No public swimming?

Scott Neufeld http://www.dailycourier.ca/ 12/14/06
soon the waterfront of Okanagan Lake could be sealed behind a wall of legal documents due to a recent decision by the B.C. Supreme Court. In the case of Hlina and Burke v. the Registrar of Land, the court nixed a plan by the city of Salmon Arm to turn a road into a lakeshore park. The court sent the matter back to the registrar of land for a new decision. If all of this sounds a little too familiar it’s because a similar squabble is taking place in Vernon between the city and residents on Delcliffe Road. The residents say they should have been given more warning before the city turned properties next door into a park. The dispute isaround one of just 45 lake access sites the city has planned. The B.C. Supreme Court decision appears to uphold the residents’ complaints.At past meetings city council has worried that the Okanagan Lake shoreline would soon become entirely private. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. The city’s lake access program was expected to cost about $1 million. Of course with the rise in construction costs lately, that number could be closer to $2 million. If the city loses all its lake access sites to wealthy property owners, local government could pocket that $2 million they would save and invest it elsewhere. We could always use another environmental study. I’ve lost track but I’m sure that one or two of the four elements have yet to be studied extensively in the North Okanagan, (I’m thinking in particular about earth and wind). Maybe the city could use the money to hire and train more staff. Imagine how many studies could be produced with another $2 million worth of bureaucrats working at the city. Or with the downgrading of the Greater Vernon Services Commission, perhaps the money could pay for some counselling services for those politicians who lost some power and a portion of their paycheque. If the lake became an exclusive playground for wealthy waterfront property owners it would mean no more septic fields (I’m sure the new owners would be rich enough pay the high cost of hooking up to the city’s expensive sewer system). No matter that the average resident would have to buy binoculars to access some parts of the lake, or that the only way for the public to swim in the lake would be to dodge the dog droppings at Kin Beach. Losing our rights to lake access could be a good thing, a favour for which we should thank the Supreme Court. It’s important to preserve the rights of property owners to not have kayak-toting plebeians walking by their fence lines on their way to the lake.The courts need to make sure that noisy parties and noisy children are kept well-away from the silent stuccoed waterfront sanctuaries along the lake. And the less public access on the lake, the less pollution created by boats, children and dogs.