Skaha Park group we believe in transparency, truth and proof of facts.

August 27, 2016.


Letter to Editor


I am associated with a 2nd group to save Skaha Park and we believe in transparency, truth and proof of facts. I will endeavour to answer all your questions, including SSPS Board, at any time and that is transparency. Please, show your support for both groups by supporting the Public Rally in Gyro Park at 4:45 PM on September 6 and not have a divided community.  I was disappointed to read the “Paid” insertions placed in newspapers, by SSPS last Friday, distancing them from our lawsuit.  Through emails,  I have tried  to work with SSPS over 10 months, including a special meeting last Wednesday, which they were a “no Show”. As a member of SSPS, members are currently receiving their information from the media first. Over the last 10 months, I have advised SSPS many times of my information prior to the media, but they have not been reciprocal. I waited over 10 months, after a few meetings with SSPS to follow the Rules of Court, before I filed my Civil Claim. It is similar to their Claim, because it was important to include some of their correct facts, but my Claim is much more comprehensive. A free copy of both Claims is available from us, and please look at these facts. You will see, I have 22 pages vs their 11, with 29 Legal reference points in Law vs their 11, stated at Part3: Legal Basis. At Part 2: Relief Sought, they ask for “ultra vires” which means “beyond power” on only Resolution No. 347/2015, which then Council could bring back up shortly thereafter another Resolution, like a hotel or another commercial development. We ask for 5 different “Relief Sought” that covers a much wider scope and to stop all future commercial development. I am not “muddy the waters” but clarifying points in Law. Please review Community Charter, Division 2 s.84-88, 175[2] and Local Government Act s.169-171 for further information on Referendum. When we are successful in our Court action, which will legally cancel existing agreements, a Public Referendum would be required for any Skaha Park development,  in conjunction with By law # 2002-42 and Chapters 4 & 8 of By law # 2011-23. We will engage with City of Penticton and/or SSPS at any reasonable time.

Nelson Meikle