Here are just a few of this anonymous document’s inaccuracies, together with correct information:
Claim: "No Park Space-We are currently entitled to 7-8 acres!! Belle Isle is 1/3 acre!"
FACT: Belle Park is small, 1,440 sq. metres. But within a 5 minutes walk of the intersection of Belle Isle and Fullerton are large tracts of under-utilized parks and green space; Capilano Regional Park (16,400 sq. metres/1.6 hectares), Klee Wyck Park 5,984 sq. metres, West Bank of Capilano river, Fullerton to Clyde (7,500 sq. metres+). These figures do not include Klahanie Park, Norgate sports fields, or any of the potential trails along the eastern side of Capilano River contemplated for development as part of an integrated path system for Lower Capilano.
The latest iteration of the Lower Capilano Plan (attached) includes an additional15,000 sq. metres of public park and public/green space within the redeveloped area - 17% of total ground area! The redevelopment of Lower Capilano would dramatically increase the available parks and public space.
Claim: “the International Plaza - 47O units with approx 1,500 residents”
FACT: Canada Census data for 2006 lists the population of International Plaza as 790 not 1,500.
Claim: "OVER 5,000+ RESIDENTS - 1,000 UNITS ON THE LARCO SITE COULD BE 3,000 MORE [residents]!
FACT: In 1996 apartment occupancy rates on the North Shore averaged 1.25 persons/unit or fewer, with declining occupancy since that time. The most recent application for the Larco site contemplated a total of 394 units, 45 of which were slated for single occupancy seniors' residences resulting in approximately 485 additional residents, not 3,000.
Claim: "...and go after something that will fit our area, such as the proposed "care center" that fell through several years ago."
FACT: The "care center" that is offered as "something that will fit our area" was in fact a high security locked ward facility for mental health patients. Would Lower Capilano residents agree that this would be a "fit" for this community? The idea for such a facility never reached a proposal stage, nor was the idea ever presented to Larco Investments to even consider. Is it legitimate to declare that this "proposed" deal "fell through" and might still be a remote or even desirable possibility for this community?
Presenting unsubstantiated statistics and ideas to the community is unhelpful at best. To distribute a mixed bag of inaccuracies and conjecture before residents in the midst of the OCP process, in a manner that avoids accountability, is clearly not in the best interest of community members .