The topic of a National Park in the South Okanagan and Similkameen areas has become a divisive issue throughout the region. Thousands of signatures have been garnered on petitions for both sides of the debate. Signs proclaiming allegiance to one side of the issue or the other are common sights along our rural roads and highways. In fact, the issue has become so divisive, such a political hot potato, that advancement on the issue, a resolution be it pro or con, has become stalled.
But the time to reopen the debate, and bring the issue back to the forefront is now, and it is not because of the environmental and conservation issues at hand, though they are of the utmost importance.
Yet the number one reason that the debate should be revisited is, as is the case with so many issues in the current recession, the economy.
Since this idea was first brought to prominence much has changed in the area economically. Prosperity is not a given and economic development is an even greater challenge than it was before.
It is in this light that the National Park needs to be revisited. The refusal or support of the concept needs to be looked at through the scope of the current economic climate as well as that of the future. For those opposed to the idea, a look at the financial impact of the park may well change your minds. The economic impact study into the park is profound. The estimated initial investment into the park would be from $10 million to $12 million. Due to its nature as a National Park, this cost would not be the burden of local residents, but it is us that would see the benefits. Further park expenses would be covered by revenues and economic development, and these investments are nothing if not substantial.
Over the course of the first 10 years, the park through employment investment and tourism would generate an average of $51,284,000 in revenue into the region per year. For the population most directly impacted by the park that works out to direct or indirect financial benefits of over $2,000 for every single person each year, not to mention additional facility benefits.
Now, with that kind of financial impact in mind, those opposed to this park, should perhaps take the time to weigh whether or not the perceived negatives are not trumped by the economic boon it would provide for the region.