Chutzpah

Raises, Raises Everywhere (At Least For Politicians)!!!

2011-11-12T14:09:00.000-08:00

It all seems to have begun with the District of Lantzville giving themselves big raises (44% for the Mayor, 37% for Councillors over 3 years, plus conferences) early last year, followed by Abbotsford (9.1% for the Mayor, 7.2% for Councillors, plus stipends and conferences), Nanaimo (24% for the Mayor, 11% for Councillors over 3 years), Parksville (17% for the Mayor, 18% for Councillors+COLA [cost of living allowance]), Port Coquitlam [2010] (27% for the Mayor, 42% for Councillors), Prince George (0% for the Mayor, 29.5% for Councillors), Revelstoke (27% for the Mayor, 27% for Councillors) and most likely others (they just don't seem to be able to help themselves!). It must be nice to be in a position to give yourselves a significant raise on a salary of which a third is tax free, especially when most working people are lucky to be getting 'cost-of-living' increases (~3%/yr). To shed some more light on this subject, here is a piece I wrote and submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News, which they almost published as submitted (they just don't seem to be able to help themselves either, usually making both meaningless, small changes and/or omitting significant phrases/sentences). For example, they edited out the phrase about "realizing that any one of them doesn't actually have to do anything". I guess they just weren't ready to accept the sad truth of that statement:

Dear Editor,
Re: Raise in pay for city council gets the O.K., Daily News, Sept. 20/11

Well, that certainly didn't take long - from Staff Report to voting themselves (sorry, the next Council) a 24% increase over 3 years in less than a week! This all based on wanting to achieve the median remuneration from a list (which doesn't appear in the report) of 12 'comparables'. The problem is that they aren't even comparable in population, with an 84% spread! One would think that the well-paid bureaucrats at Nanaimo City Hall would be able to come up with a better plan than basing such an important decision on population alone. If they really felt this was the best route, at the very least the list should have taken into account other important 'attributes' of a municipality, e.g., the size of their annual budget, the number of full-time employees, etc. Another option that was given short shrift by staff was to form a committee of residents who actually work to earn the money to pay those salaries and have them do some fact-finding and then make recommendations. It would have made eminent sense to actually look at what Council members do (realizing that any one of them doesn't actually have to do anything) to get paid. Interview them, have them fill out a survey - how many hours in meetings, how many issues did they resolve, etc. Remember that Council members need no academic qualifications or specific experience - all you need to do is convince about 25% of the registered voters that 'you're their guy' and voila, the money starts rolling in. The well-qualified and regularly appraised teacher's of B. C. are fighting to see their first raise above cost-of-living in about 8 years based on 'comparables' to other provinces that have them well behind - so why should this work for politicians but not teacher's?

While some of the jurisdictions actually did consider forming a committee of local residents, each found interesting justifications as to why they weren't going to go that route - would have difficulty finding a 'representative' group, not enough time to implement given the 'specialized' nature of the task, committee would probably make the same recommendation as staff, and (reading between the lines) they might decide to cut our salaries, etc.
Finally, even the math-challenged can see that, under this system, every time one Council on the list gives themselves (sorry, I mean the next Council) a raise, they all immediately qualify for another one and round and round it goes!

For details specifically on the Council raises in Lantzville, have a look at my recent piece, http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2011/05/lantzville-administration-too-big-and.html

Lantzville Administration - Too 'Big and Rich' For Its Residents?!?

2011-11-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

RST, A QUESTION?
Why does Mayor Haime present the 5-Year Financial Plan and not the Director of FINANCial Services or the Deputy Director of FINANCial Services, both highly paid individuals who could probably use the practice of speaking to and interacting with the Public?

The saga of Council remuneration has been long and tortuous, including several 'fits and starts'. I understand that setting your own salary, especially in the public realm, is not an easy undertaking and that is why I have always supported using a logical, well-defined, fact-based process.

There were at least 3 remuneration committees in Lantzville during the past 18 years or so who took on the task of considering the workload of the Improvement District Trustees and making recommendations to them on what they should be paid and have reimbursed as expenses. Since, I, myself, was Chair of one of those committees, I know that some effort went into determining exactly what the Trustees did, how much time their duties took and what that was worth to the community. So, now we have progressed? to where the Councillors themselves will determine what they should be paid. They will sometimes arrange it so that any changes won't apply to them, only the next council, but I would ask you to take a guess at how many of them will be running in the next municipal election in order to 'see their agenda fulfilled'.

Now for the story so far - District of Lantzville council, after initially 'taking charge' and resolving, at their Regular Meeting on Mar. 12/07, to strike a 'Task Force' of residents to review current Mayor and Councillor remuneration and reimbursements and then make recommendations to Council, then rescinded that motion at their May 28th Regular Meeting. The reason given for this about-turn was that staff were having difficulty selecting community members to serve on said 'Task Force' and staff felt that Lantzville residents may not possess the specialized knowledge/experience required to perform the job. Some in our community have suggested that the real reason behind this 'change of horses' is that some members of Council were worried that a Citizen's Committee would actually end up recommending a pay CUT!

So, there you have it! Based on a recommendation from staff, the sole basis for deciding what our local politicians are to be paid is what other politicians in municipalities with 'similar' populations are being paid. While the increases then under consideration, 36% for the Mayor and 26% for each Councillor (followed by 'cost-of-living'), which were to be given second and third reading at the Nov. 12th Regular Council Meeting, are based entirely on the average remuneration for municipalities in the 2600-5000 population range ($17,656 for the Mayor, $8,969 for the Councillors), the actual range of 'indemnities' goes from $8000 for the 2762-peopled Village of Cumberland to $35,626 for the 4963-peopled Town of Osoyoos. This, by itself, should convince any thinking person that population averages alone don't nearly tell the whole story. All of the others below this amount on the list could argue that they too deserve a raise up to the 'average'. As I wrote in the initial installment of this piece, every time averages are used to determine a pay raise, the average increases and then everyone else thinks they're due for a raise, as well, and round and round it goes, driving up the cost to the taxpayers. A committee should have been struck, perhaps by random selection from the tax roles, and they should have developed 'metrics' for the position of Mayor and Councillor (meetings attended, emails/phone calls handled, files handled, issues resolved, etc.) and that should have been used as a basis for recommending the remuneration package. There also needs to be some recognition of the possibility that some of our representatives might be tempted to take advantage of the system and actually do very little.

Staff also cited as further justification for these increases the demands "of establishing Lantzville as a new municipality". Surely, even if these increases had been implemented then (a full 4 years after Lantzville's incorporation), it would be hard to convince anyone that much work relating to this item remained to be done. At the November meeting, the motion to accept the staff recommendation failed on a tie vote (with Mayor Haime, Councillors Haime and Parkhurst voting 'in favour').

From the above discussion, I think you can see that Council originally balked over concern at the 'optics' of giving themselves increases of 36% for the Mayor and 26% for Councillors but came back 'strong' a couple of years later (Feb. 22/10) and gave the Mayor 44% and the rest of Council 37% over 3 years, presumably to make up for the 'paltry' cost-of-living raises they had received in the meantime! During the discussion over these raises, the Chartered Accountant-laden Council made the comment that "the increase goes over 3 years so it is less than a 2% increase since we incorporated in 2003". While I am no accountant, I do operate a pretty mean calculator and I get the increase to be 4% per year for the Mayor up to 2010 and 3.6% per year for Councillors, also up to 2010. If we project that to when the raises will have taken full effect, it becomes 5.8% per year for the Mayor and 5.3% per year for Councillors, quite a discrepancy from 2%!

So here, after much work and many hours of effort in order to find, understand, authenticate and format, is a spreadsheet summarizing Council and senior staff remuneration and expenses since Lantzville's incorporation as a municipality in 2003, where those numbers are available (you can scroll 'up' and 'down', 'left' and 'right' in order to view the entire table:

Although it is indicated on the spreadsheet, it is important enough to be worth repeating that fully one third of Council salaries are tax-free, giving them an approximate 15-25% 'boost' on that amount. Also, money that Council spends on convention/conference attendance is, for some reason, not included with their expenses. This amounted to an additional $17,469 in 2009 and $12,577 in 2010.
It is also worth repeating that, Councillor Negrave tried to give back his raise in 2010 but others on Council expressed concern about how this would look so he seems to have agreed to now take the full salary. Whether or not he then donates the annual salary 'bump' to a worthy charity or cause, I don't know.

I have also tried to sort out the 'benefits' associated specifically with the salaries of Council and senior staff in the above table but, with the limited information available to the public, it is just not possible. What I can tell you, based on information in Schedule C fromo the District's annual Financial Statements, is that the total 'wages, salaries and benefits' cost in 2010 was $820,016 ($772,718 in 2009) and the total cost for 'training, travel and conferences' for 2010 was $56,970 ($57,180 in 2009). If we add these 2 numbers together, we get $876,986 for 2010 ($829,898 in 2009), which represents the total District Council and staff costs, except for 'Consulting' costs (assumed to be for Pam Shaw, Graham Savage, etc.), which were $16,212 in 2010 ($50,595 in 2009). It is not clear where Council and staff 'expenses' are accounted for 'Other'?).

Unless you've been living under a rock, most people living in the Nanaimo area now know that Gerry Berry, until fairly recently the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the City of Nanaimo was, in 2007, the 11th highest paid local government official in the province (in absolute terms) at $219,017/yr. The 'odour' of him 'retiring' two years later and collecting an almost half million dollar 'severance' package is a whole other topic of discussion! Since Nanaimo had a population of ~81,500 people at the time, this works out to be approx. $2.70 per resident/yr. (~$7.80 per household/yr.).

After receiving a steady series of increases, culminating in a 6.5% raise from $115,694 in 2009 to $123,216.57 in 2010 and, with an estimated population of only 3750 residents, Twyla Graff, the CAO of the District of Lantzville, is now being compensated to the tune of $32.90 per resident/yr. (~$92.00 per household/yr.). As well, the administrative budget alone of the then Lantzville Improvement District, now the District of Lantzville has increased from $193,167 to $819,116 since incorporation in 2003. Can anybody think of a really good reason why this should be or have any thoughts on what appears to be a very generous pay package for the 'Captain' of the 'good ship Lantzville'. If so, please let me know at vigilantz@hotmail.com!

I had hoped to be able to provide you with comparisons to our senior staff salaries for communities 'similar' to Lantzville but, after trying repeatedly for more than 3 weeks to have Jedha Holmes, Deputy Director of Financial Services devote a little time to helping me obtain that publicly mandated information through civicinfo.bc.ca, I am down the time it took to compose and reply to the several emails involved but I am certainly no further ahead. It is a matter of the District office investing about 10 minutes to help a resident of Lantzville obtain information which is legislated to be out in the public realm or me spending many hours navigating through 22 different community's websites looking for that information. I still plan on publishing those comparisons as soon as time to gather them permits so be sure to check back here every now and then.

Does Lantzville REALLY Need 7 Council Members?!?

2011-10-24T21:38:00.000-07:00

A group of interested and concerned Lantzville residents have taken it upon themselves to invest the time and effort to research 'key indicators' of other 'comparable' municipal councils in B.C. in an effort to develop a comparison with the situation in our community. Here is a summary of the information gathered:

This table clearly shows that, while Lantzville is miles below the average of the 'key indicators' of workload for administrations with 7 council members, we are even noticeably below the same metrics of workload for 5 member councils. Our council is simply too big and that needs to be remedied, saving we taxpayers at least $20,000 per year!!

Based on this information, Jack de Jong sent an email to the Mayor and Council asking him/them to put forth and support a motion to have the size of our council reduced from 7 members to 5 (they are the only ones who can do this). Here, from the Minutes of the meeting at which they received Mr. de Jong's correspondence (July 11/11), is what their response was:

Mayor Haime commented that:
· Recently Council received correspondence from Jack de Jong requesting that Council consider reducing its size to 5 members in order to reduce administration costs. Mayor Haime advised that he would bring this request forward to Council for consideration. Members of Council commented as follows:
- When the District incorporated there was discussion and community input received that the preference was for a 7 member Council.
- It is not a good idea to have a 5 member Council because then the quorum is reduced to 3 people and it is not advisable to have 3 people making decisions for an entire community

Contrary to what the Mayor is reported as saying above, it was Councillor Negrave who brought forward the motion at the next Regular Council meeting on July 25/11. As a fairly involved member of the community since 1991, I remember the Restructure Committee (of which Councillor Dempsey and Councillor Haime were members) discussing the number of council members but I don't recall any "community input" being solicited on this issue. As far as the meeting goes, here is their record of what happened:

MOVED Councillor Negrave that Council direct staff to draft a referendum question for the General Election to be held November 19th, 2011, asking if the size of Council should be reduced from 7 to 5 members (4 councillors and 1 mayor).

THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECONDER

When a motion is seconded, all it means is that it provides the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the issue at-hand and contemplate further action/follow-up. So, in this particular case and, even though Mr. de Jong had provided specific numbers supporting his contention that our Council is too big, no one, other than Councillor Negrave, was even prepared to discuss it! (Unfortunately, this isn't the first, or probably the last, time that Council is not even prepared to discuss the merits of a motion). You will also note that Councillor Negrave's motion asked for the question to be put to the voters of Lantzville this November but Council apparently doesn't trust us to make the 'right' decision.

C-109-11 MOVED Councillor Negrave, SECONDED Councillor Bratkowski that Council direct staff to prepare a report regarding the pros and cons of reducing the size of Council from 7 to 5 members (4 councillors and 1 mayor).

CARRIED

By only supporting the motion to ask Staff to prepare a report, they virtually ensured that nothing will now happen on this issue until at least 2014. I sure hope that the report will contain information on how many times in the past 3 years this Council has been reduced to a quorum (or less).

I would be remiss if I didn't point out here that there are currently 60 municipalities in B. C. (out of about 158) who currently have 5 member Councils [including nearby Qualicum Beach and View Royal and Metchosin in the Victoria area] and who seem to be 'bumbling' along, even in the face of the quorum issue raised by our Council. Certainly the issue of a 3 member quorum is no more 'controversial'/problematic for democracy than having two Council votes come from the same household (such as is the case with Councillor Denise and Mayor Colin Haime).

Couple this with the big percentage raise (43.5% for Mayor; 36.5% for Councillors over 3 years) they gave themselves early last year (see my Blog article http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2011/05/lantzville-administration-too-big-and.html) and you can see that things are indeed 'rosy' for the current Lantzville Council.

Lantzville Mayor's New Pre-Election 'Communication' Tool?

2011-09-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

So, Mayor Haime has taken the initiative and created a website (www.mayorhaime.ca), which he then spent about $400 to provide every Lantzville household with a mailer introducing and telling us why he felt it was needed. Imagine a politician who has a problem with a biased media - I thought it was only the 'great unwashed' that felt that way since the bias always seemed to work against us. Personally, I think it is a divisive tactic, potentially pitting him against the rest of Council and my advice to him would be to stop being so sensitive to criticism, take some of it to heart and to develop a thicker skin. He doesn't appear to have moved very far away from the days when he used to send his son around on his bicycle to selected homes in Lantzville with letters threatening legal action over what someone had said or written about him or his administration (kind of harkens all the way back to the days of then Regional Director, Bob Jepson, when he used to regularly threaten the Lantzville Log with similar consequences if they allowed anything negative about him to be published).

Also interesting to note that, as Mayor, he is given and has taken upon himself to be the arbiter of what the public is told about the people's business of Lantzville (see my other Blog piece, What Lantzville's Mayor Thinks of Your 'Need to Know' http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-lantzvilles-mayor-thinks-of-your.html) and yet, he now feels that he needs his own website to ensure that the 'right' message is getting out there! He has even paid for an advertisement for his website in the September 2011 issue of the Lantzville Log where he claims to provide "accurate information on the issues in Lantzville". In my opinion, it is more than a little ironic that he, who controls the information levers for Lantzville Council and who has often benefited from the 'establishment' bias of the local media, now feels a need to see that "accurate information" makes it out into the public realm. You will remember that the District of Lantzville has had a website since we incorporated in 2003 (recently 'upgraded' at significant cost) and which is also supposed to "ensur(e) that the information you receive... is accurate and complete" - is the Mayor now implying that it is not up-to-the-task?! I am gratified, however, that he acknowledges the "need for alternative avenues for Lantzville residents to educate themselves", which is what this Blog has been providing for the past 6 years.

One of the features of the Mayor's website is the opportunity for residents (or anyone else, for that matter) to ask him a question to which he would presumably provide an answer within a reasonable time-frame (the Mayor of Lantzville can be a busy man!). In his mailer, he writes, "I have never hesitated in providing information, answering questions...". If one takes the time to peruse the questions which have already been left for 'hishonour' (sorry, I just can't bring myself to call him 'His Worship'), you might get the impression that he hasn't answered ALL the questions submitted or indeed actually answered some of the questions to which he provided a reply. You see, a reply is not necessarily an answer, especially when it comes from politicians.
On Aug. 9/11, some 5 weeks ago, I submitted the following question to Mayor Haime as a follow-up to the one I had submitted earlier and to which he supplied a long reply (under the 'Council and Community' section of his 'Colin's Answers to Questions'), but not an answer:

I am already well aware of the many reasons why Council might decide to go 'in-camera' and, if I weren't, I am sure I could have looked it up. So, you didn't answer my question - one would expect that you would have asked your well-paid Director of Corporate Communications for the number of times Council has invoked this provision in the past 3 years. I believe that 'standard practise' (and desired transparency) is to release motions flowing from these closed meetings as soon as a 'decision-point' has been reached - has Council really not made a single motion that can be shared with Lantzville residents as a result of those closed discussions?

It then occurred to me that I am probably not the only Lantzville resident to have been selectively ignored by 'hishonour'. So, if anyone else out there feels that they have likewise been given short shrift by the Mayor's new 'communication' tool, send me an email at vigilantz@hotmail.com with the contents of your question and I will post it here on my "Chutzpah' Blog (please tell me if its O.K. to use your name). Who knows, perhaps one of the other members of Council might even want to take a stab at providing an actual answer to my apparently controversial, vexing question!

Still More Censorship At The Nanaimo Daily News

2011-05-16T17:43:00.000-07:00

Well, the thin-skinned 'dunderheads' that run the local broadsheet, the Nanaimo Daily News (formerly part of the failed Canwest/Global, now part of Postmedia) are at it again! It doesn't appear that they are satisfied with their ability to control the agenda with their partisan and selective 'reporting' and their selecting/editing of 'Letters to the Editor' but now they are also censoring comments submitted in the 'Sound Off' section of their on-line presence. I submitted the following in response to their article "Social housing in nanaimo..." on Sunday, May 15th and it has yet to appear in any form on the on-line comments section. One of the favourite 'tricks' of the media in trying to control their agenda is to turn 'Off' the ability for readers to provide comments to their articles. Although the 'Comments' section is 'moderated', even at the most strident newspapers, this is used to filter out inappropriate comments (racist, homophobic, hateful, etc.). It seems to me that if Mr. Cowan can't take the heat for his actions/words, he should stay out of the kitchen!

Of all of the many other equally important issues which have been covered by your newspaper over the past years, e.g., Conference Centre, Cable Bay development, HST introduction or electronic/internet voting why choose this one to "go the extra mile with" and attempt to provide some measure of clarity (although that wasn't exactly how it turned out, was it?)? BTW, one number incorrect, e.g., 26 vs. 36 would be a 'typo' whereas two numbers in the same sentence incorrect, e.g., three stories vs. four, would be an ERROR. It also doesn't help that you chose to use the word 'arguing' to characterize what you were attempting to stimulate by your front-page spread. Just so you know, I received my copy of the Nanaimo Daily News containing this story for free, which is just about what I feel it is worth!

Isn't it about time that we held the exalted 'Fifth Estate' to a high standard and require them to inform us in a non-partisan manner and, if they aren't up to the task, then let's spend that daily $1.50 on something that will provide a better return.

Conservative MP (Nanaimo-Alberni) James Lunney Has Not Earned My Support!

2011-04-30T09:54:00.000-07:00

I have been meaning to write this entry for quite some time but you get busy and time has a way of slipping away but, since we are facing a Federal election in less than a week, I think it important that I share my impressions of my MP, James Lunney, 'New' Conservative (Nanaimo-Alberni). I don't ask all that much of those that we elect to represent us, whether it be in Victoria or Ottawa but I do expect them to listen to my concerns and then do their best to help me, whether or not we share the same political ideology. Conservative James Lunney is my Member of Parliament (Nanaimo-Alberni) and I often receive pamphlets from him asking for my opinion/input on issues that HE feels are important but the questions always seem to be phrased to elicit the answer he is looking for, i.e., the questions are 'loaded'. He invariably asks me who I think would make the best leader/Prime Minister when, given how low the art of politics has sunk, my truthful answer would be 'None of the Above'. So, he sends me partisan materials on a regular basis, some of which are even past their 'action date'. Although I have sometimes offered my comments and included my name, address and telephone number, so far, the communication has all been pretty much one way, i.e., he has never replied to or acknowledged the comments I have taken the time to share with him.
I have been trying for over two years to obtain straight answers to the question of why my community of Lantzville received two infrastructure grants for a sewer collection system totalling $5.6 million from the provincial and federal governments when the programs were heavily over-subscribed and Lantzville didn't meet the eligibility requirements or submit the required documentation with their application. To that end, I have submitted Freedom of Information (Provincial) and Access to Information (Federal) requests in an effort to obtain the documents that should show exactly what happened in this instance. While the federal government was quicker than the provincial in providing access to some documents, they were very reluctant to answer my direct questions about the process they used to select the 'winners' and by extension, the 'losers'. As a result, I found it necessary to attend the Nanaimo offices of my Conservative MP, Mr. James Lunney, and request their assistance in obtaining a reply from Western Economic Diversification Canada (WEDC), the agency responsible for shepherding the Federal part of the CBC-MRIF applications through the vetting process. While I was told that Mr. Lunney supported Lantzville's application, I was also told that his Executive Assistant (Dave McEachern) understood my concerns about accountability and would do what he could to help. Within two weeks, I received a reply (although unfortunately not answers) from WEDC. As the process evolved, questions remained unanswered and new questions emerged yet WEDC sent me a very brief letter stating that 'the deal was done' and thanking me for my interest in their program. So, I again found occasion (mid-July 2009) to request Mr. Lunney's office to help me obtain a 'real' response from WEDC. His new Executive Assistant, Curtis Hansen, basically told me that it would not be a high priority with them and, since they were just gearing up to 'throw even more taxpayer's money off the back of a truck (my paraphrasing of his response - Economic Action Plan)', it would take them awhile to get to it - to date, I have still not received any manner of results from them. I told him at the time that, if they didn't take the time to learn what could be improved with the previous program (millions), they were bound to repeat the same mistakes with the newer, and even more expensive (billions), one ('the canary in the coal mine' analogy).
So, fast-forward to today and Mr. James Lunney would now like me to help re-elect him as my Conservative MP. Well, in addition to what I have just written above, I have a number of other issues that would prevent me from doing so and I will share them with you, my readers, in the form of a letter I was planning to send him even before Parliament was dissolved due to an Opposition vote of 'no confidence' in the Stephen Harper government on a matter of two counts of contempt of Parliament:

Dear Mr. Lunney,
Thank you for you most recent mailer. In the beginning, I used to read them faithfully but must admit that I haven't been keeping up. They all seem to have the same tone and are phrased in such a way as to try and obtain the answer(s) you are looking for. I have, in the past, offered my comments to you on some of the issues contained in them but I have yet to receive any kind of response from you. I have also taken the time to gather materials and information on issues important to myself and other Canadians and, once again, I have not received so much as a 'thank you' from you for my efforts. Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that you don't really care what my concerns are or what I think about the important issues that MP's like yourself are asked to decide on our behalf. So, just so you aren't surprised that I don't vote for you in the upcoming election, I am taking this time to commit my reasons to paper:
1. Mr. Lunney's cavalier approach to spending of our money (almost $565,000 annually) for travel and office expenses - it is not good enough to just say that the rules allow you to do what you have done, especially during a global recession. When Canadians were losing their jobs and their homes, you should have left your wife at home and worked long hours in Ottawa to help 'right the ship'
2. Mr. Lunney supported Stephen Harper's government's proroguing of Parliament, effectively silencing the people's voice for the sole convenience of his government on the issue of the Afghan detainee documents
3. Mr. Lunney's Conservative party, despite saying that they are for an elected senate and against patronage, have appointed 20 new Senators since 2005
4. Mr. Lunney blindly supports the state of Israel, even when it is clear that they have broken international law and been sanctioned by the U.N.. The situation in the Middle East is far more 'grey' than he would have us believe and the state of Israel won't gain any points from me by acting much like the regime that persecuted their peoples during the Second World War!
5. Mr. Lunney, as part of the Stephen Harper government, supported the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, which were 'sold' to the Canadian people based on wildly optimistic cost numbers., e.g., $175 milion for security, which ended up costing over $900 million. Governments have a long history of this type of deception in order to build edifices to themselves at public expense.
6. Mr. Lunney voted to support the implementation of the HST in BC, one of the biggest tax shifts from businesses to consumers in history ($521/yr. for the 'average' consumer). We are still waiting for the predicted savings by businesses to trickle down to us.
7. Mr. Lunney appears to support his government's contempt of Parliament on both the Bev Oda misleading/lying to Parliament and the government's refusal to hand over documents related to the costs of building more prisons/implementing their 'tough on crime' agenda. I happen to support some increase in our prison capacity since I don't believe it has kept pace with our criminal population growth but you will not 'win me over' with such anti-democratic methods
8. this is not the first time that the Conservatives have refused to hand over documents to the people's representatives in Parliament - the Afghan detainee documents have still not been given to Parliament, several years after they were requested
9. Mr. Lunney supported his government in killing the environmental bill of rights which would have at least started to acknowledge the impacts of global warming, a serious challenge which must be addressed along with economic growth, not sacrificed to it
10. Mr. Lunney supported the Stephen Harper government in extending the term of duty of our soldiers in Afghanistan, after they said that July 2011 would be the end of the mission. Resorting to 'weasel words' is not the way to build public support for a decision. Personally, I don't believe we have any business being in the corrupt, deadly quagmire that is Afghanistan.
11. Mr. Lunney supported his government in extending the deadline for implementing firearms marking regulations for a third time since 2006
12. Mr. Lunney supported his government spending $1,000,000,000 on security alone for the G8/G20 photo op in Ontario last summer - which, according to your last mailer, is also how much the Conservatives say they are committing over the next five years to develop green energy technologies. There cannot possibly be that kind of value realized from a bunch of 'heads of state' getting together for a few meetings and 'photo ops'.
13. Mr. Lunney supports his government in awarding a contract for new jet fighters without tendering the contract. Again, a government that prides itself on its fiscal responsibility would have us believe that the spending of $35 billion (purchase price) - $50 billion (life-cycle cost) without 'seeing what the market has t offer' is a fiscally prudent decision - it all looks like 'smoke and mirrors' to me!
14. Mr Lunney supported his government in their decision to make the long-form census voluntary, causing Canada's Chief Statistician to resign on a matter of principle. Prime Minister Stephen Harper goes on and on about how he is the one with the Economics degree who keeps close watch over our finances and yet he has eliminated one of the best ways that we can ensure that our scarce tax dollars are spent in the most effective manner and places
15. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their (11th hour) implementation/reversal of the cigarette package labelling fiasco
16. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their use of infrastructure grants as part of their Economic Stimulus Plan without ensuring that the requisite 'checks and balances' are in place. When I tried to bring this potentially serious problem to your attention, you chose to ignore me.
17. the Conservative government's decision to over-rule the Competition Bureau's ruling on foreign-ownership/control in the GlobalLive cellular telephone file, breaking the law in the process does not foster the kind of confidence that businesses need to flourish. The courts have since ruled that your Conservative government was wrong.
18. Mr. Lunney is part of the Stephen Harper government's repeated anti-democratic actions such as hiding from the media, muzzling Cabinet Ministers, pre-screening and possibly barring attendees at political events, severely restricting the number of questions which can be asked at media events and proroguing Parliament twice during the last five years when things got 'a little too hot in the kitchen' are just a few of the anti-democratic indicators which come to mind. Good government's tackle issues openly and straight on and never forget that they represent the people who elected them and they are duty-bound to involve them and listen to them.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

In closing, I have recently received a campaign brochure from Mr. Lunney in which he highlights all of the places that his government has spent taxpayers' money resulting in many photo ops for them. I also strongly lament the tone that recent election campaigns have taken with attack ad after attack ad - I can tell you right now, you will NEVER get my vote using those tactics! Tell me what you are proposing to do and then do your darndest to actually do it!
You can read what I think about the efficiency, wisdom and pitfalls of using taxpayer's money to 'buy' votes at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2008/11/politics-of-infrastructure-grants.html. Although he has been my MP for over 10 years, I have never actually met him (he seems to make himself scarce) and I only know what he looks like from his 'photo ops' where he is invariably handing over our money to someone and from his website. It is past time to elect someone who will listen to their constituents and bring their concerns to the government in Ottawa (and, for that matter, Victoria too).

Lantzville 'Urban' Agriculture - Grow Market Food But Just Not There!!

2011-04-29T15:05:00.000-07:00

I've met both Dirk and Nicole and they seem like very friendly, committed, hard-working, entrepreneurial people and I like many of the things that they are doing. Their organization of and active participation in the Farmer's Market at North Nanaimo Town Centre (correction: Bowen Road) is a real benefit for the Nanaimo area. I admire them for their philosophy and their hard work but they are farming in the wrong place! The land they are using for intensive agriculture, no matter how 'green'/environmentally friendly it may be, is not zoned for an agricultural use so their neighbours would not have expected to have that use nearby.
I agree with those that say that the 'Temporary Use Permits' being proposed by Lantzville Council is not the right way to handle this issue but not for the reasons that they give. 'Temporary Use Permits' are intended to allow municipal Councils to allow something that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, for a limited period of time and for a price. There are very few instances where granting one would be a benefit to the community and they can give the impression that Council is being paid to look the other way at not following their bylaws/infractions.
Here is what Dirk and Nicole's former neighbours had to say about their operation and its impact on their lives/ability to enjoy their property (I think we can all guess why they are 'former' neighbours):

Dear Editor,
We've been reading all the controversy with regards to Dirk Becker and his property in Lantzville. As previous neighbours with Dirk, we thought we would put forth another side.
I don't think anyone has an issue with neighbours growing their own food, we have always grown our own vegetables.
What I think the issue is here, or was at least when we lived next to him, is the fact that he has a full-scale composting operation going on. Year after year, truck after truck, companies dumped their debris on his property so he could compost it to make soil. He was composting grass clippings from lawn maintenance companies, tree chippings from tree service companies, as well, at least on one occasion, he managed to get a tote of rotting shrimp and had that dumped there. The stench that came from his property was so bad at times that we were unable to open our windows in the summer.
This piece of property is zoned residential. When people buy in an area, one of the things that they look into is the zoning. When a property is zoned residential, the expectation is that it will be a residential neighbourhood, and not have a commercial farm/composting operation operating within that neighbourhood. What was once your piece of paradise is now ruined because of a neighbour who does as he sees fit with no regard for his neighbours or bylaws in place. This was one of the major contributing factors of our decision to move.
We do hope the District of Lantzville will stand firm with its regulations on what is allowed and not allowed on residentially zoned properties.

- S & K Palin
Nanaimo

I see two problems with making quick, poorly considered changes to municipal zoning bylaws: 1) unintended consequences - things that hadn't been thought of in the rush to 'just get it done' and 2) enforcement. When zoning bylaws are 'rejigged' to try to address one issue, someone eventually comes along and tries to 'push the boundary' and then it is up to the municipality to step in and try to enforce them. If the bylaw has been changed in haste, often what is missed is the interpretation that an individual may assign to the text of the bylaw. Enforcement has never been any municipality's strong suit - it is expensive, time-consuming and with no guarantees and, because of that, Councils often lose the will to proceed and almost everyone loses. Take, for example, the issue of secondary suites - even in areas where they are permitted, there are restrictions on things such as no. of vehicles, the amount of garbage that can be put out and the quality of construction. Unfortunately, someone decides to take advantage and, the next thing the neighbours know, the street is full of vehicles and garbage cans, making it unsightly, unsafe and unhealthy. The recently proposed District of Lantzville 'Urban Food Garden' bylaw appears to be just such a case - it contains prohibitions, numerical limits and several restrictions that are just the kind of thing someone, sooner or later, will 'challenge' and then Lantzville will have to respond or we will go down an all-too-familiar road. With all of its restrictions to try and make it acceptable in an urban neighbourhood, I would also venture to guess that the proposed bylaw would be found unworkable by the proponents of urban agriculture.
If they really wanted to speed up the process, the most direct route would be to apply to rezone their property from residential to agricultural. Either that or there are hundreds of acres of appropriately zoned farm land in Lantzville sitting unused (Negrin's, Chick's, Irvine's, Wong's). Why don't they seek a deal to lease some of this land and it would be a win-win-win situation. They would have a place to grow their tasty vegetables that wouldn't annoy any neighbours, the land owner would possibly be able to apply for farm status, thereby saving significantly on his/her taxes and so could afford to make the land available at a reasonable price and the Nanaimo area would continue to have access to tasty, fresh and healthy food.

Nanaimo's Considered Opinion on Local Elections Task Force Recommendations

2011-03-02T13:51:00.000-08:00

The City of Nanaimo appears to have waded in on the recommendations recently issued by the Local Government Elections Task Force - don't feel too badly if you haven't heard of it, the opportunity for you to provide your input was left with your local council and not many in B.C. appear to have taken up the challenge. In order to help raise the profile of these significant proposed changes to the rules governing how we select our Mayors, Councils and School Boards, I wrote the following letter to Nanaimo's 'paper of record', the Daily News.

Dear Editor, While it is somewhat comforting to read that Nanaimo City Council members are unsure as to the recommendation from the Local Elections Task Force to increase the term of office from 3 years to 4 (Councillors happy with local election changes, July 9), it would be much better for the voters of B.C.'s many jurisdictions if the Task Force appeared to have taken the 920/154 written submissions, received even with very little advertising, to heart. Instead, they appear to have relied mainly on what they would prefer to see happen and/or what is being done in other provinces. While a stated goal of the Task Force is to improve voter participation, ignoring the 'stakeholder' comments and concerns will not help in this regard! Common sense would suggest that strong support for change needs to be present before a change is made so: - only 4 (3%) of the 155 local governments in B. C. took up the suggestion by the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) to hold referendums in 2008 on the issue of extending the term of office from 3 years to 4, resulting in a 53% overall majority for change - the Task Force input from local governments is 48.6% in favour of extending - from organizations is 21.4% in favour of extending - from individuals is 38.8% in favour of extending Similar changes have been implemented in other provinces but, strangely, we have no data as to whether or not things like increased voter participation or reduced costs were actually achieved. Even with this distinctly underwhelming support and a dearth of data to quantify the benefits, the Task Force still recommended the extension. The real reason appears to be that the UBCM membership had endorsed this action at their last annual meeting and four of the seven Task Force members were UBCM executives. The very real concern of having to wait an extra year to "express opinions on the performance of their local elected officials" seems not to have carried much weight, even though the courts have said that, in the absence of recall legislation, the ballot box is the only place to hold politicians accountable. Anyone wishing to read my thoughts on this issue can go to my Blog at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2010/05/local-governement-election-rules-in.html. The work I have done is what I would have expected my local chain newspaper to have done with the report. Need more proof? 81% of 165 written submissions were for campaign contribution limits yet they were still not recommended. Just goes to show what a 'sham' the whole thing really was.

[UPDATE: At their annual meeting held at Whistler in September, the UBCM held a re-vote on the issue of 'term of office' and, this time, they voted to recommend to the government that they leave the term where it is, 3 years - we will have to wait for the legislation to see what the government actually does with this 'conflicted' input.]

B.C. Legal Aid for the 'Chosen Few'

2010-12-02T14:27:00.000-08:00

In response to the crisis in the B. C. Legal Aid system due to underfunding and the government's decision to pay the $6 million legal expenses of two confessed criminal government workers, I wrote and submitted the following letter to the Nanaimo Daily News (now part of the Postmedia group).

Dear Editor,

RE: Underfunded legal aid system is in 'crisis', says new report, Nov. 10/10

It must be painfully obvious to anyone who has been paying even a little bit of attention to the actions of the Liberal government in Victoria that, after slashing the Legal Aid budget by 1/3 since coming to power in 2001, they still managed to come up with $6 million dollars from we taxpayers to pay the exorbitant legal fees of two confessed criminals, David Basi and Bob Virk, who accepted bribes while working for the government in jobs that enabled those crimes. One could perhaps understand the logic if what they did had been considered part of their jobs, i.e., if they were told to do something by their superiors which then put them in trouble with the law, but that isn't what happened here - is it?!?
That $6 million (of which $1 - 2 million was reportedly for 'document management'), for the benefit of only two individuals with some assets, is equal to 9% of the entire current annual government contribution to the B. C. Legal Services Society of $66.9 million, which we are told was to cover 6,207 cases (down from 15,526 when this government first came to office). The paying of their legal bills with taxpayer monies and the leaving of their assets intact was totally contrary to two agreements they had previously signed with the government. We really must demand an answer as to WHY?!?

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

High Time For A Chuckle (or Two)

2010-07-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

Amidst all of the angst of the sneaky introduction of the HST, the realities of Afghanistan and our own unwillingness to support and nurture democracy here at home, I thought I would share a bit of humour that came my way recently in the form of a couple of pieces in the Harbour City Star (June 4, 2010).

Firstly, in a piece titled, 'VIU Grads are ready to face the future', it is reported that Gara Preusse, computer science instructor at VIU, has said that while there are only five graduates from VIU that earned computer science degrees in this week's ceremonies, the number is expected to grow by up to 40% in the next few years. I guess this means that we can expect six graduates (+1) next year and as many as seven (+2) in the following year! This is a good example of why I always try to give both the percentage and the number when I am sharing facts with my readers.

Secondly, in a piece titled, 'People with outstanding warrants could be refused welfare cheques', we learn that B.C.'s Minister of Housing and Social Development, Rich Coleman, in explaining how a new system to see people with outstanding warrants being denied welfare payments would work, saying that only people with warrants for serious offenses, such as murder and drug trafficking, will be told to address such issues before they are given income assistance. Just imagine the scenario where someone wanted for murder walks into a welfare office and seeks to apply for assistance whereupon he/she is told to come back when they have dealt with that 'little matter'. I would have thought they would have called the police. Weird but true!

Initial Thoughts On B.C. Local Elections Task Force Report

2010-06-07T15:09:00.000-07:00

The 'Report of the Local Government Elections Task Force' does not place much emphasis on the many comments/suggestions received from local governments, organizations or individuals. Instead, they appear to have relied mainly on what they would prefer to have happen and/or what is being done in other provinces (which offers no tangible benefit for us voters). It is already well known that the opportunity to provide input was not widely advertised and it is a stated goal of the Task Force to improve voter participation. I can tell you that ignoring the 'stakeholder' comments and concerns will do nothing to help in this regard. Let's look at the issue of election cycle (term of office) to demonstrate my concern: first off, common sense would suggest that strong/overwhelming support for change needs to be present before a change is made: - only 4 (3%) of the 155 local governments in B. C. took up the suggestion by the UBCM to hold referendums in 2008 on the issue of extending the term of office from 3 years to 4, resulting in a 53% overall majority for change - the Task Force input from local governments is 48.6% in favour of extending - 21.4% of organizations are in favour of extending - 38.8% of individuals are in favour of extending This change has been implemented in other provinces in anticipation of achieving certain/similar goals but, for unknown reasons, we have no data as to whether or not things like increased voter participation or reduced costs were actually achieved. If such claims cannot be substantiated, they should not be considered. Even with this distinctly underwhelming support and a dearth of data to quantify the benefits, the Task Force still decided to recommend the extension. The best justification they can come up with is that a longer term gives Councils more time to "implement their vision" and it improves accessibility because it may reduce "the potential of voter fatigue over time"; give me a break - people facing a vote once every three years is too much effort in support of democracy! The real reason appears to be that the UBCM membership had endorsed this action at their last annual meeting and four of the seven Task Force members are UBCM executives [note added 10 09 30 - this is exactly what happened, as confirmed in the text of the 'News Release' announcing the publication of the Elections Task Force Report - "your UBCM representatives relied upon and advocated for established UBCM policies (i.e., no corporate vote; a move to four year terms)". In areas outside of existing policy, they state they were "guided' by feedback at various meetings of UBCM members and from local governments but not one mention of considering the thousands of comments from the public!]. The very real concern of having to wait an extra year to "express opinions on the performance of their local elected officials" seems not to have carried any weight, even though the courts have said, in the absence of recall legislation, the ballot box is the only place to hold politicians accountable. [UPDATE: At their annual meeting held in Whistler in September, the UBCM held a re-vote on the issue of 'term of office' and, this time, they voted to recommend to the government that they leave the term at where it is, 3 years - we will have to wait for the legislation to see what the government does with their 'conflicted' input. Just goes to show what a 'sham' the whole thing really was] . The input from individuals for March was not posted on the LocalElectionsTaskForce website until April 21st and only after I raised the issue with them via email. My own input, which was submitted on April 15th was not posted until the same day the report was posted, May 31st, despite repeated requests to do so much earlier. This 'whenever' approach has done serious harm to the transparency of the entire process. Anyone wishing to read what I had to say in my submitted comments on this issue can go to http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2010/05/local-governement-election-rules-in.html.

Local Government Election Rules In Need Of Change?!?

2010-05-31T16:10:00.000-07:00

In response to having come across (in a Lantzville council Agenda package), a request for Council to solicit input from "local groups and individuals interested in local government election issues" - did anybody come and ask you for your thoughts?, I submitted the following input to the Local Elections Task Force on April 15, 2010 (the 'soft' deadline). In order to maintain maximum transparency, the Task Force was going to publish all of the submissions from the various local governments, groups and individuals. Unfortunately, in spite of several unanswered prompts from individuals like myself, my submission was not actually put up on the website http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/ until the day their final report was posted, May 31, 2010 (45 days after my submission!). If I didn't know any better, I would have to say that they were not overly keen on having yours and my opinion posted for all to see!
Once I have the chance to digest the actual contents of the report, I will post another article sharing my thoughts with you.

PREAMBLE: Let me begin by saying that I am greatly disappointed that a Task Force that says they are seeking public input into a process that has the potential to significantly impact the public has done such a poor job of informing the public of that opportunity. I only found out about it when I was going through an Agenda of my local Council Meeting and saw the notice the Task Force had sent out to local governments seeking their input. Putting the onus on them to solicit input from "local groups and individuals" makes for the likelihood of a wide range of effort expended across the province, the natural reaction likely being that, since they 'work in the system', they may feel qualified to speak on behalf of the public. Also, I understand that the Premier announced this Task Force back in early October of last year, only appointed the members in early December and now the Task Force is expecting input to be closed as of April 15th. This is a very short time frame for the generally busy public to research and then consider something as important as the conduct of our democratic elections. It would also have helped demonstrated non-partisanship if one of the members was from the Official Opposition. The make-up of the Task Force, including a new Minister and two rookie government MLA's, hopefully will be long on enthusiasm and critical thinking, if not on experience with the Acts under consideration.
GENERAL COMMENT: although there have been a number of changes similar to the ones being contemplated in B. C. made in other provinces, there appears to be a dearth of actual data on whether or not these changes have resulted in the benefits expected (e.g., cost savings, increase in voter participation). One would have thought that this type of research would have been a natural outgrowth of the implementation of the changes. Why this is not the case, is beyond me but I think it would be wise to quantify the actual benefits before we seek to do anything more.
Campaign Finance
In order to avoid conflicts of interest, which seem to be occurring much more often nowadays, I believe that all campaign contributions should be reported BEFORE the actual election (there should be a cut-off on donations, say 7-10 days, before election day). The information, organized by candidate, should be available for inspection at the local government office in written form and on the local government's website. There should also be reasonable limits on the total amount that an individual or corporation can donate to a single candidate, say, $300 for an individual and $500 for a corporation.
Enforcement processes and outcomes
We have no way to hold election officials accountable for the proper conduct of elections since Part 153 (7) of the Local government Act requires the ability to measure the "intent" of an official's actions - "a person who is an election official must not contravene this part with the intent of affecting the result or the validity of an election" (maximum penalty - up to a $5,000 fine, a year in jail, prohibition from being a candidate or voting for up to 6 years). As a result, nobody in the system seems to take any of this very seriously (the Ministry of Community and Rural Services would probably classify them as "inadvertent contraventions", which they deem not in themselves to be contraventions of the Local Government Act. The City of Nanaimo conduct of their elections is a good example of this 'rule creep', to the great detriment of our democracy. I don't know what cave they have been living in/planet they are from but not requiring voters to identify themselves is just asking for trouble. Nanaimo has a computerized system which is supposed to prevent the same person from voting more than once but, in actuality, what it does is prevent someone claiming to be that person from voting more than once (e.g., if I knew that several of my neighbours were away on extended holidays, there is really nothing but my own personal standards/integrity preventing me from going from polling station to polling station and representing myself as one of more of them). This has got to change! If you doubt what I say, tell us how many people have been charged and convicted of an offence under this section of the Local Government Act since it was enacted and what the penalties imposed were. Then tell me what percentage of people admit to cheating on their income tax, even after they have certified ("taken a solemn oath"?) that the information is correct. If there is money in it or a benefit from it and surveillance/enforcement is poor, 'ordinary' people will do it in droves.
Role of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer in local government elections
Given that the individuals who are appointed Chief Election Officer and Deputy Election Officer in local government elections are usually senior employees of said local government and that, especially in smaller communities, the same individuals run in election after election, this sets up the very real possibility that these election officials may be influenced in a number of ways. In my opinion, hiring family members of municipal employees to aid in the conduct of local elections is also a potential problem of conflict of interest. I believe that local elections should be run by independent, impartial and well-trained individuals whose sole responsibility is the conduct of elections. As demonstrated by the investigative work of Rosalie McAllister in Nanaimo (shared with the Ombudsman and the B. C. Civil Liberties Society), local election workers can be poorly qualified for a job they only do at most once very 3 years and often in a potential conflict of interest and, as a result, not follow the requirements as set out. This type of inconsistent application of the rules does little to satisfy the public that a transparent election process has occurred. I don't know if this means that the B. C. Chief Electoral Officer should be involved but that may well be the best way to ensure election integrity, consistency and professionalism.
Election cycle (term of office)
Ever since Justice J. Paul Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court, in 2006, ruled that the only place to hold politicians accountable for lying to the voters was at the ballot box, the people have needed this opportunity more, rather than less, frequently. If we are to be lied to during the campaign in order to have us vote FOR a particular person or AGAINST a particular person, we need to be able to have the chance to correct our 'error' before we forget the issue/specifics in the daily hustle and bustle of life. If we find out after the fact that a candidate has received a large amount of funding from a single source, we would have reason to view their decisions very critically and may want to have the ability to 'change our mind' in the near future.
In my opinion, consistency in the frequency of local elections with other provinces is a non-issue. There is no need for co-ordination or consultation with municipalities in other provinces that would require that the election cycles be 'harmonized'. With every increase in the term of our elected REPRESENTATIVES, we move further and further away from the ideal of direct democracy.
Six months to a year is more that adequate time for those relatively few members who are new to local governments to 'learn the ropes' (they should have been well-versed on the issues when they were running for office). The suggestion that lengthening the election cycle (and thereby likely the planning framework) would provide more certainty for things such as capital projects belies the fact that governments trying to plan anything more than 3 to 5 years out are pretty tenuous as best. The concept of building reserves, rather than "potentially reducing the amount needed for borrowing and thereby reducing the burden on the local taxpayer", is simply a mechanism whereby the taxpayers are relieved of their tax dollars early. While I can appreciate that there are some considerations in terms of how any particular term of office would affect those things called 'Other voting' (referendum), I fail to see how 'consistency' with other provinces and the federal government election cycle have any bearing on what we should choose. If these 'Other voting' events were to be separated from the local government elections, an increase in cost would certainly be expected, even if they did achieve the predicted 'benefit' of more referendums. I can see nothing in these proposals that would tend to increase the accountability of our local politicians, the claim that becoming more like the provincial government in terms of the election cycle (and some unspecified 'accountability measures') notwithstanding.
As the acclamation data demonstrates, political 'dynasties' tend to become entrenched, especially in small municipalities, which is something that extending the election cycle will exacerbate.
Interesting that, of the roughly 155 municipalities in B. C., to whom the Ministry of Community Services suggested to those interested in furthering the issue of extending the election cycle that they hold a referendum during the 2008 local elections, only 4 chose to do so - not exactly an overwhelming response!
So no one gets to feeling too comfortable and loses sight of the objective of representing their constituents, there should also be term limits on local politicians, say no more than 6 - 8 years in succession.
The AAP mentioned in conjunction with the discussion of election cycles is a 'negative billing option', i.e., consent is assumed if one DOESN'T submit a form, when there can actually be a number of reasons why this has happened, e.g, they weren't made aware of the issue.

B.C. Justice System Is An Expensive Joke!!!

2009-12-13T13:10:00.000-08:00

I submitted the following in response to a new 'feature' run in the local Gobal/Canwest newspaper because the original piece offered such a clear contrast between what I think most of us expect from our justice system and what we are actually receiving. Of course, even with such a short item, they still edited it since I guess they felt I was 'laughing my head off'. Is it not about time that we get off this merry-go-round and look seriously at what we are actually accomplishing with the system and how much it is costing us to get those results? The whole thing reminds me of the old Foghorn-Leghorn cartoon which regularly pits a small chickenhawk against a very large chicken. In spite of all their battles, at the end of the day, they each punch their time clocks, say 'goodnight' to each other and then head home. It must be extremely frustrating for anyone in the system who actually wants to see criminals held accountable, would-be criminals deterred and the cost of operating the system at least partially paid for by those convicted.

Dear Editor,
What with all of the bad news that we constantly receive through the media (murders, pandemics, scandals, essential service cuts), it was a welcome change to read your new feature, Court News (Nanaimo Daily News, November 26) - I just couldn't stop laughing! A "$250 fine for theft under $5000" - ho, ho, ho, hee, hee. "(P)ut on probation for one year on a count of theft over $5,000" - tee hee, yuk, yuk, yuk. "(G)iven one day in jail for obstructing police and breaching a court order" - snort, guffaw, chortle. "(F)ined $1000 and prohibited from driving... for one year for driving while suspended", ha, ha, ha, oh, my sides are starting to hurt! "(F)ined $800 and prohibited from driving for one year on a count of driving while impaired" - no, stop, you're killling me... (or very well might be)!

Canada Can't Afford Another SRTC Fiasco!

2009-10-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

Since I well remember the disastrous Scientific Research Tax Credit program of the mid-80's and the billions that it cost the taxpayers of Canada with very little actual research being conducted and I have noticed troubling similarities developing with the government's Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' to 21 'major' regional newspapers across Canada, almost all of them in the Canwest/Global fold (which shows just how much concentration of media there is in Canada!). Much to my dismay, as far as I can tell, only 1 newspaper, the Winnipeg Sun (which is NOT a Canwest/Global property), published this short piece. What possible reason could the others have for not wanting to help see that taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent in an efficient, effective and transparent manner?

Dear Editor,
Seems like everyone nowadays is in an 'all-fired' hurry to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure funding, which of course, is just taxpayers' money (minus a 15-20% 'handling' fee) being returned to the chosen few. In our rush to 'stimulate' the economy, we need to remember the example of the Scientific Research Tax Credit program of the mid 1980's, a federal government program which cost the taxpayers of Canada almost $8 billion (in 2009 dollars), with it being widely reported that almost $4 billion of that resulted in no actual scientific research being done (i.e., it was obtained under false pretences).
I personally know of 3 infrastructure grants which were awarded to applicants who did not meet the requirements. In our haste, let's be sure that this latest program amounts to substantially more than 'shovelling money off the back of a truck'. Canada cannot afford another expensive, failed program - strict controls must be in place, beginning with the selection, without political influence, of projects that best meet the program's criteria right through to the spending of the money and, if the government can't satisfy taxpayers that they can do that, then our money must stay in the bank.

Phase II Sewers - Exercise Your Minds, Then Your Democratic Rights!

2009-05-30T11:02:00.001-07:00

The following piece was written as a 'Comment' on Lantzville Log Society Chairperson and intrepid reporter, Brian Blood's, report of May 2,5,8/09 ['SAVE HUDDLESTONE ROAD BEACH ACCESS/COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4TH 2009/TROUBLE IN BEACH FRONT COMMUNITY'] on the Log Blog (http://www.thelog.ca/). Since that blog is moderated (i.e., someone with the paper has to 'approve' the 'comment' before it will show on the blog), it remains to be seen whether it will or not. My Blog, on the other hand, is unmoderated so you can make whatever comments you feel are appropriate - I hope it will help to further the discussion.

Brian,
While I can certainly appreciate the concern expressed by the various presenters/residents at the May 4th Regular Council Meeting, as well as the contributors to this submission, one would be foolish not to expect that there would be some negative impacts of bringing collector sewers to Lantzville - the physical installation required is just one of those (some have already experienced this with the Phase I installations). Some of it can be mitigated with the appropriate expenditure of funds but, only to a point. This is just one of the reasons one needs to be very sure of their personal justification for wanting collector sewers.
There is much mention in your piece about protecting/respecting the OCP and, while this extensive document has some worthwhile aspects to it, it was agreed by 94% of those expressing either a formal written or spoken opinion at the Public Hearing that it was flawed in at least three major aspects - the significant density it would allow, its extreme generosity towards developers and the mega-project Lantzville Foothills development inclusion. You should remember that 'support' for the OCP was fabricated by the Mayor using his oft-repeated belief that the 'silent majority' is with him and Council - the very thing that you now latch onto in your argument regarding the interpretation of a 'negative' referendum. The current provincial government changed the rules and added the "50% of assessed value" requirement (prospective developers/owners of larger, more valuable landholdings, also get an 'extra' say)
I, for one, appreciate the fact that you attend most of our Council Meetings and offer your impressions in the Log for interested residents to peruse. Unfortunately, you are also one of those persons who appears to have jumped on the sewer bandwagon before you looked, stating publicly that you felt the issue was a "no-brainer". It now would appear that there is a need/use for our brains after all. You mention that this assault on our beach is especially troubling since we don't have a waterfront park but I wonder if you could remind us what your position was when the community had the opportunity, for about $59/yr./household, to purchase our very own 2 acre park on Sebastion Road? Before we try to have a 'fair' referendum (regrettably, not easy in this community) on the use of the beach access, shouldn't we have had a 'fair' referendum on sewers in Lantzville, all of Lantzville, as was proferred by Mayor Haime now oh so long ago?!
While it is true that the proposed sewage pump station at the end of Huddlestone Road, while being available for subsequent phases would be funded by the Phase II property owners, this is not unlike the situation where Phase I property owners (including yourself) have paid for much of the trunks and the beach interceptor which would be used to carry Phase II sewage to the treatment plant - nothing really that unusual there.
I have devoted hundreds of hours over the past 3 1/2 years to try and inform residents of what is going on 'behind the scenes' in Lantzville - hey, isn't that something that a local paper like the Log could be doing? Residents who are interested can access my 'Chutzpah' [defn: unbelievable gall] blog at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com - unfortunately, just as the Log Blog has experienced, Lantzville still doesn't seem ready to have frank and open discussions about issues that affect us. I would love to hear from any residents who have questions or concerns and are willing to invest some time in working to reach a consensus.
If the 'press' tried and had at least as much success as I did, you would have learned that the District didn't meet the criteria for the infrastructure grants (taxpayer's money) totalling $5.6 million. I am sure that you can understand that this leaves the entire program (which is based on limited funds being used to solve the most pressing, proven problems) in disrepute. The refusal of Lantzville's Chief Administrative Officer and Mayor to answer my specific questions about the District's eligibility for infrastructure funds for sewage collection has launched me on a two and a half year effort to obtain those answers. Since higher levels in the 'food chain' have also declined to answer or have taken many months to provide any form of response, what has become clear is that everyone is now ducking their responsibility and trusting that stonewalling will save the day - never a good sign for democracy!
I have been trying to get people to realize that the decision to bring sewers into a community is something that requires a great deal of thought and discussion. It is easy to see why large landowners would want sewers since it brings them one significant step closer to subdividing but individuals need to think very carefully as to why they should 'sign on'. The very first decision that needed to be made was why we felt we needed sewers in the first place, based on scientific, verifiable information.
Without conclusive proof that the fecal coliforms have been found in some of our ditches are coming predominantly from septic tanks, the District's contention that this is all about our health, is just so much 'smoke'. Although the District was required by their infrastructure funding application to provide this information and conduct a survey of individual properties ("all... applications must provide a documentary report detailing the nature and extent of individual failures in a survey which includes water, soil, wastewater and groundwater sampling and analysis") and they attested to doing so, they didn't and the province has now let them get away with it (twice!!). The head of the government department doing the evaluations for the applications has finally admitted that, in their opinion, the 'septic failure rate' in Phase I & Phase II is somewhere between 5 and 25% (in other words, they don't know - the Ministry of Health's own records show 7 & 23 repairs, respectively, over a fairly recent 9-year period), with 25% being the minimum threshold under the program criteria. So, that leaves the other main reason why sewers are introduced - development. We already know that Lantzville Projects and the Foothills have happily signed on, providing $981,000 to 'piggyback' on Phase I to cover the installation of their pipes and up-sizing trunks/interceptors in that area. Our Urban Containment Boundary area has already been increased from 2% to 32%, meaning that almost a third of the land area within Lantzville is eligible to be supplied with sewer and water and developed commensurately.
Given that these residents are now facing significant costs (even though several councillors/past councillors will be happy to tell you how 'cheap' our system is going to be compared to selected others), they need to carefully consider their situation. What is the expected remaining life of their current system? What would be required to repair it should it fail and how much is that likely to cost? How much is the proposed Phase II system going to cost them in total - don't listen to all the 'noise' around you, talk to people who do this for a living and others who have already been through it (Phase I/Barclay Crescent [French Creek]). Expect that the quarterly operating cost (which isn't part of the binding 'referendum') will increase and that you will use more water. Do not let fear or other people interests/agenda make this decision for you - exercise your mind along with your democratic rights!
On a final note, I am very concerned about how rampant self-interest has made us much less open to discussion and much less civil to each other. I am not trying to sell anyone anything and I will not make a cent as a result of their decision, one way or the other. My personal opinion is that those who throw in with people who would use misinformation and exaggeration to achieve an end reflect badly on all of us and are providing a very poor example for their children. Council has an agenda, the Log has an agenda and even I have one. Mine is to do what I can to get people to not allow others to do their thinking for them. We're still waiting for that in-depth sewer article that you had promised to write for the Log, it is truly unfortunate that you didn't take up an investigation of the whole issue of sewers for Lantzville long ago and pressed for the whole community to be involved in the decision. I guess it comes down to whose ox is being gored.

Democracy Is Really In Trouble!!

2009-05-18T16:19:00.000-07:00

The voter turnout in the recent provincial election has sunk to a dismal 48%, down a full 10 percentage points from 2005. For a more in-depth discussion of this phenomenon in Canada, read my earlier post to this blog, 'Voter Turnout is All Relative in B.C. Politics'.
Commenting in the Vancouver Sun three days after the May 12th election, Harry Neufeld, B.C.'s Chief Electoral Officer said, "(c)learly people believe in democracy and the voting process. But they don't vote and they lie about it." Have truer words ever been spoken and what are we prepared to do about it?!?

Why I Hate Politicians!!!

2009-05-12T21:08:00.000-07:00

I submitted the piece below as a 'Letter to the Editor' to 11 British Columbia newspapers on Friday, May 8th - it is yet to be seen if any of them will publish it. The letter arose out of my frustration and deep concern with what we have allowed to become of our 'democratic' system. Part of our abdicating our responsibility to nurture and guard it is disillusionment with the system due to some of these same factors, part of it is lazyness, part of it is born out of self-interest in its most base form and part is the result of some of us sacrificing principles for power, position and/or money.

Dear Editor,
I hate politicians because...
-they have taken everything that was good and noble about democracy and debased it
-they don't represent their constituents, rather telling them how its going to be
-they only need us at election time and then use the power we give them to cater to special interests
-they have often lied their way to power, with the blessing of the courts
-they teach us that "the end justifies the means", having some of us sacrifice whatever principles we may have had to self-interest
-they form governments that think they can do whatever they want, even to the point of breaking the law
-they will never admit to being wrong, 'spinning' absolutely everything
-they use our own money to buy our votes
-they look after themselves and their friends before you and I
-they support undemocratic practices, believing that, one day, it will benefit them
-they make it necessary to read between the lines and listen for what isn't being said
But the thing I hate them for the most is that, every day, they make a mockery of what so many of our soldiers have died for.
And what about us, we never hold them accountable for any of it! On Tuesday, let's all support BC-STV so we can finally start changing this broken system and be able to vote without having to hold our noses.

Olympic Boosterism/Euphoria Is Alive And Well in Nanaimo!

2009-03-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Nanaimo Daily News, with a note explaining that I had been holding onto it for awhile since I knew that they were unlikely to run it because it exceeded their guideline of 300 words or less (even after 3 edits). I then noted that they had recently published an LTE of approx. 700 words, so I was hopeful that this demonstrated some flexibility in their rules and that my submission would be published.

Dear Editor,
It appears that local Liberal supporter and tourism operator, Scott Littlejohn, has fully bought into this paper's self-serving drivel (B.C. residents should embrace the Olympics, Feb. 12/09) and has now taken upon himself to 'spread the word' to the masses (B.C. should make the most of 2010 Olympics, Feb. 19/09), the gist of which seems to be - we hope to be making lots of money so the anticipated end justifies the means.
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic Park ski jump, experience the thrill of the track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars, with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!
Only a few weeks ago, five and a half years after winning the Games, did the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it would be significantly higher), are now most likely to be in the order of $900,000,000, more than a five-fold increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the eager contractor that the cost of the roof will be $12,000 (though not guaranteed), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that it is now $62,000, leaving you to not only wonder where you're going to find that extra money but if you should have built in the first place - of course, its too late for that!
So, the Daily News now tells us that the Olympic games are almost here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of significantly understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved (Vancouver Convention Centre, Fast Ferries, etc.). Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests. Will we never learn, why do we continue to let our governments treat us this way?!
What kind of sense does it make to hold any event where the security costs alone are in the order of $900 million?! Just think of all the health care, education resources or homeless shelter that could buy. If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!

Government Propaganda/Have I Finally Made The 'Big Time'?!?

2009-01-24T15:21:00.000-08:00

Parksville-Qualicum MLA, Ron Cantelon, caused to be published a very political sounding advertisement in the Parksville-Qualicum News last November. It was 'short and sweet', basically saying: increase in B.C. K-12 education budget since 2001 - 23%; decrease in student enrolment since 2001 - 13%. Feeling that such a use of statistics without any elaboration was not being very forthright, I wrote the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Parksville-Qualicum newspaper, as well as the three Nanaimo newspapers - none of them chose to publish my letter:

Dear Editor,
Following the format of a recent pre-election advertisement surrounding student enrolment and government funding for public education in B.C. placed by Nanaimo-Parksville MLA Ron Cantelon in local newspapers: Increase in MLA's salaries since 2001 - 38%; Decrease in number of sitting days since 2001 - 26%.

Then, in the middle of December, Shirley Bond, B. C.'s Education Minister, caused to have published a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Nanaimo Daily News and Harbour City Star newspapers in response to two submitted by readers, parts of which she took issue with. Part of the message in that letter was virtually identical to what Mr. Cantelon had written in his advertisement (who says the government doesn't make good use of their large media and communications team?!). Therefore, just after Christmas, I submitted the following letter to those same two newspapers:

Dear Editor,
Having become somewhat of a cynic when it comes to matters political, I have to admit that I never would have expected that someone like B.C. Education Minister, Shirley Bond, would have the time to peruse local papers like the Nanaimo Daily News/Harbour City Star for items to respond to (B.C. government funding schools at historic levels/B.C. government funding of schools is at historic levels, Dec. 18/26/08). Given the myriad challenges in public education, I would have thought that she would have many, far more weighty matters to deal with in order to earn her $150,000/yr. salary. As it is, she has taken a large, complex issue and tried to placate us with a few, simplistic statistics.
She writes that "this government fundamentally believes that local boards of education are in the very best position to make decisions for the students in their communities". I think it has become obvious to anyone paying attention over the past number of years that, since the government controls the funding, there are only 'painful' decisions to be made. Another way to look at this is that it leaves the 'dirty work' for the local school boards. The government also reserves the right to fire the entire duly elected school board if they don't like their community-minded decisions (I see this as the main reason why school boards timidly accept unacceptable learning conditions in many of their classrooms).
In closing, and in the same spirit as the Minister's letter (where she basically says: increase in B.C. K-12 education budget since 2001 - 23%; decrease in Nanaimo-Ladysmith student enrolment since 2001 - 13%; ), let me offer my own set of 'coupled' statistics: increase in MLA's salaries since 2001 - 38%; decrease in number of legislature sitting days since 2001 - 26%.

What is especially interesting is how these two papers chose to use my letter. The Daily News ran it (Education Minister's letter far too simplistic, Jan 10/09, the bolded text indicates that part of my letter which was not published) and then Walter Cordery wrote an editorial piece using my letter as 'the hook'. The Harbour City Star only ran the editorial piece (Thin skins fill letters pages, Jan. 13/09), making reference to my letter printed in the Daily News.

Security Costs Approaching $3/4 Billion; Are Olympics Still Relevant?

2008-12-14T19:50:00.000-08:00

When the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Olympics were first being introduced back in 2004, almost nobody in the mainstream media (TV, print or radio) wanted to talk about security costs, including the two Campbell's - Premier Gordon Campbell and then Vancouver Mayor, Larry Campbell, which at that time were 'estimated' at a 'bargain' amount of $175 million. I even had CKNW talk-show host, Jon McComb, cut me off as I was trying to make the point that this amount flew directly in the face of all recently-held Olympics [Salt Lake City (winter 2002) - $310 million, Athens (summer 2004) - $ 1.5 billion [incl. $312 million for communications 'backbone'], Turino (winter 2006) - $ 1.4 billion, London (summer 2012) - est. $1.7 billion; 3 x bigger Summer games cost more than Winter] and that the taxpayers were the ones who would be paying.
Well, Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Public Safety recently offered his own 'estimate' for security costs - $400 million to 1 billion (a 228 - 571% increase) and I would still question whether that is even going to be enough. VANOC, which has been missing deadlines for budgets almost since Day 1, now says that their entire, updated and approved budget, including security costs, should be released to the public soon after their next meeting on January 29, 2009 (just over a year before the Games are due to begin). Hang onto your hats for that one, folks!
We really need to ask ourselves (actually we should have done this years ago!) if, in today's dangerous world whether or not holding a 17-day event (plus the much lower profile 10-day Paralympic Games), where the security cost alone could well approach three-quarters of a billion dollars, makes any sense at all. It is expected that the Olympics will be good for a relatively small segment of the population (such as construction, hotels, restaurants and the athletes) but what does it really do for the rest of us, who will have to foot the bill if they blow the budget?
[UPDATE 09 02 19]
Five and a half years after winning the 2010 Olympic games for Vancouver/Whistler, the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing, on the same day that Obama-mania hit Canada, that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it almost certainly would be significantly higher - see above), are now most likely to be in the order of $900 million, a five-fold ($725 million) increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the contractor that the costs of the roof will be $12,000 (but subject to revision), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that they are now $62,000, a figure that, had you known at the beginning, you may not have taken that decision. So, the benefactors of the Games now tells us that the Olympic games are here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved. Will we never learn, why do we just keep "bending over"?! Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests!
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will likely never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic park ski jump, experience the thrill of the ice track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!

Lantzville Provides The New Mayor of Nanaimo

2008-12-01T09:34:00.000-08:00

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' of the Nanaimo Daily News (Canwest/Global newspapers) on Nov. 24/08. As with most of my letters, and especially anything that might be critical of them, time will tell if they publish it. If they don't, consider it just one more reason to support independent media when obtaining real news that is important to you.

Dear Editor,
So Nanaimo's Mayor-elect lives in Lantzville (Ruttan must live up to promises he made, Nanaimo Daily News, Nov. 17/08) - well, get over it! It's not like Lantzville hasn't been very good to Nanaimo over the years. Let's make a list, shall we:
- Nanaimo gained 3 large properties (and the commercial taxes they generate) from Lantzville, even receiving $100,000 for 'good works' from one of the benefiting developers
- Nanaimo received $200,000 from Lantzville for their Conference Centre in exchange for agreeing to provide emergency water
- Nanaimo received $96,000 over the past 11 years from Lantzville in support of the Port Theatre, the only other municipality to do so
- Nanaimo uses Lantzville land for their northern 'Welcome to Nanaimo' signage
Although your paper has been very vocal all along with the fact that John does not live in Nanaimo (while not going out of your way to make it clear that he is a business/property owner/taxpayer in the city), I'd be far more concerned about one household having more than one vote on a Council or Board such as Donna and Nelson Allen on SD68 School Board, Diane and Jamie Brennan on Nanaimo Council and SD68 School Board, respectively, Colin and Denise Haime on Lantzville Council and Sue, Greg and Evelina Halsey-Brandt on Richmond Council. In your view, it seems that a person's place of domicile is more important than fair and broad representation.

The 'Politics' of Infrastructure Grants

2008-11-11T16:59:00.000-08:00

'Letter to the Editor' largely as submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News on Nov. 11/08 (in order to try and stay within their 300 word limit, I had to pare it down to the absolute essentials - although that resulted in leaving out some bits that I thought were important to understanding my point). Think very carefully before you consider rewarding any politician for giving some of your own money back to you.
The Daily News published my letter on Nov. 15th but, since the item was still about 40 words over their limit, they chose to eliminate the entire second to the last paragraph (containing 85 words, dropping it down to 253). Now, for the sake of a few words, especially those particular words, I would have thought they would have let them stand. How do you feel - is it acceptable that local newspapers enforce such rigid limits on items submitted by the public when they themselves can go on and on in an editorial/opinion piece, if it suits their purposes? I see it as one of the many reasons that people are just not subscribing to newspapers anymore.

While we're on the subject of 'bright ideas', what do you think of someone who tells you that paying for services out of reserve funds is great because you get the service without an increase in taxes. While reserve funds can be useful in limited circumstances, I find three things wrong with their use:
1. they result in taxes higher than they needed to be because the monies are collected in advance, so how is that a benefit? If you move money from your savings account to chequing to pay for a major purchase, are you not poorer than before?
2. because the public's approval is not required to create and fund a reserve fund, it can be used as a way to get around obtaining the public's consent for major projects (as would be required if the money had to be borrowed)
3. once the money has been put into the reserve fund, Council is pretty much required to build something for which the fund was designed (i.e., the money is 'restricted' and can't be used for general revenues) so there is really no opportunity for 'sober, second thought'

Dear Editor,
I find it quite troubling that we have come to the point where we actually use how much infrastructure money a politician claims to have obtained for us as a measure of their performance (Compare benefits brought to two Nanaimo ridings, Nanaimo Daily News, Oct. 21/08).
The whole 'era of infrastructure grants' is designed to separate us from our tax dollars and leave us feeling beholden to our politicians/government(s). The entire concept of infrastructure grants is problematic for me - it is a system whereby taxes are collected from the people, squirreled away in government accounts, grant applications are processed by a group of bureaucrats and a portion of it (less 'administrative' costs, of course) is then returned to some of the taxpayers in a blatant effort to influence voters. We are being 'bought with our own money'!
It would be much more efficient (and far less 'political') if the money were raised locally for broadly-supported projects solving real problems from those who will benefit. Otherwise, it becomes a game of 'get yours or somebody else will' and even the 'winners' have no certainty that they have received back anywhere near what they have paid in.
The photo 'ops' and the news releases are always quick to follow the awarding of any monies. The politicians obviously don't write the 'cookie-cutter' press release (I have even seen one where the announcing MLA was still referred to as 'xxx') and typically don't have a clue of the real cost/benefits of the project being funded.
I know of at least two projects where the essential criteria of the grants were ignored and a total of $6.7 million was awarded anyway. $5.6 million of that was in my own community, where it was/will be used to install collector sewers to deal with what the technical evaluation said could be as little as a 5% septic system failure rate and we get to live with the varied 'unintended consequences'. Should I vote for any of Lantzville's current councillors on Nov. 15th or support my MLA, Ron Cantelon, in May '09 based on that? I think not!
We would all do well to remember Rafe Mair's Axiom of Subsidiarity, perfectly tailored for this situation: lesser politicians should always, without fail, beware of gifts coming from higher levels of governments.

Update [08 11 13] Well, that really couldn't have been more timely -
On the Log blog [http://thelog.ca] (Nov. 11/08), Lantzville Councillor Denise Haime said:
With respect to the Tourism plan, it was paid for by a Provincial government grant not out of the District of Lantzville budget.
Doing such a plan was a requirement in order to get other grant monies for items such as Minetown Days.

(Nov. 11/08) Lantzville Councillor Douglas Parkhurst said:
The plan has been funded by a provincial grant. It was required as part of a larger grant that the district received. The other part of the funds have been used to fund mine town days and for the future, it can be used to help with a trail plan and other amenity developments. This plan didn't cost the ratepayers. The province is really the one who paid for it.

So, we applied for some money that we really didn't need in order to get some that we had a use for and it "didn't cost the ratepayers". Well, I hate to break it to accountants, Haime (x2) and Parkhurst, but just where do you think the province gets their money from? Local governments everywhere appear to be on this grant treadmill that seems to be running out of control, you might even say they are becoming addicted to it. Now I think you can begin to appreciate what Rafe Mair was talking about.

Update [10 06 16] Well, look at that, will you?! In a piece written for Maclean's magazine (Nov. 2/09 issue), Andrew Coyne, National editor and former journalist, editor and contributor to the National Post and Globe and Mail agrees with what I have been saying all along about infrastructure grants, calling the Conservative government's action on this file both a disgrace and rotten. Read the entire article at http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/the-cheques-arent-the-real-scandal/

B.C. 2008 Local Elections Voting Advice

2008-11-09T10:40:00.000-08:00

Having trouble trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming B.C.-wide municipal elections (Nov. 15th)?!? Well, you're not alone. One thing you should realize is that you're not required to vote for the full 'slate' of candidates, i.e, if, even after doing all your research, you just can't come up with 1 good person for Mayor, 6 (or 8) good people for Council or 7 (or 9) good people for School Board, then vote only for those you believe will ask for your opinion, search out solutions, keep you fully informed and then make the decision in the best interests of your community. That's what I'm going to do. Maybe, if the results, on top of a low voter turnout, clearly demonstrate reduced voting 'averages', someone will take note and come up with a way to improve the quality of both the candidates and the discussion. Then again, the jaded cynic in me says that if only three people vote, the candidate with two or more votes, will probably gladly take the job!
Also, if you are one of the 55+ jurisdictions where your Council/Board has decided to use electronic voting machines to record your votes and you're just not sure about how accurately they will reflect your intent, I would suggest that you at least indicate to the polling place workers that you are using a machine to exercise your most basic democratic right under protest. That, also, is what I intend to do! Hopefully, with pressure from the voters, a long-term solution to this problem will be adopted by the Ministry of Community Development long before the next election (although scheduled for 2011, your current politicians voted at the last UBCM to ask the provincial government to extend the interval to every four years).

UPDATE [08 11 15]
Well, I went and voted at Costin Hall about an hour ago and, yes, I followed my own advice. Not finding anyone worthy of my support in the Lantzville council race (you might think I would have voted for Rod Negrave as the 'spoiler' but, since his wife used to work for the Mayor's wife and current councillor, Denise Haime [and may still], I wasn't convinced of his independence from the present anti-democratic Council). According to the early results, it looks like the 'average' Lantzville voter could only find 4.6 people running for council to support. However, I am happy to report that I did, through talking to people, reviewing information on websites and attending meetings, find 5 candidates worth supporting for District 68 School Board and I wish them the best of luck. They control a much larger budget than Lantzville Council.
Although Bylaw 70, "District of Lantzville Elections and Other Voting Opportunities" says that a secrecy sleeve shall be provided "if requested by the elector", it appears that everyone was being given one. Although Ian Howat, our former Chief Administrative Officer (and now in charge of 'legislation' with the City of Nanaimo) has recently said that you can't force people to use one, I was planning on requesting one if it hadn't been offered.
When it came time to put my completed ballot into the vote counting unit, I said in a loud, clear voice to the fellow manning the Diebold (now Premier Election Solutions) Accuvote-OS vote counting unit that "I object to having to use a machine in order to exercise this the most basic of my democratic rights and responsibilities" to which he responded that I "wasn't the first, a number of people had said that". O.K. folks, so here's the challenge - let's work together over the next three years to see to it that potentially insecure voting machines like this one are not allowed to be used ANYWHERE IN B. C. unless they have been tested and certified by an approved, independent, testing lab and there is rigorous testing required at the local level before they can be deployed to count your votes. My submission to the Ministry of Community Development, which I feel is the first, major 'salvo' in this effort, should be ready to go by the end of the month. If you are interested and want to help, either post a comment by clicking below or email me at vigilantz@hotmail.com and tell me how you would like to contribute. I'd love to actually hear from someone since I'd hate think that the 2400+ visits to my blogs so far are all Lantzville council members wondering what I am writing.

Voter Turnout Is All Relative in B. C. Politics

2008-10-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

I find it somewhat amusing to read the recent musings from the media (and others) about the historically low voter turnout in the recent federal election here in Canada. It has been reported that the 59% number was the lowest since Confederation and, while the fact that there was really no reason to have called this election (as a matter of fact, it broke the 'New' Conservatives own fixed election dates legislation) since Prime Minister Harper admitted several times that it was likely that he would have another minority government (which is precisely what happened) may have kept some people at home, some perspective on this number might be helpful.
In the last provincial election in May 2005, the voter turnout was 58%, which is quite comparable to the recent federal election figure, even though that was the lowest ever.
So far, the pundits and assorted other politicians are suggesting that it might be due to a certain amount of cynicism on the part of voters (gee, you think?!). However, a look at the most recent voter turnouts in municipal elections makes the federal result look downright stellar by comparison.
In the British Columbia, province-wide, municipal elections in 2005, the governments which probably have the most impact on the average citizen's day-to-day existence, we saw the following sampling of voter turnouts: Burnaby -25.5%, Central Saanich -28%, Colwood -24.8%, Coquitlam -23.3%, Courtenay -25.0%, Delta -34.8%, Esquimalt -32.5%, Fort St. John -26.0%, Kelowna -31.5%, Ladysmith -23.3%, Langford -21.3%, Langley -19.7%, Maple Ridge -30.9%, Nanaimo -35%, New Westminster -26.2%, Oak Bay -28.7%, Pitt Meadows -27.0%, Port Alberni -28.1%, Port Coquitlam -19.4%, Port Moody -17.5%, Richmond -25.9%, Saanich -19.1%, Sidney -9%, Surrey -35.4%, Vancouver -32.5%, Victoria -26.4%. So, you see, it could have been far worse. [UPDATE: in 2008, in my own community of Lantzville, voter turnout sank to an abysmal 21.6%! It's bad enough that our local Council ended up being elected by something like 15% of the registered voters but, if you don't make the effort to vote for Council, you won't be voting for school board members either and they manage the education of our children and have a budget of ~$110 million!

Why this large discrepancy between the federal and local government elections one can only speculate. My own opinion is that it has a lot to do with voter 'laziness' - in the federal and provincial campaigns, we have the party leaders splashing their faces everywhere there is a flat surface so, we can get everything we feel we need to know in a few quick 'sound/video bytes'. We can then translate that party information to our local candidate and, ta-dah, problem solved! Municipal elections, where few of the candidates actually run on party platforms and the budgets are much more modest so there is very little radio and television advertising, really make us have to work to try and figure out who would best represent our concerns on local Council/School Boards.
Another factor may be that, again because of the 'party system', in federal and provincial elections we would typically be choosing one candidate from a list of maybe 4 - 7, while in municipal elections we usually have to select 6 - 8 people out of a list that may contain 20 or more names (and that doesn't even count the School Board elections). This then becomes too much like work so we find it easier to go and have a beer! What this all demonstrates to me is that, although we want to enjoy all the benefits of a democracy, most of us are not willing to invest more than a few minutes (no, as the numbers above clearly demonstrate, most of us are not willing to devote even that!) in selecting those that will represent us for the next three or more years. By and large, we want to be able to 'bitch and moan' when our local government does something that we don't agree with but, clearly, most of us haven't earned that right!

Canadian Politician Appraisal Aid

2008-10-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

The courts, in their infinite wisdom, have held that the only recourse a voter has to the performance (or lack thereof) of an elected official is at the polls. Nevermind how difficult that is made by the politicians and their respective sycophant media. Politicians count on this and it is a large part of the reason why they can get away with what they do, over and over again.
My suggestion, which is far from perfect but much better than trying to do an 'instant evaluation' on election day, is this. The day after election day, take two blank pieces of paper and put the heading 'MP/MLA/Councillor' on one and 'Government' on the other. Now divide each page up into two columns, labelling the first column, 'Things I Support' and, the other, 'Things I Don't Support'. Every time your MLA/MP/Councillor or Government does something noteworthy, make an entry in the appropriate column. Now, before you cast your next vote, look at your list. If your MLA/MP/Councillor or Government isn't cutting it, I strongly suggest you look for a credible alternative.

Canadian Democracy - It's The System That's Flawed, Stupid!!!

2008-09-22T08:44:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following letter to the three local Nanaimo newspapers and, so far, none of them has chosen to run it (near the mid-point of the federal election campaign):
[UPDATE 08 09 29] While the Nanaimo Daily News [Canwest/Global] has not seen fit to publish my letter (edited or no), the Nanaimo Bulletin [Black newspapers] and the Harbour City Star [Canwest/Global] have now done so, with the former removing half of the first paragraph and the latter deleting more than half of the entire letter.

Dear Editor,
I know frequent contributor Jim Corder and I like him but I feel that there is a fundamental flaw in his 'Letters to the Editor', which invariably end up trashing the Federal Liberals while praising Stephen Harper and the 'New' Conservatives (in that respect, he falls right in there with the likes of Gerald R. Hall and Steele Gorosh). Having developed (out of necessity to try to protect what we have) more than a passing interest in politics as it is practised in North America, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that it is the system which is flawed.
No matter which ideology one subscribes to (I myself think that blind ideology is a big part of the problem), those who practise it as politicians are all cut from the same cloth and attended the same 'school of obfuscation' in order to achieve their ends. For example, they make promises, routinely break them and then use 'weasel words' to try and justify their actions. A recent example - we are now spending over $300 million to have an election which the Conservatives own 'fixed election dates' legislation says shouldn't be happening for another 13 months for a vote that Harper admits will likely result in another minority government, just like we have now! Therefore, Mr. Harper will not be the saviour of Canada, any more than Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, or Paul Martin were before him. In order to truly make changes in how 'democratic' our system is, we ALL need to demand ethical, accountable governments along with an unbiased media and then fully participate in our own governance.
Canada is only 14th on the transparency.org list of least corrupt countries and 18th on the Reporters Without Borders Freedom of the Press Index. Canadians are now dying in Afghanistan in an effort to bring them 'democracy' (don't they have a surprise coming?!), yet we can't be bothered to 'get off the couch' to send an email to our MLA/MP or to attend a local Council meeting or a Public Hearing every once in awhile. True democracy demands nurturing!

Nanaimo's Cable Bay Process 'Fair and Balanced'? NOT!!!

2008-08-01T09:32:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' of the Nanaimo Daily News in response to an editorial which they had published (as cited). Although their editorial was about 750 words in length, they declined to publish my letter on the basis that, at about 650 words, it was longer than their 300 word guideline. Sometimes, specific issues and events just require longer submissions to adequately deal with the topic at-hand. I don't believe the Daily News recognizes this fact.

Dear Editor,
RE: Cable Bay annexation is fair and balanced, (Editorial, Daily News, July 10)

The characterization of 'fair and balanced' must certainly depend on one's perspective and level of knowledge. I don't believe that the volunteers who are working very hard to obtain the requisite 5,815 Nanaimo voter signatures, on their own time and with their own resources, and at the height of the summer vacation period, see it that way.
From your perspective of self-interest and limited knowledge, where your newspaper can expect to see increased ad revenue from the proposed resort, spa and golf course, I suppose you might feel justified in your position. Just out of curiosity, has this paper ever been opposed to a development related initiative in Nanaimo? I also doubt very much that the 6,800 residents of Cedar feel that the process is fair in as much as they don't get asked if they want to lose the land.
Let's do a little math. Assuming a 2/3 success rate (i.e., 2 out of every three people approached complete an Elector Response Form [not a petition - one form, one signature!] and each contact takes, on average, 7 minutes to explain the issue and answer any questions (this, of course, assumes that the local media has been doing a good job of informing the community since the only requirement on the City is to post two notices in "a newspaper" - otherwise the contact could take longer). That means it will take 1,017 hours to gather the necessary signatures.
If we further assume that there are 30 volunteers who are able to take the time to contact their neighbours, man a 'booth' in prominent areas within the city during events and, if they still have any time or energy left, hit some of the larger residential subdivisions, that means that each volunteer would have to devote almost 34 hours to the task. So, on what basis, do you believe that "gathering the required number of signatures is not that difficult"?
To put all this in context, Mayor Korpan was the only one of 8 candidates for Mayor who exceeded the required number of signatures in votes (6,330) in the last municipal election.
The Ministry of Community Development, on their website, state that "some electors may be critical of the alternative approval process because, in larger communities, it may be more difficult to obtain elector response forms from 10% of the electors". In some U. S. states, the threshold is set relative to the percentage of voters who normally take an interest in their community and come out and vote. So, if voter turnout is usually 35% (like Nanaimo), the threshold would be set at 10 - 15% of that, or 3.5 to 5.25%.
Although you state that "the process is crystal clear", I sincerely doubt that you have taken the time to delve into the 'Municipal Boundary Extension Criteria' or the RDN's UCBFAMIA (don't know what that is? - look it up). "All the necessary information is available" - even if one assumes that is true, 'availability' and 'accessibility' are two entirely different things! Also, a "fact of the matter" can't "appear to be"!
I am speaking from personal experience here since, over the past 12 years or so, I have objected to the City taking 3 pieces of land from Lantzville (when it was still part of Area 'D'). In that time, I have seen important meetings held at the height of summer, proponents paying extra to have meetings held a few days before Christmas, notification signs taken down before the public meeting to which they pertain has occured and the entire process turned upside down so that the City (and the province) could get what they want.
So, 'fair and balanced' - I hardly think so! So how can Nanaimo voters demand some democracy? Get informed about the issue, obtain and complete an Elector Response Form (at City Hall or nanaimo.ca) and make sure that it is delivered to City Hall by 16:30 on Aug. 5th.

Disproportionate Risks Vs. Rewards of B.C. Mega-Projects

2008-06-25T09:36:00.000-07:00

The following letter was submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News in response to an article by a regular contributor to that paper in an attempt to show that, while there are always going to be few 'winners' in expensive public projects, the general taxpayer will likely not benefit but accepts all of the risk.

Dear Editor,
It is to be expected that David Lobay, President of the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, would have a very distinct perspective on issues which would affect his membership because that is his 'job'. To that end, he has written a number of pieces for publication in your paper which clearly demonstrate this bias.
Today, I am writing specifically about the latest of these, PNC worth the wait, Harbour City Star, June 14/08. It is all well and good for him to extoll the benefits of government spending, in this case, spending which directly aids/helps their membership (construction, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.) but what he tries to gloss over is that they represent only a small portion of the population, notwithstanding his exaggerated 'ripple effect' theory ("everyone in the community wins when we factor in the 'ripple effect'). The people who are putting up the money, the general taxpayers, as a group stand to gain very little but they are the ones who are taking on the risk should anything go wrong (cost overruns, partner financing difficulties, less-than-anticipated revenues, etc.). The same can certainly also be said of grand, over-hyped, short-lived 'spectacles' such as the 2010 Olympics. For the 'average working guy or gal', the rewards will likely be small while the risks are great!

Government Bail-Out Not The Answer For Harmac

2008-05-25T09:13:00.000-07:00

In response to some individuals suggesting that the government should buy the recently-closed Harmac pulp mill, I submitted the following letter to the Nanaimo Daily News. Except for leaving out the specific reference to the individual who had written the original letter which I was responding to and the part about why Prince Rupert was 'saved' and not Gold River, they ran it pretty much the way I wrote it (surprise!).

Dear Editor,
If Jacqueline Leitch believes that the purchase of the Harmac pulp operation by the provincial government (Government should buy what private sector ruins, Nanaimo Daily News, May 20/08) will set that failed private operation on the path to profitability, she might want to consider that our provincial government 'rescued' the Skeena Cellulose operation in Prince Rupert twice, once in the early 70's and again in the late 90's, spending over 450 million of our dollars in the process. Soon after the government of the day 'saved' the Skeena operation the second time, the Gold River Pulp mill was closed down due to a pulp glut - the difference being that the Deputy Premier at the time lived in Prince Rupert, not Gold River. Skeena eventually went bankrupt (the government had the good sense not to try and bail it out a third time!), was sold (we recovered only $6 million) and has not been in operation for the last 9 years.
No, as disruptive to the individuals involved and harsh as it may seem, we need to let the market forces and private initiative work this out or we will very likely, once again, become subjected to the very expensive 'law of unintended consequences', the recent success of the potash industry notwithstanding. As far as the private sector 'ruining' Harmac, her statement that "when the problems with a business are so obviously internal and not external, it is time to give the business of infrastructure back to the people..." shows either a deep knowledge of the operation or a lack of understanding what the external effects like the collapse of the U. S. housing market and a 50% increase in the Cdn. vs. the U.S. dollar had on the business.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

Democracy Not Quite So Healthy In Lantzville

2008-05-23T09:26:00.000-07:00

In response to a 'Letter to the Editor' they ran praising the democratic bent of Lantzville council , I submitted the following letter to the Nanaimo News Bulletin and, as usual, they edited it heavily, especially the part about reading more of the adventures of Lantzville council on this blog and requesting comments from their readers on same.

Dear Editor,
Before Mr. Forshaw gets too excited by the democratic spirit which he perceives to be emanating from the District of Lantzville (Lantzville council listens to its citizens, May 27/08), I regret to have to inform him that, on the really big issues, democracy continues to be an elusive quantity here in our semi-rural community. One clear example would be when the majority of the current council, without debate or any substantive amendments and, despite 89% of those expressing an opinion (94 submissions) being opposed for a variety of reasons, adopted our new, very pro-development, Official Community Plan in September of 2005.
If you want to read more about the undemocratic nature of the District of Lantzville council and senior staff, go to my Blog, 'Chutzpah', at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com. Sadly, they are far from unique in this respect and this is what happens when an apathetic public abdicates their responsibility and allows the politicians/bureaucrats to set the agenda for them. In any event, I'd love your comments!

Nanaimo Canwest-Global Newspapers A Little Too Sensitive, Perhaps?

2008-05-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following to the Harbour City Star and the Nanaimo Daily News, both of whom had run a version of the Lantzville sewer piece and, lo and behold, the Daily News didn't run it at all and the Star took numerous 'liberties' with it (I can only assume in an effort to keep themselves from looking foolish/uninformed). I have included a copy of what they actually published so you can see for yourselves how 'sensitive' they are and how it works against your need to be fully informed.

AS SUMBITTED
Dear Editor,
The unattributed piece, Sewers improved in Lantzville, The Star, Wed., April 30th, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of reporting. If it was provided by government, surely you have realized by now that even they (you know - "for the people, by the people") have their own agendas and their communications are specifically designed to further them.
For example, the "laying of a sewer pipe along the community's foreshore from its border with Nanaimo north to Oar Road" was only a part of the $3.5 million public expenditure, (one that was completed BEFORE the affected properties had even been asked to approve their share) with the distribution of smaller collector pipes throughout an area of 208 (not 225 as reported) homes and businesses and a sewage lift station comprising the bulk of it.
Since it is the fields which normally fail in septic systems and the tanks remove about 40% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 60% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 5-10% of the pathogens, it is irresponsible and just downright wrong to write that "(t)he problem of raw sewage leaking into open ditches from septic fields in Lantzville, where most residences are not hooked into the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system [in fact, none were at the time] has alarmed residents for years". Not one piece of factual evidence has ever been provided to support the claim or level of concern.
It is uninformed and incorrect articles like yours which are the cause for alarm. Remember when your sister paper, the Nanaimo Daily News, ominously reported some 10 years ago that Lantzville was "literally a cesspool" and sewers were "criminally overdue"? One would have thought we'd all be dead by now!

AS PUBLISHED (Wed., May 21/08)
Dear Editor,
RE: Sewers improved in Lantzville, The Star, April 30th, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of reporting. If it was provided by government, surely you have realized by now that even they have their own agendas and their communications are specifically designed to further them. For example, the "laying of a sewer pipe along the community's foreshore from its border with Nanaimo north to Oar Road" was only a part of the $3.5 million public expenditure, (besides which it was completed before the affected properties had even been asked to approve their share). It was the distribution of smaller collector pipes throughout an area of 208 (not the 225 as reported) homes and businesses and a sewage lift station that comprised the bulk of it. Since it is the fields which normally fail in septic systems and the tanks remove about 40% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 60% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 5-10% of the pathogens, it is wrong to write that "the problem of raw sewage leaking into open ditches from septic fields in Lantzville, where most residences are not hooked into the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system [in fact, none were at the time] has alarmed residents for years". I have never seen any evidence provided to support that claim or level of concern.

Their inability to take to criticism is especially demonstrated by their deletion of the entire last paragraph. Don't you think that its about time we told the media that we're not interested in their 'spin' or distortions and, if they want to use our efforts (such as 'Letters to the Editor') to sell papers (it is one of the most-read pieces of any paper), they can darn well show us the respect due and run them as written so that we can all be better informed?

Mainstream Media May Often Be Wrong But They're Tenacious!

2008-05-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Harbour City Star because, when we are making decisions involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure projects, it is important that we have access to factual information and not just so much talk to advance someone else's agenda. Notice that the Canwest/Global (now Postmedia) newspaper didn't like the very valid criticism of their past poor performance in this regard in the last paragraph and so deleted it from the letter that was actually published.

Dear Editor,
The unattributed piece, Sewers improved in Lantzville, The Star, Wed., April 30th, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of reporting. If it was provided by government, surely you have realized by now that even they (you know - "for the people, by the people") have their own agendas and their communications are specifically designed to further them.
For example, the "laying of a sewer pipe along the community's foreshore from its border with Nanaimo north to Oar Road" was only a part of the $3.6 million public expenditure, (one that was completed BEFORE the affected properties had even been asked to approve their 1/3 share) with the distribution of smaller collector pipes throughout an area of 208 (not 225 as reported) homes and businesses and a sewage lift station comprising the bulk of it.
Since it is the fields which normally fail in septic systems and the tanks remove about 40% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 60% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 5-10% of the pathogens, it is irresponsible and just downright wrong to write that "(t)he problem of raw sewage leaking into open ditches from septic fields in Lantzville, where most residences are not hooked into the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system [in fact, none were at the time] has alarmed residents for years". Not one piece of factual evidence has ever been provided to support that claim or level of concern.
It is uninformed and incorrect articles like yours which are the cause for alarm. Remember when your sister paper, the Nanaimo Daily News, ominously reported some 10 years ago that Lantzville was "literally a cesspool" and sewers were "criminally overdue"? One would have thought we'd all be dead by now!

Fair Compensation or Feinted Indignation?

2008-05-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

I had recently sent this 'Letter to the Editor' to about 3 dozen newspapers throughout B. C. Surprisingly enough, as far as I can tell, not ONE of them chose to run it in their paper. I have to assume that they didn't consider it of interest/relevance to their readers. If you want to know if your local paper was one of them, just leave me a message in the 'Comments' section below this piece (you will probably have to register first, if you aren't already signed up with Google)

Dear Editor,
So B. C. Transportation Minister, Kevin Falcon, took time out of his busy day to call the Chairperson of the B. C Ferries Board to express his concern about the 'exhorbitant' increases that they have just awarded themselves (33% for the Chair, +$35,000/yr.; 31% for the Vice-chair, +$15,000/yr.; 60% for the Directors, +$18,000/yr. - they also get $1500 for each of the approx. 6 Board meetings they attend each year). At least Ms. Harrison took his call and discussed the issue with him, unlike when he, along with the rest of the Liberal caucus, walked out on the debate on Bill 37 while members of the Opposition were speaking and then, after cutting off 'debate' after only 7 hours, voted to give themselves a 29% (+$21,900) annual raise [28%, +$31,900 for Cabinet members; 54%, +$65,200 for the Premier] plus a whole bunch of other 'perks' paid for by the taxpayer.
Pot. Kettle. Black!

Democracy Is Being Eroded Daily in B.C.

2007-12-17T11:05:00.000-08:00

I submitted this letter to the Parksville-Qualicum Beach News (Black Newspaper Group) and I believe that it ran but I don't have the actual copy so I don't know how extensively it was edited (or not).

Dear Editor,
People should be very concerned about the recent actions of the Qualicum Beach Council (PQ News - Councillors must stand on votes, Dec. 4/07). Although they have since thought better of removing useful information from their meeting minutes and voted to maintain the status-quo, we should not be lulled into a false sense of complacency. Everywhere, we see the basics of our democratic system being chipped away at by politicians who find it expedient to achieve their agendas by keeping the great, unwashed public in the dark.
Based on experience in my own community, other democracy-robbing activities like the following are likely happening in many of B. C's municipalities: scanned agendas which can't be searched on-line, minutes which don't always use the same reference that the corresponding agenda item does (also making any search more difficult), unwritten and inconsistent procedures for recording minutes, not allowing the public to have input on the accuracy of the minutes (even if it relates to something they themselves have said), not always including a "Report from 'staff'" in the agenda uploads (they are sometimes distributed to council right before the meeting, removing the opportunity for the public to digest and comment), not recording Council's answers during the 'Public Participation' section of the meetings, senior staff not acknowledging/responding to residents' emails, using easily compromised and widely disparaged voting machines to count our votes (often without any formal testing), and finally, unlike in provincial and federal elections, Councils appointing the persons, usually from their own staff, who will oversee the local elections in which they are often candidates. For much more on this, check out my blog at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.

What Lantzville's Mayor Thinks of Your 'Need to Know'!

2007-11-30T08:39:00.000-08:00

On Dec. 14/06, I sent the following email to the District of Lantzville's CAO, Ms. Twyla Graff, with a cc: to the Mayor:

Twyla,
You and I have discussed the use of audio recording equipment
for meetings of Council on several occasions in the past, as I was
trying to understand how residents who aren't able to attend every
meeting of Council would be able to have an easily accessed and
reliable way of obtaining the information necessary to ask
pertinent questions of their elected and appointed representatives
and to provide input on issues important to them.
Initially, it appeared to me that a number of different methods
were being used to document the proceedings - handwritten notes,
entering directly on a laptop, and also sometimes, recording on
audio tape. The past year or so, a note has been included at the
top of the Council meeting agenda to indicate that the meeting may be recorded (emphasis is mine). However, it remains unclear to me
how these different methods are to be used (separately or jointly)
to provide the most complete and accurate record of "the people's
business" here in Lantzville.
With respect to the audio tape, does the District have a policy
which governs which gatherings of Council may be recorded,
specifically how the audio recordings are used to produce the
official record (only for back-up in case of an apparent
discrepancy raised by a Council member and/or to 'fill in'
complex/long discussions?), how long each recording is kept and
how a resident of Lantzville can obtain access to a specific
recording or transcript thereof? If such a policy already exists,
where can I get a copy of it?
Thank you in advance for your kind and prompt attention to my
query. I have taken the liberty of cc'ing the Mayor on this email
since this is obviously something which would have been/needs to
be decided jointly by Council and staff in the best interests of
the residents. Perhaps it is something which will be an integral
part of the District's new 'communications strategy'.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Having patiently waited for a response and receiving none, on Jan. 25/07, I sent the following email to Ms. Graff, again with a cc: to the Mayor:

Twyla,
Having sent you the 'attached' email on Dec. 14th with a
question relating to District Communication Policy, I was hoping
to have received a reply by now. Can you please tell me when you
will be able to provide me with clarification on the District's
policy?

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Finally, later that day, I received the following reply from the Mayor, NOT Ms. Graff:

Hans,
As you included me in the distribution of the email please accept my email as the District's response. [Blogger note: why would Ms. Graff not answer the question and why should the Mayor answer it for her?]

The one and only official record of the Council meetings is the printed minutes as approved by Council. How staff goes about making notes in order to prepare those minutes is not of concern to council. Council's only concern is the resulting minutes and Council reviews those minutes in order to determine if in the opinion of Council those minutes are a complete, fair and accurate representation of results of that meeting.

As such additions, deletions and amendments are also at the sole discretion of Council.

In respect of this, the use of laptops, written records and/or tapes is completely at the discretion of staff solely in order to assist them in preparing the draft record to Council. Subsequent to the preparation and approval of the minutes these preparation materials become irrelevant and as such may be recycled or in the case of the tapes, reused.

I trust this is the information you require.

Sincerely,

Colin Haime

While I have come to cherish any reply I can coax out of the senior managers and elected officials with the District of Lantzville, I think you will see that not all my questions were answered. As a matter of fact, the Mayor only danced around the whole issue.

As an example of how clarity could have helped, there was an incident at a regular meeting of Council back on July 25/05, where many of the people in the gallery at that meeting could swear that they heard the Mayor say that "Seaview Elementary School continues to see a decline in enrolment and will ultimately close down if it does not increase" and that is what the draft minutes prepared by Ms. Graff, then Deputy Corporate Administrator, reflected. However, after facing considerable criticism over what some called 'fear-mongering' in an attempt to justify a significant increase in density in Lantzville through the new OCP, the official and certified (by Ms. Graff and the Mayor) minutes had him saying that "Seaview Elementary School continues to see a decline in enrolment and could close down if it does not increase".

The Agenda for the meeting notes that "(t)his meeting may be recorded" but, when the controversy arose, the public were not told whether or not it had been. My point being that, if it was actually part of a procedure, it would have been and we could all have heard what was ACTUALLY said, not just what Council would wish they had said. Would this not have been an ideal situation to have had an audio record and a policy as to how it should be used to bring clarity to the people's business?

[UPDATE 09 03 27] Back in November of last year, I attempted to make use of the 'Search' feature on the District's website (realizing in advance that I would not be successful in finding anything on the Agendas, which are scanned images, not text - I had already made a suggestion to Twyla Graff, CAO, to at least make the Agenda 'Table of Contents', which is created by the District in Word format, searchable by including it as a separate item for each agenda and to which she had replied that she would take my suggestion under consideration but nothing ever happened). I was trying to determine how many times Lantzville council had gone 'in-camera', i.e, a meeting dealing with the public's business yet closed to the public. During this exercise, I discovered that the 'search' feature 'crapped out' after June 25, 2007, i.e., it could not find any 'hits' after that date (even though there clearly were some). I dutifully reported this anomaly to the Deputy Director of Corporate Administration, Donna Smith, in late November and she responded that she "had followed up with (their) website provider to rectify the problem". Imagine my surprise when I recently got back to my searching and found that, in fact, the problem still persisted. On following up with Ms. Smith, I was told that they "(had) been consumed with other more urgent priorities in the meantime". Imagine, the website provider had suggested a solution to the problem of Lanztville residents not being able to access the District's Minutes & Agendas in a timely and efficient manner and it has taken the District four months to "look into it". The District has even been awarded grants for the purposes of "website improvements" yet I can discern no such changes - if anything, the 'search' feature seems to have bombed out about the time these funds were received. [UPDATE: the new, improved website has 'sort of' taken my long-ago suggestion to heart and the base Agenda is now searchable but, since the actual Agenda is still an unsearchable image, some detective work is required to find specific details]. In my humble opinion, this is yet another way that the residents of Lantzville are being denied access to a full and complete accounting of how Council conducts business on their behalf.

District of Lantzville Not The Only Ones Who Don't Reply!!!

2007-11-27T09:12:00.000-08:00

On February 23, 2007, I sent the following email to Mike DeJong, B.C. Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, with a cc: to my MLA, Ron Cantelon:

Mr. Minister,
I would very much appreciate it if you would include in the current B.C. treaty negotiation process an objective of removing billboards from Native Reserves, substituting some form of compensation for the loss of revenue. I live in a community which surrounds (except for the water-side) a local reserve (Nanoose) and these signs, in size and number are quite literally a 'blight' on the landscape. They are posted along a provincial highway (Hwy 19) and are so numerous [they have just recently added 4 more] that it is almost impossible to see the ocean and mountain ('Notch') view beyond. This is definitely not the picture I imagine when I hear the words 'Beautiful British Columbia'! With the Olympics coming to Vancouver/Whistler in 2010, we should begin work now to remove impediments to visitors leaving with a positive impression of our province and its people. While I have never agreed with the 'special' ability of Native Bands to post such signs on property held in trust for them by the Federal government, I am not suggesting that the Bands involved not be compensated for the economic loss resulting from their removal. Surely, something can be included in the negotiation framework to address this situation and help beautify British Columbia.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

One would have thought that, having just voted himself a big increase in salary (28% - $31,900) and with all the taxpayer-funded staff he has, that he could have mustered some kind of response/acknowledgement over the ensuing 9 months. Not so - seems that the number of emails received is all it takes to justify the salary increase - actually answering them doesn't factor into it! The same goes for Mr. Cantelon, except that he must know exactly of what I speak since he must drive right by some of these 'abominations' to the sensibilities to reach his Parksville/Qualicum constituency office.

A Gallery of Photos demonstrating just what I am talking about!

Nanoose Bay Reserve Nanoose Bay Reserve Nanoose Bay Reserve

Duncan Reserve

Central Saanich Reserve

The Affront to Democracy Persists (And Is Spreading!!)!

2007-11-08T10:48:00.000-08:00

Especially at this time of year when we remember and honour those who gave their lives to protect the freedoms that we might enjoy and with some of our fellow Canadians/sons and daughters still in harm's way (more than 70 of them having given their lives to-date) trying to bring 'democracy' to far-away countries, it is especially difficult to read words such as these:

Excerpt from Vancouver Sun article, Wed., Nov. 7/07 by Stephen Hume

Democracy can be plainly defined as government by collective consent of the governed. Consent requires free access to the information upon which those holding delegated authority base their decisions.
By definition, then, no genuine democracy conducts its affairs in secret. Yes, there are rare occasions when national security, fair judicial process, protection for vulnerable individuals and public safety may require temporary confidentiality.
But governments which routinely obstruct access to information regarding the reasons for -- and consequences of -- their administrative actions are frustrating public discussion of policy and its merits or failings.
If it's not possible for the public to engage in intelligent debate over what government is doing or not doing on its behalf, then it's not possible for those citizens to make informed decisions at the ballot box about who should govern.
Recent events in British Columbia point to an unhealthy political culture of secrecy, deception by omission, misleading half-truths, disingenuous dissimulation and sleazy spin-doctoring that grows on our provincial government like black mould.

What does this have to do with us here in Lantzville, you might ask? Well, for some insight into how our very own representatives are keeping us un/mis-informed, let me suggest that you read my previous blog entries:

http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-you-being-provided-all-information.html
http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2007/02/answer-me-this-please.html
http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2007/02/answer-me-this-please-deja-vu.html
http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2007/06/yet-another-example-of-information.html

Enjoying their status and finding things much easier if they restrict our access to information, our governments are not going to be the ones to change/remove this 'aura'/veil of secrecy. They are going to have to be told loudly, repeatedly and clearly what we, the rightful owners of the information in the first place and the people they serve are prepared to accept in this regard. Let me know what you personally are prepared to do to makes happen (using the 'Comments' button below this article - you may have to register with Blogger first - its free and painless).

Lantzville Foothills Comprehensive Development Plan Public Hearing Written Submission

2007-06-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

Following are my comments to the Second Public Hearing on the Lantzville Foothills Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). I am posting them here since Twyla Graff, our CAO, has decided that written submissions will only appear in the minutes of a Public Hearing if they are actually spoken at the meeting. While I attended the first Public Hearing, I chose to pass on the second one (apparently necessitated by a 'late' comment from the Ministry of Forests regarding the unburned slash piles spread out throughout the property). Exactly why this necessitated a second Public Hearing and the 'intrigue' that went with it (our CAO having to ask the Council to 'trust her' that the issue was important enough that they agree, sight unseen, to reopen the application). A person more cynical than I might suggest that it was done simply to wear down the public and reduce the attendance at the 'final' Public Hearing - it seems to have worked since there were about 85 people at the first and apparently only 20 or so at the second. Council might well now try to claim that there is now broad public support for the Foothills development.

Mayor and Council,
RE: District of Lantzville Amendment Bylaw 60.10, 2006 Public Hearing Written Submission

I am very concerned about the liability which the District would be assuming by approving this proposal. Many of the roads will be quite steep and require specialized and expensive equipment to keep clear of snow in the winter time. I am even more concerned about the liability the community would be assuming for the trails and rock bluffs of the Foothills ‘park’ area – what is the cost of mitigating these liabilities vs. what is the potential exposure to the District? Will we have to construct fences like Parksville has had to do at Little Mountain and will we have increased policing to prevent individuals from ‘partying’ (and possibly vandalizing) at various locations in this large park area? Although there is mention of a ‘risk assessment’ in the Foothills CDP Executive Summary, I have, to date, seen no information relative to addressing either of these potentially major liabilities.

‘(T)he objective of the Foothills sanitary sewer strategy is to provide suitable, environmentally responsible, sustainable treatment and dispersal options for all three main land uses”(The Foothills – Its Your Nature – March 2006). They tell us how environmentally sensitive/aware they are and use a range of planning ‘emotives’ to try and convince us, yet they are satisfied with the ‘status quo’ of sending the sewage generated from the bulk of their development to the primary treatment plant at Hammond Bay and then flushing it out into the ocean (“green” this isn’t - their original plan of on-site secondary treatment and beneficial reuse matched their words much more closely). While we have been told for the last ten years that a treatment upgrade at the GNWPCC is ‘imminent’ (usually whenever a developer was contemplating hooking up to this antiquated facility), I’ll believe it when I see it.

The applicants have been given a ‘free ride’ as far as sewer Development Cost Charges go (and they are now seeking to be exempt from water, drainage and park DCC’s, as well). I have calculated that this is an approx. 2.3 M$ benefit to them (LPL is also expected to similarly benefit to the tune of 1.9 M$). What is a ‘small’ developer or even a home-owner with a greater than $50,000 renovation on their property to think when they are ‘dinged’ approx. $6,000 by the District for sewer DCC’s? If this decision stands (or even worse, is expanded), Council needs to clearly explain to the residents and other subdividable property owners the rationale behind it.

On the water side, I am concerned about the potential impact of the Foothills drilling program on any down-slope wells (they write that their ‘chemical fingerprinting’ tests indicate no sub-surface link and therefore, “no impact on the quantity and quality of existing systems” but I have been told that they only tested two wells for interference, which would make their ‘guarantee’ very tenuous).

The ‘Foothills Centre’, which was initially of unknown size and then 1,000 sq. m, has now grown to a maximum ‘footprint’ of 5,000 sq. m (53,792 sq. ft), which is about half the size again as the floor area of all of the commercial development presently within downtown Lantzville. In the community survey leading up to the OCP, 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. The OCP also contains an objective (sec. 6.1) to "discourage development outside of the Village Residential and Village Commercial Core Areas". Council needs to be very careful, in trying to reduce the length of automobile trips by Foothills residents, that the development, while located within the District of Lantzville, doesn’t become more of a ‘satellite’ neighbourhood of Nanaimo.

While there has been talk of a new firehall (paid for by the developer) to better service the Foothills and Upper Lantzville, I don’t see any such proposed use under any of the Foothills development zones.

While the proponents have made many commitments concerning numerous aspects of their development, some of which may look good on paper, it will be up to District Council and staff to monitor these commitments and enforce the rules, if they are not being followed. With the number of regulations involved in this CDP, this will not be an easy task.

Yet Another Example of 'Information Denied/Democracy Frustrated'!

2007-06-04T13:54:00.000-07:00

Are You Being Afforded a Reasonable Opportunity to Comment?

The following is a list of public documents which have come before Council w.r.t the Sanitary Sewer Collector System in Lantzville since the Municipal Sewage Collection Phased Implementation Plan was commissioned back in March of 2004. You will note that the vast majority of these documents come with the notation 'Report to be distributed/Staff report to follow', which is a nice/round-about way of saying that only Council will see that report before the meeting, and therefore, your opportunity to comment before Council makes their decision will be limited to whatever you can glean from the general topic contained in the Agenda, i.e., you will not be able to speak directly to information contained in the report. It also means that, since the reports are not included in any updated Agenda (or addendum), you will have to attend the District offices (M-F, 8:30-4:30) after the meeting in order to obtain a copy of the report.

Draft Sewer Collection Implementation Plan (Report from staff) CoW Agenda Nov. 1/04
Koers Report not included with Agenda Council Agenda July 10/06
Sanitary Sewer Collection System - re:... (Staff report to follow) Council Agenda July 10/06
Sanitary Sewer Phase 1, Stage 1 (Interceptor)... (Staff report to follow) Council Agenda July 24/06
Sanitary Sewer Connection System - re:... (Report from CAO) CoW Agenda Nov. 8/06
Sewer Collection System Phase 1 - Cost... (Report to be distributed) Council Agenda Nov. 20/06
Sanitary Sewer Collection System Phase 1
Sanitary Sewer System Phase 1 Stage 2 - Tender (Report to be distributed) Council Agenda Feb. 12/07
Establishment of A Local Area Service - re:... (Report to be distributed) Council Agenda Feb. 12/07

With respect to the Nov. 20/06 council Agenda item, here is a copy of the email which I sent to the District's Chief Administrative Officer, Twyla Graff:

Twyla,
Please excuse the lateness of this question but, although I consider it important, it is something which I have just now had the time to get around to asking. Could you please tell me why the report which was the focus of the referenced meeting was not available for consideration by the public prior to the holding of the meeting? As I am sure that you would agree, even if someone had wanted to appear as a delegation to the meeting, it would be very difficult for that person to make appropriate comments and pose relevant questions when they had not had the opportunity to read and digest the 'Sanitary Sewer Connection System - Financial Alternatives' report first.
As always, I thank you in advance for your prompt and kind response to my query.

Sincerely,

Hans J. Larsen

and to which I have yet to receive any kind of reply.
So, once again, the District is not going out of their way to ensure that Lantzville residents are fully informed on issues which will directly impact them. To let your fellow residents know what you think of this democracy-robbing approach and what it bodes for the handling of similarly 'contentious' issues in the future, just click on the "Comment' link below (you may have to register with Blogger first - its free and painless).

And Now For Something Just A Little Different!

2007-05-25T16:19:00.000-07:00

This bill challenges all MLAs in this house to cut the strings of their million-dollar pensions and to accept the same standards that other British Columbians have to accept in their lives. In order for us to change the public image of MLAs as self-serving, it’s going to require MLAs to stop being self-serving. We cannot ask others to tighten their belts if we’re not willing to tighten our own. (Opposition Leader) Gordon Campbell, as he signed a pledge to not ever accept an MLA pension - July 5, 1995

I was one of 84 British Columbians who made a submission to the 'Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation' and my advice to them was as follows:

Dear Commissioners,
Thank-you for providing me this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the issue of British Columbia MLA compensation and related matters. The 'benefits package' for elected officials has long been a contentious one and I don't believe that we have yet found either the best method or the correct level of benefits which result in fair compensation for these members while at the same time ensuring good value for their employers, the taxpayers.
Of course, it doesn't seem quite right that politicians should set their own 'pay', so a number of different methods with better 'optics' have been tried over the past number of years. Many municipal politicians/governments in British Columbia seem to have adopted the 'comparison' method of determining their own compensation package. They have their staffs look at 'similar' jurisdictions around the province and then seek to match some benchmark of the resulting range of remuneration. The problem here is that it becomes very difficult to determine what is the appropriate measure of 'similar'. At present, it seems that it basically consists of looking at population figures (and possibly the size of budgets overseen). The major problem with that is it is a very 'superficial' measure and likely doesn't really get to measuring the workload that these public servants experience. Another significant problem is that it pretty much guarantees a regularly increasing cycle of raises since, every time an upwards adjustment is made, it raises the comparative 'average' so that the next jurisdiction to go through the exercise finds that they naturally have to raise their packages, as well, and so onwards and upwards it goes.
I think a much better system would involve an attempt at accounting for the key 'deliverables' of their position, e.g., how many meetings they attend and for how long, how many days the legislature sits in a year and what their individual attendance is like, how many 'files' they have opened in dealing with constituents' concerns and how successful they have been at resolving those issues, how much time they spend at their constituency offices, etc. In other words, some tangible measure of "value for the money".
As far as pensions go, I think that public servants should be subject to similar rules and pensions as in the rest of the public sector. By that I mean that they should have to work a minimum number of years to become vested in the plan, they should have to contribute a considerable portion to the plan and their pensions should be in-line with what persons earning similar amounts for similar lengths of time would receive. I don't know if it would be practical but, since the majority of our MLAs came from other jobs to become politicians, maybe their time-out from 'working' should, for pension purposes anyway, be treated as if they were still with their previous employer, i.e, their pension would be managed as if they had never left and would simply continue upon their return.
I hope these thoughts/ideas will assist you in developing recommendations which will result in a compensation system which is based on the results actually achieved for the people they serve rather than simply the position they hold and no more and no less than the myriad of other public servants would be entitled to under similar circumstances.

In their report, the Commission comments about how few submissions they received and takes this to mean that most British Columbians don't seem to care what their representatives are paid. This is a very dangerous conclusion to reach and, I believe, a totally incorrect one. If I had been a member of the Commission (I know, 'ordinary' people weren't asked to serve), I would have moved 'heaven and earth' to see to it that opinions were obtained from a broad spectrum of British Columbians, even if it meant 'taking to the streets'.

Although the Commissioners did make comparisons to what/how other politicians in Canada are compensated, they failed to follow-through and provide a comparison of the jobs/responsibilities involved. One potentially useful indicator to look at would have been the 'average' number of constituents that each of them should be representing, and therefore, I present for your information and understanding the following:

Federal MPs: 102,639 constituents/MP
Ontario MPPs: 118,061 constituents/MPP
Quebec MNAs: 60,369 constituents/MNA
British Columbia MLAs: 54,563 constituents/MLA

With the 29% increase, BC MLAs will be paid $5/yr. less than an MPP in Ontario. I will leave it for you to draw your own conclusions.

Fast Forward to Today

A year and a half ago, a salary increase of $10,480/$16,220/$25,220 (14/14/21%) for, respectively, the MLA's, Cabinet Ministers and Premier was shelved after public outrage, mainly over the size of the increases and the reintroduction of a 'Porsche' pension plan. Before the current session ends in about 4 more sitting days and heading out on their 4-month summer break (they will have sat for only about 117 days in the roughly 550 days since the previous bill was repealed), MLA's are set to have a 'free' vote on a package that would give them $21,900/$31,900/$65,200 (29/28/54%) , a similar 'defined benefits' pension plan plus an enhanced severance package (which will apply even if they quit) and a generous 'retraining allowance'. This "raising the price to have it sell" is sometimes called the 'Realtor's gambit'!
These are the majority (not unanimous) recommendations from an 'independent' panel picked by the Premier ('average' British Columbians just like you and me - a former judge, a senior lawyer and a college professor). Interestingly enough, it was the member of the panel with what appears to be the most human resources expertise who dissented on some of the recommendations, stating they had been changed while she was in Europe.
Since 412 persons ran for the 79 seats in the last provincial election, it doesn't seem like the remuneration is keeping people from running. Also, since only 49% of MLA's completed the survey emailed to them by the Commission, it doesn't appear that changes to their compensation is a big issue for many of them either.
The Commission made a number of comparisons with what others are paid but they failed to show that the politicians' duties/responsibilities matched those they were comparing to. They also failed to make the connection of 'pay for performance' (one MLA may be an excellent representative, another left wanting). Also, whatever happened to the 'public service' aspect of being a politician?
All but two of the Liberal MLA's walked out during 'debate' of this bill - quite the way to demonstrate they deserve a raise! They should each be docked the approx. $500 they didn't earn that afternoon!
An Ipsos-Reid poll found that 2/3 of the voters said that they would remember whether their MLA votes for this 'platinum' compensation package and that it would influence how they vote in the next election - add it to your list now so we won't forget!

It should be noted that, under a previous 'arrangement' for determining MLA compensation, their annual salary was already being increased at the rate of provincial inflation, which is about what the public sector workers have received over the past 2 or 3 years.
The government also made a very cynical move when they inserted language in the authorizing bill which would allow individual MLA's to opt out entirely ONCE AND FOR ALL! This means that if the bill is passed, anyone who voted against it because they didn't believe that they deserve that large an increase and that generous a pension would be extremely limited in trying to do the right thing by the taxpayers. If they opted out, they would lose even the matched RRSP pension plan (9% of salary) to which they were currently entitled so it becomes not only a matter of trying to 'stand still' but actually sliding backwards!
There is no educational requirement to become an MLA, an MLA oversees very few staff and they can work as much or as little as they want. It has not been proven that, in general, they even read the legislation which they are being asked to vote upon, finding it easier to just follow the lead of the party whip, 'free' votes or no! It has definitely not been proven that they do, in fact, represent their constituents in the way that they vote.
By far, the majority of the 'work' of an MLA is performed by their constituency assistants, which we also pay for or it is activities related to their re-election. As an indicator of how they respond to one of those 77 daily incoming emails (on average) referred to in the Commission's report, here is an example of the response I received when I contacted each of our 79 MLA's regarding their 'Chutzpah' at even considering such a rich compensation package:

All of my email messages are reviewed on a regular basis. However, due to the high volume of emails received, I may not be able to respond personally to each one.

I have also recently sent emails to my MLA, Liberal Ron Cantelon, and government Ministers, Mike DeJong and Ida Chong, and have not even received so much as an acknowlegement of the time and effort I put into making them aware of my concerns on several issues from any one of them. I should note that I only received even this minimal response from 4 [now 6] of our 79 MLA's, not a single one from anyone in government. So you see, even if they do receive, on average, 77 emails a day, if they don't answer many of them, those certianly shoudn't be counted as work!
If you have ever taken the time to read the transcripts of the debate in the House (called the 'Hansard', http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/8-8.htm), you may have noticed that members are repeatedly chastized by the Speaker for referring to who is in or not in the House, in other words, you don't even have a record of their attendance at such an important part of conducting the people's business.

How long do you think it will take before this kind of unrestrained greed trickles down to our own local politicians? The MLA's are using the benefits paid to Federal MP's, in part, to try and justify these outrageous increases so mighten we not now expect to see our Regional Directors, Mayor and Councillors take a similar approach to seek to improve their own lot in life?

UPDATE [08 05 09]
Came across this information on how many sitting days of the B. C. Legislature there has been each year since 2001:

2001 37 (election year)
2002 76
2003 74
2004 57
2005 52 (election year)
2006 46
2007 70
2008 57 [Mini-Update - 11 02 03]
2009 66 (election year)
2010 46

Note that a 'day' for our provincial politicians begins at 10:00 am, stops for lunch at 12:00 for an hour and a half and then resumes until usually around 5:00 - 5:30 pm. All-in-all, a 'good' day is something like 5 1/2 to 6 hours.

UPDATE [08 09 16] I had held off putting up the 2008 numbers since, in all fairness, the year wasn't over yet and the government had intimated that they might hold a fall session of the Legislature. Well, that faint hope has now been dashed on the rocks of expediency and we now know that there will NOT be a fall session. Things are going well, government is running smoothly and the priority legislation was all dealt with in the spring session - therefore, no need to meet to discuss the people's business but rest assured that they will still be earning every penny of that big raise they granted themselves (as a priority) in that session. My own 'elusive' MLA, Liberal Ron Cantelon, has recently returned from holidays and now appears ready to dive into the one thing on his own agenda. So, without any further suspense, here is the 'final' number for 2008, 51.

UPDATE [08 08 09]
Well, as I predicted, it didn't take long and the vicious circle has claimed millions more in taxpayer dollars. Today, while the Premier was away 'schmoozing' with those purveyors of human rights at the Beijing Olympics and playing the great statesman that he hopes someday to be, it was quietly announced that senior B. C. bureaucrats would be receiving raises ranging from 22 to 43 percent ($35,164 to $104,664/yr.), with the lower end of the scale going to assistant deputy ministers and the upper end to deputy ministers. This, after reportedly approx. 25 percent raises in both 2003 and 2006 and Premier Campbell latterly saying that the salaries would be reviewed in four (4) years (for the math challenged, like our Premier, that wouldn't be until 2010!).
The supposed justification for these huge increases is that we need to attract and retain the very best people to manage our fiscal enterprise - the good ship 'Beautiful British Columbia'. However, there is no information provided in the announcement which would help we who will be footing the bill assess how much of a problem this has been in the past. IIABDFI - if it ain't broke, don't fix it! Just like with the MLA's, as a taxpayer, I expect some tangible measures of their performance to show that they even deserve what they were being paid prior to August 1st, the date the raises are retroactive from. My own numerous experiences with MLA's, Cabinet Ministers and senior bureaucrats, is that, as a whole, as far as serving the public goes, they really aren't worth much, certainly not hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
As stated earlier, I would now expect the senior civil servants in the other provinces and territories to belly up to the trough and demand higher salaries so that their own stature has not been reduced by B. C.'s actions. I also note that, while Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon took the time to call the Chairperson of B. C. Ferries about their recent raises while admitting that, since they were now a 'private' company, there was nothing more he could do, as a member of Cabinet, he had to have been actively involved in seeing these recent, obscene raises happen.
It is just another example of using our own money to try to help ensure Mr. Campbell's own political dynasty. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that all of these assistant deputy and deputy ministers would now be very much 'onside' with this government, doing whatever it takes to to protect the 'house of cards, mirrors and shadows', when they are the beneficiaries of such extreme largesse?

Answer Me This, Please (Deja Vu)?!

2007-02-23T09:45:00.000-08:00

On Jan. 22nd, 2007, I sent the following email to Twyla Graff, District of Lantzville Chief Administrative Officer:

Twyla,
Late last spring, I dropped by the District's temporary office at Seaview Plaza and asked to see a number of items relating to the introduction of sanitary collector sewers in Lantzville. At that time, I also inquired about the timing for the task item 'Liquid Waste Management Plan process' under tab #3, 'Municipal Sewage Collection (Phase 1)' on the 'June CAO Report', a task which has been on your 'project list' since at least January '06 but which has now been removed as of the 'December CAO Report'. Although it wasn't easy lining up the dates with the task, I was told that it must be a 'typo' that the 'Completed' date (Oct. 05) was a year earlier than the 'Planned' date (Oct. 06) although, after that, the dates disappeared completely.
At their regular meeting on Sept. 19/05, Council passed a motion to "amend the OCP to include wording that Council must immediately commence a LWMP (Liquid Waste Management Plan) to include a study of what areas of Lantzville are able to sustain on-site sewage disposal". This motion was specifically made because Council, under considerable pressure from 'down-zoned residents', had decided to reinstate the 'Estate Residential' land-use category (with conditions) in the OCP, thereby allowing lot sizes without sewers down to .4 ha (1 acre). This motion was subsequently implemented and appears as item 5 under Sec. 9.2.4 of the consolidated version of the OCP, dated Dec. 7, 2005.
It was certainly always my understanding, based on comments from Council that, after the Estate Residential designation was re-instated in the OCP, a LWMP became necessary to maintain our eligibility for the sewer infrastructure grant (B.C. Water Improvement Program), this designation having been removed by Council originally for that very reason. I distinctly recall hearing council state, on more than one occasion and at more than one meeting, that the 'down-zoning' was necessary in order for us to qualify for the grant.
At a Special Meeting of Council on Sept. 26/06 to adopt the OCP, several of the councillors also made reference to the need of completing the LWMP in order to qualify for the sewer infrastructure grant. Therefore, how is it that we can have progressed this far, already having spent considerable sums of money on sanitary collector sewers, and yet we don't appear to have fulfilled an important condition of the grant?
As always, thank you in advance for your kind and prompt attention to my questions and I look forward to receiving your response by return email.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Having received neither a response or even an acknowledgement, I sent her this follow-up email on Feb. 8th, 2007 :

Twyla,
Having sent you the 'attached' email on Jan. 22nd with questions relating to the need to complete a Liquid Waste Management Plan in order to remain eligible for the B.C. Water Improvement Program Infrastructure Grant, I was hoping to have received a reply by now. With the District considering awarding the tender for the second stage of the the works covered by the grant at the Regular Council meeting this coming Monday, time is fast running out to ensure that we have 'all our ducks lined up'. Can you please tell me when you will be able to provide me with answers to my questions?

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

As of the initial posting of this article at 10:00 am on Feb. 23rd, 2007, I have not received any kind of reply from either Ms. Graff [or the Mayor, who sometimes replies to questions asked of her]. As with the questions referred to in a previous Blog article (Answer Me This, Please!), I am at a loss as to why the people we pay to conduct our business will not answer pertinent questions from the public concerning that very business. I'd love to receive comments from any Lantzville residents who value democracy concerning this situation (click on the 'Comments' link at the bottom of this article - you may have to register with Blogger first).

On Feb. 15, 2007, having not received any reply whatsoever from the District of Lantzville to the two emails above, I sent the following email to Mr. Glen Brown, Director, Infrastructure section of the Infrastructure and Finance Department in the Ministry of Community Services, which is the group responsible for the administration of the B. C. Water Improvement grants:

Dear Mr. Brown,
Firstly, if you are not the best person to address this matter, would you please see to it that my email is forwarded to the correct individual? As you can see from the two 'attached' emails, I have been trying to obtain an answer from Ms. Twyla Graff, the District of Lantzville Chief Administrative Officer, regarding the District's meeting the eligibility requirements for a previously announced $2.4 million B.C. Community Water Improvement Program infrastructure grant (for sanitary collector sewers) in our small, seaside community. Unfortunately, she has not responded to either of those emails and I am at a loss to explain why. Obviously, it would have been preferable to have received the answer to my question from our community's chief civil servant but, regrettably, that doesn't appear like it will happen.
Could you please have a look at my original email to Ms. Graff and provide whatever comments you can. I should also point out that the minutes of the Special Meeting of Council on Sept. 26/05 contain an 'Explanation regarding the grant application' in which it is noted the "Ministry's position was that if on-site sewage disposal were permitted on properties less than 2.5 acres it would immediately nullify our application however in dealing with Estate Residential properties we believe we can maintain eligibility if we embark on a LWMP. Further, the District has correspondence from the Ministry stating this position." I remain unclear on how we got from there to now.
The agendas and minutes referred to in this as well as my email to Ms. Graff can be found at http://www.lantzville.ca. Even if the infrastructure grant eligibility had somehow been satisfied without a LWMP, there would still be the issue of the $10,000 planning grant, which the District was apparently awarded by your Ministry in 2005 to complete a LWMP.
Thank you in advance for your kind and prompt attention to my query.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

After waiting over a week for any kind of repy from him, I sent the following follow-up email to him:

Dear Mr. Brown,
Having now been over a week since I sent you the 'attached' email (along with its own 'attachments') without an acknowledgment from you that you received it and are formulating a suitable response, I would be less than honest if I didn't say I am becoming very concerned. You are already aware that I sent you the original email because I had been unable to obtain an answer to my question relating to the District of Lantzville's continuing eligibility for a B.C. Community Water Improvement Program infrastructure grant from our community's chief civil servant, Ms. Twyla Graff. I sincerely hope that you will be providing me with an answer to what appears to me to be a very straightforward and important question in the near future. If there is anything further you need from me to make this happen, please be sure to let me know.
You might also find it interesting to know that the beach interceptor, the cost of which is a significant part of the infrastructure funding under discussion, for which the District has said in their application that "(e)lector assent will not be sought until the senior government grant is confirmed", was actually completed before the District undertook to establish a Local Area Service subject to petition against. Since the counter petition process was only recently completed, they did things in the order stated but I'm not sure that's quite what you (or any other reasonable person) were expecting when you (they) read those words.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate evasion emerging here and are you as concerned as I am about the possible reasons behind such a tactic by our municipal and provincial public servants? Once again, I'd love to receive comments from any Lantzville residents who value democracy concerning this situation (click on the 'Comments' link at the bottom of this article - you may have to register with Blogger first).

Oh Poop! (Possibly Unnecessary Primary Sewage Treatment Coming Soon To A Neighbourhood Near You?)

2007-02-09T16:35:00.000-08:00

Short Version (The Essentials)

Politics triumphs over science and common sense.
Michael McDonald, Sr. VP, Methanex

Rafe Mair's Axiom of Subsidiarity, perfectly suited to this situation: Lesser politicians should always, without fail, beware of gifts coming from higher levels of governments.

Uninformed Statements Made About Lantzville and Sewers
"literally a cesspool"; "criminally overdue" - Marnie Taylor, Nanaimo Daily Free Press Feb. 8/96
"sewage running in our ditches"; "sick to death" - local resident, Nanaimo News Bulletin May 13/96

* not one 'expert' has been able to state what percentage of our individual fecal coliform counts are due to failed septic systems [from human, as compared to animal (dogs, cats, deer, birds, seals, etc.) feces] and many of these 'experts' are in a conflict of interest situation in the first place - they build sewage systems!
* it is very unlikely that we have "untreated sewage seep(ing) and leach(ing) directly into roadside ditches", since some treatment occurs in the septic tank (removing 40% of the TSS, 60% of the BOD and 5-10% of the pathogens). While the claim of untreated/raw sewage is made several times in the District's grant application, not one shred of evidence is provided to support it!
* over a recent 9 - 10-year period, only 60 failed septic systems in Lantzville have been ordered repaired by local Health officials so you might well wonder why they would rather support a sewer system than seeking out and correcting any problems
* according to a report issued by a senior VIHA environmental officer, "(r)epairs to individual failed onsite sewage systems can be made in almost every situation" and "(p)roperly designed, installed and maintained onsite systems should be able to work indefinitely."
* sewers, even under the most optimistic schedule, would take years to reach some of the denser areas where we have some failing/failed septic systems
* since there are numerous, cost-effective solutions to failed septic systems, doesn't it make sense that we find and fix any problems now instead of at least $20 million (2006$) being spent over the next 10 years to sewerize much of Lantzville? Even if the rest of us had to share in the cost to 'get it done', it would still likely be cheaper than sewers, in both financial and social terms.
* it will cost each property $77/yr at today's rates to partially replace (33%) the moisture which will now be flushed out into the Strait (assuming we even have that replacement water!). This does NOT take into account the nutrients which will be lost.
* infrastructure grants are an inefficient and highly 'politicized' way of spending taxpayers' money
* sewers are almost always for development, not you and I, and, since they drive development, will forever and markedly change the essence of our community! Sewers serve to drive density relentlessly upwards and, once they're started, they can't easily be undone (that initial cost will be too great to abandon)!
* there is nothing "green" (OCP, Sec. 4.2.5) about Lantzville connecting to the RDN 'enhanced' primary treatment plant, which flushes all the moisture and some of the nutrients out into Georgia Strait
While only Mayor Haime and his wife, Councillor Denise Haime, by virtue of their ownership of a downtown office building, will be directly affected by Council's decisions on Phase 1 sewers, a cost which I would assume that they can write off, Councillor Brian Dempsey could, as soon as more water becomes available, apply for an 'out-of-sequence' connection from this area (the easement already exists) to service his 5-acre 'farm' on Owen Road and, thereby, be in a position to apply to subdivide.
I'm calling upon all residents of Lantzville to become engaged in the conversation and ask the tough questions of Council and staff, using your common sense as your guide. Ask yourselves what possible motive concerned residents like myself could have for investing so much time and effort to research and publish relevant information. Then ask yourselves why Council and some individuals aren't interested in a fair, frank and open discussion of the issues. This thing we call 'democracy' is very fragile and requires constant nurturing in order for it to survive and truly serve the people and not some special interest agenda. Are YOU up to the challenge?!

Answer Me This, Please!

2007-02-09T08:23:00.000-08:00

On Jan. 16th, 2007, I sent the following email to Twyla Graff, Chief Administrative Officer of the District of Lantzville:

Twyla,
I have read the District's 'Public Notice - Proposed Local Area Service Sanitary Sewer Collection System - Phase 1' in the Saturday, January 6/07 edition of the Nanaimo News Bulletin, which has raised several significant questions in my mind:
1. The District's B.C. Community Water Improvement Program infrastructure grant application for collector sanitary sewers states that "(e)lector assent will not be sought until the senior government grant is confirmed". Also, the footnote at the bottom of the District's 'Five-year Financial Plan 2005-2009' states that "approval from the community (emphasis is mine) is necessary for this project to proceed" (referring to the phased sanitary sewer collection system). Since the District has already installed the shoreline interceptor at a cost of approx. $800,000, which is a part of the costs being covered by the parcel tax (and/or initial one-time payment) for the proposed Local Area Service, why is elector assent by counter petition only now being sought, months after construction of this line was begun? And why is the whole community not being asked to provide their assent, as referenced in the financial plan, especially since their sewage would ultimately flow through the trunk lines within Phase I?
2. the costs of Phase I, as provided in the public information session financial presentations of Nov. 29 & Dec. 2/06, include the cost of constructing the trunk sewer lines up Ware Road to Aulds and along Aulds Rd. to Harwood Dr. Why is this segment not included within the Phase I boundary on the map contained in the notice? It would have been much 'cleaner' if LPL and LFE had contributed to Phase I only to the extent that the main lines needed to be over-sized for their needs and then constructed the line to their respective properties at their own expense as 'out-of-sequence' connections. Do these lines, servicing new development as they do, even qualify for funding under the B.C. Water Improvement Program infrastructure grant?
3. the Notice mentions an annual cost of $168 for 20 years under the $3290 initial one-time payment option (this amount is also included in the $497 annual payment option). It is my understanding, from talking to Paul Sangalang, that this amount is for the operation, maintenance and specialized servicing equipment replacement for the sewage collection system. Therefore, could you please explain to me how a charge which pays to operate the collector system and includes labour, materials, electricity, etc. can cease after 20 years and why it has no inflation factor built into it over those same 20 years?
4. the notice entitled 'District of Lantzville Community Update Sanitary Sewer Collection System - Phase I', mailed out to all households around Nov. 20/06 states that "Council intends to conduct additional information sessions early in the New Year". When and where are these sessions scheduled to be held?
Although it would appear that you have met the notice requirements of Sec. 213 of the Community Charter, it is unfortunate that the costs provided in the notice are only the 'statutory' costs - there generally being several more charges to pay before an individual can have sewer service (adding up, in most cases, to thousands of dollars).
If there is something that I am not understanding or don't have quite right about this, please explain it to me. I look forward to receiving your reply by return email and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Having received no reply, I then sent her this follow-up email on Feb. 2nd, 2007:

Twyla,
Having sent you the 'attached' email on Jan. 16th with questions relating to the timing of obtaining Elector Assent and the implementation of a Sewer Local Area Service, I was hoping to have received a reply by now. Can you please tell me when you will be able to provide me with answers to my questions?

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

As of the posting of this article at 10:00 am on Feb. 9/07, I have yet to receive any reply whatsoever to my emails. Frankly, I am at a loss to explain why our senior civil servant would not be prepared to answer questions, answers which could affect a large number of Lantzville residents. If any of you readers have any ideas, please click on the 'Comments' link at the bottom of this article (you may have to register with Blogger first) and give me your thoughts.

(Septic) Field or Communication Failure?!?

2007-01-29T16:48:00.000-08:00

A colleague with extensive experience constructing wastewater treatment facilities says they are 10% technology and 90% politics. The intense desire to DO SOMETHING about water quality may push... sewerification onward.... and that SOMETHING may turn out to be an expensive education in the way NOT to take care of areas where septic tanks work fine with a little care.
Art Ludwig

More Uninformed Statements Made About Lantzville and Sewers
Mr. Scott continued by noting that sewer was needed, commented that Parksville/Qualicum Beach had a referendum that failed. The Province then mandated sewer. Jan. 22/07 Council Minutes
Dave Scott, former Trustee/Councillor; if he's talking about Barclay Cres. (French Creek) then here is the real story, see http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms/wpattachments/wpID1310atID1458.pdf

Mr Blood continued by noting that without sewers property owners would be looking at tens of thousands of dollars for septic remediation. Feb. 12/07 Council Minutes
Brian Blood, Chair - Lantzville Log Society/Log Council 'reporter'. I show you the sources of my numbers, where did he get his information from?

This was a virtual environmental crisis. It wasn't a pretty sight in the winter in the city (sic) of Lantzville to see that the water would actually leech out — the rainwater, and we had lots this year — of the sewer systems and drain into the open ditches. It was a horrible health hazard, and now that's being addressed.
Ron Cantelon, Nanaimo-Parksville MLA/former Nanaimo councillor/former realtor
Feb. 17/07 Hansard; http://http://www.roncantelonmla.bc.ca/

In his 'Colin's Comments', dated August 17, 2005, Mayor Haime writes "(f)or sewage treatment there are definitely systems out there that can handle 150 units of seniors housing."

In his paid advertisement in the first edition of the 'new' Lantzville Log, Councillor Brian Dempsey writes "(w)ithout sewers, we cannot build seniors' housing or anything else." In his second election flyer, distributed about Nov. 15th, Councillor Dempsey also writes, "New lots cannot be created smaller than 2.5 acres unless the lots are on community sewer. This puts the municipality in a position of not being able to meet the housing needs for seniors or anyone else."
So, are Lantzville residents clear on that then or does there seem to be just a wee bit of confusion amongst some members of Council as to what is or is not possible with respect to seniors' housing? Seems to me if a 250 student private school (Aspengrove) can be built using a sewage treatment plant and in-ground distribution field, so could limited seniors' housing (say, 35 units, subject to suitable soils). The decision to require BOTH community water and sewers to subdivide below 1 ha (2.47 acres) is one made by Lantzville council through the Official Community Plan (OCP), NOT the Ministry of Health (Vancouver Island Health Authority - VIHA)! If you still have doubts, go have a look at the Timberstone Estates development on Northwest Bay Road in Nanoose Bay (1/2 acre lots on community water and septic tanks).

I have always found it curious that we are told we need to bring in sewers so we can have senior's housing so that those who love this community can continue to live here yet, in doing so, we not only change the community so drastically that many of them won't want to live here anymore but we drive others (families) away, as well.

Councillor, Douglas K. Parkhurst, in his second election campaign flyer (received Nov. 17/05), on the second page under 'Truth' writes that "CMHC estimates the cost of a Septic system can vary between $12,000 to over $20,000." What we should be talking about here is the repair of a septic system, not installing a brand new one, and I am still at a loss as to why our elected representatives keep throwing out so many different numbers when there is significant local data available (at least 60 local systems have been repaired over the past 10 years or so and we could always ask 'local son', Danny Negrin, who has done a lot of these types of repairs - why should his experience only be used to support the implementation of sewers?). A Lantzville resident has spoken at length to three area contractors and found that the 'typical' range for septic field repair was $3,000 - 7,000 [2005$], replacement of an entire system being more. In his report titled, "Repair Options for Failed Onsite Sewage Systems", Erwin Dyck, Land Use Consultant, VIHA, provides a range of costs of $5,000 to $14,000 for the complete replacement of a system, with costs possibly going as high as $35,000 for the very rare case. CMHC is a national entity so, even if the numbers were for the repair of septic systems, they likely wouldn't be particularly relevant to Lantzville. [UPDATE 08 02 25] Councillor Dempsey, at their regular council meeting, took the opportunity to add his 'two cents worth' and was more than happy to inform council that a new home in Lantzville has recently "spent approximately $22,000 for a new pressurized septic system which shows how good a deal residents received with the sewer system." If this cost is, in fact, real then it may be that that particular homeowner in those particular circumstances would have been financially better off to have had access to a sewer system. However, that does NOT mean that all, current Lantzville homeowners would be in the same situation (e.g., the resident who spent approx. $3000 to redo his gravity system) or that they would want the added density that always comes with sewers. I still find it astonishing that Lantzville council continues to 'cherry pick' septic/sewer costs in their justification for sewers - if they were being honest with residents, they would quote a range and an average and then let homeowners determine which number to use in their personal deliberations.

Councillor Parkhurst has also recently been overheard musing about how the Ministry of Health will 'shut us down' if we don't solve our 'septic problem'. Many of you will remember that this is the same threat that was trotted out almost 10 years ago during the last 'need for sewers' era of Lantzville Projects. It has always puzzled me that the Ministry of Health would apparently rather use their powers to force us onto sewers (I don't know of a single place where this has happened - on the contrary, they have/are being sued for allowing municipal treatment plants to exceed permit levels, in some cases, for years) than to help us find and solve those problems that we do have. They do seem to prefer to spend their time writing letters in support of sewers.
Members of Council apparently wouldn't know a fecal coliform if it jumped up and bit them in the butt and they seem blissfully unaware that it is not the coliforms that typically cause problems, they are only an indicator of the likely presence of other, possibly harmful bacteria (salmonella, streptococci, typhus and cholera). However, the relationship between what we observe (fecal coliforms) and what else may be present (the above-mentioned pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa) is not by any means fixed, and can vary by a factor of 10 or even 100. They also seem impervious to the fact that all warm-blooded animals produce fecal coliforms, including dogs (23 million per gm of wet feces), cats (7.9 million), deer, seagulls (368 million), cattle (.25 million), horses and humans (13 million). Based on a set of assumptions, I have calculated that, in a single day, the dogs not picked up after in Lantzville would contribute in the order of 987,000,000,000 fecal coliforms to our local environment. While some additional sampling has been done to try and infer the source of the fecal coliform in some of our ditches, the best the latest EBA engineering report could do was to 'suggest' that they come from human sources. Koers & Associates, the District's sewer engineers, offered in their report that "failing septic fields are likely (emphasis is mine) contaminating local area ditches and the waterfront."

To give you some kind of idea of the 'science' behind this report (which, based on the coliform data attached appears to have been written in '92 or early '93) their prediction of "hundreds of failing sewage disposal systems before the year 2000" appears to have come up woefully short (their own data indicates 60 repaired systems from approx. 1996 - 2005).

To add yet another perspective, Environment Canada reports that the 3 main causes of beach closures in Lantzville are, in order of their significance, surface run-off, rural run-off and then failed septic fields. The difficulty is that we don't know how much of the 'problem' can be attributed to each of these but we do know that only the failed septic fields will be helped by collector sewers. I informed Council of my findings at their Sept. 26/05 meeting so they have certainly had enough time to do the necessary testing to determine how much of the problem is from septic systems. The only document I have seen, which purports to definitively link the fecal coliform samples to failed septic systems, is a three-page unsigned and undated 'report' which the Ministry of Health, whose letterhead it is written under, has been unable to determine the source of.

So, based on this tenuous connection between coliform in some ditches and, on average, 7 reported failures/yr., we're marching 'full steam ahead' to sewerize most of Lantzville at an up-front cost of thousands of dollars to each household with annual operating costs in the hundreds of dollars and development pressure that just won't quit!?

Be under no delusions about it - in the absence of solid proof of the relative contribution of failing/failed septic systems, this becomes about supplying infrastructure to allow major development while having the taxpayers (Lantzville, provincial and federal - hey, we're those too!) pick up the brunt of the cost. Consider for a moment Lantville Projects previous development proposals for their Ware Road property:

1996: 356 housing units + 75,000 sq. ft. commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, no 'latecomers' fees (charges for us to connect to 'their' pipe)
1997: 329 housing units + 77,000 sq. ft. commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, no 'latecomers' fees
1997: 206 housing units + 2 acres of land set aside for commercial; $1.2 million [1996$] sewer line, 'latecomer's' fees
2005: OCP - 400 housing units + ???? sq. ft. commercial; $250,000, no 'latecomers' fees and no sewer DCC's
Therefore, if I were one of their investors, I would be doing a serious ‘happy’ dance!

Lastly, with regard to MLA Cantelon's statement to the Legislature, if such a thing were actually occurring, wouldn't any rational person expect that their provincial government, through the Ministry of Health and the powers given to them, would require an immediate investigation and remedy?

But, for heaven's sake, don't take my (or their) word for it, do your own investigating - talk to neighbours who have had repairs, search the internet, etc. A good place to start would be http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/E/199904565.html and http://lakes.chebucto.org/H-2/bst.html. It really is in your own best interest!

I Think Perhaps He Doth Protest Too Much!!

2006-10-29T21:45:00.000-08:00

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 C0W'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. That makes a grand total of $114,000 since Lantzville's largess began.
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'

2006-10-24T09:33:00.000-07:00

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"?

2006-10-24T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

The Goings and Goings at the District of Lantzville Office!

2006-06-13T08:43:00.000-07:00

As has been mentioned in several of my recent postings, senior staff turnover at the District of Lantzville has become significant. It has now been over two months since Ian Howatt, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Jane Ayers, the Director of Financial Services, both left the employ of the District. This left Twyla Graff, the Director of Corporate Administration (DCA), as the only remaining senior bureaucrat. In the ensuing two months, Ms. Graff has been promoted to the Chief Administrative Officer position, while continuing to carry on her old duties as DCA plus she has also taken on the duties of Ms. Ayers (with "assistance from a retired Director of Financial Services on an as-needed basis").

Now, some of you may be surprised by all of this since there has been no formal announcement from the District about the changes. It has been my experience that, unless the departure has been 'forced', when senior staff leave a public body there is a broadly distributed communique thanking the individual for their contributions and wishing them well in their new job/endeavours and, if possible, introducing their successor. The only way residents of Lantzville would have found out about these departures would have been to have had occasion to ask for either of them by name at the District office or to have had reason to read the 'April CAO Report' attached to the April 24, 2006 Council agenda.

In my mind, this raises a number of questions.
1. why did they leave and why did their departure happen so 'quietly'?
2. while the District has advertised the two vacant positions and have apparently received a number of applications, so far, neither position has been filled.
3. either important work of the District is not getting done, Ms. Graff is rapidly heading for a 'burnout', or we didn't need all three positions in the first place!
4. it is not good practice to concentrate all of the day-to-day running of any organization in the hands of one person. 'Checks and balances' are built into the system for a reason.

[Update 08 10] Based on a single page item regarding severance paid to non-union staff in the middle of the District of Lantzville 2006 Annual Report, it now becomes apparent that one of these two senior staff members was, in fact, fired. If I had to put money on it, I would guess that it was Jane Ayers, our Director of Finance. When I inquired soon after she left, I was told by a staff member that it was to spend more time with her grandkids but, as to the real reason as to why she was let go, I suppose we'll just have to wonder.

Since several significant projects requiring much effort, knowledge and skill are on the horizon for Lantzville (Lantzville Foothills Estates, sewage collection system, Lantzville Projects), we need to see these positions filled with qualified people of the highest integrity as soon as possible.
This just in - along with all of the duties mentioned above, it is now proposed that Ms. Graff also share the recently-vacated Emergency Program Coordinator position (with Fire Chief, Tom Whipps, and Supt. of Public Works, Fred Spears)!

UPDATE #1(06 06 28)
On Tuesday afternoon, June 13/06, Lantzville Mayor, Colin Haime, left a message on my answering machine regarding this posting. He begins by saying that "a resident" (I think it's safe to assume that this is not the same 'resident' often railed against on his website or in his mail-outs) alerted him to the item posted to this blog just that morning (nice to know that I have developed somewhat of a regular audience!). It would have been preferable if the vigilant resident would care to come forward and debate/discuss issues such as this in a forum accessible to all Lantzville residents and not filtered through the 'optics' of politics. Regretably, that hasn't been how things are done here in Lantzville for quite some time.

To quote the Mayor:
... Specifically, it makes reference to Ms. Graff and I believe it questions her abilities and also her integrity within the blog, specifically at least items 3 and 4 in your list, as well as the last paragraph. Based on this, as a representative of the District of Lantzville, I request that you remove all references to Ms. Graff, specifically with respect to her abilities and integrity and update the blog as soon as possible. Thank you.

Well, I'm not going to be able to do that and, although I've explained this to him before (see comments/discussion for my "Are You Being Provided ALL The Information You Need?" entry, http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-you-being-provided-all-information.html), for the edification of anyone new 'listening' in, I'll provide my specific reasons here:

First of all and, in order to provide fair comment and useful, readable information, I choose my words very carefully for intent and meaning, editing an entry three or four times before it goes to "press". Also, the information which I have provided in this article and the questions I have raised, as with all my entries, are in the public interest.

I am not specifically questioning Ms. Graff's abilities, I am questioning the ability of anyone to effectively and consistently perform 3 jobs for a prolonged period of time and the wisdom of politicians who would allow such a situation to occur in the first place and then let it continue for months. Furthermore, I am sure that the three Chartered Accountants on Council would strongly support my concern in point 4 if it related to any of their business clients, so why should the public expect anything less? By pointing this out, I am not questioning Ms. Graff's integrity, any more than requiring two members of Council to sign District cheques would be questioning their integrity. It is Council's responsibility to see to it that the necessary, qualified staff and appropriate safeguards are in place.

Once again, as with the concerns raised in my earlier blog entry on communications, instead of providing residents with answers, the Mayor's approach is to "shoot the messenger" by blustering and attempting to censor relevant information. Perhaps, if the District was more forthcoming with information such as this, I wouldn't have to be spending my time telling residents of things which have the strong likelihood of directly affecting them - dare we hope that any new 'communications' strategy will at least begin to address these concerns?!

UPDATE #2 (06 10 05)
According to the August/September CAO Report included with the Sept. 11/06 Regular Council meeting agenda, Scott Churko, our 'water guy'/maintenance worker for the past 10 years, has resigned. Unlike the leavings discussed above, this notification at least thanks Scott for his contributions to our community and wishes him well in his future endeavours and even tells us where he will be going (Parksville).
The District has also finally hired a new Director of Financial Services (Mr. Paul Sangalang), five months after Jane Ayers 'resigned'. This still appears to leave the position of Director of Corporate Administration unfilled, now going on six months after Twyla Graff was promoted out of that position to become our Chief Administrative Officer.

UPDATE #3 (07 01 31)
According to the December CAO Report included with the Dec. 11/06 Regular Council meeting agenda, Aletta Larsen, Corporate Administrator Assistant, left the employ of the District in October in order to travel. The same document also states that we finally have a person to fill the position of Deputy Corporate Administrator, the position that our CAO (Twyla) has continued filling since she was promoted out of it way back in April of last year. The new DCA is Ms. Sandra Carlton and she began her employ with the District of Lantzville on Jan. 2/07. Also joining the District is Jason Gosling and it would appear that he is filling the spot vacated by Scott Churko in September, although it looks like he will be able to operate our sewer collection system, as well. I would like to welcome these two individuals to our community and wish them well in their service to the residents of Lantzville. In terms of numbers, we had something like 50% turn-over in staff last year.

UPDATE #4 (07 09 25)
Ms. Sandy Carlton, Deputy Corporate Administrator, who joined the District on Jan. 2/07 had her employment terminated on June 11/07, after being "unable to successfully complete her 6-month probationary period". The District then hired Ms. Donna Tutyko, an Executive Assistant with the City of Nanaimo (one of their favourite entities), who began her employ on Sept. 4/07, without advertising the position to the public. While it would only be proper to welcome Ms. Tutyko, it is clear that the revolving door continues.

UPDATE #5 (07 11 21)
Ho Boy! The November CAO Report informs us that still another senior, staff member of the District is leaving their employ. Paul Sangalang, the Director of Financial Services, is leaving after just over a year of 'crunching the numbers' on our behalf. Unike most of the previous staff 'resignation' notices made available to the public, this one at least tells us why he is leaving - apparently to return to the Lower Mainland to be closer to his fiance and family. Aside from expressing regret at his leaving, our CAO, Twyla Graff, did not take this opportunity to thank him for his contribution to the past successes of the District. I find that unfortunate.

UPDATE #6 (08 04 21)
In her February CAO Report to Council, Twyla Graff notified Council and the public of the hiring of Greg LeBlanc as Lantzville's newest Director of Financial Services (3 months after Paul Sangalang resigned). Then, in her April CAO Report, she shares the news that, he too, has now resigned. Three Directors of Finance/Financial Services in the almost five years since we became a municipality, including 8 months where we were using temporary staff to complete the work. Is there no one on Council who is concerned about this grossly excessive turn-over and the reason(s) behind it?

UPDATE #7 (08 09 30)
At the May 20th regular meeting of Council, Lantzville's CAO, Twyla Graff, was once again, appointed the Director of Financial Services, which is a 'statutory' position, required under the legislation which governs the operation of local governments in B. C. (Community Charter), giving her both of the 'statutory' positions (DCA & DFS) , as well as the only other officer position mentioned in the Charter (CAO). As stated earlier, this is not good 'business' practise! Since this is not her forte and she obviously already has a full-time job to perform (it may even be two!), the District has retained the services of a former retired Director of Financial Services, Mr Doug Lang. While his assistance and expertise should be welcomed, this puts us right back into the position where we have lost a good part of the 'checks and balances' which are built into any 'solid' bureaucracy.

UPDATE #8 (09 03 14)
At the Dec. 8th regular meeting of Council, Lantzville Council appointed Ms. Jedha Holmes, as Deputy Director of Financial Services for the District, effective Dec. 1st. This would appear to mean that Ms. Graff, our Chief Administrative Officer/Director of Corporate Services, will continue to also fill the position of Director of Financial Services, 8 months after our last full-time person in that position resigned. So many questions regarding the financial operations of the District, yet so few answers.

"Pave Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot"?!?

2006-05-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

Since it has been the past practise of the District of Lantzville to only include in the minutes comments made at a Public Hearing if they were made verbally and, in order to keep 'personalities' out of it, I chose to make only a written submission, following are my comments for the Public Hearing (May 29/06) on the Watt Ventures application to rezone a piece of Lantzville land adjacent to their Nanaimo 'big-box' mall to build a parking lot.

Mayor and Council,
District of Lantzville Amendment Bylaw 60.6, 2006 Hearing Submission (all $ figures are estimates)

This really is a ‘NO-brainer. 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. we do not ‘owe’ Watt Ventures anything. They paid to extend Lantzville Road (including the purchase of this property) in exchange for getting commercial zoning on the Jeffs’ property (which increased the assessed value by 2 ½ times). We’re way more than even!!!
2. this property is essential in establishing a buffer between us and the heavily commercialized Woodgrove Regional Shopping centre, something several of you told us was a major reason why we should vote to incorporate. At the time the City of Nanaimo was taking the Jeffs’ property, you said there was nothing you could do. This time you CAN stop the loss of yet another opportunity to provide a buffer area between us and that commercial juggernaut.
3. a parking lot, even a so-called public, parking lot is not permitted in a Residential (R) zone by our previous or new OCP – it would require an amendment and there is still a year and a half to go in the amendment moratorium. Parking is NOT within the definition of a “public utility”.
4. the OCP Steering Committee discussed this proposal and rejected it as being inappropriate.
this has all been contrived in an attempt to obtain approval for an 81 stall parking lot so that Watt Ventures can add a reported 557 m2 (6,000 ft2) to their mall next door, which would increase their profit by $30,000/yr. No matter how you ‘spin’ it, this is a commercial use!
5. Lantzville residents haven’t asked for and don’t need more parking in this area and how would they ensure we get priority anyway (are they going to enforce it – the applicant declined to institute measures which would have gone a long way towards preventing the dangerous situation which now exists with people pulling “u-ies” and driving through/around barriers to access their mall from Mary Ellen)? Very few Lantzville residents would use this parking in conjunction with Pioneer Park and, in any event, if there is additional parking required, then surely it is up to the City of Nanaimo, not Lantzville, to provide it. If the city would just spend a few thousand dollars and extend the main backstop to stop foul balls from entering the existing parking along Shook Road, that would immediately result in 20-25 more, usable parking spaces.
6. it matters not that the property stays in Lantzville if it is to be used for a Nanaimo, commercial use. Previously, the proponents had said it was “for the primary purpose of providing parking for the employees of the commercial development” – which is it?
7. in exchange for this, they are prepared to let Lanzvillagers park there first, put in some landscaping ($15,000), build a short path ($10,000) and construct a “Welcome to Lantzville’ sign ($7,000). On the subject of landscaping, have a look at the current, planted ‘buffer’ along the District’s boundary next to the mall – not exactly what our previous OCP had in mind, is it?
8. in this part of the world, “highest and best use” is simply a euphemism for commercial development and so has no relevance here.
9. Watt Ventures has NOT YET acquired the surplus 714 m2 from the Ministry of Transportation, which begs the question as to whether Council can rezone land that an Applicant doesn’t own.
10. there is nothing new that they have proposed that has addressed anything which was raised as a concern at the PIM, instead they have even failed to include their previous offer to pay Nanaimo-level taxes on this commercial use.
11. they have ignored the concerns which were raised about the viability of the introduced vegetation, the durability of the porous, paved surface and the potential for oils and glycols to plug the drainage channels.
12. we need to get away from this idea that, because we can’t come up with a better idea for making use of the current zoning, we must accept ‘dubious’ rezoning applications such as this – it is not our job to do that. It is up to the developer and his consultants to come up with a use under the existing zoning or, in the alternative, a rezoning proposal which provides an overwhelming public benefit. This would have been made easier if Watt Ventures had left the trees on the property instead of clear-cutting everything except the covenant area in a pique soon after the PIM (now they will have to settle for building that landscape berm along the edge of the Island [where traffic is much lighter, not Inland Island] highway. They must feel that, since it worked for the Jeffs’ property, it will work here too.
13. Watt Ventures would be paying $18,500/yr to Nanaimo in taxes on the new addition but only about $2,500/yr to Lantzville for the parking lot. This is only about a thousand dollars per year more than the District would realize from a residential-type development on the property.
14. it is imperative that council begin now to establish the ‘tone’ for future development along this stretch of east Lantzville Road or the pressure for some form of commercial development along the ‘strip’ will become unrelenting. A residential-style development would do that.

Here's Those Missing Comments From the Watt Ventures PIM

2006-05-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday morning, May 23rd, I sent an email to Twyla Graff, Director of Corporate Administration for the District of Lantzville pointing out a deficiency in the information on the District's website concerning the Public Hearing on Monday, May 29th at 7:00 pm upstairs in the Legion and regarding the Watt Ventures parking lot proposal. Specifically, I wrote: while the minutes of the Public Information Meeting of March 14/05 indicate that my "prepared statement... is attached hereto and forms part of these minutes", it isn't, and therefore, doesn't. Hopefully, this correction can be made quickly and with minimal loss of the residents' ability to be fully informed regarding important issues such as this in their community.
On Wednesday afternoon, having checked whether or not the correction had been made, I attended the District offices and enquired as to when it might actually happen, to which Ms. Graff replied that it was just a matter of finding the time to actually make the change. Now, since Ms. Graff is currently filling all three senior management positions of the District (Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services and Director of Financial Services), I can understand that she is busy but, unfortunately, the Public Hearing is now only 3 days away and the public has a right to see all the comments made at the PIM. Therefore, what follows is my prepared statement, along with the essence of any responses which may have given to my questions.

Questions for Watt Ventures
Let me begin by saying that it is great to finally have an opportunity to address the developers of the Jeffs’ property and to be able to ask you some questions about yourselves and your plans. I also want to thank my fellow Lantzville residents for coming out tonight and I know that you will value their input and leave here tonight with no doubt of how we feel about our community and those who would seek to negatively impact our semi-rural lifestyle. As you can see [hold up 2” thick file folders], I have been following this issue with more than a passing interest for some time. Maybe someone should be asking the question as to why a private individual has to go to such lengths just to see to it that due process is followed and the public’s wishes respected.
Just so I, and my fellow Lantvillagers, are clear about how we arrived at this point, I want to paint a picture for you and ask that you comment on any inaccuracies that you perceive when I am finished. Your involvement seems to have begun in early 2002 with a highly biased and inaccurate newspaper article titled, “Vacant parcel caught in land use limbo“, written by Mr. Wyng Chow, who coincidently, had previously written a ‘promotional’ piece for the paper about your exotic Vancouver nightclub, Brandi’s Lounge. Even though Mr. Jeffs already had a real-estate agent, Duncan Watt became a land consultant for him and now you own the land. While Lantzville was studying incorporation, you were talking to various senior government officials about prospects for getting this piece of Lantzville property into the City. However, when your and Mr. Cattrall’s property were quietly excluded from the Referendum boundaries, you raised a “fuss”, since you felt that your property was now in a no-man’s-land (“land use anomalies”, I believe you called them). You then quite disingenuously beseeched the City of Nanaimo to take you in, which they then “pulled out all the stops” to accomplish, possibly motivated by your $100,000 donation.

Duncan Watt responded by saying that they didn't disingenuously do anything. He basically didn't dispute anything else that I had said. While seeming to take offence at my comments, Cam Watt didn't rebut my statement except to say that they hadn't raised a "fuss".

Questions for the District/RDN How was this complex mechanism (easements, cross-easements and covenants) for bypassing the requirement for an Official Community Plan amendment arrived at? Is the term “public use” in the enabling section of our OCP not usually reserved for things like libraries, schools, hospitals, etc.? To your knowledge, has it been used before to refer to a private, commercial parking lot, albeit one where we (the Lantzville public) will supposedly have priority? Who made the determination that this proposal met the intent of the ‘public use’ designation in our OCP?

Robert Lapham, District Planner, responded by saying that he wasn't specifically aware of any other place it had been done but that covenants and easments were used all the time by land use planners. After repeatedly not answering the final question asked and being asked again, he allowed that it was ultimately Council which would have made that decision.

Are You Being Provided ALL The Information You Need?

2006-04-25T14:10:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-04T15:16:00.000-07:00

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)

2006-04-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

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

Intolerance, Anger and Circumstances

2006-03-30T12:45:00.000-08:00

I submitted this letter to the Harbour City Star (a Canwest/Global paper) in response to an emotional letter from another reader. As far as I can tell, it was never published.

Dear Editor,
When I first read Gary Baylis' Letter to the Editor in Saturday's Harbour City Star (Returning citizen upset with system), I knew I had to respond but I didn't know quite what to say. Then I happened to watch the academy award winning movie 'Crash' and it became clearer. One of the main messages of this excellent film is that, while there are (regretably) many out-and-out racists in North American society, some of the people who appear to be racists are, for lack of a better term, victims of circumstance - they are 'mad' about something, which unfortunately exhibits itself as intolerance. While I'm sure that this does nothing for the victims of the racism, it does hold out a glimmer of hope for improvement if such people can deal with their anger.
While being born in Canada automatically confers citizenship on an individual, there is then no distinction between a 'natural-born' Canadian and one who has been granted citizenship. Just like sometimes biological parents shouldn't have custody of their children where others have shown by their actions that they are the ones who have done the 'heavy lifting'. So it is with those born in Canada who go on to live elsewhere for a signficant portion of their lives, such as the writer. Those who have been living here for many years, paying taxes and contributing to our society in a multitude of ways have at least as much 'right' as him. Being Canadian born doesn't, by itself, make you 'special'.
Mr. Baylis writes that he was upset by "the woman from India" asking him questions prior to obtaining a Social Insurance number, which isn't automatic - that's why one has to apply for it! Even assuming that he is correct about her being from India (there are many second-generation immigrants living in Canada), she had been required to ask those questions by her employer, the government of Canada. While acknowledging that Immigration Canada as a whole has a lot to answer for in their handling of immigrants and refugees, that has nothing to do with this lady who was just doing her job. One final question for Mr. Baylis. When you were a foreign-born resident of the United States (I believe the term they use is 'alien'), did you assume your 'proper' place in their society and leave all decisions affecting your life to only those who were U. S. born? I also wonder if you would have had the same reaction to a male, caucasian person like myself asking you the same set of questions because, although I have lived here for 52 years and been a citizen for 37 of those, I was not born here either. A piece of advice, if you want to truly be Canadian, you would do well to develop a little tolerance and learn to deal with your "issues".

Thank You!!!

2005-11-24T14:37:00.000-08:00

“No place in the world today remains special by accident”

Planner: E. McMahon

THANK YOU

to the hundreds of Lantzvillagers who graciously received us at your doorsteps and discussed your opinions and concerns with us.
As a group of relative ‘unknowns’, we are proud of our positive campaign and feel honoured to have earned so many of your votes.
Our deep concern for the future of this very special, semi-rural community remains but the voters had a very clear choice and have now made it.

The ‘We Are Listening’ team

Yellow theme: Live fully and responsibly as what you are and learn to become.

Yet Another Point of Clarification! [Their 'All-Candidates' Meeting (Part II)]

2005-11-13T22:15:00.000-08:00

On the front page of his website as at 10:10 pm 05 11 13, Mayor Haime writes: "Leanne Veres was the only one who sent a message expressing regrets."

As a matter of fact, after waiting 6 days for the Lantzville Log Society (the Treasurer of which is the Mayor's wife and candidate for Lantzville councillor, Denise) to select a moderator for me to consider in terms of suitability and capability, I sent, on Thurs., Nov. 10th, the following email to Linda Robinson, the member of the Lantzville Log Society board who had invited me to participate:

First of all, thank you for the invitation to the Candidates' meeting you have arranged for Sat., Nov. 12 at Costin Hall. As you know, I and others have already expressed serious concerns about the lack of impartiality on the part of the majority of the Lantzville Log Society Board, which is sponsoring the event. Also, I have yet to be informed of a moderator being chosen who is acceptable to all potential participants. Our team of candidates, who came together because we share a common concern that the wishes of the majority are not being respected in Lantzville, are out daily knocking on people's doors and hearing their concerns/issues, we have an office in Seaview Plaza where information is posted and people are welcome to drop in when someone is there, we have two internet presences where people can read about the issues and leave their comments, our phone numbers are all listed in the local directory and we are having our third opportunity for residents to meet us at Costin Hall mere hours before your meeting is scheduled, so I feel the public already has ample opportunity to get to know us as individuals, ask us questions and share their views with us. Therefore, once again, thank you for your invitation but I will NOT be attending the meeting the Lantzville Log Society has arranged for this Saturday night at Costin Hall. Based upon this, could you please arrange to cease referring to the meeting as an 'All-Candidates Meeting', in both your signage and any other advertising of the event.

While I technically did not use the word 'regrets' in my reply, I think you will agree that I did respectfully state that I would NOT be attending and I had never said that I would. I have also seen a copy of an email which councillor candidate Mark Wilson sent to Ms. Robinson and in which he says much the same thing and that he also won't be able to be there. You will need to judge for yourselves whether or not I should be held responsible for someone else's decision not to tell the residents of Lantzville this simple fact. Why can't Mr. Haime just be truthful about these things? I note further that I was ultimately only informed of the moderator candidate at 4:10 pm on Friday afternoon, a mere 15 hours before the start of this meeting.
I also think that it is worthy to note, in terms of assessing impartiality of the sponsor, that the previous editor of the Lantzville Log, Lyndon Allbury, was a sitting Trustee of the Lantzville Improvement District, serving with much of the current council.
If you want to 'blame' me for choosing not to attend, please consider that I have formulated my own campaign strategy based on my limited resources of time and money and, above all, I wanted to keep my focus on running a positive campaign. Also, you don't hear me complaining that they're not out meeting residents on their doorsteps, do you?

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville councillor candidate

From The Mouth of Lantzville's Mayor...

2005-11-11T23:04:00.000-08:00

If you want some idea of what Mayor Colin Haime has been telling others about the "joys of incorporation", check out these links from the Gabriola Sounder newspaper archives. Our erstwhile Mayor spent some time over there last fall, sharing Lantville's limited experience with incorporation with their residents, who were also considering gaining municipal status (they didn't do it!).
Especially have a look at what the Mayor says about conforming to the growth strategy of the region, our "excellent relationship with... Nanaimo", keeping Lantzville rural, amenity zoning, his 'take' on the Pender Island development and how it was approved and a municipal council being held accountable.

www.soundernews.com/fullstory/EpAZyVpluVaJHXjEHp.shtml
www.soundernews.com/fullstory/EpAApFuEyVBdnIOPtB.shtml
www.soundernews.com/fullstory/EpAApFuFuEhXEwIDNM.shtml
www.soundernews.com/fullstory/EEpEEpAuEAzLaIpjnI.shtml
www.soundernews.com/fullstory/EpAZyVEVZALXijUxYi.shtml

Does this give you a better idea of his principles and guiding philosophy or are there now contradictions which leave you confused?!

Hans J. Larsen
Candidate for Lantzville councillor

Another Point of Clarification! (Sewage Treatment)

2005-11-04T15:32:00.000-08:00

Under the topic of 'Sewage Treatment', Lantzville's Mayor, Colin Haime says that "It is interesting to note how some people think when you say that you automatically mean connecting to (sic) treatment plant in Nanaimo. I have never said that. Council has never said that" (Colin's Comments #2 - Sept. 6/05).

The sewer grant application (Project Name: Sanitary Sewer Collection System), which the District has submitted to the provincial government to help pay for bringing collector sewers to 750 homes/businesses in the 'central' part of Lantzville, contains the following statements: "The system will eventually tie into the the existing RDN foreshore interceptor located at the foot of Shook (sic) Road." "The sewage can then be conveyed directly to the Greater Nanaimo WPCC where it will be treated before being released into the environment" (note: this facility is only an 'enhanced' primary treatment plant).

Now Mayor Haime would have you believe that this is just 'words' for the purposes of the application, since the province needed to be reassured that the collected sewage would be treated somewhere. What, then, are we to make of the following statements, also from the application? "Previous studies have concluded that the construction of an independent treatment plant and outfall to serve the Lantzville area would be too expensive." "It is also worth noting that the existing RDN interceptor and Greater Nanaimo WPCC were built with enough capacity to service the Lantzville area." Doesn't appear to leave much room to "investigate further options of... sewage treatment and disposal", in my opinion.
One of the investors in the Foothills project also told me directly that "Lantzville would be crazy" not to connect to the Nanaimo plant. Developers are all about minimizing risk to maximize profit potential whereas we, the public, may have other concerns/priorities.

Councillor Warren Griffey, in his campaign flyer, writes "(w)e have made great strides with the City of Naniamo... cooperating on issues of water and sewer" and still Lantzville isn't going to the GNWPCC?! Also, if we do become serviced by both Nanaimo water and the Hammond Bay primary treatment plant, how long do you think the provincial government will allow us to remain separate in name only?

BTW, Mayor Haime, a Chartered Accountant, told me that he wrote the 'Topic of the Week' piece of 'Sewer vs. Septic Tanks' for the District's website (www.lantzville.ca), where he selectively extracted pieces, none of which dealt with the pros/cons of the first part of the stated topic, out of various reports.

Hans J. Larsen
Candidate for Lantzville council

A Most Cynical Take On Democracy

2005-11-04T09:40:00.000-08:00

Consider the following:

When School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) recently found themselves with a retiring superintendant, instead of the Board, whose term expires at the end of November, making the decision as to who should replace him, they decided that the new Board of Trsutees should select his replacement.

Nanaimo city council, not normally the example one would point to in terms of promoting transparent and inclusive government, recently decided that, given the controversy surrounding the New Nanaimo Centre project, they would put on hold all 'unnecessary' work and expenditures having to do with it (except for the $200,000 'donation' from Lantzville). A newly-elected Council will get to make the decision on where that project goes from here.

Contrast this with the current situation in Lantzville:

With just two months to go before our municipal elections, our Council started in earnest the process of adopting the new OCP. We were then treated to 3 Public Hearings (only the first of which was broadly publicized) and 4 council meetings in the ensuing five and a half weeks, leading to the unanimous adoption of the 'final' Plan, without debate.
On Nov. 14, a mere 5 days before the election (and after one advance poll), Council has scheduled two Public Hearings on rezoning applications. The first deals with the proposal to locate a 250-student, private school (Aspengrove) off of Clark Drive in upper Lantzville and the second on a subdivision of a 5-acre piece on Manhatten Way, also in upper Lantzville, into 2 lots. Based on our experience with the Official Community Plan, I would lay better than even money that they will then have a council meeting immediately following to consider adoption of the rezoning bylaws for these properties since they only have 1 council meeting left, after that.

Let me know what you think? Does this show respect for the residents of Lantzville or is it another example of what has become support for a very cynical take on democracy?

Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville council Candidate

The Incredible 200 m Piece of Asphalt!

2005-10-31T14:36:00.000-08:00

The following is a 'Letter to the Editor' which I submitted upon seeing a picture (with story) in the Nanaimo Daily News regarding the connection of east Lantzville Road to Dover Road, something my neighbours and I were promised by the Ministry of Transportation over 10 years ago!

Dear Editor,
The politicians in the photo accompanying your story in the Friday, Sept. 2nd edition of the Daily News regarding the 'opening' of the Lantzville Road extension to Dover Road (New road connects 'neighbours') certainly have reason to smile.
It's always a good day when politicians are able to take credit for helping solve a problem that they themselves created in the first place. Ever since the Bypass was opened in 1996, my neighbours and I have been putting up with up to 1100 cars a day (many of them ill-behaved) on what we were told would be a quiet, residential street, all because Mssrs. Haime, Scott and Dempsey and Mdme. Crayston, as Trustees of the Lantzville Improvement District, lobbied the Ministry of Transportation to change a long-standing committment to extend Lantzville Road to Dover after it was cut off from the Highway. Somehow, in the process, a developer ended up with a taxpayer-funded ($490,000) road across his vacant, downtown Lantzville property and we got all that traffic.
Nanaimo Mayor Korpan and Councillor McNabb can smile because the City will soon have yet another mall to pay high, commercial taxes, especially when all those empty spaces in the other malls are still paying plus the City was able to secure a $100,000 'donation' from Watt (not Wyatt) Ventures in exchange for Nanaimo playing along with the provincial government in taking in this recently 'orphaned' property.
If Cam Watt had been in the picture, he too would have reason to smile. Regular readers of this paper will recall that the property on which Dover Pointe Corner is being built (the Jeffs property) was taken from Lantzville by the provincial government after lobbying by the landowners and handed to Nanaimo.
Yep, that 200 m (not 500) section of road is "special" alright - its already provided one developer with almost half a million dollars of taxpayer's money for building a road which they would have had to provide for free on subdivision and it afforded Watt Ventures the ability to transfer their property from Lantzville into Nanaimo and have it zoned commercial, resulting in a 2.5-fold increase in its assessed value. Not bad just for knowing the right people!
In my simplistic world, 'neighbours' don't break promises and they certainly don't seek to take land from each other, disrupting lives along the way. So far, all of the giving in this relationship has been distinctly one-sided. Even after Nanaimo had taken several pieces of property from Lantzville, implied that our Area Director was lying and insulted our Mayor, Lantzville Council still made decisions based on wanting to 'appease' Nanaimo.

Update: Besides the Lantzville politicians in the picture, who sought to take credit for solving a problem which they helped create in the first place, we now have councillor Warren Griffey, councillor Douglas Parkhurst and councillor candidate, Denise Haime (the Mayor's wife), also seek to take credit for completing this small stretch of road. Ms. Haime has claimed that she negotiated this 'compensation' when the then-Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (formerly Municipal Affiars), George Abbot, told her in no uncertain terms that the Jeffs' property was going to Nanaimo and asked her what she, as Area 'D' Regional Director, needed to 'smooth things over'. Having been actively involved with this issue for the past eight years, I fail to see what contribution either councillor Griffey or councillor Parkhurst have made in that respect. I do, however, recall seeing an earlier picture in the same paper in which councillor Parkhurst participated in the sod-turning ceremony for the shopping centre to be built on this former Lantzville 'buffer' property.

A Point of Clarification! (Their 'All-Candidates' Meeting)

2005-10-30T10:12:00.000-08:00

On October 29, 2005, on his website, Lantzville Mayor Colin Haime wrote:

"The candidates for Councillors who said they were busy but keep them informed:
Hans Larsen"

when what I actually wrote in my emailed response was:

"Should a truly impartial, community-minded group come forward to sponsor an All-candidates Meeting, I would consider it, subject to format, venue and timing details.
In the meantime, as a candiate for Lantzville Councillor, I will continue to get out and meet with residents and discuss what I consider to be the key issues in this election directly with them."

Yes, I am busy but that clearly wasn't the essence of my response!

Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville Councillor Candidate

Lantzville, You're Invited!!!

2005-10-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

Lantzville residents are invited to a series of 'Open Houses' at Costin Hall on each of the next three Saturdays, sponsored by myself and the other five candidates who are running on the simple premise that we are "united in supporting respect for the majority opinion and open, fair and inclusive decision-making".

The times and dates are as follows:

Saturday, October 29 9 am - 12 pm
Saturday, November 5 12 pm - 4 pm
Saturday, November 12 12 pm - 4 pm

The coffee pot will be on and we will have some information to share, as well as being prepared to listen to what your specific concerns might be.

Your hosts,
Harry Adcock, Niels Gram, Hans J. Larsen, Lee Anne Veres, Mark Wilson and Ian Savage

WE WILL LISTEN!

Lantzville OCP Amendment Bylaw 50.1, 2005 Public Hearing (Oct. 24/05) Written Submission

2005-10-26T15:21:00.000-07:00

These are my written comments, submitted to Lantzville Council at the Public Hearing last Monday night at Costin Hall. This was the third Public Hearing in 40 days on our OCP (like the second one, this one was only publicized in one newspaper and on the District's website (although you would have to search to find out what the Public Hearing was actually about). Since I chose not to read my submission at the Public Hearing, the following comments will likely not appear on the Lantzville.ca website.

Re: OCP Bylaw 50, 2005, Amendment Bylaw 50.1, 2005

Mayor and council,
The Regional District of Nanaimo's (RDN) 2003-2004 Sustainability Report, which "reports about progress towards regional growth strategy goals and objectives" has recently been released. Nanaimo councillor, Bill Holdom, chair of the Regional Growth Monitoring Advisory Committee, which oversaw the creation of the report, says, "this report... underlies the need to protect and enhance our environmental, social and economic capital for future generations." Joe Stanhope, RDN chairperson, acknowledges that long-term sustainability is a key concern for residents of the RDN and goes on to say that "the RDN Board has made a commitment to the residents of this region".
Having been forced to develop more than a passing interest in the machinations of the RDN over the past 10 years, let me tell you how it looks from where I sit. The vaunted objectives and goals of the Regional Growth Mangement Plan went on life support on Aug. 12, 2003 when the majority of the RDN board voted to accept, as justification for extending Nanaimo's Urban Containment Boundary to include a 2+ ha piece of property which had been taken from Lantzville by the provincial government (the Jeffs' property), a change in a key Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement (UCFAMIA) definition of meeting "community needs" to become all about the needs of this property for city services. Contrary to the usual practise of being asked to provide their decision early on in any transfer of jurisdication application, a decision was made by senior RDN and City of Nanaimo personnel to leave this key step until the end, by which time the land had already been stripped from Lantzville.
The final stake was driven into the heart of the RGMP's key goal of controlling urban sprawl when, on Sept. 20, 2005, the RDN Board of Directors (Stanhope, Korpan, McNabb, Holdom, Krall, Manhas, Sherry, Longmuir, Westbroek, C. Haime, Kreiberg, Lund, Hamilton, D. Haime, Holme, Biggeman, Bartram) accepted the District of Lantzville's request to have their Regional Context Statement (RCS) for our final draft Official Community Plan (OCP) approved by the Board. This was despite RDN planning staff's serious concerns about numerous elements (4 major definite plus one optional) of that important statement about how our OCP conforms to the Regional Growth Strategy and how any discrepancies are to be resolved over time and their recommendation that the Board refuse to accept the District of Lantzville's RCS.
It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for a small municipality like Lantzville to adopt the position that, if their RCS and the RGS (Regional Growth Strategy) are inconsistent, then it is the RGS which should be changed but that appears to be exactly what you are proposing! As someone who has devoted a considerable amount of my time for the betterment of my community, I am deeply saddened and disturbed that you would take such a cavalier attitude towards something as vital to everyone's ability to enjoy our semi-rural lifestyle. I oppose your inclusion of this RCS into the OCP, which was adopted in direct contravention of the clearly expressed wishes of the majority.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Note: At the Council meeting immedately following the Public Hearing (Council did take about 10 minutes to read my submission), Councillor Scott, speaking in support of adopting the amendment said that he supported the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and felt that we met the RGS's goals but with a "made in Lantzville concept". "Lantzville controls Lantzville's vision as opposed to the Regional District controlling it" - a clearer contradiction between actions and words would be hard to find!

Well, Now I've Really Gone and Done It!

2005-10-14T16:30:00.000-07:00

Well, now I’ve really gone and done it! After much thought and consultation/deliberation, I have decided to put my name forward as a candidate in the upcoming municipal elections as a Councillor for Lantzville. I have decided to do this because it has become apparent that the current Council, all of whom are running again plus a few of their wives/friends, are not prepared to listen to the clear, expressed, majority wishes of the residents of Lantzville. They have taken this abrogation of their democratic duty one step further and have done what many other councils with their own agenda have done and that is to control the flow of information and make decisions based on keeping the public uninformed, off-balance and always playing catch-up.
Their job is to clearly identify issues/concerns in the community, develop a range of options for addressing these issues and then fully informing the residents as to the pros and cons of each and letting the people decide – it is NOT to push their own agenda on us. We are being treated like we can’t be trusted to make decisions in our own best interest!
My decision to run was not made lightly and will involve many hours of effort by myself and other similar-minded, concerned residents. I have been fortunate to have been introduced to five other individuals who share my deep concern about the slippage of democracy here in Lantzville and have also decided to run and I would like to share their names with you – Harry Adcock, Niels Gram, Ian Savage (candidate for Mayor), Mark Wilson and Lee Anne Veres. You will be seeing and hearing more from them in the near future - if they show up on your door-step or invite you to an ‘Open House’ at Costin Hall, please give them the opportunity to earn your vote.
This thing we call democracy can’t work on its own – it needs the people to be involved in the process to ensure that our representatives know what we want. I do not like to ‘manage by crisis’ (it makes for bad decisions and bad feelings and causes unnecessary angst). In order to avoid this, I am asking each and every Lantzville resident to commit just a little time (say, one hour per week, on average) to make this community an even better place in which to live. Are you up to the challenge?!
We have been labelled a ‘special interest group’ but I would ask you to consider what that interest is. Everything we have done has been based on respecting the majority’s expressed wishes, we all volunteer our time for our community and I have no agenda of my own other than to see an open and fair process. If there is a way that I can benefit financially from my community involvement, I haven’t yet found it!
If you generally agree with my comments/thoughts on this web log and feel that you have some time to spare to help in the campaign (even a couple of hours would be appreciated), please contact me by email at vigilantz@hotmail.com. Remember, “no place in the world today remains special by accident!”

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

RDN Gives Up Any Pretense of Controlling Urban Sprawl

2005-10-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

In response to a call for feedback on a proposed new agreement between the members of the Regional District of Nanaimo, I submitted the following comments. Being a resident of Lantzville, I had already seen the old, more robust UCFAMIA agreement being manipulated by politicians or staff in order to satisfy someone's lust for money. Lantville has lost several pieces of land to the City of Nanaimo, driven by the City's lust for taxes and the provincial government's need to keep their friends happy. As ineffective as the currrent agreement was in preventing urban sprawl, I can guarantee that the proposed agreement will basically remove any pretense of the attempt.

Attn.: Christina Thomas, Senior Planner
Re: Urban Containment Implementation Agreement Public Input

The concept of an Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) is a key element in the Regional Growth Management Plan’s (RGMP) objective of limiting urban sprawl and protecting rural values. The 6-page Urban Containment Implementation Agreement (UCIA), which is proposed to replace the 14-page Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement (UCFAMIA), is a classic case of putting the wolf in charge of the hen-house. It is not possible to have a workable RGMP when each member jurisdiction is put in charge of establishing their own “community needs” and a highly subjective phrase such as “on balance” is used to qualify the criteria terminology, which itself is open to interpretation by each party to the agreement. Two criteria intended to prevent “adverse changes” to the health and on-going viability of sensitive ecosystems and the resource productivity of adjacent lands have also been removed in this revision, in my opinion, further weakening it.
The current UCFAMIA has already been misappropriated in order to extend by 0.5 km the urban sprawl which has come to define the City of Nanaimo. In that instance, a small sub-group of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (IAC) decided to arbitrarily change the key definition of “community needs” in the agreement so that, instead of the criteria being about the needs of the community (which couldn’t justify the inclusion of the Jeffs’ property into the City’s UCB), it became about the needs of this particular piece of property for services such as sewer and water. One would perhaps expect this kind of behaviour from some developers but certainly not from the public body which is supposed to govern for the benefit of us all. If this is a precursor to what can be routinely expected with the proposed agreement, we might as well not have a RGMP since it will be impotent.
The only way to control urban sprawl and protect rural values is through a coordinated effort where the various RDN jurisdictions are subject to the strictures of “the greater good” and not in the position of “competing” with one another for development. You cannot have a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) creating a livable region when each ‘fiefdom’ in the ‘Kingdom’ is free to decide where the castle walls end. No reasonable parent would allow their children to decide what they are each having for dinner and then let them make it because they will end up eating empty calories, competing for ‘ingredients’ and leaving the kitchen in a mess.
Although, contrary to Ms. Thomas’ report, it really isn’t a change over the existing UCFAMIA, allowing UCB changes to be considered out-of-sync with the RGS means another opportunity for the public to be able to provide timely, meaningful input is made more difficult and will result in applications being received “willy-nilly”, with any hopes of coordination and “seeing the big picture” being forfeit. This will end up being just like Nanaimo’s OCP amendment process where applications have been accepted mid-stream and almost any old justification/reason is accepted for going against the express will of the people. You can’t do growth management piece-meal and on-the-fly! It matters not how many meetings with planning staff of each of the member municipalities your staff has had or how many meetings of the IAC there have been or that someone from the Ministry of Community, Women’s and Aboriginal Services facilitated them (they have proven to be as autocratic as anyone), it is clear to me that the intent is to water down the present agreement so that the public will lose even that avenue of protest over your inability/unwillingness to control urban sprawl, as required by the RGMP. This agreement is supposed to protect rural values, yet the Electoral Areas (which could be significantly affected by any failure of the agreement) don’t appear to have been part of the consultation process leading up to it – I think that speaks volumes about how much the “member municipalities” really care about the well-being of their neighbours and the livability of their region. Somebody has to be the parent in this relationship, making and enforcing decisions for the benefit of the whole family and jurisdictions, like children, need boundaries (figuratively and literally).

After receiving input from the public, the RDN decided to hold off on implementing the new agreement - basically what they did was wait until they thought the public had forgotten about the issue and then they went ahead and did it anyway!

Lantzville OCP Public Hearing (Sept. 26/05) Written Submission

2005-09-27T08:15:00.000-07:00

I am told by your Deputy Administrator that I need to read my written submision in order to have any hope of it actually appearing on the lantzville.ca website so that it what I intend to do.

Mayor and Council,
Since you propose to hold a Council Meeting and deal with the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) immediately after the Public Hearing tonight, it is abundantly clear that you are not now, nor have you ever been, prepared to really listen to the many concerns which have been raised about this Plan over the last number of months. You won’t even have an opportunity to read and consider the written submissions presented to you tonight. The fact that you have still omitted, after being informed of it on at least three different occasions, the critical statement contained in our current OCP that “the residents are the final arbiters of community values” should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what you think of our abilities to make our own decisions.
Being one of the relatively few individuals who have persevered through the convoluted and user-unfriendly draft OCP process and actually read them, or at least the difficult-to-identify changes thereto, I have expressed concerns/made suggestions regarding 18 different items, either on comment forms or at the previous Public Hearing, and the only change you have made to the Plan is something that may potentially address a single concern of about 65 people.
For the record, I am opposed to this Plan for the key reasons that it is:
- too dense within the ‘Residential’ designation (down to ¼ acre lot sizes), and way too dense in the Village Core/Ware Road area (down to 5200 sq. ft. lot sizes) and up to 450 units plus secondary suites plus an unspecified amount of commercial development
- too generous to developers in exchange for amenities the community wants, e.g, the 100 ‘free’ seniors’ care density units that Lantzville Projects will be entitled to on their Ware Road property if they provide up to 20% ‘amenities (4 times that required by law!)
- too drastic; this Plan facilitates major changes within the community of Lantzville over a relatively short period of time and can in no way be considered to keep us a semi-rural refuge in the sea of concrete, asphalt and stucco inundating the east coast of Vancouver Island.
- the parkland which the Foothills Estates people are ‘giving’ to Lantzville comes with a series of costs – snow-clearing, new firehall, policing, legal liability, vandalism, insurance, etc. The taxpayers of Lantzville deserve to know how much these are likely to be. Even under subdivision to the existing zoning of 20 acres, we would still be entitled to 91 acres (5%) of parkland or cash-in-lieu (051013 NOTE: on further research into the mammoth Local Government Act, I have discovered that, as long as the minimum lot size created is more than 2 ha [just under 5 acres], no park land dedication would be required) . I am also concerned about what impact this scale of development could have on my well water.
Not a single one of these concerns/suggestions has been addressed by this Council!
Several of you have mentioned the long, public process and your respect thereof, even referencing the extensive community survey. You make a big deal about how you have had all these meetings and open houses, except you don’t listen to what the majority of people have said. You conveniently and continually gloss over the fact that, on at least 3 key points (density bonusing, cluster housing and multiple-unit housing), this Plan goes against the survey results and, even after being asked several times, you provide no specific justification/rationale for doing so. You are so proud that you have spent 18 months gathering input and putting the Plan together and now, in a span of less than 12 days you will have had two Public Hearings and considered the OCP bylaw 3 times and you still insist there’s no rush!
There has been some speculation about your individual motives for single-mindedly forging ahead with this developer-friendly OCP but I would ask my fellow Lantzvillagers to consider what the motives of those who have concerns might be. I moved here 15 years ago with plans to build a house with my father and semi-retire. Almost from the start, there was someone trying to drastically change the semi-rural community I had chosen to live in. Developers and their numerous consultants are generally well-rewarded for their efforts and Council is compensated for their time as well, but people like myself get nothing out of all of this except some measure of hope to be able to continue to enjoy the lifestyle we have picked. Unless I am missing something here, I have yet to figure out how I/we will profit financially from helping keep Lantzville’s growth moderate and in keeping with the wishes of the majority.
I had asked at an earlier meeting where Council was actually considering allowing a Nanaimo developer to pave a piece of Lantzville property in order to expand his Nanaimo commercial development why a private resident should have to go to such lengths (2 file folders of documents totaling 3 ½ “ thick) to see that our ever-shrinking ‘green’ buffer is protected – it is now obvious that the answer won’t be coming from you. You like the current system because it keeps the public poorly informed, off-balance and constantly playing catch-up. At every step of the way, you and staff have made decisions and taken actions which have made oversight/input by the public more difficult.
In my submission to the previous Public Hearing, I mentioned concern about this OCP being in conflict with RDN staff over growth management issues, serious concerns which you have now apparently ‘stick-handled’ past the Board. By your actions and with your single-minded development agenda, you have collectively set back Regional Planning in this area by at least 15 years and there might as well not be a Regional Growth Management Plan since you have just effectively rendered it impotent.
Even though Councillor Scott reported to Council that polling is the latest trend in municipal government public involvement and, while you dispute the ‘accuracy’ of polling commissioned and paid for by a Lantzville resident, you have presented none of your own to counter his results. Some of you attended the Town Hall meeting, where over 200 people came out to express their concerns, and you have seen a show of approx. 250 hands (2/3) in opposition at the last Public Hearing on this OCP and yet you remain unmoved. However, there is a poll coming up on Nov. 19th, the results of which you will not be able to ignore!

After hearing from 20 different Lantzville residents, 16 of whom were opposed to the new Official Community Plan, Council took a 30 minute break, during which a couple of the Councillors/Mayor appeared to be reading a few of the 74 written submissions (incl. 28 on a petition and 14 on form letters), 68 of which were opposed to adopting this Plan and then, during the Council meeting following, read from prepared statements/notes and made not a single change based on this public input before unanimously giving the OCP bylaw third reading and then adopting it.

Wise Words From Someone Who's Been There!

2005-09-23T21:12:00.000-07:00

"I moved to Salt Spring partly to get away from small-town municipal politics. The same scenarios are enacted in small towns all across Canada-duly elected cliques, supported by the only newspaper in town, making decisions that clearly do not benefit the majority. Opposing voices being held to ridicule, or in some cases verbally abused to the point of libel. It does not have to happen here, but it could. Democracy requires ongoing public participation and vigilance. We do not, for the most part, use the current opportunities to participate in local government and there is no reason to suppose that will change after incorporation once the novelty wears off."

excerpted from Elizabeth White (Saltspring Island)

"No place in the world today remains special by accident!" Community Planner: E. McMahon

All it takes for bad things to happen is that good people do nothing! paraphrase of Edmund Burke

"Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil." Mary Wollstonecraft

"Good people do not need the law to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the law." Plato

Lantzville OCP Public Hearing (Sept. 14/05) Written Submission

2005-09-20T20:47:00.000-07:00

Mayor and Council,
This whole Official Community Plan process was flawed from the beginning. From the rush to update the OCP by an interim Council for a brand, new Municipality since only the Regional Context Statement needed to be updated within two years of incorporation (a deadline which we have missed), the decision supported by at least the Chief Administrative Officer and the Mayor to “start from scratch”, which meant that those familiar with the current OCP had just lost their ‘point of reference’ and would now have to read and understand the new OCP from ‘cover to cover’ and critical statements such as “the residents are the final arbiters of community values” were left out. The appointment of a Steering Committee, using a selection criteria which we have asked for the details of but have not received an answer, which resulted in two of the members living within four houses of each other and four other members on the same street within a block of each other, leaving people like us who live in a fairly large suburban area without a representative and, finally, the replacement of two of the members more than half way through the process.
As the OCP moved towards the draft stage, the process became extremely hard to follow. We have seen four, different drafts and that has created an onerous amount of effort just to keep up with the changes. For those with fast internet access and large computer monitors, it may have been manageable but for the many, like us, with dial-up and/or a smaller monitor and, especially those with no internet access at all, it was anything but easy. From the second to the third draft, the changes were highlighted in yellow (shaded on the printed copy) but that ceased and residents were left to individually contact the District office to enquire as to what the changes were from the previous draft. The maps were a whole other thing – the District didn’t have a colour printer capable of printing that size of paper so we were left with a mixture of black & white cross-hatching and viewing the maps on whatever monitor one had and trying to ‘zoom in’ on sections and then trying to remember what you had just seen. When this soon became unworkable, either because there were too many maps and/or too many questions or if you simply didn’t have internet access, one had the choice of visiting the District office M-F, 8:00 – 4:30 and having a staff member show you up to the Council chambers, where the maps were kept. If you were able to attend one of the Open Houses, you would see the maps there but, unfortunately, there wasn’t an ‘Open House’ after each draft.
So, when Councillor and OCP Steering Committee co-chair Susan Crayston stood up at a recent Town Hall meeting and asked “who had read the OCP”, she really shouldn’t have been surprised by the response. It is the District’s job to make sure that as many people as possible were able to read and understand the Plan.
Now our specific concerns with the ‘Final’ Draft OCP, which is the subject of this Public Hearing:
- the densities in the proposed OCP are similar in most respects to those contained in the current OCP. However, one of the things which was widely felt to be wrong with that document is those same densities. Over 500 people twice turned out to reject the Lantzville Projects’ rezoning based on the included densities and then a reduced ‘75%’ version. The development which was ultimately approved was at just over half of the density contained in the OCP. Densities and ‘bonusing’ are all about trade-offs and the question for we residents is, how much should we need to give to get the things we want? The District has been asked, on several occasions, to provide specific justifications for their version of these trade-offs but, so far, all we have heard from them is generalizations.
In terms of a specific example, the proposed OCP offers to give the ‘Ware Road’ landowners up to 100 ‘free’ density units if they build a seniors’ care facility, something which didn’t even rate a mention in the density comparison chart in ‘Colin’s Comments #3’ [note: Colin is Colin Haime, Lantzville’s Mayor]. There is no disputing that a modest amount of assisted/extended care would be good for Lantzville but, with area developers regularly building those types of facilities without any incentive other than the opportunity to sell/rent them, why should we be giving anything at all?! Also, the ‘bonusing’ construct is a form of ‘double-dipping’ in that, by providing the amenity that earns the bonus, the remaining amount of land is reduced so that the total units now need to be packed onto a smaller piece of property.
- the extensive community survey conducted in the spring of last year and completed by well over 500 people said ‘No’ to density bonusing by a 269/159 margin, yet it is an integral component of this Plan. They also said ‘No’ to ‘cluster housing’ by an even larger majority of 306/160, yet it is supported by this Plan. We agree with the Mayor when he said that you can’t take each survey question in isolation but how does the desire for more natural/wildlife park areas and walking/hiking trails translate into a plan to give developers up to 3.5 units/ha (1.4 units/acre) more density if they provide up to four times the required improved parkland, pathways and buffers. Wouldn’t it be more in keeping with the wishes of the majority of residents to cut this base density to, say 6, and offer a bonus of up to 1.2 units for another 5% of those amenities? Remember, if anything like the Foothills proposal proceeds, the District will be getting more natural/wildlife land than we will know what to do with.
- the survey also said that what people valued most about Lantzville was the ‘semi-rural’ atmosphere, natural beauty of the area and large lots, family homes. This Plan will seriously compromise all of these. Why would we be looking at a proposed OCP that would allow lots down to ¼ acre in size on the larger parcels in most of Lantzville and down to something like 5200 sq. ft. (1/8 acre) in the Village Comprehensive Development Area, which our Mayor claims is around the ‘average’ lot size in north Nanaimo?
- we are concerned about the support for secondary suites in detached homes in the Village Comprehensive Development Area. This will effectively increase the density even more, something which also didn’t rate a mention in the density comparison chart in ‘Colin’s Comments #3’ and will likely result in traffic/parking problems and services billing inequities.
- there are few specifics with respect to the commercial area behind the existing Village Commercial Core as to how big it can be and what can be included and how big it can be in the Foothills
- the Mayor has repeatedly said that these are all just numbers and the landowners will have to prepare detailed Comprehensive Development Plans which will have to address all issues to Council’s satisfaction and that the Public will have a chance for input at that time. The problem is, once a developer sees the numbers in this OCP, they will be thinking ‘firm’ and it will be very hard to move them off those numbers, just like it must have been very difficult for the volunteer, lay members of the Steering Committee to argue for moving away from the numbers presented in the first draft of the Plan.
- given that Foothills Estates could not do what they are proposing to accomplish through our OCP if their property had remained in the Regional District, we are beginning to question our own acceptance of the argument that the reason we needed to include the foothills within our new, municipal boundaries was in order to prevent a future garbage dump/protect our water supply.
- while the new Plan refers to looking at sewage treatment options (‘green’ infrastructure), everything else points towards connecting to Hammond Bay. The District’s application for a Federal/Provincial infrastructure grant refers only to the Greater Nanaimo Water Pollution Control Centre and one of the investors in the Foothills project told me that we would be ‘crazy’ not to hook up to the ‘big pipe’ at our border. We think we can guess what form of sewage treatment they will be supporting for their development!
- we do NOT support the prohibition on ‘neighbourhood’ sewage treatment facilities since we believe that this severely limits our ability to tailor solutions to any liquid waste issues to the specific situation. What would we rather have, a state-of-the-art treatment facility servicing several households with failed and ‘unrepairable’ septic systems or the continued release of minimally treated sewage while we wait for municipal sewers to reach that area?
- Sec. 11.13 states that “the District may undertake a study to determine the practicality and extent of Development Cost Charges (DCC’s) that might be applied to new development”. Since this Plan contemplates substantial new development, which will not only strain the existing infrastructure, but require additional facilities supplied by the District, why wouldn’t Council be moving forward post-haste to put DCC’s in place prior to all this development?
- this Plan has put us in conflict with the Regional District over growth management issues, which are currently unresolved and could threaten its adoption
Council’s role is not to push your own Agenda on the residents you serve, but rather to identify problems facing the community, develop a range of solutions and then fully informing the taxpayers of the pros, cons and costs of each and letting them decide! You need to be on good terms with both the large-parcel landowners and the average resident. This proposed OCP states that “the character of the community is also based on a common set of values and principles... an orientation toward cooperation and communication, and a willingness to listen” – we truly wish that that could be so!

If You Live In Lantzville... (Part Deux)

2005-04-17T20:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Neighbours and Friends,
I know it must seem like every other week that we are faced with an issue which threatens to drastically/materially affect our lives here in what-used-to be quiet, semi-rural Lantzville. This time, it is the whole community which could be at risk. I know that many of you have already filled out the survey, attended the Public Forum, Workshops and Open Houses and organized/attended the ‘Kitchen’ Meetings and I would imagine that you thought your part was done - your input would be listened to and that you could get onto things of more immediate urgency or personal satisfaction. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that we can relax just yet.
This Official Community Plan (OCP), which is now out in draft form and available from the District office or by download from http://www.lantzville.ca/ (look for it under ‘District Services’), while similar in many respects to the current one, is very different in two material aspects:
1. this OCP was created from ‘scratch’, meaning that you can’t just expect to spend an hour or two focusing on the sections that have been changed and then formulate your opinion on the document as a whole – it could take days to begin to understand all its implications
2. this OCP, once adopted, will enable the rezoning of all property in Lantzville in one ‘fell’ swoop, with only one big, public hearing between us and all the changes which are contained in the OCP. We will NOT have the chance to assess each property rezoning application as it comes up, as was the process in the past (albeit an imperfect one). I direct your attention to p. 62 of the draft under Sec. 11.10 Zoning: “Following acceptance and adoption by bylaw of this Plan, it is the District’s intention to review and revise where appropriate the zoning of lands within the municipal boundaries...”
One of the main issues which keeps coming up is that of density – it was a key concern in both of the first two, major, development proposals for the downtown core by Lantzville Projects with the majority feeling that there was just too much housing and commercial in too small a space and those densities are essentially still there (there is also no guidance on commercial sq. m in the draft OCP). If you would like one former politician’s perspective on assessing this draft OCP ‘on the numbers’ and how well survey input is reflected in the draft, go to http://www.lantzvillenews.com/ and have a look at the home page and then click on the green ‘OCP’ button on the left. If you have any information or comments to share with your fellow Lantzville residents, you can simply send an email to the webmaster at LantzvilleNews@shaw.ca.
One specific example of how these changes may limit the future options of myself and my neighbours is that, under the current CP, we may subdivide our 1-acre properties down to ½ acre if we can secure either community water or sewer service and legal access but the draft OCP would now require us to secure both of these services before we can subdivide.
With the power vested in this OCP, once approved, and the increased powers of District council granted by incorporation, it is imperative that you let your opinion be heard BEFORE the draft becomes final. There will have to be a Public Hearing on the OCP before it can be adopted but that just means that you will eventually have to address any concerns you may have and it will be eminently better to have your input incorporated before the final version.
Good luck and, if you have any questions, please contact the District office by telephone, mail or email (twyla@lantzville.ca) and provide any comments in writing to same.

The Process is Really Screwed (... I Mean Skewed)!

2005-03-10T11:50:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I have had to think a lot lately about how well our public servants serve us, or not. First of all, in the Federal arena, where we seem to lurch from one scandal to another and usually involving millions if not billions of our dollars. The Adscam scandal clearly showed us that our bureaucrats don't all have the good sense or integrity to tell their political masters where to get off when they ask them to do something highly questionable. Then again, we don't have whistleblower legislation in Canada which would protect them but I would still question them taking our paycheck and then "the easy way out".
That brings us to the provincial level, which I have already written a few missives about (see blogs "So Much For Due Process" and "If You Live in Lantzville..."). The situation here is much the same except that our problems are exacerbated by a very polarized political climate. I truly believe that there are more ideologues per capita in B. C. than anywhere else in Canada. The main distinguishing feature of a political ideologue is that they are convinced that their side can do no wrong and the other side can do no right. The result is that they spend all their time and energy yelling at each other over the "fence" and the problems of the common man never seem to get to the top of their priority list. This process is a little further advanced in the United States but the expected results can already be seen - the battle lines have been drawn, the troops conscripted, the media 'hacks' brought on board and its all-out war!
Is refusing to talk to each other really going to help us solve our problems or is it all about making sure that it is YOUR solution that is picked - even if it isn't perfect. We need a government that will truly govern for ALL of us, adopting the best ideas no matter which side they come from and we need to get back to talking to each other or we will not be able to move forward.
Finally, we arrive at politics at the more local level, regional districts and municipalities. One of the biggest issues that these governments deal with is land use and planning (development). Now, I have a neighbour who tells me that "you can't stop development". Given that he is the son of a retired realtor and small-scale developer, maybe that's what one would expect, except for the fact that it doesn't seem to matter what a developer might be proposing to do in Lantzville, he's for it. My own common sense tells me that it is impossible for all developers and all of their proposals to be "good for the community", yet he actively supports them all.
Here in Lantzville, we've had lots of challenges over the past 10 years. We've had three major development proposals for the same piece of property, a long-standing promise to complete Lantzville Road to Dover reneged on, the RDN wanting to put a landfill up in the foothills behind us, a scheduled OCP review delayed for years, several pieces of land taken from us by the City of Nanaimo for intensive commercialization, a huge 'Welcome to Nanaimo' sign insinuated within our boundaries, a plan to import water all the way from the Englishman River dam, a study to see if we should incorporate (in part, in response to all these things already mentioned), and recently, a major proposal for development up in our foothills. All throughout this, there has been one constant - the tremendous difficulty in the average Lantzville resident feeling like they have a say and can make a difference!
The developers/proponents control the flow of information and, since they are in the 'marketing' business, they only tell you what they want you to hear - I learned a long time ago that it's always the other stuff that matters most to you and me. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats are reluctant to require these people to be more 'up-front' with us. I am not sure if this is because their political masters have told them to bend over backwards to not appear business-unfriendly or if it comes from the fact that they are 'planners' and 'planners' love to see their plans come to fruition. In any event, this is what the public faces when a land use issue is raised in their community, and no, it doesn't seem to matter which community we are talking about - all developers seem to have gone to the same school, as have all politicians and 'planners'.
The very first hurdle for the public is to find out that there is a land use issue - there are required newspaper ads at some point in the process and many jurisdictions now have their own website, some better than others. Depending on the specifics, there may also be a requirement that there be a notification posted on the affected property, which sounds good. However, when some jurisdictions require a sign that is no more than .75 m x .6 m and others only require a sign to be posted for a minimum time period (as short as 3 days), one can see that finding out about the issue in the first place can be a challenge. Sadly, these methods all require an individual to have the time or opportunity to see the notification. If you are within a certain radius of the affected property (usually 200 m), you should receive an official notification in the mail, however, many land use issues can/will affect people much further away from the property than that.
O.K., so now you know that there is a land use issue and you want to find out more (the specifics). You will usually be directed to you regional district or town office to see the actual application made by the land owner. This application will generally make reference to various Acts, Bylaws and other planning documents (e.g., Local Government Act, Regional Growth Management Plan and Official Community Plans), which usually are many pages long and written in semi-legalese. One Bylaw may refer to an Act which references a specific agreement, and so on. Are you starting to get discouraged yet - try not to be because that's what most developers count on?
Assuming that you are able to grasp the "ins and outs" of the application, the applicable rules and legislation and the sometimes-convoluted case that the 'planners' have put together, you now get to speak to the matter at a public meeting of your local politicians. For some people, this will be enough to "scare them off" - you have to gather your information and thoughts, get yourself on the Agenda, appear at the appointed date and time and then stand up and "have your say". You may also be asked questions by the assembled politicians and then you get to sit and wait until they get to that item on the Agenda so that you can see if your comments had any impact on them. If the politicians decide that they need to hear from more of the public on the issue, they may require a Public Information Meeting be held or they may feel that the proposal still has enough merits that it should go to Public Hearing.
Oh goody, now you get to spend even more time preparing for that - putting together an "information package" for interested parties and notifying people outside of the official notification area about the issue and asking them to take time out of their busy lives to attend yet another meeting, making up signs and placing/moving them (believe it or not, some people actually go around and damage or steal them), creating informational web sites, calling people in the community you know who you think would care about the proposal's impact on the community, preparing a list of questions or a presentation and then actually attending the meeting and asking those questions or making that presentation. Remember, this is all on your own time and dime.
Contrast this with the developers' situation - this is their business, it's how they make a living and they work at it day in and day out. Since they have an expectation of profit, if they need something done, they hire a consultant, whether it be a planner for interpretation of the relevant documents, a lawyer for advice on the legalities and application of the various Acts, Bylaws and legislation, a public relations firm to prepare glossy brochures and put the right 'spin' on their proposal, architects to design a 'pleasing' facade, engineers to design their infrastructure and landscape designers to provide pleasing sketches of native vegetation. We, the time-challenged, economically-limited and sometimes just plain 'frazzled' public are left to do it all on our own with the good of our community our only motivation/reward!
Given all of the above, maybe my neighbour is right - "you can't stop development" - but you certainly can't if you're not prepared to try!

If You Live In Lantzville...

2005-03-08T14:57:00.000-08:00

Below is a presentation which was made to Lantzville Council at their Regular Council Meeting on Feb. 28, 2005. It is the culmination of a development company (Watt Ventures - Duncan and Cameron Watt) having gained political influence with our MLA, Judith Reid, so that the provincial government stepped into a local process and allowed them to take a piece of buffering (even more so before they clear cut it), Lantzville property into the City of Nanaimo and rezone it to commercial (Woodgrove Regional Shopping Centre). Guess what that did to its value!
They and the government “pulled out all the stops” (see blog “So Much for Due Process") and neither the City nor the Regional District of Nanaimo was prepared to tell them ‘NO’ (they had the ability but were they coaxed/threatened?). The people of Lantzville were left out of the process at every turn and all anyone could say was “it’s a done deal”. Now these guys want to increase their lucre even more, and therefore, have applied to the District of Lantzville for rezoning of the adjacent .7 acre piece of property so that they can add 6,000 more square feet to their 75,550 sq. ft. mall, which recently received a Development Permit from the City.
They have even convinced Highways to sell them a .2 acre piece of adjacent ‘road closure’, something Lantzville was supposed to be notified of but wasn’t – should we be surprised? They claim that Lantzville will benefit by having priority at this public parking lot, which we can use if we need to park at Pioneer Park (it’ll be a dash across a busy through-street) – how much is that worth? Then again, they've also implied that it will be used primarily for employee parking. They are also offering to build a 195 m long section of 3 m wide, gravel, then paved and now apparently gravel again "multi-purpose trail" on the north side of the extended Lantzville Road (across the street from the proposed parking lot). How much good this 'orphan' trial is going to do in that location, I don't know, but at the very least, it seems to me to be on the wrong side of the street.

It even took a ‘neat trick’ on the District’s part to allow this proposal to proceed as just a rezoning instead of first requiring an OCP amendment – in my opinion, the proposed parking lot does not fit the Bylaw 500 definition of “public (utility) use”, and therefore, does not deserve an exemption from an amendment.
There is a Public Information Meeting at Costin Hall on Monday, March 14/05 at 6:15 pm. where the developers will be making a presentation on their proposal and the District/RDN will be talking about the ‘technical’ aspects of the application. If you were at all concerned about the Jeffs’ property being taken into the City and how it all happened and how it has and will continue to negatively impact our lives in semi-rural Lantzville, please come out to this meeting! You will have an opportunity to ask questions of the developers (don’t make it easy on them, so no simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions please) and, given the way we’ve been treated in the past, I would say that anything goes including, since we weren’t consulted about giving up the Jeffs’ property, any lingering questions you may have there, as well (we’ll have to try our best to be polite to our ‘guests’).
Lantzville residents will remember that we were sold incorporation, at least, in part, to make sure that Lantzville wouldn’t lose any more land (to protect our borders). If Council agrees to allow this proposal from the very same people who took the Jeffs’ property from our community to ‘reach back’ into Lantzville and build a commercial parking lot, is there really any difference?

Mr. Mayor and Assembled Councillors,

Let me begin by saying how refreshing it is to be able to address our elected officials related to the development proposal by Watt Ventures in person, since the last two, major, public decisions regarding their development were made by the RDN in the height of the summer vacation season and by Nanaimo City Council just days before Christmas. When the issue of Lantzville land being taken into the City was first proposed by this developer (it was the third attempt for this property that I am aware of), representations were made by Watt Ventures that there would be information flyers and a Public Information Meeting for the residents of Lantzville – it never happened!
Instead, we were treated to landowner meetings with politicians (local and provincial), cash inducements being offered to the City to secure their acquiescence, Nanaimo’s Mayor breaking his word and holding some of you up to ridicule, City policies being ignored and a key definition in the Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement being arbitrarily changed. We, in Lantzville, were told by our MLA and the Minister responsible that there were ‘bigger interests’ than just us to consider. The City of Nanaimo, having the province to blame it all on if anything went awry, sheepishly went along. So, here we are tonight and you seven elected officials now have the chance to draw the proverbial ‘line in the sand’ and just say ‘NO’.
Watt Ventures has certainly been successful in getting things going their way. My neighbours and I, while trying for over 5 years to get Lantzville Road extended to Dover without any strings attached, were first told that the designated funds had been spent on completing Ware Road ahead of schedule. So, being a creative bunch, we came up with the idea of having Highways swap at most a couple of acres of their vast local, landholding with the then-owner of the property which is the subject of tonight’s proposal, but were told that it wasn’t Highways land to swap – it belonged to something called the ‘Transportation Financing Authority’ (chaired, as it turned out, by the Minister of Highways). We then came up with the idea of having them sell sections of the no-longer-needed gazetted road just south of the properties fronting Rosalyn and Owen, which had been set aside to be used to connect Lantzville Road to Dover Road before the current plan came into being. At least three of my neighbours had contacted Highways expressing an interest in just such an acquisition and the proceeds could have been used to complete the road connection – again, no dice. In the report before you tonight, you will see that Watt Ventures has obtained a piece of Highways’ land to extend their proposed landscape berm further west, a trade-off with the originally proposed 10 metre-wide berm, or so I am told. I have to envy them their record of accomplishments but I don’t really understand why they could be successful where we couldn’t.
In case you think that it’s only the questionable way in which this all came about that I am unhappy with, I have a number of concerns regarding the specific proposal before you tonight which I should like to bring to your attention.
With respect to this proposed parking lot being a benefit for the community of Lantzville – it has been my observation over my many walks past Pioneer Park that the vast majority of people parking there are NOT FROM LANTZVILLE. This raises the question of whether we should be accepting an amenity that would be used by relatively few of our residents in exchange for a rezoning into a ‘commercial-looking’ parking lot. Remember, Lantzville has consistently told anyone who would listen over the past 10+ years that we are a semi-rural community. This proposal does not respect that!
There is a considerable need for parking for the many activities which occur at Pioneer Park – soccer, football, baseball, rugby, skateboarding and tennis. Many of the current users of Pioneer Park park along the south side of Dover (which will not be available once the Nanaimo portion of this development proceeds), in the curve of Shook and Dover (even though it is posted) and even on the development’s vacant property. It is entirely possible that something like half of the 81 spaces provided by this proposal would be required on a regular basis by those users of Pioneer Park. I say again that the vast majority of them are not from Lantzville and wish to point out that the City of Nanaimo should be responsible for providing adequate parking for its parks.
Mr. Senini (the developer’s lawyer), in his letter to Robert Lapham (District Planner) of Feb. 18/05, states that the rezoning is requested “for the primary purpose of providing parking for the employees of the commercial development proposed for adjacent Lot 2…, general vehicle parking and other uses”. This would appear to change the order of precedence in the report from Mr. Lapham, where employees aren’t even mentioned, and lessen the veracity of the suggestion that this proposal would provide a benefit for Lantzville. Why should Lantzville be responsible for providing employee and customer parking to a Nanaimo development paying taxes to the City of Nanaimo? It appears to me that this is not so much an amenity for the residents of Lantzville as a way for the developer to increase density on his formerly Lantzville property.
Finally, with respect to the proposed landscape berm, 5 metres (16.4’) of landscaping will cut down very little highway noise and light, especially when the initial vegetation will only be something like half its ultimate height. In my opinion, it is a far cry from the buffer required by our OCP. Personally, I would not be unhappy to see the remainder of this property left just as it is today.
Therefore, I urge you to accept option no. 3 and reject this application outright but, in the alternative, I would strongly suggest that you require the Applicant to distribute information flyers and hold a Public Information Meeting before you consider this matter further and HOLD HIM TO IT! Only then will you know whether or not this proposal provides a real benefit in the eyes of Lantzville residents.

THANK YOU

The Liberals, Trust and God

2005-03-01T20:56:00.000-08:00

excerpts from Victoria Times-Colonist Sat., Feb. 27/05
Press Pass Inside B. C. Politics
"BC Liberals rate their trust level at 97%"

"Often in election campaigns you might see maybe three vague promises come out" ... Judith Reid said of the New Era document in the legislature this week. "These were specific, page after page after page of them - a very bold move. The purpose was to increase confidence in politicians and the process of government. What's the result of that? Well, four years later, 97 per cent of those have been either done or actively engaged in."

Reporter's note: They're not revealing their calculations or what promises they consider broken.... But they're definitely admitting some slippage, because for two weeks now they've been bragging about how their word can almost be trusted.

Let's see the breakdown of those "done" and those "actively engaged in" and just how much any of the latter has done for the average British Columbian. What about the things that they promised they wouldn't do but then went ahead and did anyway (tearing up contracts, expanding gambling and selling B. C. Rail come to mind) - are they part of the 97%? What about the many things that they 'ragged' on the previous government for and then ended up doing when they achieved power? Is every promise rated equally so that one small 'kept' one counts equally with a large one, not fulfilled?

"I heard a member of the opposition say 'but, you haven't kept them all'. I couldn't believe that, what kind of nonsense that is. First of all, the only person who ever keeps 100 per cent of their promises is God. While she might have high regard for us, we never claimed that status. The idea that we could have kept so many promises is remarkable."

I'll tell you what nonsense is, Judith, and its this whole preposterous statement. Almost sounds like they even surprised themselves, what with all the promises they've managed to keep - then again, in my simple, ethical world, I don't believe anyone has a right to make a promise that they have no intention of keeping. Since she finds their performance "remarkable", she must have been expecting some failures. As pointed out in the article, politicians share the bottom of the 'public respect' list with journalists and your contention that the Liberals have, in a single term, elevated politicians' stature to near mythical proportions smacks of serious delusion. Only in your 'dream-world', Judith.
God promised "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) - but how do we mere mortals (unless you are a person of faith) know if he has actually kept that one? It is even more than a little ironic that Ms. Reid was a former Minister of Highways, a Ministry which many people used to say believed that they were God!
This is all moot anyway since an Ontario court recently ruled that politicians can't be held to their promises and that, if voters believe a campaign promise, they are "naive about the democratic system". The judge further said that "it is up to the voters, not the courts, to punish governments who fib and fabricate." That's all well and good but we know the damage the scoundrels can do in the ensuing 4 or 5 years and then they can just lie to us again, hoping that we will have forgotten or promising to actually keep their promises this time (sort of like Lucy, Charlie Brown and that darn football). One question: if we can't rely on anything politicians say during an election campaign, how exactly are we supposed to decide who to vote for?
Judicial Quote of the Year: "This decision not to keep the promise does not mean that the promise, when made, was untrue, inaccurate or negligent". If a politican doesn't have the information necessary to commit to a course of action, he/she has no business making a promise concerning that issue/item in the first place.

A House Divided

2005-02-16T10:46:00.000-08:00

I know I said at the outset that this blog would be about 'local' politics/politicians but the Federal government is showing that it is just as "loopy" as any of our Vancouver Island/British Columbia fare. When Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, ordered the Canadian flag to be taken down from all provincial government buildings because he wasn't "getting his way" with Ottawa over the "sharing" of resource revenues, I knew exactly how this was going to end. The already absurd concept of equalization payments have become nothing more than a mechanism for the federal government to bribe voters with other people's money.
As flawed as it was, the original concept of equalization payments was to see to it that none of our 'poor' relatives would have to live in squalor while their 'richer' cousins lived in opulence - the Feds call this the "have not" and "have" provinces. The way it was supposed to work was that provinces that had their own 'means' would look after themselves plus send money to Ottawa to provide help to those provinces which were "down on their luck". Much like the welfare system, if a "have not" province later found itself with improving fortunes, then their need for assistance would decrease and the equalization payments would be reduced proportionately.
Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have, in recent times, found themselves with substantial quantities of oil and natural gas off of their coastlines, resulting in a windfall of royalties to their treasuries and jobs for their citizens. However, they do not want to admit that, as a result, they are now in a better financial position, and therefore, do not need as much help from Ottawa. They want to be able to keep their resource revenue AND maintain the equalization payments at the same level as before ("have their cake and eat it too"). The Federal government, on behalf of all of the taxpayers of Canada, have recently accepted this preposterous notion and there must be dancing in the streets in St. John's and Halifax.
It used to be that the only province which regularly and routinely received special treatment from Ottawa was Quebec, which was galling enough, but this latest capitulation on the Federal government's part has added two more potential beneficiaries to that list. It must stick in the craw of many Canadians to have a 'father' in Ottawa who treats its 'children' so inequitably.

A Little Federal Diversion

2005-02-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

As a couple with no children who already pay school taxes and whose income taxes help fund the Child Tax Benefit, the Child Care Expenses deduction, the EI parental leave program, the GST child sales tax credit and zero provincial sales taxes on children's clothing, its relevant to wonder what tangible benefit we will see from a national, taxpayer-subsidized, daycare program. We already have enough programs where the taxpayer pays and pays, supposedly to improve the lot of children, yet with few 'standards' and little/no enforcement, we often see so very little in return.
Is this yet one more chance for a bloated, federal program to run amok?!

Broken Promises All Over The Place

2005-02-04T09:59:00.000-08:00

The British Columbia Liberal government made many promises before they were elected in May, 2001. Having spent the previous 9 years in Opposition, where they repeatedly called the then NDP government to task for their many broken promises and 'undemocratic' practices, they told us that, if we put our trust in them, they were going to do it differently. They then went on to create a record of broken promises for things they said they would do but didn't and things they said they wouldn't do but then went ahead and did anyway. Just this morning, the television news was telling us about a big, new casino which just opened in downtown Vancouver, a significant "expansion" of gambling in the Lower Mainland. All this after similar expansions in Richmond, Langley and Surrey and after this provincial government promised not to expand gambling in British Columbia! And all of this before we even begin to talk about the provincial lotteries.

So Much For Due Process

2005-02-04T09:13:00.000-08:00

Information pertinent to the following can be found on the City Of Nanaimo website, http://www.city.nanaimo.bc.ca by searching the Council Agendas and Minutes for Jeffs, Jeff's, Jeff s or Watt.

Once again, I am astounded at the lengths which the City of Nanaimo, their staff and the project proponents would go through in order to "have their way" in this case. Paying $250 for a Special Public Hearing on Thursday, Dec. 18/03 on their rezoning of 6950 Island Highway North (the Jeffs property) seems like a very wise investment by Watt Ventures. Having already arranged to have the extension of the Urban Containment Boundary and the Regional Context Statement change dealt with by the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN) on August 12/03, at the height of the summer vacation period, it doesn't surprise me at all that the rezoning Public Hearing would now be arranged to occur at the height of the Christmas shopping/party/vacation period, barely one week before Christmas. Councillor Loyd Sherry had suggested that I give up yet another evening of my time and travel all the way down to City Hall so that I may have the opportunity to express my thoughts on Watt Ventures' proposal to him and the rest of City Council. While I have learned from experience that it is not always 'helpful' for a citizen to inform the bureaucracy of their intentions in advance, I told him that I wouldn't be there.
When I take the time and trouble to prepare and make a presentation to Council and no further mention is made of that fact or any of the points I made in any of the subsequent staff reports on this issue, when a City Councillor implies that Area 'D' Regional Director Haime is lying and Mayor Korpan "calls the kettle black", when Councillor McNabb and Mayor Korpan both act contrary to published commitments not to seek to take any Lantzville land into the City without the Area Director's consent, when Council goes against its own policy of infill before expansion despite numerous vacancies in all of the existing malls and with similar, commercial properties already in the city, when previous conditions/requirements are suddenly dropped/ignored, when Lantzville is, contrary to the 'Municipal Boundary Extension Criteria', virtually ignored in the annexation process, when the City accepts an inducement for annexing and rezoning the Jeffs property, when the City passes a motion requiring their RDN Directors to support all motions having to do with the Jeffs property, when Mayor Korpan seeks to embarrass/ridicule our Mayor and Area Director in the local papers, while distorting the truth/playing loose with the facts, when City staff make a mockery out of the Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement by convincing the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to change the definition of 'community needs', when the 'Needs assessment' done for the annexation of the Jeffs property doesn't even address the required criteria, when the spelling of 'Jeffs' (try Jeff's and Jeff s) is conveniently 'mishandled' so that someone searching for relevant documents on the City's website won't find them all, when one of the required Official Community Plan (OCP) Amendment notification signs disappears after a maximum of only 3 days on the property and when the OCP Amendment process does not follow the established procedures, I don't believe that anything I could say at the Public Hearing would make any difference in the destination of this "runaway train barrelling down the tracks" so I chose instead to spend the time with my family and friends - the "fix" was obviously already in.

And So It Begins

2005-02-02T09:46:00.000-08:00

This blog was born out of my frustration with the mainstream media (big and small) and their indifference to the real news of the day - the issues that shape the quality of our lives and the way in which we form our opinions on those same issues. The main focus will be politicians and politics, especially as it pertains to life in a seaside community on the east Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Yesterday, I was going through my old emails to politicians (and their responses, if any), 'Letters to the Editor' and 'Rants and Raves' and I was amazed by how much effort/time I had put into them and how little impact I seem to have made. If I do say so myself, many of them were quite good but, unfortunately, were edited so much as to change the meaning, not published at all or relegated to the back pages. An Ontario Superior Court judge has recently decided that "anyone who believes a campaign promise is naive about the democratic system" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050129/MCGUINTYGTA29/TPNational/ He went on to say that the place to make politicians pay for lying to us is at the ballot box but we all know how much damage they can do in the 3 to 5 years that they are elected for. To my idealistic way of thinking, politicians represent you and I, they are our 'servants' and to accept/allow them to lie to us (and have it sanctioned by the courts) is a perversion of democracy. Enough for now, let me know what you think.