Are You Being Provided ALL The Information You Need?

If officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless.~- Swedish philosopher, 1982

UPDATE (06 04 25): One more thing we can now add to this long list of communciations 'deficiencies' on the part of the Dsitrict of Lantzville. Unlike every other jurisdiction I am aware of, the District of Lantzville does not require a property owner who is applying for a rezoning to post a visable sign/notice on the affected property prior to a Public Hearing on the application. Since the Local Government Act only requires municipalities to notify the property owners within 60 m (198 ft.) and, since in semi-rural Lantzville many of the properties are 1/2 acre or larger, this means that very few of the persons who may actually be affected will have some form of direct notification. I ask again, in a true democracy, is this good enough?!?

(rest originally posted 05 11 16)
One of the many duties of a group of people who seek to make decisions for others (we call that a democracy) is that they make every effort to keep the people they serve informed about their activities, decisions and upcoming issues.

Consider the following examples of things that have occurred (or not) through the District of Lantzville in the last 6 months or so and let me know if you think we "pass the test":
- only those who speak at a Public Hearing and submit the text of their comments will have them posted on the District's website. If you made only a written submission, someone would have to come down to the office between 8:30-4:30 M-F and ask to see the relevant binder in order to review those comments.
- if a petition and/or form letter is part of the written record of a Public Hearing, these are not summarized in any way and must be viewed by coming down to the office between 8:30-4:30 M-F and asking to see the relevant binder.
- major sections of some Agendas are not uploaded to the District's website based on their upload size. Again, you can get a copy of the whole Agenda if you come down to the office between 8:30-4:30 M-F.
- since the Agendas are scanned documents (images), and therefore, not searchable, I have asked Twyla to split off the actual Agenda portion (usually the first page or two) and provide it in the form in which it was produced (Word document) so at least that can be searched for. Her response, over a year ago was "Your... suggestions will be taken into consideration and I will advise you accordingly". [Update 07 11 09 The Agendas to this date still remain unsearchable for all practical purposes.]
- the maps, arguably the most important part of the document, attached to the various 'draft' Official Community Plans (each of which was an ~ 70 page download), could only be printed out on an 11" x 17" colour printer, viewed on your 17" or 19" monitor (with no hard copy) or viewed by coming down to the office between 8:30-4:30 M-F and asking to be shown the maps on the walls upstairs. Since the maps changed as often as the 'draft' OCP's did, this meant a number of trips to the District office and you would have to take your own notes as to what the maps were 'showing'.
- information regarding a rationale/justification for the densities contained in the OCP was proferred as: "I think we can supply something on that", yet no supporting information was ever provided
- the minutes of Council meetings are now being presented in 'draft' form yet it is unclear who has the 'authority' to change them, therefore I don't understand the purpose of this. I have tried to offer 'corrections' based on my having attended the meeting on more than one occassion, yet have continually been rebuffed.
- during the 'Public Participation' section of the Minutes, a comment that I have made has been omitted in its entirety on more than one occasion and the answers from council to my questions do not appear as part of the Minutes. The minute-taker appears to continue taking minutes during this part (by hand, laptop and, sometimes, assisted by an audio recording device), yet the response from Council is still absent. I have been told that this is at her 'discretion' but I have not been told what policy, if any, guides the minute-taking. What sense does it make to record a question to council but not their response? Does a resident who has a similar question really have to attend a council meeting and ask the question again? And again?
- when questioned about the criteria used for selecting the members of the OCP Steering Committee, I was told that it wasn't just philosophy or geography (clearly not, with 4 original members within a block of each other and 2 members within 4 houses of each other) yet, when I asked for the complete criteria, I was put off yet again. [Update: another criteria, hidden until now, has been provided inadvertently by council in rescinding a motion dealing with the issue of their remuneration - see the 'Discussion' section of the 'Report to Council' in the Agenda for their 07 05 28 meeting (pdf document page #34)]
- one of the responses which is heard too often is "the report is available at the District office" - yep, you got it, 8:30-4:30 M-F
- the Aspengrove rezoning application has variously been referred to in the Agenda as 'Central Island Independent School Society/Glencar Consultants Rezoning Application No. ZA0502'; Rezoning Application No. ZA0502 (Central Island Independent School Society - Aspengrove School)'; Bylaw No. 500.317, 2005 Regional District of Nanaimo Land Use and Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1897, Amendment Bylaw No. 500.317, 2005. A person scanning the Agenda for items of interest would have no idea that this last item was, if fact, the Aspengrove Independent School rezoning application for second reading.

A former supervisor of mine once told me, with a wink, that "if you control the Agenda and you control the minute-taking, you control the decisions"!

Is this really good enough for the residents of Lantzville?!

Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville councillor Candidate

Day-Care, An 'Essential Service' or Taxpayer-Funded Social Engineering?

Could someone please explain to me why the general taxpayer should be paying to provide day-care spaces for young families? The federal and provincial governments have both rushed to this latest exercise in how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on something which is clearly a family, not government, responsibility - one of the 'costs' of having children if both parents want/need to work. I am amazed at how quietly this seems to have been accepted by taxpayers and I can only assume that it is a matter of most parents feeling that they will get back more than they have to put in. Of course, if it were at best only family revenue neutral, one wouldn't think that there would be much enthusiasm for the idea, so it must be felt by the parents of young children that all of the childless couples, those with children already in school and those who are empty-nesters will ensure that they receive considerably more than they put in, even after the inevitable 'administration costs' are factored in.
Our local MLA, Ron Cantelon has recently posted an announcement on his website (http://www.roncantelonmla.bc.ca) detailing the provincial government's contribution of $500,000 to create 32 day-care spaces at the soon-to-be-moving-to-Lantzville Aspengrove School. That works out to be $15,625 for each space created, which is almost double the provincial average of $8,270/new space, an average which already includes the much higher Lantzville numbers. The total cost of the Aspengrove day-care project is given as $1,045,596, which works out to be $20,108 for each of the 52 (32 new+20 existing) spaces. I would very much like to know what we couples without children in this age-group are going to be realizing out of spending that kind of money.
In a fine example of quid pro quo (MLA Cantelon recently appeared in a District of Lantzville sewer funding announcement), Lantzville Mayor, Colin Haime, is quoted in the piece as being "very pleased that the Aspengrove Centre has received this funding". Appears to me that it's in keeping with his philosophy on infrastructure grants for things such as water and sewer where we have come to accept no, welcome, one level or other of government taking our tax money and then using it in an effort to buy our votes by funneling it back to 'worthy' communities, less those 'administration costs', of course. It is all done in such a fashion that we are left thinking that we have somehow 'made out like bandits', but with an uneasy feeling that we're missing something. Sort of like how it's only the 'rich' who get taxed.

WAKE UP, Lantzville!! (submitted by a resident)

On Monday March 27th the District of Lantzville Council had a public meeting to present its Strategic Plan and 2006 Draft Financial Plan. The public was told that preliminary work on Phase1 of the sewer system was going ahead. Now it all may sound very nice that we had received a grant for 2/3 of the initial estimated cost of Phase 1 but we still have to pay the rest of that phase (well over a Million Dollars) as well as for the cost of the future phases.

What does that mean to you as an individual Lantzville tax payer?
For a start you will have to pay for the connection of your house's waste line to the sewer at the road. Pray that you don't have to pump uphill to it or blast through bedrock etc. If not then your cost will probably only be in the $3,000 to $6,000+ range (this is right out of your pocket....not out of what you already pay for taxes). If you have to blast and pump it will be greatly more.

That was the "injury" part of the deal. Now for the "insult" part... The Mayor admitted that the annual sewer user fee will be about $550 per year per household (that's every year!). This is payable on top of the taxes that you already pay every year and will mean the equivalent of a 25% property tax increase for many.

It was suggested to the Council that a Referendum should be held for an expenditure commitment of that magnitude. The Mayor's answer to that question was "No, we don't have to hold one". Shame on you Lantzville Council.

When the Mayor was asked if households would be forced to connect to the sewer system he would not give a definitive answer. He said "that answer will come from Council" later. It is clearly indicated from experiences in other communities that people will be forced to connect regardless of their perfectly working septic tank system that only costs them a couple of hundred dollars every few years to pump. It would be much better to spend money to help people fix the few "failing septic tank systems" and look after our community's waste at home rather then pump it out into the chuck. Sewers aren't magic.

There is still time for individual Council Members to do the right thing. You have to push to put all the cards on the table and hold a Referendum. All of your neighbours, especially Seniors on fixed incomes and young families, deserve the right to vote on this. It is your democratic and moral responsibility to let them.

Jack Roberts