Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Sally Wright

Minimum upset price for lots set at $395,000

In deciding to sell two Ogilvie Street lots, the city has essentially taken from one to sell to another, says Sally Wright of the Escarpment Parks Society.

By Stephanie Waddell on April 23, 2014

In deciding to sell two Ogilvie Street lots, the city has essentially taken from one to sell to another, says Sally Wright of the Escarpment Parks Society.

"It's kind of a sad, sad story,” she told reporters following council's 4-3 vote Tuesday evening to sell the land.

Councillors Kirk Cameron, John Streicker and Betty Irwin voted against the sale of 706 and 708 Ogilvie St.

Mayor Dan Curtis and Councillors Mike Gladish, Jocelyn Curteanu and Dave Stockdale voted to pass second and third readings of the bylaw governing the land sale.

The vote came after Wright made another plea for council to permit a park on the land rather than sell it to private buyers.

Through an agreement with the Downtown Urban Gardeners Society (DUGS), she argued, the land could be used to expand the community gardens next door.

As Wright has stated in previous presentations, a commemorative display could be installed to highlight the history of the escarpment area and many former residents who, she noted, were displaced from the area in the 1970s.

"It is a very human history of Whitehorse,” she said.

Wright has also spoken on several occasions for many of those who once lived in the area, who are now in their 80s and 90s.

In the 1970s, the city bought the land from those residents as part of a program aimed at moving residents away from the area, which was thought to be unsafe due to the instability of the clay cliffs.

While their land was never expropriated, a number of those who owned the homes at the time have stated they were led to believe if they didn't sell their land, it would eventually be expropriated.

Some who had young families have said they thought it was better to leave the area early in the process before housing prices rose around the city as a result of the mounting demand.

Updated studies and technology have shown some parts of the escarpment that were part of the 1970s buy-out are safe for development, including the two Ogilvie Street lots the city will now sell.

Given the history of the area, Wright has argued the land should be used in a way that benefits the entire community.

Last night, she said her group recognizes developing a standard park with grass and other features adds to the city's operating costs, as it is the city which maintains those parks.

She suggested having a vegetable-producing park as an expansion to the DUGS community garden would eliminate costs to the city while contributing to food security, which is outlined as one of the city's sustainability goals.

"I think it's an ideal place for expansion (of community gardens),” she said.

She also pointed out there are already numerous properties in the downtown core the city could develop.

Before she voted against the sale, Irwin said she doesn't believe it would be unethical for the city to now sell the properties.

In the 1970s, the city was acting in the best interests of its citizens with information that was available at that time, she said.

The current council, however, has new information and is not bound by decisions made 40 years ago.

However, as she was exploring the two lots, Irwin said, she looked at how close the back property line is to the clay cliffs. She also reviewed the city's Downtown Plan, which recommends maintaining the escarpment area as an urban park.

Irwin too said the land doesn't belong to the city or a corporation, but rather the citizens, and residents in the downtown should have input on what becomes of that land.

"It belongs to the people,” she said.

With that in mind, Irwin said, the city should defeat the bylaw permitting the sale.

While the history of the area was not a factor in Irwin's vote against the sale, it was for Cameron.

He first argued the possibility of a six-storey apartment building that could be permitted in the mixed use commercial zone might well be an "eyesore” as Wright had suggested, and would not fit in with the character of the neighbourhood.

Cameron then went on to note the issue "of this very unfortunate history”. The city could work to resolve a perceived historical wrong, he said, adding work needs to be done to look at the history.

The councillor said he is getting a sense the city doesn't have to do this right now, and suggested it listen to residents who have spoken out against the sale.

Streicker reflected on a slew of issues around the sale, from city plans which promote densifying the downtown to the character of the area to food security.

Ultimately, though, he concluded: "I don't think it's the right time.”

Gladish quickly disagreed.

"I do think it's the right time,” he countered. He pointed to the reconstruction of Ogilvie Street planned for this year, noting the number of newer developments in the downtown.

He suggested Cook Street Park could be expanded for additional park space in the downtown. He also said he doesn't see a need to add to the community garden on that site.

Stockdale argued new development is important in the area, and this represents a very small change for the larger downtown core.

"It's a minor change on the outside of the fringe of the neighbourhood,” he said.

Curteanu also argued the street's rebuilding makes it the "ideal time” to sell the lots for development.

She also pointed out that a number of documents show that former residents of the area were compensated for their land and that they weren't forced to sell.

Streicker proposed moving to a sale that would give any former residents of the area who moved under the program in the 1970s the first right of refusal.

He did not receive the support of other council members in the move and opted not to make it a formal amendment.

Under the sale bylaw, the two lots – with a total size of 873 square metres – are to be sold together in a bid process, with the minimum upset price set at $395,000.

Given the discussion around the potential maximum height of a building on the property though, council members asked that a council and senior management meeting be scheduled to look at possible zoning changes before the bid process begins.

After the decision, Wright expressed her disappointment with council's decision.

"Here's the city pulling away from its history,” she said.

Moving ahead with a vegetable-producing park over the private sale of a common area many already use to walk and hike would have been a great way to acknowledge Tuesday as Earth Day, she added.

Curtis did issue a proclamation recognizing yesterday as Earth Day.

Comments (13)

Up 15 Down 4

Yukoner 2 on Apr 30, 2014 at 12:17 am

@ Fredia I can guarantee I have never been or ever will be a recipient of your generosity as I pay my own way in life and I don't use the granola bridge you say you help pay for. And yes ever time I turn around all I hear is I want this and that and the tax payers can pay for it. The only difference here is you want private citizens to pay. Also as you say long after the buildings are gone then its all green space.

Up 9 Down 24

Fredia on Apr 29, 2014 at 8:02 am

@Yukoner 2

I'm just saying that if everyone pitched in we could have more green space right in town for everyone to enjoy. Long after the buildings are gone the park, garden and playground area would still be there. Giving back to the community doesn't make it a welfare state.

By the way I am always up off my 'a$$' and doing things and you might even have been a recipient of my generosity.

Chill!

Up 37 Down 4

Yukoner 2 on Apr 29, 2014 at 1:24 am

@ Fredia, there is that hand out mentality again. Does every one in this town think someone else should always pay for there S$#T? Why do we have to keep being a welfare country? Get up off your a$$ and buy it if you want it. But quit asking others to do it for you.

Up 8 Down 36

Fredia on Apr 28, 2014 at 8:19 am

I think the wealthy business folks living in Whitehorse like The Hougen Group, Pelly Construction, Sidhu Trucking, Ketza Construction and so forth should jointly buy the lots for the enjoyment of green space, garden plots etc. Heck an acknowledgement plaque to recognize their generously could be installed. Lots of folks contributed to the Millennium Bridge. I know I did. Just thinking out loud.

Up 8 Down 5

Marianne on Apr 28, 2014 at 5:08 am

@anie

There might be revenue coming in from lot sales, but there's such a thing as value-added as well. In addition to other concerns, I wonder if it's wise to embrace the new attitude that it's safe to build there now, especially when you hear of mudslides, such as recent ones in California and Washington, when they too were told it was safe to build.

For decades residents have been told the escarpment area should be protected for recreational and interpretive opportunities. Dave Stockdale says Cook Street Park could be "expanded". I would have liked to hear him elaborate on that.

The new, dominant paved trail at Jan Montgomery has transformed that space into a transportation corridor with some aesthetic green space and a bench or two -- space for on-site recreation has been substantially reduced (e.g. kicking a ball around or frisbee).

There's still Cook Street but with all the additional pressure on these parks to provide the outdoor space for a densified downtown, they're becoming as densified and busy as the housing, when ideally they'd provide respite and a viable alternative for the loss of personal yard space that that multi-housing developments aren't providing.

The Downtown Plan's vision of the escarpment area as anchoring the downtown and providing "recreation, reflective and interpretive" opportunities was quite beautiful.

I'm disappointed with this decision, and I think it will prove to be short-sighted. At least it was 4-3 though, instead of the kneejerk unanimity that prevailed for so long. And Betty Irwin, Kirk Cameron and John Streiker contributed thoughtful comments.

Up 24 Down 3

anie on Apr 26, 2014 at 12:01 am

40 years ago some residents learned that they were likely to be expropriated. They chose, instead, to sell at market value rather than risk the expropriation price being lower. Also, at that time, there was a concern that the price of land to build on elsewhere would increase. At that time, a person could buy a lot in Whitehorse for $500.

At the time, experts used best available technology and determined that the slopes were unstable. If they ignored that information, citizens would have been outraged. Since then, modern technology has allowed us to learn that the land is, in fact, stable.

It is absurd, then, to think that the Whitehorse citizens of today should revisit those sales and cough up current prices for land.

Gosh, I sold a house in Porter Creek 20 years ago for much less than it's worth today. Perhaps the current owner would like to offer compensation? I didn't know, then, what it would be worth today.

On the other hand, I would have wanted city council to expand the community garden. But if that had happened, then they would have lost an opportunity for about half a million dollars in revenue. Hard decision.

Up 13 Down 0

Wayne on Apr 25, 2014 at 8:46 am

What, exactly, is a minimum upset price?

Up 25 Down 10

WOW CoW on Apr 25, 2014 at 3:00 am

CoW should definitely have to repatriate the lands to the family's that were mislead, and coerced to sell and move. The land may not have been expropriated, but there was a lot that happened at the time including denial of building permits, etc., that forced the hands of the people that owned the lots.

To turn around now and sell them for such a huge profit is underhanded at best. Let's not forget the recent mudslides in Washington, they had mixed results in their tests too. Most said there were issues, but there is always money somewhere for the right answer to profit...

Up 26 Down 8

Trevor on Apr 24, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Whitehorse City Hall needs to be sold! And sell a bus or two...

Up 29 Down 16

stan on Apr 24, 2014 at 3:15 am

BNR

I agree.

When people have something taken away from them a nice gesture is to make it right no matter how much time has lapsed.

Up 42 Down 11

yukoner 2 on Apr 24, 2014 at 12:54 am

I think that if Sally and her garden group want the land then they can buy it. There are so many people (groups) always expecting free S^%T from the city Sima, Skate Park, Boat club, Garden Group, don't ride on the trails sell the land.

Up 36 Down 16

BnR on Apr 23, 2014 at 10:39 pm

If CoW is now considering the land "safe", they should allow the original residents the opportunity to purchase the land back for what they were paid for it. I imagine that these older tenants could use the money more than the city could.

Up 6 Down 26

Sandy Helland on Apr 23, 2014 at 8:40 am

The city must pay legal costs arising from our former mayor and councilors.

Better to develop and collect taxes evermore than to have city services cut back plus pay higher taxes.

Gardens can be tiered partly up the clay cliffs for maximum sun exposure and benefit the city.

That is if the clay cliffs really are that stable. Maybe tiered gardens would help.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.