Perspectives on Lantzville/Nanaimo Water Deal Machinations

Well, by now Lantzvillagers should know that, at their regular meeting on Sept. 8th, Lantzville council, with only Councillors Mostad and Haime dissenting, voted to accept the modified agreement with Nanaimo for them to provide us with bulk water. What you may NOT know, is exactly how it happened! Do you remember those 'Community Update's that we receive from the District on a regular basis'? Well, the District had been telling us that the draft water agreement continues to be discussed with Nanaimo and, before any agreement would be signed for the provision of bulk water to Lantzville, there would be extensive, public consultation in the form of information circulars and meetings.

At their regular council meeting on Sept. 8th, before any of that consultation had occurred, Lantzville council decided to add the water agreement to the Agenda (meaning that no one who had been checking the District website to see what would be on that Agenda would have had any idea that the water agreement would be dealt with). However, given that the meeting was a 'full-house', it appears that a limited group of individuals were told in advance what would be transpiring at that meeting. As if all this wasn't bad/undemocratic enough, earlier in the summer, Lantzville council had negotiated some changes to the draft water agreement with Nanaimo, one of which took away the requirement that the residents of Lantzville would get a vote on whether or not to accept the water deal. Now I can already hear their bleating - 'since there was no capital expense involved, the water deal didn't have to go to a referendum vote'. Well, I can only see two things wrong with that assertion, the first being that there will be a significant expenditure to construct the actual connection to Nanaimo's water system and the second is that, even if it wasn't legally required, given the massive impact bulk water would have on our community, a vote was ethically and morally necessary.
In the recent Community Update specifically on the water agreement, Council says that the reason they signed the agreement without the promised public consultation was that it gives them the opportunity to obtain bulk water from Nanaimo but that is NOT an answer to the question posed! I would ask why they were in so much of a hurry to sign the agreement that they took the very undemocratic approach detailed in the preamble above. Did they have any specific reason to believe that the agreement would not be there next week, next month or next year, after the promised round of public consultations were completed? For my money, I believe that they were motivated by councillor Haime's remarks back on Nov. 28/11 that "there will be no change in service in the District over the next 3 years and everyone she's talked to wants stagnation for the next 3 years" and they desperately wanted to prove her wrong, sadly at Lantzville's expense!

Following are links to local media stories (just click on the ones of interest to you) about the water situation in Lantzville, the water agreement with Nanaimo and Letters to the Editor on same, as well as comments that I posted to the sources' website. Note that the Nanaimo Daily News does not routinely provide the ability for people to comment on their on-line articles:

Lantzville residents raise concerns over water deal with city

Lantzville should source its own water (Letters to Editor)

Lantzville's water issues misunderstood (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville councillor suggests sending water deal to referendum


   Lantzville Council would do well to listen to what the residents have told them in the Citizen Satisfaction Survey on water. Of those on wells who responded, only 13% [24] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quality and only 12% [22] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quantity of their water.
added 14 10 24 - Not meaning to ignore the feelings of those ~880 homes currently on the community water system, consider carefully the following results (also from the Citizen Satisfaction Survey): when asked if they supported an expansion of their water system, 28% [75] said 'YES', 39% [106] said 'NO' and 33% [88] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered feedback/comments. Also, of those on wells who were asked the same question (presumably to be able to supply water to their properties), 27% [39] said 'YES', 32% [47] said 'NO' and 35% [51] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered additional clarifying comments. While the District could have done an extensive 'water survey' to fully define the 'problem', they have chosen not to. Given the above data, at the present time there is no overwhelming evidence to support bringing bulk water to Lantzville!!!
   Under the Haime administration, all taxpayers of Lantzville have already contributed $200,000 to the City of Nanaimo just for the 'opportunity' to discuss emergency water with them plus ~$80,000 over 9 years to the City's Port Theatre just to be able to continue to talk water, with another request expected any day. Then there is the $78,000 those on the water system have also paid for an emergency water connection, which has yet to be used 7 years later. So, we have already paid dearly to the City without a drop of water actually having been delivered.
   Let's not forget that it was Lantzville council who brought in the requirement that the minimum size of property created without BOTH municipal sewer and water services would be 1 ha (2.47 acres), a requirement which 'motivates' vacant landowners to look favourably on the need for municipal sewer and water services.
   Given all of this, I think that a frank and open discussion surrounding the whole issue of water in Lantzville is long overdue and I would support that. This would also include the impacts of having more water than the current residents require, including facilitating large developments. We need to openly discuss how much development we are willing to accept and whether development is really "going to pay for itself", without fear of being labelled 'backwards' if we opt for low growth. Unfortunately, when there is power and money involved, that type of thing seldom happens!

Water deal with Lantzville waits on Nanaimo city council vote



Nanaimo councillors approve water deal with Nanaimo


Lantzville getting bargain on Nanaimo's water (Letter to Editor) 

Water deal should be put to vote in Lantzville (Letter to Editor)

Interesting that this letter was written at a time when the draft agreement between Lantzville and Nanaimo already contained a requirement that the agreement subject to a positive vote by Lantzville residents before it could be enacted (a clause that was later be asked to have removed by Lantzville council and agreed to by Nanaimo council).

Drinking water found by Foothills developer

Deal is still on after developer locates water

Lantzville considers options on water

We already know how the large landowners, the media and council came together to 'convince' us that we needed sewers ("literally a cesspool") and now its happening again on water. There are far less expensive ways of dealing with geographically limited boron/salt water contamination than piping water from 30 km away.
If the majority of Lantzville residents do not want major development, why should their wishes not be respected - each of us has the same voting power as a single large landowner?! We should be allowed to live in peace in our 'backwater' without being made to feel stupid. We will be fine without this added infrastructure but the developers will not. Also, one of the biggest myths concerning development is that it pays for itself - which is very seldom true. The off-site costs and the disruption caused by the construction are significant and the taxes typically fall short. In the 9 months between now and the local elections, let your voice be heard, loud and often.


Motion on water referendum fails

Councillor offers up water option 

Enlist technology in making water available (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville council has yet to ratify agreement that will see water sharing with Nanaimo 

Lantzville residents seek the truth on water deal (Letter to Editor) 

Lantzville councillor calls for referendum

Town's water wars continue

Lantzville water vote called premature

Lantzville residents can't be complacent (Letter to Editor)

 City Log: Water-sharing agreement comes before council

Council approves changes to water agreement

As you can see, the Nanaimo Daily News left out the most important change requested by Lantzville council, and now approved by the City of Nanaimo, that being the removal of the requirement for there to be a vote by residents of Lantzville on the water deal. Interestingly enough, the Nanaimo Bulletin didn't mention it in their piece either. Strange that neither paper could see the importance of such a significant change!

Lantzville council votes to sign water deal with Nanaimo

We were promised public consultation via meetings and information mail-outs and we didn't even get the chance to speak to this major, major issue for our community at that fateful council meeting. Shame, shame, shame!! I guess we should have known the 'fix was in' when Lantzville council took the decision out of the hands of those who would be paying for it and put it in their own - several of whom will now stand to benefit from their decision. Many questions will remain unanswered - how much will Lantzville water users be paying for water usage (more or less than currently?). Are we now going to be required to waste as much water as Nanaimo does since we are required to adopt their water conservation regime? We have had an emergency water connection for years (which cost us $280,000) and have never had to draw a single drop). The vast majority of Lantzvillagers [on wells - added 14 10 13] were satisfied or more than satisfied with their quantity and quality of community-water so this has to be all about development. Mark my words, this is the end of Lantzville, folks! How long do you think that the province is going to allow us to play at governing ourselves when our sewage is treated in Nanaimo and now our water comes from Nanaimo? 

Public meeting set to discuss Lantzville water deal

Isn't that just wonderful - except for the fact that we were promised meetings BEFORE council would even consider accepting the water agreement. I suppose that we had to know council was going to approve the agreement no matter what the majority of Lantzville residents thought when they lobbied the city of Nanaimo to remove the requirement of approval by the residents of Lantzville. In my more than 20 years of watching local politicians do everything they could to keep the voters out of the process, but never could I have imagined that Lantzville council would be the one to stoop to a new low - leaving the water agreement off the Agenda and then adding it just prior to dealing with it.
Also, it certainly didn't take long for the developers to swoop in. Almost before the ink was dry on the water agreement, the District was signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the new owners of the Lantzville Foothills regarding development on their lands.
Really - what is there for us to discuss?!

Lantzville signs water agreement

Rather than his service with the tiny Lantzville Improvement District almost 30 years ago, I strongly suspect that Bob Colclough's ownership of a 5-acre piece of property adjacent to the Lantzville Foothills Estate's (Lone Pine) properties and his ownership of a company that does "land, community and economic development" consulting did more to inform his position of not seeing any reason not to sign the water agreement. The people of Lantzville, who have consistently said that they are satisfied with their water quantity and quality, might beg to differ. Sadly for democracy, now they won't even have that opportunity they were promised by council!

Lantzville's dry spell is over

Water agreement seems a bit leaky (Letter to Editor)

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

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!

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

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

Why I Hate Politicians!!!

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.

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

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.

The 'Politics' of Infrastructure Grants

'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/

I Think Perhaps He Doth Protest Too Much!!

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