Potential prison sites top out at 11

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: March 25, 2011 1:00 AM

Many Lumby residents are expressing shock that almost a dozen properties could host a prison. It’s long been known that one or two properties in the industrial park could be the site of a proposed jail, but more than 500 residents were told Wednesday that the number of locations is much higher.  “There are 11 properties within the village boundaries,” said Greg Routley, a North Okanagan Regional District planner, during an information session at Charles Bloom Secondary School.  “The majority are within the industrial park area. There are also several properties on the westerly boundary.”  The properties were based on Ministry of Public Safety criteria that they are more than 20 acres in size and not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. Water and sewer servicing is also possible at all sites. These details caught some residents off guard.  “It’s hard to believe we have 11 properties that qualify and there was only one in Kelowna,” said Barbara Fresz, referring to land the ministry owns in Kelowna that’s been abandoned because of public protest. Fresz also demanded to know if the ministry has already selected Lumby for a 360-cell facility.  “Have we picked Lumby? No,” said Brent Merchant, assistant deputy minister of the corrections branch. “The people of Lumby will make that decision (during an April 30 referendum).”

The 11 property owners have been contacted and while some are interested in pursuing a correctional facility, others are not. Rezoning would be required for all of the sites.  Many of the speakers expressed concern that a prison with upwards of  720 inmates could put a strain on local infrastructure, including policing, paramedics, water, sewer, and that taxpayers would be left picking up the bill. “How much waste will be pumped into our landfill?” asked Sherry Kineshanko. Village officials estimate they could receive an annual $1.1 million grant-in-lieu of property taxes from the provincial government for a prison.  “We always want to be a good corporate citizen,” said Ted Howard, with the B.C. Corrections Branch, adding that the terms of grants and covering infrastructure costs are negotiated with the host community.  Resident Doug Brown asked if a jail could restrict activities on adjacent land. “Industrial land is very valuable. “If a wood chipper is running next to the facility, will you have issues with it?” he said.  “We don’t control the land we don’t own,” responded Merchant.  Questions also revolved around who would be held in a prison and would crime increase if they decide to stay in Lumby after being released.  “I want to know how you will accommodate us to get these questionable characters out of the community? We don’t have bus lines,” said Dawne Kineshanko.  Merchant says released inmates are taken to the nearest bus depot and generally sent to their home town.

A facility would house both remanded and sentenced individuals.  The ministry states the average stay for those on remand — waiting to appear before a judge — is 37 days and it’s 72 days for those who are sentenced. Most of the crimes are related to break and enter, robbery, assault and drug trafficking, but murder and sexual assault suspects can be in remand.  “All of our buildings are built to maximum security standards,” said Merchant.  “I’ve lived close to a jail and I’ve never had a problem.”  Mayor Kevin Acton believes some questions about grants and the potential impact on infrastructure will have to wait until after the referendum.  “The province won’t spend any money on a business case until they know what the community wants,” he said.
----------
EDITORIAL: Meeting impact likely small  Morning Star: Published: March 25, 2011 1:00 AM
Ministry of Public Safety officials certainly tried to present themselves as impartial during an information centre on a proposed correctional centre Wednesday.  “I’m not here to sell anything,” said Brent Merchant, assistant deputy minister of the corrections branch.  “I’m not wearing a yes button or a no button. I’m just here to answer questions.”  But through all of the information provided, there was little critical commentary about  prisons or the inmates inside. To listen to the presentation, there is absolutely no negative impact on a community hosting a jail.  Of course such a response is to be expected.  One of the government’s mandates is to find a place for a much-needed facility in this region and Lumby is on the list of potential candidates.  Certainly there were some frustrated residents as the speakers did not provide precise answers over specific pieces of property, how much money the village would get in grants, if the province would fund infrastructure upgrades or what Lumby’s chances are of getting a prison. To be fair, though, there is a process underway, and given that grants and infrastructure would depend on negotiations, there is no way to present firm details.  The other hurdle is that while the ministry’s representatives likely lean towards the party line, there was little chance that the information provided Wednesday was sinking in.  Many residents on both sides of the contentious issue have already made up their minds on a prison and it’s not likely information from Wednesday’s meeting changed that situation.