Esther Callo

Ruben

Here are the plans for Vic High's Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project compared to the current track: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dzsb5BOmGOWr5jdTQobbzs29RNsL9liC/view?usp=sharing

The plans, that received unanimous support from the School Board in 2012 and were reviewed by the Board in 2018, are not compatible with the proposed 8m easement or the CRHC proposal. This information was withheld from trustees.

The image you provided above also does not account for the parking that is required by City bylaws, even with the almost 50% reduction that was allowed with a variance.

The original plans for Vic High's Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project situate Vic High's parking requirements on the former Fairey Tech site because the original plans require the area of the proposed 8m easement and more. According to Vic High's Project Definition Report, the former Fairey Tech site was also intended for the NLC daycare. 

All of Vic High's land was accounted for with the expansion of the Memorial Stadium that requires 20m to the west of the current stadium, parking, and the NLC daycare.

Hello Tanya

Thank you for your comment and for your front-line perspective as a parent. Families should not have to move their children to access high quality sports facilities in their public schools. 
I am especially struck by this heartfelt comment: "This article hints at how important school sport can be for many students, especially for those who have less access to our pricey, pay-to-play rec sport. The large  bipoc/immigrant students in SD61 are being systematically neglected and taught they aren't worthy and don't deserve the same opportunities as other children down the street."

Here are some actions you can take and share with others:
1) Join the Friends of Vic High Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/208406680932681

2) Sign our (hot off the press) open letter calling for an investigation into School District 61:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11hZK4E3HJ367vVoojHwzUqrRUT_WAdQjNL2L4Zon4K8/edit

3) Sign our petition in support of the original plans for Vic High's Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project: https://www.change.org/savevichightrack

4) Tell your friends to make a video or write a letter objecting to the proposed rezoning of Vic High land at the public hearing TBA some time in October. We'll keep you updated on the Friends of Vic High FB page.

Thank you Tanya! Vic High needs your passion and dedication to equity!

Esther

 

Hello Ruben

My first reply to you from Sept 12 is missing some of the text so I'm posting the rest here: 

The City, CRHC, and, apparently, Fernwood NRG, are relying on the District's narrative about Vic High to justify their claims for Vic High land. However, the District has just been called out for systemic racism and fiscal mismanagement. Are you willing to hang your hat on their judgement?

Here's still more info about Vic High's Memorial Stadium Revitalization Plans: https://drive.google.com/.../1iYkX.../view...

Here's a link to a document that reveals the project was started in 2007 at the request of the City and the District: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-uXB0Smjb_aRjO1AXyBCU564FEBPTkr/view?usp=sharing

Note that in this document, the Alumni confirm that "Our only thoughts about 'scaling down' would relate to the Advisory Committee ...  where the elimination of the track, because of land needed for the proposed housing development, has been determined."
Who was on this Advisory Committee, and with what authority did they make such decisions without notifying the public? Why did the District include the metric track and stadium in the 2020 survey if they were already aware of a land-use conflict? Was the survey a means of leading the public to believe that the proposed cancellation was due to funding issues (rather than a land-use conflict), as reported, even though evidence suggests that funding was available?: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XicOQEfThU9zIgIQLMlkKAnQe_kDz8TW/view?usp=sharing

Recall that Phase 1 of the Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project was confirmed in 2018: “School district officials see the stadium project being established in concert with a needed seismic upgrade at Vic High, secretary-treasurer Mark Walsh said.”: https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/first-strides-toward-vic-high-s-stadium-reno-1.23147660

Thank you,

Esther Callo

To Guest Resident Here
Your comment is ugly and inappropriate. Please remove it.

You're absolutely right.
School Districts are a level of government that is not scrutinized enough, including SD61, that has recently been called out for systemic racism and inequity. But like any other level of government, they are supposed to play by the rules, and it's our job to protect the educational rights of kids in our community by holding SD61 accountable.

A recent CBC article about systemic racism and inequity in Prince George SD57 points out that the BC education system as a whole has issues with systemic racism and inequity: "The authors also write that many of their recommendations do not just apply to Prince George but to the B.C. school system in general." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/review-of-prince-george-schools-finds-clearly-discriminatory-and-systemically-racist-practices-1.6156868

Some School Boards like SD61 have become toxic and dysfunctional, which contributed to the Four Nations calling for Trustee Jordan Watters' resignation as Chair of the Board: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/greater-victoria-new-school-board-chair-1.6137009

Here's an update about Prince George that reveals issues of toxicity on their board: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fgoudiestephanie%2Fstatus%2F1437493305479106562%3Fs%3D21%26fbclid%3DIwAR3kjjZ90LYLCiN7kDwH0wWyZmuoQCzYbc8Fy8KDP4YZdnbDDrd7YEtslUs&h=AT24Ljajg9H6gLkrMwykmdwtAtUBLzm4OYRFEa44F9htYI57wg_2iyVvTrRjSJPOcHq-VPgLSOB4uOD-bYXy7Ncbd5YKsitss2nDAae3jK40O8jC_Fsh7dNhYXHVNTSFliSKT_I6

As for the City, they don't have the power to compel SD61 to build the track, but they have been partners in this project and certainly have strong influence. However, they  don't have the power to modify plans without public consultation, but they did. Check out page 581 - 585 of the CoV June 6, 2019 meeting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16vccR8nfukFdcR4CceOYTlRO1l4Mj75G/view?usp=sharing

The City confirmed their support for the original plans of Vic High's Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project in their June 6, 2019 document. See page 581: "In the Strategic Plan, Council has reaffirmed the City's support for a proposal initiated by Victoria High School alumni and administration, to renew their outdoor sport field and related amenities next to the school for the benefit of students as well as the wider community."
Yet oddly, they presented much modified plans in the image in Attachment B (at the end of the rationale) that don't match the Alumni's plans. Clearly, Council was voting on modified plans, perhaps without even knowing.

Despite what the District would like everyone to believe, the Alumni did not have the power to modify plans without consultation either. The original plans went through extensive public consultation as per the agreement with the City and the public was asked to make substantial donations based on these plans — right up until the fall of 2020 when our group called attention to the issue.

Even though the City confirmed in June 2019 their 2014 commitment to contributing $250,000 to the Vic High Stadium project as originally planned, they presented Council with a choice to either fully fund Topaz, or partly fund Topaz in order to come up with the $250,000 for Vic High — but only for the field. See page 584 in the link above.

The Alumni, after working for years to see the plans become reality, apparently jumped at the chance to get the funding that had been committed to them to see Phase 1 constructed alongside the seismic upgrade. However, email exchanges show that the Alumni thought they were moving forward with the field and that the track would come later, as per the multi-phase approach that is confirmed in the City's June 6, 2019 document.

What they apparently didn't realize at the time is that the City and SD61 had already negotiated the proposed 8m easement that requires the same land. (And of course, the parking was apparently kicked down the road and considered last of all when the area required should have been secured first, as required by City bylaws.)

It seems that as far as the City was concerned, they were moving forward sans the track, without telling the Alumni or consulting the public, even though their own documents confirm that public consultation would be required to move forward with the field. See page 583: "The next step required for the Victoria High School field project is a similar exercise, which would include community consultation and identifying the cost of constructing the first phase." 

As we know, the situation was kept secret from the public all throughout 2019 when consultation was supposed to take place regarding the proposed development. In 2020, the District even conducted a survey asking people if they wanted the track and stadium, which was confirmed. But then they turned around and said later in 2020 that there was no $ for it (repeating it over and over again to the public), knowing full well that there was a land-use conflict caused by deals negotiated in 2019.

So, back to your comment about School Districts. Clearly, the District did not uphold their mandate as a government body to prioritize students in all their deliberations. And quite apparently, the City of Victoria was more than happy to take advantage of Vic High's vulnerability to the District's abandonment of their most fundamental purpose. But you won't see the District trying to get away with it at Oak Bay High because those parents don't face the same barriers to standing up to power.

That's wrong. We can do better for Vic High students, some of Victoria's most marginalized citizens.
To date, I believe that far too many people have assumed that School Districts are benevolent entities that can do no harm. The Prince George SD57 report and the dealings in SD61 show otherwise.

And yes, the Province is welcome to step in and fix this mess any time.

Thanks for the dialogue Ruben!


 

Ruben, I believe the public deserves transparency regarding your relationship to the CRHC proposal as an employee of Fernwood NRG.  Fernwood NRG is a stakeholder in the proposed development as a potential provider of childcare services. Additionally, Fernwood NRG, to my knowledge, has an undisclosed interest in a proposed daycare facility on the northeast area of Vic High by the Belfry, negotiated through the School District. Regardless, this proposed use of Vic High green space has been undisclosed to the public.

Through FOI requests, I have two images of the proposed daycare on the northeast area of Vic High:
1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fmEpqPY46uzzQC8jUw9fG3NDuYSFIZRI/view?usp=sharing 
taken from a larger proposed site plan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpAk2YD546mIh339_N4K9-9Em30N9OMo/view?usp=sharing
and
2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RgVp-UujfejJutEi_gpwlD5GBhObTHeB/view?usp=sharing

The public deserves transparency regarding these proposed uses of Vic High land. If you have concerns about accuracy in public discourse, I would expect that you would be concerned about this information being withheld from the public. Without this information during the 2019 "consultation" process, the public was unable to properly assess the cumulative impact of demands on Vic High land by outside agencies, including Fernwood NRG. Information has been delivered piece-meal, including information about the impact of the proposed 8m easement, giving the public the erroneous impression that Vic High will not be impacted by cumulative demands. 

In fact, the November 2018 joint release from the District, City, and CRHC made that claim: "The project will not involve or impact the current greenspace areas used for the running track and school grounds on the Victoria High School site.": https://www.victoria.ca/assets/City~Hall/Media~Releases/2018/2018.11.21_MR_CRHC Land Agreement Caledonia Project.pdf
Clearly, this information is incorrect, and to suggest that the issue is due to Vic High's parking needs, as some have done, is disingenuous.

As I have explained to you on Local Governance 2.0, the image of the 8m easement as presented in the article is derived from the CRHC's own images of the proposed site. Please see page 14: https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/housing-pdf/capital-projects/caledonia-rezoning-booklet-final_19-09-27.pdf?sfvrsn=10569cb_2

This slide show explains our methods. Thank you for your interest: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-ijavk4k1h13gkecVyof-jCMGZANPDo/view

 You're right — the measurement of the 8m easement is not exact, as I have already acknowledged. The original image has a disclaimer to address this issue. The point of the image is to stimulate dialogue about Vic High’s Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project, not to serve as a site plan.

The image was produced over a year ago, a truly grassroots effort on the part of a handful of citizens working with very little information disseminated during the "consultation" process. At the time the image was produced, the District, City, and CRHC had yet to share images of the proposed 8m easement. Any inaccuracies reflect this lack of transparency, not an intent to mislead the public.

The point of the image is to show how much area is taken by the proposed CRHC development and the City's proposed 8m easement combined, according to the CRHC’s own information. Any inaccuracies would reflect an overlap of the two demands for Vic High land, not a disingenuous presentation of the proposed 8m easement, or the area in total.

From the perspective of land-use at Vic High, the combined area of the two causes a land-use conflict with Vic High's pre-existing plans for their Memorial Stadium Revitalization Project and displaces Vic High's required parking onto existing infrastructure.

If you're concerned about inaccuracy, please look closely at the image shared in the FB chat produced by SD61: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12CH4JIqDZJohvK-MvNXV7RCCCN8ylG_5/view?usp=sharing

 The proposed 8m easement (26 ft) is adjacent to the proposed parking that is shown as 64 ft wide. 64 divided by 26 is approx 2.5. But the proposed parking is not shown as 2.5 times as wide as the 8m easement, throwing into question the accuracy of this government-produced image, the only one produced to date, to my knowledge, that shows the relationship between the proposed housing (not shown, but adjacent), 8m easement, parking, and proposed modifications to Vic High's infrastructure as a result of these pressures.

I will add that this image was brought to the public's attention due to our group's FOI requests; it was not freely divulged. In fact, I had to make complaints to the FOI office to get it. Will you pursue this inaccuracy on behalf of the public and Vic High students?

Inaccurate images have also been produced by the CRHC and shared with the public at "consultations" hosted by the District in 2019. The images omit reference to the proposed 8m easement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X8tmsO8eG54rrwyLVWri5XrOB8GpO_EU/view?usp=sharing

Images from the CRHC Rezoning package that suggest Vic High would be left with a lush green field were disseminated by Affordable Fernwood during the consultation process: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ut0oJJm-VFOPqp0dVguJq66c51DtS0SI/view?usp=sharing
These images are clearly inaccurate.

A similar image that omits the proposed 8m easement and parking was shared with Vic High students in 2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yXa0jrP6v_wIVHWw1hBF6MmrhkaA81-v/view?usp=sharing
In 2019, the District was fully informed about Vic High's parking needs and had already negotiated the proposed 8m easement. Why was the impact of these demands on Vic High's plans for a revitalized stadium, including an 8-lane metric track and full field, withheld from students, preventing them from engaging in critical thinking regarding land-use at their school? The District’s own Long Term Facilities Plan recommends student participation in decisions at their school.

How can adults ask children to forego pre-existing plans for their school in favour of the proposed housing, as worthy as the cause is, especially when schools in their own district (Oak Bay, for example) with wealthier demographics are exempt from the same austerity measures, while receiving funding from the District for their plans? To pose such a question to high school students that results in inequity in our school district is unethical. To withhold knowledge of this conflict from students and make decisions that negatively impact them without their knowledge — especially when the community has been led to believe that the stadium is moving forward — is immoral.

I can only conclude that this disingenuous presentation of information to students, and the District's continued neglect to fully inform Vic High students of the issues facing their school, are reflective of systemic inequity and a lack of regard for their humanity and potential.

Records show that you had the privilege of serving on the Vic High Visioning Group: https://drive.google.com/.../1zOe9J1GYAvWFTV82ifR.../view...

The upgraded stadium and track were in the top three requests in the Amenities Survey results that you reviewed in the Visioning Group: https://drive.google.com/.../1fgsuwiz.../view...

They made it to the top three even though the stadium and track were apparently split into two "items" and pitted against each other in the questionnaire: https://drive.google.com/.../1NV15jjq7vRaG24VT2QG.../view...