Kensington Island Properties - It's Alway Been About Water

"The issue is, and always has been, water" Honourable Mr. Justice R. D. Wilson taken from his BC Supreme Court Judgment, April 28, 2009

 Remember how the Kensington Island Properties VP wanted to speak to the electorate before we cast our votes at the AGM in April 2011?  Why?  Who decided it would be appropriate to allow this?  This is also at a time when the electorate was illegally locked out of the UBID meetings.

Allowed to address the electorate after casting our ballots, remember how the Kensington Island Properties VP went on and on about the negotiations for the water agreement?  The VP commented on the tough negotiator representing the landowners in arriving at an agreement and the meetings back and forth.  Kensington Island Properties VP spoke highly of the process and final agreement reached.

Well, I could use a lot of space and a lot of words, but the bottom line is  We have been screwed - after all these years and the never ending list of misinformation and verbal promises by Kensington Island Properties and supporters - 

Union Bay is getting zero.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Community of Union Bay was advised Langley Lake would not be considered as a source of water for Kensington Island Properties when the RD was considering this massive project in March 2006.  The support by the community was for Kensington Island Properties with Van West Lakes as the source.

Look what has happened since  - we have been screwed by this developer and those who have promised to act in the best interest of our community.

We Will Stop This.

 READ THIS - WATER LICENCE TRANSFER

We Live To Fight Another Day - Right now Union Bay retains the water licence.  Feb. 14/12  Ha Ha Not Going As Planned?

You really have to wonder what this developer is up to.  Always has those dirty little fingers in matters that a developer should be kept at arms length.  Even wanted to know who from the Union Bay Improvement District was attending a meeting with The Honorable Ida Chong.  Someone needs to tell this developer Kensington Island Properties is not the spokesperson for the Community of Union Bay despite the fact it's proclaimed on Kensington Island Properties website.

What Provincial Government connections is this developer using to force Union Bay to turn over our water licence so the disease known as Kensington Island Properties can continue to ruin our community?

No doubt KIP is pulling out all the stops, frantically trying to push this through before.....................it all comes out.

B.C. General Election 1996: Columbia River-Revelstoke
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%	Expenditures
	NDP	Jim Doyle	6,264	42.52%		$30,948
	BC Liberal	Brian Allan McMahon	5,172	35.10%		$49,056
	BC Reform	Steve V. Pinchak	2,687	18.24%		$17,470
	PDA	Dave Herman	282	1.91%		$100
	Green	Rhonda Smith	270	1.83%		$636
	Natural Law	Sonia Stairs	58	0.39%		$100
Total Valid Votes			14,733	100.00%
Total Rejected Ballots			74	0.78%		$
Turnout			14,807	71.04%

May 20 2005 

 Obviously not a resident of the Comox Valley!

 http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2004OTP0095-001079-Attachment1.htm

Hon. Wendy McMahon

Wendy McMahon, new Minister of State for Women’s and Seniors’ Services, was elected as MLA for Columbia River - Revelstoke in the 2001 provincial general election. 

Wendy and her husband Brian have lived in Fairmont Hot Springs since 1987. They have one child.

Hon. Ida Chong

Ida Chong, new Minister of Advanced Education, was appointed Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services on Jan. 26, 2004 .  Ms. Chong was first elected in 1996 in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, and was re-elected in 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=88a57169-ee95-4d5f-a5ce-641db9389497&sponsor=

For the BC Ministry of Community Services, Derek Trimmer said the Ministry "fully supports the concept of the Van Lakes system," and whether the referendum produced a 'yes' or 'no' vote, the idea might still proceed.

He revealed that the Minister herself, Ida Chong, has just written a letter saying the UBID must be involved in any negotiations over water supplies, and if the village votes to become a municipality the new council - once established - would take over UBID's place at the negotiating table if any agreement had not been reached by that time. There was no way any agreement would be reached in the short or longer term without direct local involvement, Trimmer assured the meeting.

The Developer was a member of (UBRA) the group who changed the water source and formed committees for the municipality referendum.

Oct. 18 2006
Comox Valley Record
Kensington would not be taking a position on the referendum. However, in a full-page ad in both local papers, he states, “We encourage all residents of Union Bay to vote for incorporation on October 21, 2006.”

Oct 24, 2006
Comox Valley Echo, P Round
Company vice president Brian McMahon admitted he was "a little surprised" that the outcome of the incorporation referendum was a 'No' vote.

"I thought $20 million in Development Cost Charges dollars going directly in to the community

Of course he's surprised.  Since July 12, 2006, it had been decided Langley Lake would be the water source if the municipality referendum was a YES result.  The Developer was a member of the group who changed the water source.  Duh.

The following from Sept. 2007 posted on The Cumberlander:

http://www.thecumberlander.ca/go307a/WATER_LICENCE_TRANSFER_

WATER LICENCE TRANSFER

Rodney Jones

Dear Editor:

WATER LICENCE TRANSFER NOW, IS THE CART NOT BEFORE THE HORSE?
It has been an interesting week in which, on the one hand, we learned much of the Union Bay Improvement District's (UBID) water user's views towards Minister Chong's dictate to transfer their licence directly to the CSRD for her recently mandated Regional Water Supply System (RWSS). And, on the other hand, we read of the recent wisdom given to local politicians on sustainable development for the equally mandated Regional Growth Plan (RGP). But is there not an irony here, i.e. what work has been done to accurately explain, analyze, match and justify the licence transfer for the RWSS or RGP? And, what about any potential sustainability challenges that may exist for the general public, commerce, industry, agriculture, mining, aquaculture, municipalities and all other direct beneficiaries? In this day and age, with so much knowledge and information available to the general public and stakeholders, they will no longer accept having to have blind faith in, and the lack of any interventions or participation to, outcomes that directly affect their futures.

So, where is the verifying evidence for a viable RWSS? Does it include, for example: an MoE water licence allocation model to test the supplies under back-to-back drought years; the recently published "Comox Valley Water Reference Guide" found at www.vancouverislandwaterwatchcoalition.ca for issues and data analyses; analyses of the proposed inter-basin transfers of water; any exponential effluent discharge estimates from the new diversions; issues analyses; stakeholder analyses; a Master Plan and so on and so forth? Tuning up our fragile world merits this and more.

Last week's UBID public meeting, convened by UBID, highlighted an abundance of collective wisdom and consensus in the meeting's rise to seriously question the immediate need for transferring its legal water licence for the RWSS-to-be. The RWSS would not be the first large project to go astray amongst political expediencies and, so, the question was, for what and why now? In most places now, such a significant water supply system project, to be funded locally, nationally and/or internationally, would never be successfully approached without stringent checks and estimates on:

* the viability of adequate water sourcing (here we have already seemed to drift from Langley Lake (unproven) to Van Lakes to Comox Lake supplies in search of adequate water resources. Where next, I ask, groundwater, desalination?);
* The technical and economic feasibility of benefits over costs; and
* A joint Federal/Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment serving all relevant jurisdictions and, hopefully, with a public hearing to accurately determine the balance of public interest for all social, economic and environmental considerations of the RWSS project. And, that is to say nothing of any potential show-stoppers that an EIA hearing may turn up against any aspect of the ultimate development, such as the raising of dam levels.

Perhaps this work has all been done. If so, why is it not being discussed openly?

If not, with UBID discovering that it is to hand over its legal water licence authorization now, without any of the above data or information being proven, something in the process seems more than a little undemocratic and one in which the cart is right in front of the horse. Projects done like this in the developing world, have been laughed out of town and, of course, the funding agencies followed them. Are we not higher up there with our quality standards in this relatively rich part of the world? I am sure that no-one wants to see any of the Comox Valley sold down the river. Someone, please tell me that this letter is all without foundation, and why.

Rodney Jones, Water Resources Engineer (retired), Fanny Bay.

In my opinion, it appears Kensington Island Properties is just a series of one mistake after another.  Every step of the way with this project, decisions have been made prematurely with the public being told one thing, and then 'some official' reverses the decision and throws something new in the mix.

We are not getting anything from this developer.  The water treatment system supposedly a 'gift', is in fact a loan.  KIP puts in the treatment plant and doesn't have to pay development costs until the amount of the 'gift' is used up.  Nothing for Union Bay - nothing.

In 2010 I wrote the following:

So here we are in the spring of 2010, and water is an issue with the Kensington Island Properties development. Wasn't this the original worry back in the spring of 2006? Wasn't this the issue that caused the lawsuit by BSASS, because the RD illegally changed the bylaws so Langley Lake would be the water source for KIP?

That's why we had another hearing Dec. 7, 2009, so the RD could satisfy the judges criticism; the people not being given the opportunity to speak regarding the use of Langley Lake as a water source at the March 2006 hearings. Remember Bob Long assuring us Langley Lake would not be the source?

We have been told Langley Lake would be the source for KIP until there was a regional water distribution system in place. Recently, we were told it was impractical for Union Bay to receive water from Comox Lake. Does this mean Langley Lake is the permanent source for KIP?

Now Derek Trimmer is arriving this week to inform what measures the provincial government is planning with the water license to Langley Lake. In Sept. 2007, there was a similar meeting attended by reps from the provincial government, Regional District and UBID, where the community was informed Langley Lake would be the water source for KIP or they would pull the water license.

As if the residents of Union Bay haven't had enough meetings, word has it there is to be another one on Thurs. at 7:00 p.m. to inform the community what is planned for us.

If the community had been told the truth in the beginning - the matter would have been dealt with in 2006. All the actions since March 2006, after the public hearings, have been to cover up mistakes by those in charge and find ways to push this project through.

If the Dec. 7/09, hearings were based on the belief KIP would get their water supply from Langley Lake until they hooked into a regional system, does this mean we are back in the same position again? Whatever Trimmer is going to announce, will they hold yet another hearing for KIP if the conditions have changed or will they simply push it forward again leaving themselves open to yet another lawsuit?

What a mess.