Rossland Development - Our Watershed - Meeting Nov 27

This is an email I received from Rosa Jordan (posted with her permission). Please comment with your thoughts :-)

Hi Guys,

I know some of you have been active in forming an environmental group, and have suggested to the Rossland City Council that you might act as an advisory group. Two Council members (Jackie Drysdale and Laurie Charlton) said they thought it was an excellent idea. The mayor said it would be in the spirit of the "participatory democracy" vision that came out of the Vision to Action Workshop. So...good luck on that.

IF YOU DRINK WATER...

I presume that the availability and purity of Rossland's water is an environmental issue of concern to any of you who drink water? If so, you probably want to be at a meeting at City Hall on TUE NOV 27,5:30 PM. On the agenda is a presentation by Red Mt Resorts about the GOLF COURSE Mr. Katcov wants to build in a now-forested north of Granite Mountain IN THE ROSSLAND WATERSHED. Of course, you will be told that modern technology will ensure that this particular high-end golf course (designed to sell real estate in the subdivision surrounding the golf course)will use the absolute minimum of water and chemicals. The question is how much golf-course-related chemicals do you want in your drinking water? And how much more water rationing will Rosslanders have to put up with once a golf course and its surrounding subdivision start draining off what's needed to meet their needs?
If you can't make the Planning Meeting on Tuesday--or even if you do--you will probably want to attend a public meeting on the same issue on Friday. I don't know the details of that meeting yet, but since it is meant to be public, I presume City Hall will let us know. Stay alert, and do your best to be there, too. (Note: the public can't give input at the Planning Committee Meeting--just listen. But you can speak out at the public meeting. That gives you just about a week to GET INFORMED.

DEVELOPMENT SPRAWL

On Oct 22, Rossland Council approved a 10-lot subdivision called CREEKSIDE AT RED. Half the intended lots are in a narrow wetland area between Topping Creek and the Blue-Eyed Pond (both in Rossland's watershed, and both fish habitat). The Development Permit, needed to start work, would not be issued until the land speculator (Gordon Wiseman) met several conditions, including those of the Ministry of Environment. However, he was in a hurry, so set earthmoving equipment to work making a road across the wetlands to service lots which were already posted for sale on the internet--and maybe even already sold.
Mon, Nov 10: the City stopped the earthwork because Wiseman had not met the MOE conditions.
Thu Nov 22: I learned from the MOE's Dept of Oceans & Fisheries that they had received an application from Creekside to do what Wiseman proposed doing. And TURNED IT DOWN. "The lot plan does not meet our criteria of leaving a setback of 15 metres from both pond and creek, explained the official. "Also, the plan entails dredging the pond, which is not acceptable to us."
The MOE official I spoke with said this probably wouldn't be the end of it, that the speculator, whose intention is to simply get the area subdivided and sell off the lots, will probably re-configure his lots so that they conform, and file a new application. I said I wondered how he could do that when, according to his website, half the lots have already been sold. The MOE official said, "That's not our problem."
Moral of the Story: this seems to be a case where Council, while showing little concern about what more development sprawl will do to Rossland's rural setting, or what problems are likely to arise from allowing land speculators to create subdivisions in the city's watershed, at least made the Development Permit contingent meeting Ministry of Environment criteria. And the Nelson office was sufficiently on its toes to notice that this particular subdivision does not.

INEVITABLE?

There are two unfortunate attitudes among municipal decision-makers regarding development sprawl. One is that this kind of "development" is a good thing. Or as one councillor put it, "Tourism is Rossland's industry." Okay. But land speculation NOT tourism, and indeed, may have a negative affect on tourism as the beauty of the area is destroyed by sprawl. Some councillors also see good coming from sprawl in the form of taxes generated by all those high-priced, high-end residential units. Not really doing enough math to figure out how much it is costing the town to service those places. Taxes going up instead of down? Gee, I wonder why!
The second attitude is that sprawl is inevitable. The City's new planner, who has lots of good ideas, believes in the inevitability theory. Probably he has worked in other mountain communities which got trashed by sprawl, and he doesn't see how it can be stopped. But it can be, sure it can. It's just that WE--not "they" have to do it. How? By making noise--lots of noise--about every development that is presented and/or approved in outlying areas. Starting with the ones in our watershed.
Development sprawl is NOT inevitable. This we proved when we stopped Rossland from expanding its boundary to take in the Black Jack area in order to facilitate a land speculation scheme to create one or many subdivisions in that rural area. Of course it will come around again, and we'll have to stop it again; that's just how it is. All environmental victories are temporary. So why do you keep fighting them? Because all environmental losses are permanent.

Rosa Jordan
rosaj@look.ca