As I mentioned in my last update on the ‘Marysville McDonalds’ proposal (officially referred to as ‘Bylaws 2732 and 2733’), by a vote of 4-3 at the second reading, it was decided that a developer’s zoning change request for a McDonalds Gas Station Car Wash should be kept alive until after some public hearings can be held (an in-person hearing is to be held at McKim Theatre on Tuesday, June 27th at 7:00 pm, and a telephone/written comment hearing is to be held on Wednesday, June 28th at 7:00 pm — more info on these public hearings can be found on the City’s website + the city also just released the agenda for the June 27th public hearing, which contains info on how the process will work, as well as all of the written communications that have been sent in by the public up to June 23rd… which is why that PDF is over 300 pages).

And since council will not be receiving further information or public comments after the conclusion of these public hearings, that means there are only a handful of days left for making sure that your written opinions are made a part of the public record on this matter (the city’s public notice page says that public comments need to be received before 2pm for the June 27th in-person public hearing or before 2pm on June 28th for the telephone hearing, and then… that’s it, no more public comments will be accepted/heard for this proposal).

So, since I’ve done all my public commenting on social media and this blog so far (ie. off the public record), I figured I should make sure that I have some of my comments/concerns added to the “official” dialogue that is being considered before the final vote — BUT ALSO — since I am a guy with a blahg, I figured I would do some ‘2 birds with 1 stone’ blogger-ing and share the letter I sent to council in case anyone not on council might be interested in reading (plus that’s how new blog content gets made some days):

.

To Mayor + Council,
I've avoided writing a letter about Bylaws 2732 and 2733 (aka: the 'Marysville McDonalds') until now, as I felt it was more productive to try and engage more locals on the often hard-to-find context related to this specific zoning change proposal via my 95EH social media accounts and local area blog, BUT, since we are now approaching the deadline for sending in public comments on this proposal, I figured I should also put some of my thoughts/concerns down on electronic paper to add to the growing pile of 'official' communications received by the city.
So, firstly, let me just say that I am very much against this proposal (to me, it feels like a misguided bending of the knee to a deep pocket developer to have even gone this far down the road of considering a request to disregard our OCP and the importance of keeping our Industrial land zoned Industrial, just because a developer wants to put a McDonalds-GasStation-CarWash where it best suits their wants and not the communities' sustainable future) — AND — I really hope that, after even more community feedback is gathered at these upcoming public hearings, we will see at least one more councillor (or mayor) join the 3 councillors who have already voted 'No' on going any further with this short-sighted proposal due to the plethora of passionate & informed opposition/concern it has generated (from the city's own staff reports advising against it, from the hundreds of signatories via open letters and petitions already received in opposition, including letters from Interior Health & Healthy Kimberley, and from contradictions & inconsistincies found within Kimberley's own Official Community Plan, to name just a few of the red flags raised… and that's not even diving deeper into the specific reasons and reports and studies mentioned in the many communications sent to council already, from health and environmental impacts of a fast food drive thru gas station car wash, to the economic and societal concerns of turning important industrial land into even more commercial/retail zones, or just the long-term reality of giving up more unceded territory to billion-dollar corporations that suck profits out of the local area as we continue to collectively approach climate change tipping points and struggle thru ever-increasing living costs & income inequality).
As the kids say: this (proposal) ain't it.
All I can really add to EVERYTHING that has already been received by council is: I really hope all those reports & letters & petitions are being given the appropriate amount of weight and consideration they deserve by our elected decision makers — AND — I really hope the only reason we're dragging things on further by going to a public hearing is because it provides a broader opportunity for more people to feel like their opinions have been heard before we get back to the reality that 1 mayor and 6 councillors are going to have the final say on this matter, and I really hope that the final say will be based on EVERYTHING received in totality (and that these public hearings don't just become a verbalization of what the mostly-surface-level Facebook comment sections have been so far, making it easier to further muddy the waters about how there seems to be an indeterminable amount of anecdotal pros & cons for council to consider/disregard before voting on how they feel personally).
I will just mention that I've been very disappointed to see a lack of public discussion between the 7 decision makers in regards to all of the city reports & letters & petitions in opposition to this proposal so far. It seems at every opportunity to officially address any of the issues/concerns in a public setting (whether that be at council meetings or at the State of the City Address), there's been a dismissive and contradictory attitude to specifically shut down any mention of the opposition/concerns with this specific proposal as basically being not worthy of saying out loud or acknowledging (and the public is left to just assume/hope that the accumulation of opposition/concerns is being considered appropriately… when it'd be a lot more assuring to see council actually debate & talk out loud about all this stuff, so we can get a better sense of where they actually stand and what they value more or less).
For example, two common tactics I've seen the Mayor deploy to shut down public discussion of the negatives for this proposal has been to say something like "council's job is to represent both sides of the issue" whenever an attempt to discuss the information in the city staff reports was brought up by fellow councillors at the second reading BEFORE having to vote on moving to a public hearing OR "this is just a zoning change and we should not talk about the McDonalds-GasStation-CarWash of it all, as that might not be what happens years down the road once/if the zoning is changed to retail/commercial" when concerns about the billion-dollar McD's fast food chain was brought up at the State of the City Address — BUT AT THE SAME TIME — the Mayor has also contradicted those very statements by sharing on his own Facebook page cherry-picked positives for this proposal specifically being a McDonalds (mentioning the estimated jobs & payroll and the tax base bump that this proposed development would bring) while also conveniently omitting any of the negatives/concerns that have been brought up throughout this process (ie. no mention of why the city staff reports are advising against further readings in his communications with the public + no posts from the mayor telling 'the other side' of the negatives/concerns that have been brought up about this proposal). Which has made the public messaging and rollout of this proposal feel quite disingenuous at times (although shoutout to councillor Sue Cairns for actively trying to publicly engage on the broader context that this proposal entails on her Facebook page… and apologies if any other councillors have also been engaging on public platforms that I haven't seen).
And because of this lack of official communication/discourse between our elected decision makers, what the public has often been left with is the community grape-vine-rumour-mill to run wild on social media for months, with people basically getting into circular 'Boo McDonalds vs Yay McDonalds' debates ad nauseam, with a majority of the arguments in favour often coming down to "if you don't like it, don't go there" or "people in Marysville want to be able to get cheap food / coffee after 3pm" or "council can't tell which businesses are allowed to set up shop or not" — which all feel like arguments devoid of the actual context that this specific proposal is not about a McDonalds setting up shop in one of Kimberley's already available retail/commercial zones, this proposal is in fact about signing over the future of our already limited uncontaminated industrial land by changing the zoning at the request of a developer in order to create even more retail/commercial space for even more 'non-living' wages (during an employment shortage and housing crisis), while also needing to put in an intersection/roundabout just for this proposed highway retail centre, not too mention that this specific proposal is for a McDonalds and ANOTHER gas station & car wash (and the environmental concerns that come with those specific parts of the proposal).
And considering that if this proposal were to go through, it would be about 3-5 years before this version of a ‘solution’ to the problem of "people in Marysville want to be able to get cheap food / coffee after 3pm", it feels like we should instead be telling this developer "if you don't like it (aka: our zoned industrial land), don't go there (ie. take your non-industrial development idea to where the zoning is already retail/commercial)"… as it is through our existing city zoning, and by not changing our zoning at the request of any developer that comes along with an idea that doesn't align with our OCP, that city council actually does have some control over which businesses are allowed to set up shop or not. So, if a billion-dollar fast food chain is truly the only way that people in Marysville can get cheap food / coffee after 3pm, then someone should look into opening up a fast food franchise in one of the already empty retail/commercial spaces available — although, I personally think that we'd be better off talking to existing local businesses to see why they're not able to stay open longer hours or offer McDonalds level pricing… and then maybe we should look into addressing those issues as a locally-minded community instead (as these are also issues that need to be talked about out loud more often).
Because I don't think we should be afraid to say NO to a bad proposal just because the developer has a bunch of money and might take those deep pockets to somewhere else that wouldn't say NO (or that we'll scare off good investments in the future) — in fact, I think it would show that we're a community that actually has a strong vision/desire for a more sustainable future, one that we're not willing to immediately compromise at the flashing of a big cheque book, and that demonstration of integrity should start attracting better proposals/developments that actually align with our OCP that we can say Y-E-S to (as long as we don't hand over our future first to whoever comes sniffing around our new 'Best Small Town in BC' award with deep pockets and a lack of regard for the community plans and guidelines we have put in place to specifically help protect us from this very sort of short-sighted development getting pushed through council unchecked).
And, sure, I realize that the major underlying reason that some people are quietly in favour of this proposal is actually because of the promise of lower residential property taxes (for those who haven't been priced out of being able to buy a home at all), BUT, as the Mayor has said himself (while side-stepping points of opposition), we don't even know if this specific proposal will eventually be what goes through if the zoning is changed from Industrial to Retail/Commercial (with 'shovels in the ground' not being until years from now)… so, to me, that just sounds like ANOTHER reason why we shouldn't even be considering to change our zoning and OCP at the request of this proposed development ; )
So, for all of those reasons above and more, that is why I am voting NO on bylaws 2732 and 2733 (and since I don't actually have a real vote on this matter, I am crossing my fingers and hoping at least 4 of the 7 humans who do have a real vote will agree… with me OR with the hundreds of others who have also sent in comments of opposition/concern already)!
Thank you for your time, sincerely.
--
Jeremy Sroka // @HI54LOFI

.

And, just to reiterate, I think it is really important for people to remember that, at the end of the day, the decision on whether or not to go forward with this zoning change from Industrial to more Retail/Commercial (at the request of a developer wanting to put in a McDonalds + Gas Station + Car Wash where the current zoning doesn’t allow for such a development), despite whatever the public sends in writing or says in person at the public hearings (or posts on social media), and despite what’s in our Official Community Plan or in the city staff reports advising against this proposal — the final decision comes down to the vote of 1 mayor and 6 city councillors. So, if you can, try reaching out and speaking to those people personally (and personably, as they are persons too).

Because I know that the recent hot button Galloway Lands development near Fernie may not seem like a related thing to bring up here, BUT, I do feel it is worth noting that not only was our Mayor on the RDEK board to make the final decision on that controversial zoning change request, but our Mayor was also one of the votes in favour of passing the developers request for a zoning change (in a 9-6 vote count), despite the public hearings that were held being overwhelmingly against the proposal — AND — in the final RDEK board meeting before the final votes were cast, our Mayor said this about those public hearings (and this is a direct transcription of audio recordings that someone sent me after reading my posts on the ‘Marysville McDonalds’ proposal and noticing a familiar pro-developer attitude):

\\

““To suggest that because there is a heavily-weighted number of people that are against it in a public hearing, to suggest that that is what needs to rule the day, I think would be very short-sighted.””

— Mayor Don McCormick at RDEK board meeting, before voting in favour of the Galloway Lands zoning change, despite public hearings OVERWHELMINGLY against the proposal (he also went on to suggest that public hearings tend to draw those against a proposal in higher numbers, so it's important to keep in mind all those who do not say anything publicly).

//

Which is not to say that people should not be turning up to our public hearings to make their voices heard or that sending in more public comments before the June 27th/28th deadline is redundant (in fact, I would argue the opposite, especially for those who haven’t sent anything in yet or don’t plan on saying something because they assume enough has already been said), it is just a reminder that sometimes voicing our individual & collective concerns/opinions through the officially sanctioned communication channels provided isn’t enough to outweigh what our elected decision makers will decide to do when it finally comes time to vote on the public’s behalf (ie. we don’t have direct democracy, we have representational democracy… and, as I’m sure everyone is already familiar with, we don’t always get to feel like we’re being “represented” by all of our representatives).

On a related note, here is the public communication count for the ‘Marysville McDonalds’ proposal that was shared via councillor Sue Cairns at the start of June (ie. around the time of council voting 4-3 to keep this proposal alive until after public hearings are held):

Opposed: over 80 letters (from over 110 signatories).  2 Letters from Organizations (multiple signatories).  1 Petition from 424 signatories (replacing the previous petition of 194 signatures). Chamber of Commerce survey showing 89.3% of businesses have concerns (although participation rate was only around 23%).

In support: 3 letters in total and 2 were from the same person (2 signatories).

Neutral: 1 letter citing safety concerns at the highway turnoff location (1 signatory).

And even though we are yet to get a sense of what the ‘Nay vs Yay’ vibes will be at the upcoming public hearings, I must admit that there’s a part of me that worries we could just as easily be heading for a similar Galloway Lands decision of ‘just because there has been more public opposition to this proposal than in favour, that doesn’t mean we should not vote the proposal through anyways because <insert anecdotal story about private conversations with people who didn’t send letters or speak at the public hearings>’… and all it takes is 4 votes to get a proposal passed in our city council (regardless of what has been sent or said).

Now, you can do with this information what you will — BUT — I hope what you will do with this information is realize the importance of more of us becoming more engaged and informed on an ongoing basis with what is happening on a local / municipal level (as hard to stay informed as it can seem sometimes), BECAUSE, unlike with most provincial & federal decisions, we’re actually able to communicate and interact on a human-to-human level with most of our city council decision makers (because they live in our town, and if you don’t know them personally, you probably know people that do). And even if every decision won’t go the way you want it to (not that you need to have an opinion on every decision anyways), focusing more of your energy on the parts of the garden that you can actually reach always bears more fruit than shaking your fist at far away clouds.

So get informed, get engaged, get your comments into the public record before the June 27th/28th deadline AND… if you prefer your public speaking abilities, get in the line for the mic at the McKim public hearing or get on the horn for the telephone hearing the next day (and let’s get civilly civic y’all) ✊

//

And Here's Some More 'Marysville McDonalds' Information / Context If Interested: