Maximum should not be negotiable

Last Wednesday, Aug 6, I attended the CSRD public hearing re. Blind Bay Resort proposal.

Last Wednesday, Aug 6, I attended the CSRD public hearing re. Blind Bay Resort proposal.

I found the group of residents supporting Dan Baskill’s planned resort on the foreshore of Blind Bay to be surprisingly uneducated regarding the environmental issues relating to this  project.

The input of the Baskill supporters spoke out to non-supporters of “being afraid of change” – and this occurred a good hour into the input from other residents who spoke of their genuine concern for water quality, which has gradually become more polluted from boating fuel disbursement, the hazards of congesting Blind Bay with more water traffic, public safety issues regarding a longer moorage included in the design of the Blind Bay Resort proposal – 550 feet – as compared to CSRD’s regulation of allowable 441 feet.

Mr. Baskill and supporters seemed unconcerned in any way about environmental damage to the foreshore in building a commercial beach front venture of 19 RV units with moorage for 55 berths.  Many taxpayers who do not support his plan understand that long-range planning is necessary in an already congested recreational Blind Bay.

The CSRD hearing last night was a split between those who not only cherish the rich natural resource of the Shuswap and desire only to see minimum building requirements (low density) to preserve its pristine waters, and those who seek to continue their fun-loving lifestyle which is nothing short of self-serving.

The CSRD  should not be increasing their own maximums from the existing OCP Plan, i.e. max. allowable dock length on Shuswap Lake.

What is a maximum if it is negotiable?

CSRD have muddied the waters by not adhering to the standards they wish to create in the interests of public safety and water resource protection – which ought to include no foreshore commercial developments.

Jessica Hauser, Salmon Arm

 

Salmon Arm Observer