5:07PM You're right. Here's the line from BC government page
"Because of the significance of parks to community values, elector approval is required for disposal of parklands or the removal of a park dedication."
Think maybe, you are chasing phantoms here. If the THC owns the lot and leases it, even if for a dollar, Catalyst who is leasing and investing in the property would want some protection for their investment, their improvements (however skinny that is) if the District decided to sell the property, lease and all. So what is the big deal here?
I will let you scholars tell me how I am wrong.
On other issues, I think the Tofino News and it's readership has been bang on.
You are not wrong , it is common practice to grant that clause to protect the developer’s interest. The worry is that that the THC has been disbanded once before not long ago. The other concern is that the same clause would be sought for DL 114. There is also some question as to if the District should have sought the approval of the electors before rezoning and selling the Sharp Rd property. It was zoned P2 for parkland and public use.
5 comments:
How is it possible that D.O.T. can disburse a piece of public parkland without the approval of the electorate? This, I'd think, is not legal.
5:07PM You're right. Here's the line from BC government page
"Because of the significance of parks to community values, elector approval is required for disposal of parklands or the removal of a park dedication."
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/planning-land-use/asset-acquisition-disposal/property-ownership-disposal
Using the same theory the district used to sell this park land off I wonder who we could sell the Pacific Rim National Park reserve to?
Think maybe, you are chasing phantoms here. If the THC owns the lot and leases it, even if for a dollar, Catalyst who is leasing and investing in the property would want some protection for their investment, their improvements (however skinny that is) if the District decided to sell the property, lease and all. So what is the big deal here?
I will let you scholars tell me how I am wrong.
On other issues, I think the Tofino News and it's readership has been bang on.
You are not wrong , it is common practice to grant that clause to protect the developer’s interest. The worry is that that the THC has been disbanded once before not long ago. The other concern is that the same clause would be sought for DL 114. There is also some question as to if the District should have sought the approval of the electors before rezoning and selling the Sharp Rd property. It was zoned P2 for parkland and public use.
Post a Comment