I Think Perhaps He Doth Protest Too Much!!

In his report on the Nov. 28/05 Council Meeting published on the 'new' Lantzville Log website (http://thelog.ca/), intrepid, Council 'reporter' (and Log Society chair), Brian Blood, alerts us to the possibility that some local, unnamed conspiracy theorists might jump to the conclusion that then councillor-elect Denise Haime's delegation to Council regarding the request by the Port Theatre for yet another contribution ($12,800 per year had been requested; $10,000 for 2005 and $12,800 for each year subsequent was recommended by staff) was just to give the appearance that she and the Mayor, her husband, could actually hold differing views on some issues.
Mrs. Haime had made the point that, when Lantzville residents were last given the chance to vote, in 2002, on providing financial support for this Nanaimo venue, they had turned it down by 56%. Except for this what has seemingly become acceptable abrogation of the democratic system, reporter Blood's characterization of this as a 'major' issue is clearly hyperbole, unless he is referring to the whole issue of husband and wife teams sitting on the same Council - on second thought, I take it back, this is a major issue except not for the reason that he would have us believe!
Although past Council reports and 'reporters' have often been a little too partisan for my liking/comfort level, I was prepared to accept Mr. Blood's initial determination until I read the minutes of the Mar. 13/06 Regular Council meeting where it is the one and same now Councillor Haime who brings forward the motion to give the Port Theatre another $9,000 (on top of the $9,000 the year before, $3,000 the year before that and $5,000 the year before that). From this, I would have to surmise that it was, in fact, all a ruse or that there had been some manner of 'persuasion' occurring in the Haime household.
Since 1997, Lantzville has contributed approx. $78,000 to the Port Theatre, $26,000 of that after we had said 'NO'.
[UPDATE #1: At their June 25/07 council meeting and, in a year where taxes are going up by an average 17%, they decided to give yet another $9,000 to the Port Theatre, making our total contribution, $87,000. It should be noted that neither Parksville nor Qualicum Beach make any direct contributions].
UPDATE #2: At their Sept. 8/07 council meeting and, in a year where taxes are already going up, they decided to give another $9,000 to the Port Theatre, making our total contribution now $96,000].
UPDATE #3: At their Mar. 9/09 council meeting, under the unusual heading of 'Emergency Water', at councillor Dempsey's request, Council reconsidered the CoW's earlier defeat of a motion to grant the Port Theatre its annual 'stipend' of $9,000. This time, Council, with only the Mayor and councillor Parkhurst voting against, approved the original motion. Interestingly enough, the Port Theatre has recently reported a surplus in the amount of $9,124. This now puts our total contribution to the Port Theatre up to $105,000! Discussion followed regarding Lantzville's commitments to the city of Nanaimo under the Memorandum of Understanding council signed for emergency water. Ah, so maybe that explains the 'emergency water' heading? Are we now obligated to provide this type of support for Nanaimo facilities - if so, we should add the $36,000 contributed since the MoU was signed to the $200,000 price tag of the original agreement, a cost borne by all ALL Lantzville residents].
I would much prefer if they would just increase the ticket prices by the 5% of revenue these kinds of 'subsidies' represent (~$1.50/ticket) since it is eminently fair that those who use it should pay for it! Nanaimo certainly benefits when patrons from outside the city attend functions at the Theatre and they don't share any of that with us.
And don't forget that residents on the Lantzville water system [mini-UPDATE: I have since discovered that, since this amount was taken from the prior year's surplus, it is actually ALL Lantzville property owners] have also recently contributed $200,000 ($233/connected household) [with the update, $173/property] to the New Nanaimo Conference Centre just to allow them to connect to a fire hydrant at the city boundary at Schook Road and Dickinson in case of an "emergency" (plus something like another $180,000 to extend the nearest water line to that boundary). [mini-UPDATE: on Dec. 11/06, Council accepted a bid for this work with a cost of $78,015.90, there being a 73% spread between this lowest bid and the highest bid.] This after developers gave the city $100,000 to 'facilitate' the inclusion and commercial zoning of a piece of property which was taken from Lantzville. Seems like we have already been very good to the City of Nanaimo.
[UPDATE #4: As best I have been able to determine (after 2 hours of searching), Council did not give their usual $9,000 to the Port Theatre in 2010, although with the obtuse manner in which even the 'new and improved'? District website (where you still can't search the full Agendas and a simple search for 'Port Theatre' brings up 10 pages of 'hits', many of them 'misdated' or duplicates) provides information, nothing can ever be known for certain. However, after another hour or so of searching, I did find a motion at the Mar. 15/11 Regular Council meeting that certainly holds the promise of yet another $9,000 to help fund the actual operation of this Nanaimo venue. [UPDATE #5: on Mar. 26/12, at their Regular Meeting, Council gave the Port Theatre another $9,000, suggested by Staff to be used for a 'capital project']. [UPDATE #6: on Feb. 25/13, at their Regular Meeting, Council gave the Port Theatre another $9,000 to put towards 'operating costs'. This, in spite of the fact that the Citizen Satisfaction Survey commissioned by Council only last fall (at a cost of $8,500), showed that 89% of Lantzville residents "never" or "rarely" used the Port Theatre and that the City of Nanaimo has informed us, in writing, that we won't be getting water from them in the foreseeable future!]. [UPDATE #7: At their Regular Meeting on April 28/14, council received the now annual 'extortion' letter from the Port Theatre 'requesting' another $9,000 and council turned around and approved it right then and there (no need to deliberate anymore - they must really want that water agreement!!). On Sept. 8/14, after years of 'fits and starts', the District of Lantzville and the City of Nanaimo entered into an agreement for the provision of bulk water to Lantzville, with a number of restrictions. So, now that we have a signed water deal 'in the bag', the 'grease the wheel' payments to the Port Theatre can finally be stopped! [UPDATE #8: At their Regular Meeting on April 13/15, council, in spite of a signed water agreement, documented concerns about the low level of venue usage and support by Lantzville residents and the lack of transparency about exactly what the payment is for, approved another $9,000 contribution to the Port Theatre. [UPDATE #9: At their Regular Meeting on Feb. 22/16, council approved still another $9,000 contribution to the Port Theatre.That makes a grand total of $159,000 to the Port Theatre from ALL taxpayers in Lantzville since our 'coerced largess first began in 1997.
Look for more observations on Mr. Blood's involvement in the local political scene and the Lantzville Log Society in a future article on 'Chutzpah'.

More Thoughts On 'The Thin Edge of the Wedge'

Following is my written submission to the Tempo Dance Academy Public Hearing on Oct. 2, 2006 - my 'technical' comments. It is incorrectly referred to in the official Minutes of the Hearing as being my spoken presentation (remember that if you want your written submission to appear in the Minutes, you will have to read it out loud at the Hearing) but you can find my actual spoken comments on this rezoning application in 'Are We To Start Down The "Slippery Slope"?'

Mayor and Council,
District of Lantzville Amendment Bylaw 60.14, 2006 Public Hearing Submission

In order to change zoning there has to be a clear, overwhelming public benefit and this proposal doesn’t even come close to passing that test:

1. the removal of the dense, tall, tree buffer along Lantzville Road and replacing it with much smaller and sparser landscaping (min. 1 tree every 10 m [33 feet]) will increase noise and highway visibility for the properties across the street (and up Owen Road)
2. the traffic configuration will be problematic since you will have 4 exits and entrances to Lantzville Road over a very short distance. With many people coming around the curve and down the hill at speeds of 65 - 70 kilometres per hour or more, this can lead to a dangerous situation
3. the staff report states that “the water connection would be adequate to service the proposed use” yet it is unknown at this time how many and what type of fixtures are in each washroom (e.g., showers?) and the number of students is not provided anywhere
4. if this dance school were to close or be sold, the facility could be converted to personal care uses (community care facility) or a personal care unit (e.g., assisted living facility), a public assembly use or a 'public utility' (e.g., sewage plant, electric or telephone facility, firehall) without any further approvals from the District of Lantzville.
5. even if the building is an ‘unobtrusive’ design, with the 30 parking spaces around it, it will all be clearly visible for years to come
6. the rezoning to 'Public 1' tries to hide the fact that this is a commercial development. The dance studio will be accepting paying customers who will be coming and going from the studio six days a week and it would be paying commercial taxes. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it must be a duck!
7. this particular piece of property is ~11 m (35') below the highway (noise travels predominantly straight out or up) and a house could be built in an area on the lower part of it, where it would have 18 - 24 m (60 - 80') trees on three sides. This would be at least 45 m (150') from the edge of the highway to the nearest corner of the building and one would, of course, incorporate elements in the design to mitigate any noise (minimize windows facing highway, sound deadening strips behind drywall on closest walls, etc). I have stood in this area of the property and the highway noise is no worse than what the neighbours across the street from me experience on a daily basis.
8. what is Mr. Le Phan, owner of two side-by-side properties along east Lantzville Road, already zoned PU 1, to make of this application - if you approve it, are we soon to see applications for a dog obedience school, driving school, beauty school, heavy equipment operation school or welding school from him?
9. the steep slope down from the highway is NOT part of this property, it is entirely within the highway ROW
10. it is my firm belief that this proposal and the inevitable ‘rush to commercialize’ which will follow, will negatively impact our enjoyment of our homes and decrease the property values of all of those nearby.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Are We To Start Down The "Slippery Slope"?

Here is the full text of my spoken comments to Lantzville Council at the Oct. 2, 2006 Tempo Dance Academy Public Hearing. If you want to see how much, or little, progress we've been able to make in terms of 'communcations' since I first raised concerns (see 'Are You Being Given ALL The Information You Need?'), go to the official Minutes of this Hearing at http://www.lantzville.ca/upload/dcd343_061016ag.pdf , Acrobat Reader pg. 5, and compare the District's summary of my presentation with what I actually said. Just as on several previous occasions, I tried to have the minutes amended before adoption but was again unsuccessful. We still have no policy on how Minutes are to be taken and how discrepancies are to be resolved to the satisfaction of the interested parties. I also made the suggestion that, instead of the minute-taker sitting behind the speaker as he/she addresses Council, they sit at the table just to the side of Council but it was rejected out-of-hand.

Mayor and Council
District of Lantzville

RE: District of Lantzville Zoning Bylaw No. 60, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 60.14, 2006

Let me begin by saying that I have nothing per se against a dance studio, Tempo Dance Academy or its owners, whom I do not know. However, the same cannot be said about the process which Council has once again used. First, you bring forward an application to rezone a piece of residential land for a parking lot for a Nanaimo commercial development [at this point, Mayor Haime interjected and told me to “stick to the bylaw” which, compared to the presentation by the applicants, I thought I was already doing - so the rest of this paragraph was not actually spoken at the Hearing] under the guise of a ‘public utility’ when that definition doesn’t mention anything about ‘parking’ and now you allow to be brought forward an application to rezone a piece of residential land for a private, for-profit dance studio by calling it a ‘public use’. Assisted living unit, hospital, community hall, church, park, firehall, cemetery, dance studio - which of these is not like the others? The first seven are ‘public uses’, the last is commercial! I, for one, am getting awfully tired of having to spend my time (an estimated 18 hours to this point) pointing out the obvious to you.
When most of you, sitting as the previous Council, introduced our draft Official Community Plan last year containing the ‘Aspengrove clause’, which removed the word ‘public’ from in front of ‘school’ in specifying which uses could be placed in any land-use zone of Lantzville without an OCP amendment so this private school could be located off Clark Dr. in upper Lantzville, a number of residents told you that it was going to cause long-term problems but our concerns were basically ‘pooh-poohed’ and the OCP was adopted. Well, exactly what we were afraid of has come to pass with this application.
Despite staff recommendations and applicant agreement to a Public Information Meeting, you decided to go straight to a Public Hearing, arguing that this application was similar to the previous parking lot proposal, for which there had already been a PIM. Although this gave us no chance to ask questions of the applicant or to have a shot at convincing you that this shouldn’t even go to First and Second Reading, except for the specifics, the two applications are very similar in their underlying approach. The wording on the signage could also have been more transparent by including the purpose of the rezoning, i.e., “to permit the development of a dance school”, along with the ‘technical’ part, especially since, most people wouldn’t know the significance of a ‘PU 1’ zoning and they likely wouldn’t go through the trouble of finding out.
You should have had the good sense to tell your planning staff that these types of manipulations just won’t fly in our community. After living in a number of different places, I have been heard to remark that a group of children with crayons could have done as good a job at ‘planning’ as the legions of professionals who are employed by jurisdictions throughout the land. With these types of ‘accomodations’, unless you act decisively, the same is going to happen here.
You need to respect the spirit of the OCP, as well as the letter. In the community survey leading up to it, the overwhelming majority of residents of Lantzville said that they wanted any new, commercial development to be limited and to extend eastward along Lantzville Road and up Ware Road/behind the existing commercial area. It also contains an objective (sec. 6.1) to "discourage development outside of the Village Residential and Village Commercial Core Areas". You also need to get yourselves into the mindset of having the applicants provide very good reasons for saying YES rather than the community going through the trials of coming up with good reasons to say NO.
Finally, if you keep accepting this idea that land along the highway is not suitable for residential development (this particular piece would be just fine for a residence), we will inevitably find ourselves with commercial uses all along it, something which the residents of Lantzville have said they don’t want to see. Like with the parking lot, this is the "thin edge of the wedge" to seeing commercial development all along the recently-reopened east Lantzville Road facing the highway and even down Lantzville Road into the core area. You made the ‘right’ decision on the parking lot proposal, let’s not waiver on this nearly identical application.
I have also taken the time to provide you a written submission, which documents my specific concerns about the technical aspects of this application and why it should not be approved.

Thank-you for your time