Further Points to ponder about Skaha Lake Park

As a general comment, I’ve never heard any positive reason given for the waterslide at Skaha Lake Park and can thus only conclude that it’s strictly for the convenience (i.e. lower cost) of Trio.

A very poor reason given the arguments against that location.

A few thoughts following on the letter to the editor (Western News, Nov. 27, Points to ponder about Skaha Lake Park). The amount of land the waterslide would cover in relation to the size of the park is beside the point;  it’s beachfront land of which there is very little and is always precious.

As to the number of people voicing their opposition, in my 26 years in this area, I’ve never seen anything close to that number of opponents to a city initiative, with the possible exception of the opposition to a proposed parking lot on what is now Okanagan Lake Park.

The letter doesn’t note the number of people expressing support relative to those against. The latter was a great deal less of the majority the letter writer seems to consider necessary.

Trio can sign all the “irrevocable letters of credit” that they want, but if the enterprise fails, will that prevent the city from being left with a liability and an eyesore?

Waterslides in Penticton have a poor business record, besides sitting unused for all but perhaps three months of the year.

And finally,  saying that only Penticton residents have a legitimate voice in what happens in the city is similar to the views of those who insist that only residents of the South Okanagan (actually Oliver, Osoyoos, and Keremeos/Cawston) get to decide whether we have a national park in the area. Both are petty and parochial beyond belief.

Eva Durance

Penticton