The People of the Crowsnest Pass have spoken, Loud and Clear!

The vote on Bylaw 766 was 986 for No and 453 for yes a clear rejection of the bylaw by 69%.
There was only one small area where the vote was a yes, that was on the mobile poll where out of 35 votes 19 were in favour.
Other polls results:
Advance Yes 44 No 81 65% rejection
Coleman Yes 148 No 256 62% rejection
Blairmore/Frank Yes 182 No 294 62% rejection
Bellevue/Hillcrest Yes 60 No 339 85% rejection

Those numbers speak loud and clear on where the public stands, people will start making the excuses, somebody stated the Yes side didn't run a campaign. Yesterday I had at least a dozen people tell me that the Crowsnest Centre Board went through the phone book calling people all day Sunday.

But all those excuses really are irrelevant both sides had the opportunity to do what they wished. Bylaw 766 is now done lets put it behind us and move forward.

Why? The opposition to the Crowsnest Pass Centre Bylaw as Amended?

I am really struggling with this and keep asking myself why, why, why?

Personally I don't support keeping the centre and have always stated that?

But why are the proponents of the Centre so opposed to this bylaw? If you really want to hold on to the centre and ensure its future how does the admendments not do that?

Lets go through it again
Part 1: Allows for the question from the petition

Part 2a: Will place the centre under the administration and operation of the municipality, I have heard again and again that we place so much burden on our volunteer boards, I agree lets get administrators that are paid to run facilities to run this one. Do you know how many times we as a council have asked for information on the centre? At any council meeting I can ask for information on any other municipal facility, and receive it. Except for this one. That would not be the case if the centre was under municipal administration.

Part 2b: Administration must report back to council by year end, which option from the Hirano Heaton report council should proceed with to upgrade the centre. Does this not make sense if the centre needs upgrading and his will that not enhance its future (Minimum of ten more years?)

Part 2c: Municipal council will place into next years budget funds required for the upgrade determined in 2b. Does that make sense? if we are going to up grade any other municipal facility, wouldn't that show in the budget?


If this bylaw is passed this facility will be around for a minimum of ten more years (barring another pelebiscite) the building will need upgrades. (Does anybody disagree?) We cannot expect volunteers to run the centre for ten more years. The proponents of the centre only fear the admendments to the bylaw, because they know if we run this centre the way it should be ran as a municipal facility. We simply can not afford two community centre's, so they want to take away the admendments and keep running the centre the way it as been. If you think that's a wise choice read the auditor's statement below.