Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Games people play

Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star  Published: July 20, 2011 1:00 AM
 The division of Greater Vernon’s parks and recreational assets plods along. On Monday, representatives from Vernon, Coldstream and the two electoral areas discussed the future of the function and whether some facilities should remain lumped under one umbrella or if others should be operated as local parks by individual jurisdictions.  But location alone can’t determine  the  status of a park and it’s naive to believe only residents of a nearby neighbourhood use it. Is Creekside Park local because people in the Kidston Road area can walk to it or is the scope regional because many of the kids playing soccer or lacrosse there reside outside of Coldstream? My family calls Coldstream home but when it comes to fastball, most of the games are at Grahame  Park or Kin Race Track in Vernon.  It’s been suggested some parks should shift from the Regional District of North Okanagan so Coldstream can control the apparent negative impact park activities can have on neighbours. Trying to minimize noise or parking for residents makes sense, but there must be ways to address them within the existing structure. Or is this simply an attempt to pander to a small but vocal group who knowingly bought homes near public space but don’t want to share the area? Ownership of the recreational facilities also isn’t black and white.  Coldstream holds title on Creekside, Lavington and Coldstream parks, while Vernon‘s name is on the deed for Marshall Field  and the recreational complex. But since all sides formed the Greater Vernon function in the 1970s, taxpayers in all jurisdictions have pumped significant dollars into maintenance and capital.  Shouldn’t that investment be worth something?   The economics of going it alone have also been raised by a newcomer to the scene. “Operating costs may stay the same but right now, you have others chipping into the hat,” said Trafford Hall, RDNO administrator, referring to the fact that costs are now shared between the four participants in the service.  Coldstream has suggested it can run its parks more efficiently than the current service contractor — the City of Vernon. But lawns will still have to be mowed and trees pruned or planted. Water and supplies like fertilizer are fixed costs. Like Vernon, Coldstream’s works crew is unionized. BX-Swan Lake and BX-Silver Star have relatively small tax bases, with many properties paying the lower, agricultural rate. Will they have the resources to actually maintain parks or develop new services?  Hall wonders where the savings will be.  “Just because it’s close to you or your people use it doesn’t mean it’s better if you take it over,” he said.

Most of Monday’s discussion, though, revolved around governance of the parks and recreation function.  Vernon wants assurances that it obtains full voting strength if its population climbs while the other jurisdictions don’t want the city to dominate. Valid arguments can be found on both sides, but the discussion more often resembled children squabbling in the sand box. The situation isn’t lost on Mike Gavinchuk, BX-Swan Lake director.  “People don’t want to get along. It’s all about personalities and that’s wrong,” he said.  Ultimately, the worst part is that while elected officials on all sides puff out their chests, they have lost focus of the real issue — providing parks and recreation to all residents in a cost-efficient manner. November’s civic elections can’t come soon enough.

3 comments:

VernonResident said...

I confess I just don't get it. "Amalgamation" gets bandied about regularly as a solution to all our problems. Yet, despite every opportunity and reason to work together and to share costs as partners in Greater Vernon Parks and Rec for the past 30+ years, now we just can't work together anymore?

...from the "ONLY IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT" file...
The City of Vernon plays a dual role as the main contractor and the largest participant in this service. In the business world, this dual role would preclude the City from participating in decision-making. Not so in local government.

Exactly how many jobs does GV Parks provide for Vernon's unionized workforce? And Coldstream's?

Ripping apart this service will impact those union jobs, not to mention service levels and costs throughout our entire community.

Each jurisdiction staffing and supervising their "own" assets is not a more cost-effective option.

This long-standing dispute seems to be more about turf protection than a cost-effective Parks service.

Sadly, we all stand to lose, and the only "winners" may be the electoral areas, which have fewer facilities and parks to maintain than Vernon and Coldstream.

Anonymous said...

First things first. All politicians must realize that community parks serve all residents, not just those from within their little political fiefdoms. Secondly, having a larger taxpayer base from which to draw to support those facilities and provide new ones, will keep the cost down for all. Thirdly, going it alone will cost the taxpayers in your fiefdom more than if they were part of a Regional service. Finally, November is just around the corner, so all you disenfranchised taxpayers that are tired of all of this posturing can get out and listen to the slate of candidates and vote for someone that will be capable of doing the right thing here.

Anonymous said...

This parks issue is more about employment than it is about tax efficiency. Does it make sense to send a guy out with a truck from Vernon to open/close the Lavington swimming pool rather than have a local do it? Local parks should be operated locally....many efficiencies could be captured, but perhaps jobs would be lost, and my tax bill would shrink!