Nick Walsh on Romspen Situation

For years, residents were told that a golf course would be built and that a residential community would grow around it. The agreement included a clear deadline and a clear penalty of one hundred thousand dollars per month if that deadline was missed, up to a maximum of one million dollars.

We are now told the District is billing those penalties. That is appropriate. But billing is not the same as collecting.

If four months have passed, that means four hundred thousand dollars should be owing. If ten months pass, that means the full one million dollars is owing. The public deserves clarity on one simple question: has the money actually been paid?

If it has, where is it held and how will it be used? If it has not, what enforcement mechanism ensures the District is not left holding an empty invoice?

A penalty clause only protects taxpayers if it is enforceable and collected. Otherwise it becomes symbolic.

Now, there is an important structural reality here. Under provincial law, municipalities are required to process complete development applications. They cannot refuse to process an application simply because they suspect the developer may not have sufficient financing. That means the real protection for taxpayers must be built into the approval stage itself.

Approvals can and should be conditional. Security instruments such as performance bonds, letters of credit, staged milestones, and phased approvals tied to verified completion should be in place before construction rights are granted. The District should never find itself chasing money after a promise has already been broken.

If provincial legislation limits how strong those approval conditions can be, then that is where reform should be examined. I will advocate for clearer authority so future councils can secure performance up front instead of relying on penalties after the fact.

We cannot run a municipality on hope. We must run it on enforceable commitments.

This is not about being anti development. It is not about being anti developer. It is about protecting the taxpayer and restoring predictability. When a covenant says something will be built by a certain date, either it is built or the community is compensated in a way that is real, measurable, and transparent.

If elected, I will push for full public disclosure on whether penalties have been paid, what security instruments are backing those penalties, and how future agreements can be structured so Peachland never again faces this kind of uncertainty.

Fairness. Transparency. Enforceable commitments. That is how you rebuild trust.