mysite blog

Clarifying the issue -- vote with all the facts on Saturday

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:22:00 -0700

When I decided to get involved with the Yes to Opportunity group, my intentions were simple; to engage the citizens of Cranbrook in an information gathering quest. I knew that when any one person looked at the facts with an open mind, they would undoubtedly see that this is a great opportunity for Cranbrook. That’s what the East Hill Boundary Extension is all about; an opportunity for us to plan for future generations. But some how in the last few weeks, the real referendum question has been forgotten and replaced with all sorts of unrelated issues. So what are we voting on again? Oh ya, the referendum question is: Should the City of Cranbrook expand its city boundary to include the private lands on the East hill?

So why is the CLC opposed to the boundary expansion? I don’t think they are! I’ve read everything I can get my hands on that they have produced. It seems to me that their main concern is that they don’t like the process. That is a debatable issue, however, under provincial law that process is legislated and the City of Cranbrook is following the stated process. So even if we as citizens don’t like the process, then we should be taking it up with the province, not the city. But before you pick up the phone and call our MLA, ask yourself what is more logical? Should taxpayers spend a bunch of time and energy planning for land we have no jurisdiction over, or apply for jurisdiction and then start the planning process. It’s the old cart before the horse analogy. And to use another cliché, voting no because you don’t like the process is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So let’s ask a few questions about our existing city: Do we currently have any large land parcels of 10-50 acres for business and industry? No. Do we have any inexpensive land that we could turn into lower income housing? Not really. Do we have any land that we could develop into larger 2 acre residential lots? Not at a price any sane individual would pay. We need more land! There is an inventory of vacant land within the city, but it does not provide these opportunities, nor does it address our long term needs. Over the last decade we have added an International Airport, regional hospital, and new library. We have also made improvements to the downtown and the strip. We have re-branded the city and developed a new tag line – “mountains of Opportunity”. And now a few folks are saying Whoa? I’m sorry, but that is not fair to the rest of the citizens of Cranbrook that believe Cranbrook is moving in the right direction.

So please remember what the referendum question is. Don’t confuse it with all the other distractions that are out there. The question is whether you as a citizen of Cranbrook would like to have a say as to what gets developed on the East Hill Lands. If you still need more information visit the city website at www.cranbrook.ca. You’ll find an extensive Q&A section where you’ll discover that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Will we be ok if we don’t take this opportunity? Absolutely. In my opinion Cranbrook is a great place to live with or without the extension. But if we don’t do it now, it will just make things more complicated and difficult for the future. So on Saturday, November 14 go vote. I’ll be hoping you vote YES.

PS – feel free to pass this on to anyone you wish.

Regards,

Joey Hoechsmann | Owner Operator
The Bedroom Furniture Galleries
250.426.2316 phone
250.426.4143 fax
www.bedroomfurnituregaller

ies.ca

New Yes! to Opportunity Radio Announcements

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:59:00 -0700

Announcement 1

Announcement 2

Announcement 3

Why I'm Voting Yes

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:27:00 -0700

Re posted from http://myyesvote.blogspot.com/

I decided that I needed to express my opinion about the East Hill Expansion in a way that would not cause offense but that hopefully would be read by those of you who have an interest in this subject.

First I am not a member of the Yes vote committee. I am an ordinary citizen of Cranbrook who owns my own home and pays taxes just like anyone else.

The no vote would have you believe that there is lots of time, no decision is needed now and that if we take this area into the City its going to cost lots of taxpayer dollars. None of this is really true.

If we vote no the developers will take other avenues to realize the value of the land. One such move could be as has happened just north of Radium at Elk Park Ranch. This once working ranch is now owned by 16 owners, yes that's right 16, each has there own residence behind gates and the conciege service deals with all the nuisance things like paying the taxes or keeping the yard up or making sure the heats on when the owners are coming for a visit. There is no public access, very little taxes paid and no a damm thing anyone can do about it.

Oh and by the way the RDEK, has no bylaws governing, steep slop development, Raparian wetlands, or wildlife corridors, all of these do happen to be in the City of Cranbrook bylaws and must be address by the developers before the land use plan is approved. Could this kind of development happen on the east hill? Of course it could, would it sell, think about it, do you think that someone in Dubai would be interested in owning 2-300 acres of prestine land in the BC interior next to a community like Cranbrook with very little taxes? I don't think even though the world is going through a recession that finding those qualified buyers would be that difficult.

Next the no side says the city has frozen the taxes, that is not quite true, the taxes are bases on the current agricultural zoning and that zoning will remain in place when the land becomes part of the city, however as soon as it is rezoned for development even if it is only a small piece it will be taxes at that zoning rate, when a house is built it will be taxed at an even higher rate.

Now about the portion that will be donated as park, most people are familiar with the community forest, many have climbed to the lookout and perhaps enjoyed a picnic up there, but the reality is that is not crown land it is private land, a large part of the north end of the property that is private land is used by users of the community forest as if it was part of the forest but in reality it isn't however if the Yes vote wins that is the portion that will become parkland. Once again something that the no vote failed to discuss.

If the yes vote wins the majority and the land becomes part of the city of Cranbrook the next step in the process is to first decie what we want the development to look like the official community plan, this process is by public hearing. Next the developers must present their proposals and they must comply with the OCP and then go through the public hearing process again.

Once the developer starts work they must provide all the services, that is the roads, water, sewer, electical etc, and the contribution of land to school sites and parks and complete all of this work before they sell the lots, then they will turn it over to the city who will in turn maitain and manage. However at that point in time the Cities tax base will have increase exponentially providing the needed cash flow to do that.

But here's the one that really cooked it for me. Fernie, Kimberley, Sparwood and Elkford all have areas within their boundaries that are significantly larger than the area within the City of Cranbrook, none of these have our current population base nor will they in the next two generations that this land will be developed over. Do we really want to hamper the future of our city and force our children to live in apartments or row housing just because there isn't enough developed land that will allow them to enjoy home ownership? I know I don't, this is not the UK or France or a former communist country like Russia where row housing ghettos have become the blight on all there communities. If that is a livable community I'm not participating.

Please be sure to vote and be sure to vote Yes our future depends on it.

Regards

Colin J. Campbell

Why is CLC depriving our community of a public forum?

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:14:00 -0700

November 5, 2009

To whom it may concern:

We are extremely disappointed that CLC have once again turned down the opportunity for the citizens of Cranbrook to have a debate on the issue of the East Hill Boundary Extension. This is now the second time that CLC has backed out of a public forum.

Sharon Cross apparently believes that political moderators are not allowed to have opinions on community issues, and deems that Tanya Laing Gahr is too biased to moderate this forum, even though Tanya has never publicly stated her position on the upcoming referendum. We believe that Tanya should be applauded for stepping up, getting involved in her community and taking on the role of organizer and moderator of this forum. Having an opinion on a community issue, whatever side it may be, has absolutely no bearing on one’s integrity and ability to moderate a public debate in a fair and unbiased manner.

CLC also refuses to participate because they feel the event is now too one-sided, with representatives from the City of Cranbrook, East Hill Landowners, Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook and the Yes to Opportunity Campaign. Let us be clear: the Yes to Opportunity Campaign is no different than CLC, in that we are a group of citizens who have banded together because we believe that the boundary extension is a great thing for our community. The City is a corporation who is (a) responsible for this referendum; (b) needs to be held accountable for the decisions it has made; and (c) needs to answer the questions that citizens have regarding sewer, water, roads, taxes, etc. The answers to these questions are not for the Yes Campaign or the CLC to provide. Furthermore, if Sharon Cross and her group truly believe that what has been lacking behind this boundary extension is public consultation and dialogue with the residents of Cranbrook, then why would they deny the people of Cranbrook the opportunity to ask the East Hill landowners or the City questions directly?

In the end, we ask you this – why is CLC unwilling to allow Cranbrook residents to seek out information from ALL parties related to this election? Shouldn’t the citizens of Cranbrook have the opportunity to ask all pertinent representatives a question, whether it be the City or the landowners or CLC? If CLC are confident in their position, why the refusal to allow the citizens of Cranbrook a chance to question them? For months now we have heard CLC complain about the lack of consultation and dialogue that Cranbrook residents have supposedly been denied on the boundary extension. Well, at last here’s a perfect chance for our community to have a conversation on this important issue, with all the players at the table, just before Cranbrook heads to the polls to make its decision. Let’s give the citizens of Cranbrook the debate they deserve.

Sincerely,
Brian Sims, Joey Hoechsmann & Courtney Magro
Yes to Opportunity Campaign Committee

Proposed forum takes shape

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:55:00 -0700

The Daily Townsman - November 5, 2009

The East Hill boundary public forum still appears on track for Nov. 10, but contrary to what was originally reported, the forum is being sponsored by the Kootenay New Advertiser and moderated by Tanya Laing Gahr of Koocanusa Publications Inc.

Darcy Wiebe, publisher of the Kootenay News Advertiser, said Wednesday his publication is sponsoring the forum, but that's the extent of its involvement.

"Obviously a forum needed to happen because there's a lot of misinformation out there and hopefully this will straighten it out." But Wiebe said his paper has never expressed an editorial position on the East Hill issue and doesn't intend to. "Obviously you have to be down the middle on something like this."

The forum will take place in the Heritage Inn Ballroom next Tuesday, four days before the big vote. The format for the forum is straight forward except for the fact that a total of 12 people will be on stage, six for each side.

The respective delegations must submit their list of speakers two days before the forum and the speakers' list will be made available to both sides the same day. A coin toss will decide who speaks first.

The forum will begin with a six-minute opening statement by each delegation with a maximum of three people allowed to speak from each side. This will be followed by an hour long Q and A with the audience.

Questions can be asked verbally or submitted in written form to be asked by the moderator. Questions must be succinct and clearly stated and drawn out statements will not be tolerated. Questions will be answered by the delegation they are directed to, rebutted by the opposition and returned to the original delegation for a final statement.

Delegates will be respectful of all speakers. Interruptions, heckling and distracting behaviour will not be tolerated and could result in removal of the audience member at the discretion of the moderator.

The forum will close with a six-minute statement by both delegations and the order of the closing statements will be the reverse of the opening.

New Yes! Campaign Radio Announcements

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:34:00 -0700

Pro-expansion delegations hold forth at Council

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:58:00 -0700

The Daily Townsman - November 3, 2009

Cranbrook City Council heard from four delegations at its regular meeting Monday, all giving their perspective on why the East Hill boundary expansion is once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be embraced.

Council heard from former Mayor Ross Priest, who acted as agent for Tony Novak, who owns the largest piece of property that would come into the city if the expansion is approved in the Nov. 14th referendum.

Priest told Council that regardless of the outcome of the referendum Novak will dispose of the land and that he is not interested in having his property placed in a land reserve.

Council also heard from Sheldon Isaman, who is President of Summit West Investments, which owns the second largest piece of property that would come into the city as part of the East Hill expansion.

Isaman said the boundary extension presents Cranbrook with a crossroads and that it will not cost taxpayers money. He pointed to previous boundary extensions in 2001 and 2007 as having no negative impacts to property taxes.

Council also heard from two separate delegations with the Yes to Opportunity group. Brian Sims, co-chair of the Yes to Opportunity campaign, told Council it is short sighted to say the City has enough land to grow in and that the expansion may be the single largest opportunity to face the City.

Joey Hoechsmann, the other co-chair of the Yes to Opportunity campaign, offered his view as an entrepreneur and business owner. He said if the outcome of the referendum is not to bring in the lands to the east, it will be like hanging a closed sign at the entrance of Cranbrook.

Letter to the editor - Keep Cranbrook moving forward

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:51:00 -0700

The Daily Townsman - November 3, 2009

I have been a Cranbrook business owner for over 20 years. I have also owned a business in Fernie for nearly 10 years. Both communities are wonderful places to live and work. However, a few years ago, a frightening and chilling change began taking place in Fernie. Blame it on Wildsight's increasing prominence in that community, but instead of being accepting of new business and growth, of welcoming new residents and appreciating all that mining does for its economy, the climate in Fernie seemed to become downright hostile against all business, industry and development. It's as if Fernie wanted to stop time, and hence all new growth, because everyone thought it was perfect just the way it was. But you can't stop time, and if you don't open yourself to progress, then you open yourself up to decay.

What's sad is that with this referendum I'm starting to see the same mentality begin to spread here in Cranbrook. I always thought that while other East Kootenay communities harboured the extremists and the anti-growth folks, Cranbrook would staunchly remain pro-business, if only to keep its status as the economic centre of the Kootenays. Yet thanks to the No group, we don't need Wildsight to try and shut our doors and close down our businesses. CLC is already trying to do that with the mistruths they've been spreading.

No one wants to see Cranbrook become Calgary or even Kelowna. But what makes a community exciting is the prosperity and opportunity that growth brings. The boundary extension is about having land for when Cranbrook needs it, well into the future. It's about having control on what gets developed on that land. It's about expanding our tax base to pay for our infrastructure. Yet somehow CLC has managed to hold our city hostage with fear and, above all, nonsense. What frightens me is that we're going to pass up the great chance for Cranbrook to properly plan for its future all because one small group managed to convince the populace that having land, and the opportunity to control the development that takes place on it, is a bad thing. Vote yes on November 14th.

David Kaiser
Cranbrook

Letter to the editor - Vote yes for economic opportunity

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:49:00 -0700

The Daily Townsman - November 3, 2009

Cranbrook has and continues to be a primary resource reliant City. As we are all aware, such industries (Tembec for instance) and the once prolific and well-paying jobs have been down-sizing and disappearing. This community has and will continue to experience negative impacts as this scenario continues to spiral downward. A healthy local economy is essential for a sustainable and livable community. It brings the resources and investment that allow residents and a community to prosper. A healthy local economy brings employment and a solid and balanced tax base to support services and improvements that can lead to healthier lifestyles and greater personal opportunity. With a strong economy, Cranbrook can achieve a higher standard of community development and offer an overall higher quality of life for everyone.

Currently, Cranbrook has some major physical constraints which preclude the possibility of achieving meaningful sustainable economic development. It is apparent that the City recognizes that a strong economy can be a vehicle for positive change. A strategic boundary expansion will relieve this problem and set the stage for new major land dependent business to locate here - the type of business that can provide many sustainable and well paying jobs. Although important, I am not referring to 5, 10 or 20 job industries. Rather, 300, 400 or 500 job industries. Notwithstanding other benefits, this type of opportunity will keep our youth in the community, provide them with a future here, permit them an opportunity to afford housing and raise families, will attract new families and return our population growth to its former, healthier rate. The quality of life will improve for everyone rather than a few.

So, I encourage our community to critically dissect the "facts" that are being circulated to us. I can assure you as a professional community planner that if you do, you will discover that far too much of the information is superficial, presumptuous, sensational and full of conjecture. It often loosely strings together concerns/ issues/ facts to create a false logic that only distorts or confuses understanding. It does not properly or responsibly reflect the scope of the issues involved in the east hill boundary expansion. Accordingly, this does a profound disservice to informed discussion, the question at hand, and ultimately, generations of Cranbrook residents to come. Community consultation is central to informed decision-making particularly in the context of a referendum of such significance. However, with that comes a sobering responsibility to ensure that all statements are factual, contextually accurate and properly and reasonably representative. In reading over a recent boundary expansion flyer, it was alarming to discover that the information did not come close to meeting this test either by accident or design. It was overtly biased, sensational and alarmist. This is very troubling to me. I expect that reading such distorted information will result in many Cranbrook residents being unnecessarily confused, or worse, misled causing folks to go to the polls with an inaccurate assessment of the expansion issues and perhaps squander a fabulous opportunity for Cranbrook to move toward a healthier and economically sustainable future.

Ross Blackwell
Cranbrook

New Yes! Campaign Radio Announcement - Get the facts!

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:17:00 -0600

Dan Poirier

‘Yes’ fest rolls through council

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:51:00 -0600

Kootenay News Advertiser - October 21, 2009

Citing land-squeezes in Golden, Rossland and Nelson, proponents of Cranbrook’s boundary expansion continued to push for ‘yes’ votes during the municipality’s most recent city council meeting.

Wedged between Monday’s regular adoption of minutes and a well-presented annual recap of Cranbrook’s special city crew projects, Electoral Area C Director Rob Gay addressed council.

He offered support for the contentious proposal to incorporate 9,000 acres of private properties located east of the city limits and south of Highway 3/95.

“Cranbrook is in quite an enviable position when you stand back and look at it,” Gay said, pointing to challenges in land expansion in other Kootenay communities indefinitely penned by mountains and steep hillsides.
“The certainty of a land base is certainly worth the challenge,” he added.

“This piece of land would secure Cranbrook...for 100 years I think.”

Cranbrook Mayor Scott Manjak used Gay’s visit to quell rumours regarding the scope of the city’s expansion plans, specifically rumblings heard around Gold Creek.
“Incorporating Gold Creek is not on the table, never will be,” he said.

Later, other councilors continued to reiterate their ‘yes’ stance, fueled by a flyer being distributed around town listing 10 reasons to vote against the expansion.

“It’s at the least misleading,” Coun. Liz Schatschneider said of the flyer, adding at its worst the pamphlet pushed “untruths”. She mused expansion opponents might as well be trying to change to city’s newly adopted slogan “from mountains of opportunity to molehills of opportunity.”

One particular claim that seemed to raise the ire of Coun. Diana Scott was the opponents’ charge that taxpayers would be on the hook financially if the expansion went ahead.

“Taxpayers aren’t going to pay for the expansion,” Scott proposed, “the expansion will pay for itself over time…land is an investment.”

On Sept. 14, Cranbrook’s city council authorized a referendum be held to decide the fate of Cranbrook’s East Hill expansion. That referendum is scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 14.

New Yes! to Opportunity Radio Announcements

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:30:00 -0600

Letter to the Editor - A yes vote unlocks the future

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:49:00 -0600

The Daily Townsman - October 23, 2009

Can you picture the City of Cranbrook in 20 years? Will it have plenty of parks, good streets, affordable neighbourhoods and a strong economy? What will our City be known for in British Columbia? Will the surrounding environment be healthy and accessible to everyone?

With good solid long term strategic planning, the East Hill Expansion can also be all of those things and more. But it will require a flexible road map to the future. It will require our focused attention to short and long term projects and plans. It will require commitment from all members of our community.

That is why the Cranbrook City Council with the help of the Official Community Plan‚ has developed a strategic plan to guide this community into the future. The Official Community Plan‚ which was developed and approved by City Council in 2006 after four years of development including numerous public meetings with input from a cross section of interested citizens and community user groups. The ''Official Community Plan'' for the city, as a whole, downtown, north, south, east and west includes the cities vision for the community into the year 2020 that reflects what we hope the community can accomplish and what it can become.

The East Hill Boundary Expansion will be an integral part of that Official Community Plan vision which will facilitate the planning and manage the growth of East Hill development. As we keep looking forward we have to keep in consideration local, regional and provincial population trends and for each scenario potential growth areas will be mapped and accompanied to determine potential future land uses and densities of development within anticipated growth areas.

I was a member of the Cranbrook City Council when we wrote and approved the original terms of reference for the Growth Management Study‚ which included potential boundary expansion. What we wanted was a tool, a technical document that would be a long term guide for the Cities most efficient use of our infrastructure, utilities, water and sewer resources for the growth of our city as we move towards 2020. The Growth Management Study‚ gives us the tools we need to get us there and the Official Community Plan gives us the vision.

There is nothing detrimental about the Growth Management Study. It is not a rigid blueprint to be used once and then put on the shelf and then forgotten about, but rather a living and flexible guideline to help the entire City achieve the efficiencies we will require to face the challenges as a growing city to become the best we can be. The City Council will regularly measure progress and make course corrections when necessary.

The keys to unlock our future will start with a yes vote on November 14th referendum.

Bruce Mollison
Cranbrook

Letter to the Editor - Vote yes for proper planning

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:51:00 -0600

The Daily Townsman - October 22, 2009

Seeing as most everyone is having their say, I thought I would be remiss in not throwing in my two cents worth.
I was employed for 30 years by Inland Natural Gas/BC Gas and for the first 18 years I was directly involved with the installation of gas mains and services from 100 Mile House to the North Okanagan, both in municipal and rural communities. Part of my duties was working with the engineering and planning departments of the respective area as well as with engineering firms and developers involved in new developments. I was involved in the planning and sizing of gas facilities to serve the immediate and future gas consumersin these areas. For the next 10 years I was involved in Head Office with systems planning from Fort Nelson to Cranbrook. The office and field knowledge I gained showed me the benefit of proper planning and the added cost to the company and the communities when development wasn't planned or controlled. In many cases, it involved resizing, relaying or relocating pipelines, utilities and roads. All of which can be very expensive and disrupting.

I moved to Cranbrook in '92 and it didn't take very long to realize that there hadn't been too much coodinated planning of subdivisions or development services bylaws in the newer areas of city. It was also evident from the condition of most streets/avenues in Cranbrook that when they were constructed, a bare skiff of dirt was removed and a smattering of gravel layed before paving. This has resulted in the roller coaster rides and teeth shattering bumps our roads provide, which many of us claim as an embarrasment when showing visitors around town.

Also, on the southern slopes it is evident that developers paid little attention to coordinating street layout between subdivisions which has resulted in some streets being staggered and not tieing in. This problem can also be seen in developments within the Regional District planning areas.

From discussions with personnel in City Hall, I understand the $500,000 engineering study involves studying all available city records and plotting all the utilities by age, size material and location. When the study is finished, it will provide twofold information. First, giving engineering and council an idea of which utilities to priorize for budgetting purposes, i.e. replacement or upgrading . Secondly, the study will also show how best to tie in to existing utilities and any upgrading required to adequately service future expansion.

I also understand that the city has recently passed development construction bylaws which lay out the requirement for the installation of services and road construction to City standards. The bylaw also stipulates moneys that must be paid to the City and held until all municipal services: including roads, sidewalks, street lights, water and sewer services are completed to modern engineering standards. No less will be accepted.
Yes, the East Hill development is a large piece of property, however, whether we like it or not, it is going to be developed. The owners of the property have already left no doubt as to the future of the property. It will be subdivided into blocks and each block will either be developed as a whole or resubdivided into smaller blocks or acreages. In turn, these blocks will be developed into subdivisions.

The question then, is how do we want to see the area developed, by the Regional District as a rural area with little controlled development or as part of the City of Cranbrook with construction adhering to city standards and with street layout coordinated to an overall city plan.

If the former, you can be assured that at some time in the future, the residents of the area will want to come into the city and want city services. This will be extremely costly to both the wannabe's and the existing city taxpayers.

I am voting 'YES' to the East Hill boundary extension. I would rather see the area developed to a coordinated plan of streets and avenues and the developers required to pay for utilities and roads rather that have the costs fall back on the city taxpayers.

Don Ohs
Cranbrook

Advance Polling and Voting Information

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:48:00 -0600

The referendum regarding the East Hill Boundary Extension will be held on Saturday, November 14, 2009 from 8:00am to 8:00pm at the Tembec Gymnasium.

There will also be THREE advance polls, which will take place on:

Thursday, October 22 – 8:00 am to 8:00 pm – Cranbrook Seniors Citizens Hall (125 17th Avenue South)
Wednesday, November 4 – 8:00 am to 8:00 pm – Cranbrook Seniors Citizens Hall
Tuesday, November 10 – 8:00 am to 8:00 pm – Cranbrook Seniors Citizens Hall

If you are not on the voters list, qualified electors can register at the Advance Poll and must provide 2 pieces of I.D. (at least one with signature) to prove identity and residence. Non-resident Property Electors must also show proof of ownership of property (either with Notice of Property Tax or Certificate of Title) and written consent of majority of owners that the individual will be the designated voter for the property (this is done by filling out a form at the polling station).

There will be notices published in the Cranbrook Daily Townsman on the week of October 12; October 26 and November 2 and notices in the Kootenay Advertiser on the week of October 19, November 2 and November 9.

Voting by mail (mail-in ballots) or electronically is not available under the current City of Cranbrook Elections Bylaw.

Yes to Opportunity Campaign’s Facebook Page Flooded with Fans

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:19:00 -0600

Concerned citizens group turns to social media as opposition turns down public forum

October 21, 2009 – Cranbrook, B.C. – The Yes to Opportunity Campaign is amazed at the response to the launch of their Facebook page. In just over one week 95 users have registered on the page, and the number is growing daily.

The Yes Campaign began using the social media site to connect with voters on the East Hill Boundary Extension and to keep people informed of important events leading up to the referendum on November 14.

The Yes Campaign hopes the Facebook page will help to foster a fact-based public dialogue on the issue. It can be accessed through their website www.yesvote.ca or searching Yes to Opportunity when logged into Facebook.

“Our goal is to provide the facts to Cranbrook residents and educate them on the value of this incredible opportunity. We recognize that people gather information in a variety of ways and the overwhelming early response to the Facebook page demonstrates this is a great way to reach people, particularly the youth vote,” says Brian Sims, co-chair of the Yes to Opportunity Campaign. “We’re hoping to see not only plenty of supporters signing up, but also a healthy discussion on the page as well.”

The Yes to Opportunity Campaign believes the East Hill Boundary Extension represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to plan ahead for future generations. The boundary extension will enhance the quality of life in Cranbrook and will create more opportunities by diversifying the economy and the tax base.

The Yes Campaign will now be reaching out to other Cranbrook groups on Facebook to continue utilizing the power of social media to ensure voters receive the information they need to make a fact-based decision ahead of the referendum vote on November 14.

The Yes Campaign has not given up hope that a live public forum can be organized and are puzzled that a group incorrectly claiming that there has not been enough discussion on the issue would decline to publicly debate the issue. The Yes Campaign believes Cranbrook residents deserve a public forum on this important issue.

“We are open to any option that keeps the boundary extension discussion going and Facebook has been very effective at doing that,” Joey Hoechsmann, co-chair of the Yes to Opportunity Campaign says. “We’ve been really impressed with how many Cranbrook folks are signing up each day. The more people that learn the facts about this referendum issue the more supporters we recruit.”

Yes to Opportunity lawn signs along with information about the boundary extension are available at the Yes Campaign office at 323C Kootenay Street North (open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday to Friday) or by emailing info@yesvote.ca.

Media contact:

Courtney Magro
250.919.6445
courtney.magro@yesvote.ca

The Yes to Opportunity Campaign (www.yesvote.ca)
We are a group of concerned citizens eager to see Cranbrook achieve its full potential. To us, the East Hill Boundary Extension is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – one that will allow our community to plan ahead and create the best possible future for Cranbrook. It will enhance the quality of life for everyone who calls Cranbrook home and expand the opportunities for us and for future generations. It will create more opportunities by diversifying the economy and the tax base. The Yes to Opportunity Campaign will promote the benefits of the East Hill Boundary Extension during the Referendum campaign. The Referendum is binding on Council and will be held November 14, 2009.
-30-

New Boundary Extension Area Map

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:19:00 -0600

Download Map

Letter to the Editor - Vote yes to affordable housing

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:00 -0600

The Daily Townsman - October 20, 2009

Friday's edition of the Daily Townsman and the articles regarding the East Hill expansion have me scratching my head. Don't get me wrong, I think the paper is one of the best. Page 1 leads off with an article saying the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook will "decline" to take part in the pre-referendum forum due to the perception, on their part, of a "biased" moderator. CLC is given a golden opportunity to make a case against the East Hill expansion and they lack the courage (or maybe arguments) to proceed.

On Page 1, Gerry Warner, a CLC supporter, blasts the council, and Angus Davis in particular, for taking 57 minutes of Gerry's precious time to explain in detail why the city supports the East Hill expansion. The CLC has not presented one substantial argument against the proposal but constantly complain about "slights" from City staff, supposed "missing" reports, etc, etc. When offered the opportunity to debate their case, they decline. When anyone else tries to present arguments in favour of the project they are accused of wasting the CLC's time, squandering taxpayer money or the innuendo is cast "where is all the money coming from?" And this is the group that willingly forced the city into a $35,000 referendum.

As a realtor, now retired, I can say that Cranbrook desperately needs more land. The few acres remaining within the city boundaries have become outrageously expensive due to scarcity. Affordable land for apartment buildings or to replace the mobile home parks lost over the past five years no longer exists. A vote against expansion is a vote against accessible housing in Cranbrook.

Gerald Hudson

Cranbrook