WE WON!

The Princeton Aquatic Centre Referendum is over. The first numbers to come from the Chief Election Officer are listed below. We are still waiting for the official announcement and until then these numbers are not set in stone. Although it is not expected that there will be any change, we will however update promptly if necessary.

Princeton
474 YES
507 NO
FAILED

Area ‘H’
269 YES
968 NO
FAILED

There are several things which can be inferred from these numbers. One is the relative lack of interest, one way or the other, shown in the Town of Princeton. Not a lot of voters showed up there. Another is the unusually large number of voters who showed up in Area ‘H’ and the large majority of NO votes there. This is not just a no – it is a NO!

Although this aquatic centre project and referendum has been described by a few people as being a two sided issue, the reality is that there has not been any controversy in our town. The bottom line is that the referendum has failed to show significant interest in funding this large project. Certainly from a Coalmont point of view – we won. §

UPDATE: The OFFICIAL results have now been confirmed and they are the same as we have above. You can see the details on the Official Referendum Results RDOS page.

COMMENTS

7 thoughts on “WE WON!”

  1. Your headline – WE WON – is not a very good start to the reconciliation between the citizens of the Town of Princeton and the overpowering number of voters of Area H. Your headline is gloating and tactless, and offends me as Town of Princeton resident who supported the Aquatic Centre!

    Area H clearly managed a very hostile and effective campaign against the Aquatic Centre! Okay – you won! However, you make it very clear that if the people of the Princeton – the town to which you must turn for almost ALL you services, ever wants to control its own fate, we must look for ways to rid ourselves of the overbearing power of Area H – otherwise, what is the point of having a Town!

  2. It is time that the fingerpointing STOP!…. From my point of view everybody lost something…. Those who wanted a pool didn’t get it…. Those who had to fight hard not to have to pay for a pool they would likely never use have obviously lost the respect of people like the commenter above…. Princeton itself voted against the pool, and yet they are blaming Area H for that…. despite there being more voters in Princeton (who didn’t care enough to vote)…. The “YES” side were tearing down “NO” posters in Coalmont as if their opinion was the only one that counted…. That lost them respect here….

    If a lesson is to be learned here, it is that people are not “Entitled” to what they want on the backs of others…. We live in a Democracy, the people have voted, and it’s time for the healing to begin….

  3. It should also be pointed out that IF both Area H and Town of Princeton votes were combined (as was originally planned) the final results would have been 1,475 NO, 743 YES (using RDOS-released figures). That’s so close to a 2:1 ratio against the Referendum that should be what is focused on rather than who said what to who. I hope the Pool Committee does not go into hiding and uses this data for another, shall we say, practical concept. There’s no doubt we need a pool. Let’s work on making it a reality without digging too deep in taxpayers’ pockets.

  4. @Karin Green: Thank you for posting. Actually, we are only one of the communities within Area ‘H’. I know it’s hard to tell if one doesn’t live here, but like the announcement says, there was no controversy in our town. We really were put on the defensive in this case.

    Also, I do think that any problem with “overbearing power” was removed when the vote was split. Don’t you? In any case, I agree with you that it is a good idea to recognize the independence of communities – Coalmont certainly shouldn’t have a say in what happens in Princeton.

  5. Karin Green, no one from Area H ‘managed a hostile campaign against the aquatic center’; I based my decision on the lack of current, truthful information in addition to many other concerns.

    To my mind this process was flawed from the start; I had difficulty finding accurate information that identified the authors, even the ‘official’ website did not state who they represented or their identities.

    I stayed off the Facebook site simply because of the muck being flung about by so called right-minded(usually friendly) people; because someone else’s opinion differed. Childish, unnecessary & hurtful.

    This was not a fair vote due to the fact that some property owners were not able to vote because they aren’t Canadian Citizens, yet their tenants were eligible. Who bears the cost? The property owner, regardless of citizenship or nationality, not the tenant who is free to move on any time with no responsibility for the debt incurred.

    Why was the provincial voters list used; the Town & Area H tax rolls would have been more appropriate.

    Princeton & Area H should not have been compared to other Communities, our circumstances are not theirs.

    Who should bear the responsibility of the costs for what turns out to be primarily a town dream?

    Area H did not vote the pool out for Princeton; that was done by the majority of Princeton residents who voted no or just didn’t vote one way or the other.

    Remember it’s 50% + 1% in both areas, not just Area H; a majority of Town residents happened to vote against it, don’t blame Area H for your results. If Area H did a better job of getting information out it does not make them hostile.

    For all that say the lack of a pool etc is what is keeping doctors from locating here, I’ll point out that most doctors want & need to use their operating skills; it is the lack of a functioning operating room which most affects the decision of the majority of them & has contributed to other doctors leaving the area for larger hospitals where they can practice their skills.

    Why not approach Interior Health to participate in a cost-sharing, after all swimming is beneficial for therapy, weight-loss etc, that makes it a health issue. Perhaps a three-way split would even the playing field somewhat & be viewed more favorably.

    Bottom line for me? Simple economics & the concern that we are passing a debt onto the next generation of taxpayers who may not face the brightest economic future.

    One more question, why has it not become public, or at least published knowledge that the pool in Merritt closes through the winter months as do most pools, even those on the coast?

    Mr Sterne, I must agree with you, respect has been lost on both sides of the ‘pool’, hopefully not something that can’t be repaired; however the results of this vote do bring home the message that both area H & Town are very different entities with diverse interests and goals.

    If we agree we disagree we have a common ground, however we are all entitled to our own opinion regardless of where we live. Yup, let the healing and tolerance of differing opinions begin.

    Karin, the headline might be a tad tacky but is by no means offensive. It merely points out the difference in opinion & likely was not intended to cause hurt, only to point out how strongly many felt about this particular issue & the potential implications for future taxpayers. Nothing more, nothing less. Best regards to all.

  6. You won! Won what? Several months ago I read a doctor decided not to set up practice in Princeton because there was no pool. Next time you need a doctor, the hospital emergency is closed and you have to drive to Penticton, remind yourself you won!

  7. I don’t think the headline on this article is gloating – rather it is a collective sigh of relief. Many in this community had serious concerns about how they would afford the proposed payments if the referendum had passed.

    The referendum quite succinctly told the pool committee that Area H is not interested in paying for a pool. It is akin to someone wanting to purchase a porche and asking their neighbours to help pay for it. They would be allowed to drive it, however, they were not interested in driving it and maintaining it.

    To the pool committee I say, don’t lose your passion. Your dream is not dead, it has just changed. My suggestion would be to redesign a pool in a simple rectangle shape that would accommodate swim meets and bleachers for onlookers. This would bring income to both the pool and the Princeton community. Keep windows to a minimum to preserve heat in the building and design the building so that it could be added to later as funds permitted.

    While it is warm and fuzzy to think of all of us as one community, in reality we are not. Coalmont, for example, is a community of many low income seniors. Eastgate is a seasonal community where most owners live elsewhere and probably already pay for community resources where their full time homes are. Each community has its own unique demographics. I don’t think it is unrealistic for Princeton to eventually build a conservatively designed pool for their community. I hope the pool committee doesn’t let this setback kill their dream. Instead, I hope it just refocuses them on a more practical approach for the town of Princeton to embark on alone.

Comments are closed.