from MNRO to-date don't even try to answer the posed questions; they merely re-iterate questionable arguments that support their decision. Please read our questions and MNRO's (non-) answers at the Friends of Bridge Lake web site. For example, our questions about the fact that the property offered for the exchange is not a single island but consists of two islands with a year-round channel separating them was completely ignored. MNRO just looked at the Crown Grant document and a decades old map and never even tried to verify its accuracy. Has it never occurred to MNRO that old grant descriptions and maps may be incorrect and should be verified before basing any decisions on them? In conclusion, we urge you to put a stop to this land exchange application. This exchange does not benefit the public, but – as stated in your own land exchange procedures – is “primarily to the proponent’s interest”:
If your decision to offer the 45 acre piece of Crown Land in exchange for “Heritage” Island was based on incorrect or misleading information supplied by the proponent, now is the time to correct this error and cancel the land exchange offer. Sincerely,
APPENDIX 1: Documented archaeological sites on Rickenbacher’s Island (“Heritage” Island) [The original letter contains 4 facsimiles of documented archaeological sites on “Heritage” Island. They are not reproduced here to protect those sites.] APPENDIX 2: Map of the proposed land exchange Map of the proposed land exchange APPENDIX 3:Transcript of a meeting of the board of the Friends of Bridge Lake with [Mr. Kenney agreed to an audio recording of the meeting. This excerpt is about 10:30 minutes into the meeting. Before, Mr. Kenney had outlined his intent to exchange “Heritage” Island for a piece of Crown Land on the south shore of Bridge Lake, west of the Greenall Road subdivision. Mr. Hemingway handed out a map of the planned exchange application]
Note: Apart from being Mr. Kenney’s agent, Mr. Hemingway is also Vice-President of the Association of BC Land Surveyors. One would assume that he knows exactly what a UREP designation is. One has to ask if Mr. Hemingway exercised due diligence when he researched the existing rights on the proposed exchange land. Not only did he miss the UREP, but also a registered trap line.
29.03.2011 Dear Mr. Vanderburgh, Thank you for your March 22, 2011 email in response to the 10 questions I posed in a February 6, 2011 email to you. While you presented information, you did not answer all my questions.
I will comment on each of the factors which you considered in your decision: The value of the respective parcels Environmental considerations It is adjacent to the ice caves. This crown reserve/ crown land is home to moose, cougar, coyotes and other mammals and provides a year round wildlife corridor to the lake. The foreshore of the mainland and the islands beyond provides nesting areas for birds and waterfowl. To allow an 18 hectare development within this area will destroy wildife habitat and cut off the natural corridor to the lake. Increased boat traffic will affect the nesting area of birds and waterfowl. First Nations Issues Public Input You have argued that changes to the development proposal have addressed concerns expressed by opponents to the swap in 2009. This is simply not true since the number of people opposed to this development has increased. Recreational Opportunities Walking along a path through a development of expensive year-round homes is not the same as walking through an area of pristine forest. Undeveloped crown reserve and crown land, with abundant wildlife, birds and waterfowl are an important aspect of Bridge Lake now and will become increasingly valuable to locals and tourists in the future. The Visual Inventory Update from the BC Ministry of Forests and Range stated in the fall of 2010 that “In BC the scenic landscapes are highly valued by both residents and visitors” --- “In recent years, tourism is the major “money maker” in and around Bridge Lake.” While Julian Kenney and his partners will benefit financially from this development and the local economy will experience some short-term gain, the long-term economic benefits to Bridge Lake are with tourism, and preserving the qualities which make Bridge Lake appealing to locals and tourists is essential. Privately owned land on the shores of Bridge Lake will be developed as time goes by, and it is crucial that we preserve the areas of crown land and crown reserve around the lake. The environment, the wildlife, the birds and waterfowl which we enjoy today must be protected for future generations. Ann Blades, Surrey / Bridge Lake
|
“To the Editor”
100 Mile House Free Press, 18.05.2011 I have had the pleasure of spending a good portion of my life in the Bridge Lake area. It started back in the late 1940s when my parents would make the two-day drive from Vancouver to the Double T Ranch (the last part was by tractor). In 1975, I purchased a lot on Bridge Lake and started building my own log cabin. Since then, my family has enjoyed the wonders of nature this beautiful area can provide. However, over the years, there have been many mistakes made by the governing authorities that have degraded the quality of Bridge Lake. Examples are the disruption of spawning streams, the lack of control on lake shore septic systems and the poor management of the fishery. Bridge Lake, which was one of the most prolific Kamloops trout lakes in British Columbia , coveted by the Canim Lake Indian Band as their summer fishery and anglers from all over North America, is now clogged with coarse fish and shows signs of growing weed problems. It’s not too late to fix these problems, but to my knowledge, no government group is taking an active role. Only The Friends of Bridge Lake group is working to solve problems. The purchase of the Heritage/Rainbow Island by an individual with the idea of making a lot of money developing it is the kind of action that will continue to degrade the Lake. The residents of Bridge Lake (The Friends of Bridge Lake was formed to help) have fought this action and now there is a move to exchange this land for 45 acres of waterfront Crown land on the south side of Bridge Lake. I am opposed to the Crown land being swapped for the following reasons: 1. The values assigned to Heritage Island are far less than the value of the 45 acres. This is a bad deal for the people of British Columbia. 2. This kind of deal would set a bad precedent by allowing an individual to exchange privately held land, which has always been and should only be a single private residence, for public land with the intention of having it zoned for multiple dwellings. 3. There is very little lake front Crown land left on Bridge Lake and it should be simply saved or converted to public parks like Centennial Park [in 100 Mile House]. 4. This particular 45 acres is close to the ice caves on Bridge Lake, which have been in existence since the lake was formed and could possibly be affected. James Elliott, Vancouver / Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 18.05.2011 Open letter to Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Minister Steve Thomson: I am writing with regard to the proposed land swap of Heritage/Rainbow Island for 45 acres of waterfront Crown land on the south side of Bridge Lake. I believe this would be very wrong. I have been going up to the Cariboo for 40 years. I co-owned a cabin on acreage on Bowers Lake for about 10 years. I have great friends on Lac des Roches and Bridge lakes on whose property I have camped for years, as recently as last summer. I have paddled and kayaked the length and width of Bridge Lake, Horse Lake, Bowers Lake and Lac des Roches. Crown land is precious and there is precious little of it left on Bowers and Bridge lakes. Please do not support this proposed land swap. Thank you for your consideration. Roberta Hower, North Saanich
100 Mile House Free Press, 04.05.2011 Pat and I have been as active as possible from the distance in White Rock, in the development issues in and around our beautiful Bridge Lake in the Cariboo. Most recently, we carefully looked at the details of the proposed swap of “the island” for the 85 acres of land along the southwest shore of the lake, extending southwest from Greenall Road. There are a number of convincing arguments that make the “deal” a one-sided, enormously financially attractive opportunity for the developer. The other concern we will raise is based on our experience of hiking through that area. This shoreline and its forest and towering cliffs are the last natural wild area on the lake. It is the last “safe area” for all the different wildlife and birds along the southwest shore of Bridge Lake. We respectfully request your readers’ support in bringing about the best resolution to this issue. Walter and Pat Hartzell, White Rock / Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 27.04.2011 This exchange is precedent setting and puts at risk other Crown land and Crown reserves in British Columbia. B.C. residents interested in preserving publicly-owned Crown land and Crown reserves within the province need to e-mail their opposition to this exchange immediately to MFLNRO Minister Steve Thomson and his staff. In 2007, Julian Kenney, of Cariboo Heritage Land Developments Ltd., bought an island in Bridge Lake zoned RA1 (minimum lot size 80 acres) and proposed a 31 strata lot development. When this failed, Mr. Kenney proposed exchanging the island for land within a Crown reserve. In spite of the fact this Crown reserve was set aside in 1945 “for the recreation and enjoyment of the public,” the MFLNRO announced in February 2011 that it has offered Mr. Kenney 44 acres within the reserve in exchange for the island. The ministry has broken its own guidelines in this decision, as “Land Procedures: Land Exchanges” states: “Land exchanges will be considered where there is a clear benefit to the Province and direct purchase of the land is not an option.” The island is worth approximately $750,000, and Mr. Kenney has been offered it in a straight exchange for 44 waterfront acres within the Crown reserve worth, in the opinion of locals, at least $4 million. Development in this area would negatively impact the environment at Bridge Lake, as an important wildlife corridor to the lake would be destroyed. Increased boat traffic would threaten nesting and breeding areas of birds and waterfowl. Bridge Lake is classified as “highly sensitive,” as it takes 50 years to flush. Four small spring-fed streams, one near the proposed development, supply water to the lake. This exchange is precedent setting and would put at risk other Crown land and Crown reserves. Developers would seek further opportunities to exchange privately owned land for areas within Crown land and Crown reserves. Please help Friends of Bridge Lake by e-mailing your opposition to this exchange. Information can be found online at Friends of Bridge Lake. Ann Blades, Surrey/Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 20.04.2011 I know you have had many letters about the land swap at Bridge Lake between Julian Kenney and the British Columbia government and most people think it doesn't involve them, as they don't live at Bridge Lake. Well, all British Columbians should be up in arms. This swap was initiated by Mr. Kenney with the government, and if approved, it will set a precedent. Is all of our Crown land up for sale? Where will it stop? Are all of our parks up for grabs? Is our government going to slowly sell off our heritage? People of B.C. should be mad and very wary. Remember we were told BC Rail wasn't for sale and then poof it was gone. Is that going to happen to all our Crown land? I imagine all developers are going to be lining up at the doors of the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations for cheap development land. Yes cheap judging by the price that was put on the 18 hectares by the government agent. Remember this isn't just Crown land prime waterfront property that was designated Crown reserve land in 1946. It seems politicians in those days were more aware of the value of preserving park land for future generations. All concerned citizens of B.C. should write or call their MLAs and let them know they are concerned. Otherwise, their representative will think it's OK because they haven't heard anything about it. The power of the pen is just as powerful as it ever was and one vote does make a difference. Maureen Van Gool, Bridge Lake
Williams Lake Tribune, 05.04.2011 The controversy that is taking hold in Bridge Lake regarding the possible exchange of Crown land for privately owned land affects us all. A group of private developers have approached the Crown to exchange an island on Bridge Lake. They purchased it in 2007 with the sole purpose of developing it, the plan was to put 29-31 strata title lots on the 63 acre island. When a huge hue and cry erupted at the rezoning stage, the developers withdrew their application. They then approached the Crown to initiate a land exchange. The Crown is now in negotiations with the developers to exchange the island for a 44 acre parcel on the south shore of Bridge Lake. There is precious little Crown land left around Bridge Lake. The waterfront portion of this land was designated in 1945 as a reserve “Used for the Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public” (UREP). The land in question is part of a much larger piece, if this proposal goes through, it will break up the UREP, making it much more difficult for people to enjoy. The developers have unveiled their development plans to the residents of Bridge Lake, they will create 18 lots, 10 waterfront and 8 upland. Once developed the value of this property far exceeds that of the Island. Many residents are concerned about the precedent such an exchange will set. Crown Land is publicly owned, it belongs to the taxpayers of BC, it is OUR land. It should never be traded to private developers so they can make a profit. If this goes through, it endangers all Crown land in BC. Once a precedent is set it is there for all time. Any developer after having made a poor business decision could approach the Crown for a land exchange. We all need to be stewards of our land, we need to preserve what we have and safeguard our land into the future. If you are concerned about this please contact your MLA Donna Barnett, or the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Terry Lake and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Honourable Steve Thompson. If this can happen to us, it can happen to you. Pamela Canty, Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 06.04.2011 This is in response to Julian Kenney's letter, regarding the proposed development on Crown reserve at Bridge Lake, in March 23 edition of the Free Press. I would like to thank Mr. Kenney for clarifying that $615,000 was the 2007 assessed value of Heritage Island and the online registry that listed the island for sale for $785,000 scavenges ads and information from other sources. Mr. Kenney says I did not consider the costs of development in my estimation. One doesn't need to be a qualified appraiser to know that an 18-hectare waterfront lot with rezoning in place and Crown reserve on all sides would sell for considerably more than Heritage Island. If my 72 foot wide 0.35 acre waterfront lot on Greenall Road was assessed at $247,000 in 2011, it seems obvious two-acre waterfront lots more than twice as wide as mine are worth considerably more than this and there is profit to be made here. Mr. Kenney reminds us that initially "the exchange was generally supported by the community." On March 22, 2011, Ken Vanderburgh of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations told me 56 per cent of respondents (64 out of 114) were in favour of the swap in 2009. Friends of Bridge Lake's March 12, 2011 online vote of members resulted in two-thirds of respondents voting to oppose the development. While the developer will benefit financially and the local economy will experience some short-term gain, the long-term economic benefits to Bridge Lake are with tourism. Preserving the environment and wildlife is essential. Privately owned land on the shores of Bridge Lake will be developed as time goes by, and it is crucial we preserve the areas of Crown land and Crown reserve around the lake for future generations to enjoy. Ann Blades, Surrey / Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 30.03.2011 I would like to weigh in on the debate about the proposed land exchange on Bridge Lake. With all due respect to a previous letter writer, who portrayed developers as benevolent "do gooders," please wake up and smell the coffee. There is only one real motivation for property developers and that is to make a profit, and if this land exchange goes through, the profits made by Julian Kenney and his partners will be huge. The difference between this type of development and the usual ones whereby a developer purchases a piece of privately owned property to develop is vast. This land is publicly owned; this land belongs to the taxpayers of British Columbia; this is our land. It is one of the few pieces of Crown land left around Bridge Lake, and it is prime waterfront land with easy access to Highway 24. The waterfront portion of this land was designated in 1945 as a reserve “Used for the Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public” (UREP). Not only are we losing a piece of our heritage, but also we are losing a piece designated for our recreational use and enjoyment. If this land exchange goes through, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Public land should not be traded or sold so a developer can make a profit. Crown land with the designation of UREP should have been sacrosanct. If developers make bad business decisions, that's their problem, as it is part of doing business. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of B.C. to bail them out. Pamela Canty, Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 23.03.2011 In answer to Greta Richenbacher’s many questions on the land swap at Bridge Lake in her March 9 letter, headlined Land swap good for Bridge Lake, let me see if I can answer some of them. The big question of why not is location, location, location! This piece of land is the last piece of Crown land on Bridge Lake. A logging company already has ribboned off both sides of Highway 24 to be logged off on this stretch of forest. The one other undeveloped private property, which is adjacent to this strip of Crown land, has recently been purchased to be developed as well. I have no problem with this development, which is right across the street from my house. Why? It’s because this land has been private for a long time. Everybody understands we need development to thrive as a community, but does this mean we have to give into every development project that comes up. Developing Heritage Island was a bad idea from the beginning. Everybody could see the real potential for an environmental disaster. (A barge bringing heavy equipment across Bridge Lake - really?) Every year, we have a growing resident herd of deer that roam this area. Their main habitat though is the exact spot of this development. The canopy of trees which protects them from the harsh winter conditions are about to be developed and logged until there is not enough trees to protect them. What about the moose, the fox, etc.? They need these trees to survive. Mr. Kenney - you make this sound as if this is personal, which it is not. I know him only through these meetings, but he seems like a decent fellow and I would not call his character into question. If he chose to develop somewhere that made more sense, he would have my support. The problem is, waterfront is prime real estate, everybody wants it but there is not much available and we should not lose the last piece on Bridge Lake just so someone can make more money than on a subdivision not on the lakefront. Let Mr. Kenney buy some land already private and develop that - just like the rest of the developers. Greta, I’ve seen the development down in Chilliwack where you live and, apparently, you believed farmland and forests should be knocked down just for the sake of any development. I moved here as a new resident 16 years ago and was welcomed into the community. What I’ve learned since is this community welcomes everybody equally, but we are just a little more cautious about what we want knocked down just for the sake of money. If it was lots and lots of money we were after, we would move back to the land of pavement — the Coast. Rolf Pfeiffer, Bridge Lake
100 Mile House Free Press, 16.03.2011 Re: appraisal of 18 hectares of Crown reserve/Crown land offered to Julian Kenney in swap for Rainbow (Heritage) Island, Bridge Lake. Mr. Kenney bought Rainbow Island in 2007 for $615,000. The island was recently listed for sale on an online “Islands for Sale Registry" for $785,000. In December 2008, Kevin Dickenson, regional executive director for the Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) Southern Interior Region, stated that “ILMB determines land values for any land exchange and composes a terms of reference for appraisals contracted for our use. “Any appraisal arranged by the proponent would be for his benefit and would not be used by the ILMB for setting values. Appraisal reports ordered and approved by ILMB are not available for public viewing until completion of all negotiations.” In a Feb. 6, 2011 email to the ILMB, which is now called the Ministry of Natural Resources Operations (MNRO), I asked: “Since negotiations are now completed, will you inform us immediately of the appraisal given for the 18 hectares?” A Feb. 10, 2011 Friends of Bridge Lake (FBL) newsletter told us “The valuation of the land to be exchanged was determined under the assumption that the land was already approved for rezoning ... On the surface, it appears that a 45-acre mainland waterfront lot, with Lakeshore Residential zoning in place, should be worth far more than a 65-acre island with a Resource zoning.” In a March 1, 2011 FBL newsletter we were told, “Subject to the consent of the appraiser, the details of the appraisal will be made public.” My 72-foot-wide, 0.35 acre waterfront lot on Greenall Road was assessed in 2011 at $247,000. The 18 lots on Mr. Kenney's proposed development appear to be approximately two acres, and the waterfront lots are more than twice as wide as my lot. Presumably an assessment on these lots should be considerably greater than mine. Using an unrealistically low assessment of $250,000 per lot puts the assessed value of these 18 ha at $4.5 million. Why has the MNRO agreed to swap an island worth $750,000 in exchange for 18 ha worth in excess of $5 million? Ann Blades, Surrey / Bridge Lake
|
Others / Sample Letters
03.04.2011 Mr. Ken Vanderburgh, Proposed Bridge Lake Land Exchange: File 5407466 Dear Mr. Vanderburgh, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed exchange of Crown Land in DL 1891 for the privately-owned “Heritage Island” at Bridge Lake. Firstly, exchanging Crown land goes against the guidelines published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, dated June 10, 2010: "Land exchanges will be considered where there is a clear benefit to the Province and direct purchase of the land is not an option" What “clear benefit” can be demonstrated? Mr. Kenney could purchase a piece of land for development, as others have done. "Land exchanges initiated by private parties are not encouraged as procedures are cumbersome and costly" It has already taken ILMB/MNRO staff more than two years to reach a decision - how many more hours of time will this proposal take up, which could be better spent on other matters? Secondly, no adequate assessments of either parcel of land have been carried out. There should be an archeological assessment as well as assessments of the geology, soil type, hydrology and flora and fauna. At present we do not know what is at risk from proposed development. These assessments must be completed by qualified professionals at an appropriate time of year before any final approval is given for the land exchange, otherwise we do not really know what is being exchanged. Thirdly, there is the valuation process, which needs to be made public. Undeveloped lakeshore lots of comparative size around Bridge Lake are assessed at around $250,000 to $300,000. Comparative non-lakeshore lots are assessed at around $170,000. This would give a total valuation around $4,000,000. At present, the island is zoned as Resource land, and is unlikely to be rezoned for development because of widespread public opposition. There is also now no proper access to the island to allow any develoment to take place. Since no information has been given about the valuations which the MNRO are using for both pieces of land, it is impossible to judge whether any of these factors have been taken into consideration. Indeed, it is difficult to arrive at any fair valuation when the assessments mentioned above have not been completed. Despite the impression that Messrs Kenney and Hemingway try to give, land exchanges are unusual and infrequent. Why is this even being considered as a viable option? Crown land with the designation of UREP is for the benefit of the citizens of BC, and should not be traded to a private individual to compensate him for making a bad business decision.
28.02.2011 To whom it may concern: I am submitting this letter to register my opposition to the proposed land swap of "Heritage" Isalnd for a piece of Crown Land. Mr. Kenny bought Rainbow Island knowing that it was zoned RA1 (minimum lot size 80 acres) and his development plans were contrary to zoning and the community plan. It was subsequently evident to everyone, Mr. Kenny included, that future development on the island would not occur. The advantages for Mr. Kenney of swapping the island and developing the 18 hectares west of Greenall Road are:
The advantages of preserving the Crown Land and Crown Reserve are:
While Mr. Kenney and his partners will benefit financially from this development and the local economy will experience some short-term gain, the long-term economic benefits to Bridge Lake are with tourism, and preserving the qualities which make Bridge Lake appealing to locals and tourists are essential. The Visual Inventory Update from the BC Ministry of Forests and Range stated last fall that “In BC the scenic landscapes are highly valued by both residents and visitors” and “In recent years, tourism is the major ‘money maker’ in and around Bridge Lake.” Privately owned land on the shores of Bridge Lake will be developed as time goes by, and it is crucial that we preserve the areas of Crown Land and around the lake. The environment, the wildlife, the birds and waterfowl which we enjoy today must be protected for future generations.
02.04.2011 Dear Mr. Thomson,
I am asking that you, as Minister responsible for Crown Lands in British Columbia, and therefore the guardian of this UREP Reserve, uphold that guarantee of Crown Lands for public enjoyment and not allow them to be traded away for private enrichment.
27.02.2011 To Whom It May Concern: I am astonished that the now long standing issue of the Heritage / Rainbow Island just refuses to go away. At prior public information meetings, public hearings, letters to local news, Friends of Bridge Lake communications and letters to our government representatives, it was abundantly clear that the ill conceived plans to develop Heritage / Rainbow Island into a water only access, residential development, was rejected by the majority of the local residents. The developer, at the 11th hour, retracted the development application and then pursued a land swap route, I suppose in order to attempt to recover the previously anticipated profits, with perhaps the Island “protection” and “preservation” held up as the driving force to gain public support. I believe that this Island development would not succeed in a continuance application in the near future and would also most certainly fail in the distant future, when such land will, I suspect, be more highly valued and respected by our future generations. It would be a serious mistake to take an existing, relatively untouched crown reserve lakefront land, chop it up into three sections, then allow a lakeshore residential development in the center section, isolating the two remaining flanking lands and making them ripe for future development applications. (A virtual gift to any land speculator, all in exchange for an undeveloped island protected by zoning, natural constraints to developments and difficult / seasonal, water only access?) Now is the time to stop and analyze how laboriously we have come to this point, the developer purchased the Island property with full knowledge that it was not zoned for the residential development proposed. The original plans were not well thought out, many residents were astounded by this incomplete and ill conceived proposal, responded to with a lot of hand waving and promises by the developer to resolve the most obvious issues, all of which was received by the public with justified skepticism. After an attempt to repair the flawed proposal through a reduced lot count/layout (removing lots “floating” over swamp / water) and then resubmitting the plans, the damage to public confidence had been done. There was little or no faith in the slightly modified version or the continued promises that the transportation, construction, engineering and environmental issues would be resolved after the project was given approval to proceed. In my opinion, the Island is safe from the type of residential development proposed, while it is a resource zoned property and it may not be economically feasible to harvest the timber on the Island, it could be simply be another reason to try to force a land swap deal – the fear that all the harvestable trees could be removed. Tree removal would create an eyesore for those properties immediately facing the Island, detrimental for wildlife habitat and could destroy forever the archeological sites that have been identified to date and perhaps others that we are not yet aware of. I am not an expert on the tree harvesting on an Island such as Heritage/Rainbow Island but I can only assume that it would be at a higher cost than on a mainland lot, and is therefore perhaps only a ploy, if in fact, this scenario has ever been raised. There have been several meetings held between the developers and government representatives where the details / minutes are not generally publicized, therefore I am only speculating as to what scenarios might have been discussed at some of those meetings. The process, perhaps to add more leverage, is also implying the reactivating of submissions by the developer to develop the Island, if the land swap is not agreed to. The proposed land swap should not proceed just because we got tired of the chess game being played, this is not the only privately owned island in BC, there are many desirable lands that should have been preserved for future generations – one option is for the Crown to purchase the Island, or to accept it as a gift to the Crown with appropriate tax credits or to expropriate same if it is determined it is needed for public use. There is one relatively recent example that comes to mind, where the Crown expropriated riverfront lands, required for public park/recreation purposes. In other words, unless other major issues can be identified which may have been brought up in those private meetings (minutes not taken nor publicized), then Heritage / Rainbow Island is protected by natural inherent constraints to development, current zoning, official community plans, good local government and environmental laws, just like all other sensitive lands in the South Cariboo. It would be improper at this time to address the shortcomings of the proposed sub-division plan for the Crown Reserve land since it only validates and opens the door to dialogue that should not precede resolving the prime issue, the issue of the developer’s incorrect assumption of entitlement to either develop Heritage / Rainbow Island, or alternatively the public Crown Reserve lands.
02.04.2011 Dear Minister Thomson, I wish to object to a Bridge Lake Island being exchanged for 44 acres of Crown Land on the mainland in order to be turned into a subdidvision by Cariboo Heritage Land Develoments Ltd.. An island gets very little heavy traffic because of its relative inaccesability, but this subdividsion would be heavily footprinted by road-building, house-building, dock construction and all the leaching and water runoff that will end up in Bridge Lake. This lake has been given a “highly sensitive” classification in terms of water quality. It is a spring-fed lake with only four small streams supplying incoming water (one of which runs close to the proposed subdivision). It takes more than 50 years to flush itself. Bridge Lake is the headwaters of the watershed supplying 100 Mile House and District drinking water. Why is a private developer being allowed to dump a poor investment in exchange for Crown Land that I thought belonged to the people of B.C.? I moved here because I love the rural nature and wilderness beauty of the area. I hope you will stop this deal from proceeding further.
|