As an Inter-River resident, it’s important that you speak up about the District’s proposal to build two artificial turf sports fields at the south end of Inter-River Park . Please write the Mayor and Council to let them know what you think about the impact of the proposed fields on this peaceful and affordable area, and to encourage District officials to meet with the Community Association.

To summarize, the proposal includes the following key changes:

  • Replacement of an existing grass field with artificial turf
  • Removal of at least 1.5 hectares of forest to make way for a second turf field
  • Installation of tournament lighting towers on both proposed fields, allowing these fields to operate after dark
  • Additional parking plus a clubhouse and other sports club and tournament services
Proposed Two Field Option
Two Field Option Proposed By the District

There has been minimal consultation with area residents about these plans. Here are some of the issues residents are concerned about:

Residents opposed to the proposal have been placing posters around the neighbourhood, the park, and the Lynn Creek trails.  The posters call for residents and other concerned citizens to respond to the District’s survey (now closed), join the Inter-River Community Association Facebook group, follow this blog, and write the mayor, council, and District officials. There has also been support from most of the area stratas, who have agreed to put up the posters on their properties.  If you know of a location that could use one of these posters to inform residents about the proposal, please post a comment below.  You can find the latest poster here if you want to print it out and put it up yourself.

On June 29, the Inter-River Community Association (IRCA) sent a letter to the Mayor, District Council, and Parks Staff expressing its concerns about the removal of the forested area, as well as the impact on the quality of life for many people living in the neighbourhood.  The letter also requested a meeting with the District to discuss the proposal and to explore other options for the area that would meet the needs of both neighbourhood residents and field users.

So what’s next?

The District’s survey results are expected to be released on September 27th [Update – survey results were released on November 10]. Although many residents did respond to the survey, it’s important that residents’ voices continue to be heard.  As discussed above, the best option is to write District officials.

Use the District’s contact form, or send emails and/or letters to the following:

Mayor Richard Walton, DNV rwalton@dnv.org
Susan Rogers, Director of Parks, DNV rogerss@dnv.org
Carol Girard, Parks Department, DNV parks@dnv.org
355 West Queens Road, North Vancouver, B.C., V7N 4N5

Cc:

City Council Members:

Roger Bassam rbassam@dnv.org
Mathew Bond bondm@dnv.org
Jim Hanson hansonj@dnv.org
Robin Hicks Hicksr@dnv.org
Doug MacKay-Dunn dmackay-dunn@dnv.org
Lisa Muri lmuri@dnv.org

Layne Christensen, Editor, North Shore News lchristensen@nsnews.com
Inter-River Community Association interriverca@gmail.com

Watch this space for announcements and ideas for further involvement.  We need your support!

(Note: the Lorax at the top of this post is likely the work of “Barksey”, Inter-River’s anonymous rock artist)

11 thoughts on “We Speak for the Trees!

  1. I do understand that you are opposed to this project. Yet…the district isn’t clearcutting the north shore here. A hectare is 100 metres x 100 metres ( or roughly 328 ft x 328 ft). And… there’s a lot of conifers due north.

    1. It’s not simply that trees are being removed (although that is reason enough to stop this project). It’s that the trees are an important part of a neighbourhood that cherishes them and makes regular use of them for aesthetic, educational, and recreational purposes. Sorry, the residents that live by this forest shouldn’t have to travel to other parts of the North Shore to find those benefits. And please read the rest of the post (not just the part about the trees) – residential neighbourhoods are not the place for the tournament lighting, pay-to-play turf fields, and increased noise and traffic that this proposal will bring.

  2. “residential neighbourhoods are not the place for the tournament lighting, pay-to-play turf fields, and increased noise and traffic that this proposal will bring.”

    Cannot agree with you here at all. Residential.. it means family housing. That’s where the sports amenities are needed unless you own the Whitecaps.
    I understand that you like your private little coniferous park. I kind of like mine too. BUT… if we continue to commit to densification in the district and nearby areas, ( and we are continuing that ), then you have to understand that private mini forests may have to move over to allow for certain ‘amenities’.
    I happen to think that continued densification is the battle and the consequences of it are just that .. consequences.

    Anyway, you argument re ‘ecosystems endangerment’ is extremely weak and needs to find a replacement if you want to win this.

  3. Your argument simply confirms my point – these fields are not intended for the residents of the area and in fact represent a loss of recreational space for the neighbourhood. They are being built for the soccer associations and will not actually be available to the neighbourhood unless they are pre-booked and paid for. If your point is that there are more important issues to confront, please know that I agree that densification, especially the chaotic and unplanned development that is affecting this and many other areas of the North Shore, is a major concern., The turf proposal is but one of many of the harmful consequences of the development frenzy. When I find the time I plan to post about the tsunami of issues affecting Inter-River.

    1. Don’t know why you’re saying that. The latest we’ve heard is that District staff is recommending a single field, which would avoid the removal of the forest. However, there are still many questions to be answered before a decision is made. Survey results and updated reports are available at http://www.dnv.org/recreation-leisure/inter-river-park-survey-results-and-next-steps. Also check the Facebook group for ongoing discussion by area residents.

  4. I hope so but I’ve heard through my contacts that Mr. Bassam wrote a letter to Council stating quite strongly that this project should move forward questioning the consultant report. Can we email and write to Bassam and put some pressure on him? He is one Councillor who has obvious ties to the soccer community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s