ADDICT HOUSING OPPONENTS SUE CITY

Downtown business owners are suing the city over a controversial
addict housing project planned for St. Paul Street.

The group opposed to the 30-suite building has hired a Vancouver
lawyer and launched the civil action Tuesday on grounds the city
failed to provide public notice that it intended to dispose of city-owned land.

Bruce Melville said the city didn't consult with residents before it
granted a lease to B.C. Housing, the Crown agency overseeing the project.

"My clients are seeking greater opportunity for input into the
lease-approval process," Melville said at a press conference. "The
lease was approved several days before the city published the notice
we say was required by the Community Charter."

The St. Paul group, which now calls itself the Coalition for a Safer,
Stronger Inner City of Kelowna, claims to represent 80 to 100
businesses and individuals downtown.

Spokesman Mel Kotler said there's "overwhelming dissension" against
the project's location in the city's inner core, where residents can
be tempted by alcohol and drugs.

"We feel we're acting on behalf of many citizens . . . who want to
protect what our downtown core is all about.

"This facility will not necessarily help the residents. . . . We feel
the lack of communications and involvement has basically abused us by
not involving the concerned citizens of the area and Kelowna."

The coalition claims the city delivered notice of the lease agreement
after a council resolution on June 12. The petition also alleges that
when the lease was approved, it failed to incorporate terms or
conditions that covered public meetings.

No similar case has been proven in court because the Community
Charter is relatively new legislation, said Melville.

"To be honest, it appears we're striking out on some new ground here," he said.

City manager Ron Mattiussi couldn't comment on whether the city
approved the lease before it issued notice, saying he hadn't yet met
with the city's lawyer. He said the lease has not been registered.

"It looks to me they're dealing with a procedural matter instead of a
point of law," he said.

"We don't believe we did anything wrong procedurally. At best, two
lawyers may have a different interpretation of the requirements.

"It's business as usual . . . If they want to go to court, we'll deal with it."

Construction of the building on the city-owned site is supposed to
start in the spring, with completion slated for spring 2008.

If the lawsuit is successful, the city would likely have to reopen
public consultation over the lease. But the decision wouldn't
directly kill the project.

"The ultimate goal would be to get the city to reconsider, based on
the public input that will arise out of this," said coalition
spokesman Jim Carta.

Still, Carta acknowledged the building may still end up at the same
St. Paul site.

"It could," he said. "We don't have control over that. But at least
this way, we can all know it was done in total transparency."

The city has up to three weeks to file a response, Melville said. A
court hearing could happen any time after that.

The coalition is financially prepared for the legal battle, said Kotler.

"We do have a considerable slush fund to certainly go to the next
couple of levels."