Signs of success!

The lawn signs going up this weekend are a real family affair: the photo was taken by my niece, Michelle; yesterday's lawn-sign-placement crew comprised my brother-in-law Bill and my wife Mary; today's crew features my son David and wife Mary once more. One other crew, doing the public-placement spots, was headed by staunch ally and friend, Ed R. Thanks to everyone for their help! And thanks to my many supporters who have agreed to give me a piece of their lawn for the next three weeks.

Opening salvo in Maillardville

Here is my opening address to the Maillardville all-candidates meeting last night:

Thank-you. I’m Terry O’Neill, and I'm seeking re-election to City Council.

The view from my spot. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

You know, my background in journalism and community volunteering taught me the importance of standing up for what you believe in, and for working hard to help others.

And that's why I'm proud of the role I played in slowing down tax increases during my time in office. When I was first elected, those increases had averaged more than 5% annually over the previous three years.

But in the three years SINCE I was elected, they have been HALF that. And I certainly intend to continue working to lower the rate EVEN MORE if re-elected.

I also hope you give me the chance to build on the many successes I helped initiate or supported in the area of democratic reform to make city hall for accessible. THE E-TOWN-HALL-MEETING is a real step forward, as is the interactive BUDGET consultation process.

In addition, council supported my call for reform of Metro Vancouver’s unwieldy structure. And when the Province asked for input into campaign-finance reform, I submitted a major brief.

You’ve told me that Maillardville’s safety is a real concern, too. That’s a big reason I led an initiative to ask Ottawa to toughen the penalties against chronic, repeat offenders. Revolving-door-justice will NOT solve our problems.

And I’ve been a strong advocate for a measured and taxpayer-friendly approach to any new affordable-housing policy, not pie-in-the-sky promises. Coquitlam’s hardworking property-taxpayers should NOT be expected to shoulder the burden of subsidizing housing.

And one final point: As an independent candidate, I am not beholden to any slate, team or party. Instead, my priority is you, the taxpayer, the voter, the citizen. THAT'S MY PROMISE, AND YOU CAN COUNT ON IT!

Yes, No, Maybe and Say What?!?

Graphic from commons.wikimedia.org/

I’ve just filled out a candidate questionnaire sent to me by the Tri-City News. The survey, whose results will be published as part of a voter guide a week before the elections, asks a variety of questions, and seeks yes/no, either/or answers. Some of the issues raised, however, are about complex affairs and deserve more detailed examination or explanation. Here are the questions I’m referring to, followed by my analysis, and then my official survey answer:

Question 7. Do you use public transportation?

I use public transportation from time to time (Westcoast Express, Skytrain and buses), but not on a regular basis. Strictly speaking then, my answer is "Yes," even though I suspect the question was about regular use.

Question 8: Are you more willing to see services reduced and taxes held or cut or see services improved and taxes increase?

My sentiments are with the former but my actions on council have been with the latter because I’ve voted in favour of budgets that have seen ever-smaller tax increases while increasing services. As long as we continue to whittle down the size of each year’s tax increase—as we’ve done successfully each of the three years I’ve been on council—I will continue to vote in favour of such budgets. My answer, then, is "services improved and taxes increase" (with a large "on condition that...")

Question 11. What provincial political party's ideology most closely reflects your belief system?

Yikes, what a question! My “belief system” is something that encompasses my religious, philosophical and ideological beliefs, many of which aren’t actually part of any political party’s platforms and shouldn’t be. What I can say is that I have voted for the BC Liberal Party in the last few elections as the most pragmatic choice. So, I selected “Liberal.”

Question 14. Should the city spend more taxpayer money to improve cycling infrastructure?

I have supported budgets that call for moderate expenditures every year to support cycling, but I am not sure about what the question is actually asking. If the options are to cut off such funding entirely or to spend some more money next year, of about the same amount as this year, I would say "yes". If the option is to spend more money next year than the city is spending this year, then I would say "no".  I ended up selecting "Yes."

Question 15. Does the city have a responsibility to ensure the availability of affordable housing to low- and moderate-income households?

Another whopper of a question. Under provincial law, all cities have a duty to adopt an affordable-housing policy or strategy. The City has one in place, and we’re working on a new one. So, if this question is merely asking if I know that provincial law mandates the City to have a policy, then my answer is "yes." Furthermore, I also agree that it’s a good idea for the City to have in place policies that further the availability of affordable housing. We have many ways of doing this—from freeing up land for development to making it easier to have a secondary suite in your basement.

   But, given that the question uses the word “ensure,” which means “to make certain” that something takes place, this question is probably asking if I believe the City has a responsibility, above and beyond provincial law, to make certain that all low- and moderate-income households can afford to buy or rent a home in Coquitlam. If that's the case, and given that Statistics Canada defines a low-income household as having an annual income of below $15,000, then any city adopting a policy guaranteeing that those folks can find a place to live in the city would be courting financial ruin for a variety of reasons which are too numerous to spell out here.

   I do not believe the provincial law demands that we do this. And I do not believe a responsible municipal government should be compelled to do this. Provincial and federal governments have the resources and the flexible taxation systems to tackle this issue, but municipal governments certainly do not. Ultimately, then, I am forced to answer No to this question.

Street-vending deferral hurts small business

Food truck in Coquitlam. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

You might recall reading last week that Council had narrowly voted in favour of some new street-food-vending regulations. Well, since then, Councillor Neal Nicholson changed his mind, with the result that the new regulations—including all calls for expressions of interest—have been put on hold.

And that’s a shame, because the councillors (Nicholson and those who were initially opposed) appear to be worried only about street vendors’ impact on restaurants along Glen and High streets. (And that fine; they're entitled to their opinions, of course.)

However, the result of their reconsideration and deferral is that even the non-controversial cart applications (for locations such as those near Douglas College) are now in limbo until staff can produce a full report on the issue, involving a round of consultation with the Chamber of Commerce. And that’s likely to take two months, says Deputy City Manager John Dumont.

This means that it is highly unlikely that street-vending operators, who wanted to open early in the New Year, will be able to do so. Such a shame! I know of at least one local man who was really looking forward to launching a new career with such an operation. And now that dream will have to be put on hold.

Here’s some background. Of special note is the fact that all of the votes to set up the program in 2012 and 2013 were non-controversial and received the full support of council and that no objections came from restaurants before we passed the bylaw or during the first year of operation. So, here’s the history:

The idea of a street vending program arose in late 2011/early 2012 when Council expressed an interest in having a more formalized program to allow mobile vending on City streets and in City parks and requested that staff report back. 

In May 2012, Council directed staff to publish newspaper ads giving notice of its intentions to adopt the proposed bylaw and an opportunity to provide feedback.  Notification letters were sent to the Chamber of Commerce on June 4, 2012 and to the local Business Improvement Associations. 

As the program implementation required a Zoning Bylaw amendment, there was also a public hearing held in June 2012. 

Staff received no objections from the public or businesses. At that time, the bylaw received fourth and final readings by a unanimous vote of Council.

Staff from various City departments including Engineering, Planning, Parks and Economic Development then underwent a detailed process of identifying and resolving the technical and other issues necessary to select potential sites on City lands.

In Feb. 2013, Council voted in favour of proceeding with a tender of up to 10 mobile vending licences at the identified sites: The High, Glen Drive, Pinetree Way, the parking lot at Adair and Brunette, and the parking lot on Ridgeway behind the Safeway. 

The first Request for Information and Expression of Interest was issued in early 2013 for the Council-approved locations.

In response to the first Request for Expressions of Interest, the City received six proposals and four licences were issued. Staff in Legal/Bylaws did not receive complaints from existing businesses about the program.

It’s also worth noting that, while some of the current naysayers expressed concerns about street vendors unduly competing with adjacent or nearby businesses, this issue is already one of the evaluation and selection criteria listed in the city’s Request for Expressions of Interest.  If there were to be more applicants than licences available for a specific location, staff on the evaluation committee would be able to consider the proponent’s compatibility with existing businesses as one factor in awarding the licences.

Towards an affordable housing-affordability strategy

A proposed Bosa project that would replace old rental units.

Last night, Council gave unanimous approval to a draft Housing Affordability Strategy, an action that sends the HAS into the public realm for comment and consultation. I seconded the motion because it is important to hear what the community -- taxpayers, homeowners, renters, activist groups, industry, etc. -- has to say about the issue. 

My vote doesn't mean that I support all possible initiatives spelled out in the HAS. On the contrary. I'll explain why.

The Provincial government says each municipality must have an affordable housing strategy, but doesn’t specify what is in that strategy. Local governments are given a variety of tools to address housing affordability challenges through the Local Government Act and Community Charter.  The City of Coquitlam does not have the mandate or capacity to build and operate affordable housing. 

However, the City does have a role in promoting the creation of affordable housing in the community

Approaches can and do vary. There are essentially two models: One exemplifies activism, expense and something I call “up-grabbing”,  the opposite of downloading, in that it willingly takes upon itself responsibilities that are more properly the federal or provincial governments’.

Activism is exemplified by Victoria, for example, which boasts a Civic Housing Fund, a Regional Housing Trust Fund, a Social Housing Permissive Property Tax Exemption, a Secondary Suites Incentive Program, has issued two development permits for the creation of private sector low income rental suites and signed 11 housing agreements that either limit restriction on rentals (in the case of strata projects) or create rental units and rent restrictions for a prescribed period of time. And it has even bought old motels and converted them to housing. But none of this is cheap. An average of $1.34 million a year for three years ending 2010. That’s about $4.1 million.  

Another model is exemplified by the City of Langley. It issued a paper in 2009 discussing a wide range of possible actions, but in the end chose a responsible, and taxpayer-friendly model  to: 1.      Support Density; 2.  Encourage the creation of secondary suites; 3.  Maintain tough regulations on the conversion of rental stock to condominiums.

Keep in mind: property tax is the least-fair, least-equitable way to tax people. It is not based on one’s ability to pay, but on the assessed value of the home you are living in. Yet, an interventionist, up-grabbing approach to housing affordability has the ultimate effect of putting more of a burden on the shoulders of property-tax payers, instead of on the shoulders of the consumption or income taxpayers—the sort of tax collected by the provincial and federal governments.

There are a great deal of good, common-sense, non-burdensome options lists in our proposed new HAS. See page four of the document for the broad outline and 16 to 26 for details.  For example, the proposed Rental Housing Strategy is, as I interpret it, basically a continuation of existing policies which – while placing quite a burden on developers, also seeks to find a balance with a general public concern to protect displaced renters.  What it doesn’t do is compel a re-developer to replace, one-for-one, every purpose-built rental unit that is lost to redevelopment, which is something that at least one Coquitlam councillor/mayoral candidate is calling for. (And, anyway, every economist and expert that I have talked with, says that buildings in which condos are sold end up having upwards of 40% of their units put on the rental market.)

And so, what are the possible burdens to the taxpayer of Coquitlam? Most come down to the Affordable Housing Fund.  Page 19., 3.1.4. 1.  Many on council want to expand the affordable housing fund, skimming off a portion of density bonus, with no cap. I oppose this; it should be capped.

The draft strategy asks the public to  “consider other options”  to add to the fund. What might those be:  Massive infusion into AHF through other sources such as proceeds of sales of city land, is the leading one.

Thankfully, no one is suggesting hiking property taxes!  I oppose this, and I urge voters to ask each and every candidate where they stand, and further, to ask them, why they think it’s fair to the already overburdened residential property taxpayer to deny them the benefits of such potentially redirected monies, when there are so many other options that the city can and should take. Such proceeds can and should be used for general well-being, such as land-sales reserves or maybe even directly for capital costs of new cultural or sport facilities.

We must also watch closely to ensure that working families, who are just barely able to put together enough money to afford a downpayment on a new condo in Burquitlam, for example, aren’t pushed out of the market entirely because the cost of their unit is hiked as a result of a neighbouring project escaping some civic charges because it is promising to provide cheap housing to low-income families. That’s simply not fair.

On the other hand, 1.2.4 on page 21 – “considering exempting rental floor space form maximum density allowances…” seems a less-burdensome, more-equitable alternative.

There are a great many other options and ideas in this report, and I urge the public to get involved in what I hope will be a full and fruitful discussion about this important such.

We need a grounded, responsible Housing Affordability Strategy, one that is rooted, not in a sky’s-the-limit attitude towards redistribution of public money, but in respect for all citizens – be it the young couple looking to put down roots, the working-class family endeavouring to make ends meet, or the newly-retired homeowner on a fixed income.

.

Looking for consistency

Photo illustrating the Tri-City News's story.

Something to consider:

1. I've heard several folks around Coquitlam in recent days voice concerns about the new Canada-China investment pact. Here's a link to a story about the deal.

but

2. I've not heard a peep about what I believe to be the Chinese government's continuing role in paying for language-education classes in Coquitlam. Here is a link to a new Tri-City News story about how successful the programs are. Here's a link to an older Vancouver Sun item about the Chinese government's involvement in those programs.

I'm not judging the merits either the investment pact or the language-education programs. I'm just wondering why there's so much concern about the former and not the latter.

UPDATE: Only a few hours after I wrote the above, I came across a letter to the editor in the Tri-City News which was highly critical of SD43's relationship with China. Here's a link to the letter.

Crime and the Evergreen Line: No new Transit Police

Evergreen Line construction. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

Today's Vancouver Sun and Tri-City News each have stories about an interesting report, prepared for the Transit police, about the possible impact of new Evergreen Line SkyTrain stations on crime rates around the station. In short, the study predicts no increase in crime rates.
That's fine as far as it goes, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the report. However, neither the stories nor the report itself tell the whole story.
First point: Even though the Evergreen Line will add six new stations to Metro's rapid-transit system, and even though an additional 70,000 riders will use the system once the line opens in the summer of 2016, the Transit Police force will not add a single new officer to its force in response to the opening of the new line.
Chief Officer Neil Dubord confirmed this fact with me in a telephone conversation I had with him earlier today. Instead, the force will realign its services to establish what Dubord calls "hubs of safety," at "high-visibility points" at which Transit Police, Transit security personnel, and SkyTrain attendants can cluster, and from which they can quickly respond to reports of problems.
For the Evergreen Line, the "hub of safety" will be at the Lougheed Station. "It's almost like a hub and spoke [system]," Dubord told me.
Fair enough, and I'm sure these hubs will be staffed with high-quality professionals. But I hope this doesn't mean that Coquitlam RCMP will be forced to respond to incidents that have heretofore been handled on existing lines by Transit Police. If Coquitlam Mounties are, indeed, called into action in such circumstances, it will undoubtedly increase the City of Coquitlam's costs and will thereby represent a downloading of costs onto municipal taxpayers.
Second point: Note that the report talks about crime rates, with an emphasis on rates. Given that populations are already increasing rapidly around planned Evergreen Line stations, and that the populations will continue to increase once those stations are open for business, we will undoubtedly see an increase in the real number of actual crimes committed in and around those stations if the rate stays the same--which it is predicted to do.
Moreover, experience with other rapid-transit systems suggest there will be a high number of quasi-criminal or near-criminal disturbances in and around Evergreen Line stations.
Bottom line: the number of real crimes will increase because of population growth around Evergreen Line stations, 70,000 new riders a day will use the Evergreen Line, but authorities are adding no new Transit Police officers to the system.

Chamber Business Excellence Awards

Congratulations to the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce's nominees for the 2014 Business Excellence Awards. They are:

Small Business of the Year
A3 Creative Solutions; Anytime Fitness; Aurifex Jewellers; Beyond the Grape; Caydance Studios; Chic & Unique Event Design; Coquitlam Florist; D. Kwasnicky &amp Associates Inc.; Eden West Fine Food & Gifts Ltd.; Engineered Bodies; Hair We Are Beauty Boutique; Maureen Seguin Realtor; Mobil1 Lube Express Port Moody; Montridge Financial; Sharon Perry Chartered Accountant; The Cotton Candy Kids; Trophy Centre

Business of the Year (10-50 Employees)
Alliance Printing; Caffe Divano; Coast Therapeutic & Sports Massage; Community Fire Prevention Ltd.; Denis E. Boyd & Associates Inc.; International Submarine Engineering; 

Business of the Year (50+ Employees)
Dynamic Structures;Earls Restaurant Port Coquitlam; Home Instead Senior Care; Natural Factors; Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd.; Sysco ; Westwood Honda

Community Spirit Award
Envision Financial; Hair We Are Beauty Boutique; John Wolff, Investors Group; Kelly Strongitharm, Ruben's Shoes; Scott Masse, Mardon Insurance Brokers; Sharon Perry, Sharon Perry Chartered Accountant Inc.; Smithrite Disposal; Vancity Savings Credit Union

Not-for-Profit of the Year 

ACCESS Youth Outreach Services; Blue Mountain Quilters Guild; Place Des Arts; Societe francophone de Maillardville; Soroptimist of the Tri-Cities; Tri-City Transitions Society

Business Leader of the Year
Anita Wilson, Coast Therapeutic & Sports Massage; Curt Allison, Express Employment Professionals Coquitlam; Ken Catton, Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd.; Lisa Smith, Mint Hair Lounge; Thomas L. Spraggs, Thomas L. Spraggs & Co. Law Corporation  

Save the date! Or order tickets now!

Truck-route traction

Please bear with me, because this is going to take a few minutes.
You might have heard or read about the big controversy surrounding Council's late-July decision to approve, on a two-month trial basis, a full truck route along the north end of Mariner (essentially, the big, twisting hill from Como Lake to Dewdney Trunk Road) and along the full length of Como Lake Avenue. 
Council did this by a 6-3 vote (with Mayor Stewart, Councillor Brent Asmundson and me opposed) even though there had been no public consultation and the GM of Engineering said he couldn't recommend it.
Council took the action following several long and lengthy meetings with Coquitlam Concrete owner Jim Allard, who aggressively pushed for wide-open truck routes through Coquitlam to help his trucks avoid traffic congestion caused by Evergreen Line construction and also to take a more direct route to the Centennial Secondary construction site from his Coquitlam River-area operation on Pipeline Road.
The issue was on a slow boil through the summer until candidate Teri Towner distributed a pamphlet earlier this month alerting the residents to the decision. Then all hell broke loose. The folks in the affected area were of one voice: No Way!

Coquitlam Concrete owner Jim Allard. 

Surprisingly (to me, at least), three councillors who voted for the trial, Lou Sekora, Bonita Zarrillo and Chris Wilson, accused Towner and Mayor Stewart (whom Towner had invited out for a few minutes of door-knocking to see the reaction for himself) of sensationalizing and misrepresenting the issue, but at the same time they could point to no factual error she had made.
Zarrillo and Wilson also alleged that the publicity had tainted the trial-period process--a startling assertion which led me to conclude that they believed the trial period would have been a more authentic one if only people were not aware that the trial was occurring in the first place. It also led me to quip  that they were essentially saying that the trial had been "tainted by the truth." Bizarre!
Anyway, after Councillor Zarrillo said during our Committee meeting on Monday that the trial should be abandoned because of the alleged tainting, I quickly moved just such a motion. I originally had trouble getting a seconder to the motion (Councillor Asmundson was absent on personal business and the mayor can't move or second motions), but ultimately I  found one, and the motion passed unanimously.
To provide some for-the-record context (and, yes, a little bit of "I told you so"), what follows below are 1) a rough transcript of relevant portions (mainly, my comments) of the late-July meeting which produced the original decision; 2) a rough transcript of my comments on Monday. (My thanks go out to the self-described nerd who provided these transcripts to me!)

July 28 meeting of Council

Councillor Wilson: [Moved] That Council direct the Engineer to issue a general temporary truck route exemptions for a trial period ending Sept 30, renewable on a monthly basis at no cost, as follows: Mariner Way between Barnet and Como Lake; And Como Lake Ave. between Mariner Way and Clarke Rd.

[Seconded by Councillor Sekora]

Wilson: So the first trial period would be two months from now to Sept 30, and renewable after that, but it could be revoked at any time if there are problems or issues.

Councillor Sekora: I seconded the motion, but I’d hoped that we went beyond Sept 30, but I’d hoped that it would be at least three months, maybe even a six-month trial. We’re too restrictive with two months... [Comments from other councillors and GM Engineering follow.]

Councillor O’Neill: I’m going to oppose this, not vote in favour of it.  I just still feel that I’m not in any position to judge all the technical things that come into consideration in making these decisions.  I’m not persuaded that it’s an undue hardship for trucks to go a longer route and follow the existing truck routes.

But primarily I’m just not comfortable wading into something where I don’t know have all the information.  I certainly don’t know what the people along Mariner and Como Lake are going to think of this, and I don’t want to wait to respond to the avalanche of criticism about a parade of trucks grinding up Mariner there, and all of a sudden we have to react and there’s the headline, you know, Council does quick retreat from late-night motion to allow truck route. [NB: my predictive powers proved to be perfect!]

We’ve heard that the existing truck routes were based on well-considered criteria dealing with all sort of technical things. I’ve got to believe that. I haven’t seen those reports, but I have to believe there’s been significant time put into that.

If the GM Engineering decides in his wisdom with access to all that information that an exemption is warranted, then that’s fine.  But he has that technical expertise and background, and I’d prefer to be in a position to let him use that.  That’s what the bylaw has done, given him more discretion.

And in a way we’re saying if this motion passes is that, well, we don’t actually trust our GM of Engineering to make the right decision, so we’re going to make that decision for him.  And I don’t want to be in that position either.

[More discussion follows. Council votes 6-3 in favour of the truck route, with Mayor Stewart and Councillors Asmundson and O'Neill opposed.]

September 15 meeting of Council in Committee

Councillor O'Neill: It’s really regrettable that this has become so emotional.

You know, in the first part of my journalistic career, I was quite content to sit back and record notes.

Basically “He said this, she said that”, put it in the newspaper and let the readers make up their minds based on what people said.

Everybody got cynical about the news then, because the news started to be about who said the most outrageous thing, whoever acted the most outlandishly, whoever made the most outlandish charge. So a reporter that doesn’t try to get through this, to find out what’s really going on, is really not doing the job... 

But to get to the nub of the issues, you really have to start saying, Well, does that make sense, is that right, is that wrong? Is that factual, is that not factual?

The number one thing that all of this debate hinges on is the allegation that there was a deliberate or some sort of attempt to stir this thing up and make political gains on it, but I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that and as a matter of fact, one of the people who was so offended and shocked by what’s going on said that, The pamphlet in question circulated was completely accurate but was misleading, (that’s a paraphrase), without specifying which ways it was misleading.

 It has been often said around this table that the process, this trial period has been tainted.

Well, if that pamphlet is entirely accurate ... then we’re in a position where the process has been tainted by the truth! Now how can that be?  How can something be tainted by the truth.

 If this is truthful and accurate about what Council did on the last meeting in July, on a 6-3 vote--allowed this truck exemption to happen on a temporary basis--and if that’s truthful, then how could the truth taint? This is what I just really don’t understand

And I’m disappointed that people think that a process, a trial period in which nobody knows anything about what’s going on or that the public doesn’t know about a trial, would somehow be [the better one].

I would think that if anything were to taint a process, it would be the “cone of silence” that was over the procedure, that was over the trial.  That would have tainted it.  Shouldn’t people have the right to know what’s going on?  Citing from my journalism background again, I’d say Yes.

 And in the matter of setting the record straight here.  From the time I’ve been on Council I’ve been very uncomfortable about moving forward with stuff when I don’t have all the information, don’t have staff reports.

One of the very first things that I got really upset about was something that happened when we were trying to rush through something without, I thought, due consideration.  And that was my point for not going along with this trial period, because I certainly I understood the logic behind the trial period, I understood what people were saying, and I understood Mr. Allard’s point of view as well. [Business owner Jim Allard was pushing for widespread exemptions.]  But I didn’t want to make a decision when we weren’t getting . . . when the engineer involved was not saying yes, this is something that’s valid, it won’t cause traffic disruptions in a new sector, it won’t damage the roads, it won’t be a safety problem and all that sort of stuff.  It wasn’t just [the safety issue I was concerned about, as has been said in committee earlier].

That’s something that the Mayor and Councillor Asmundson may have talked about, I haven’t looked up the record, I’m not going to speak for them.  But I certainly know what my feeling was; my feeling was just, I’m just not comfortable going there.  I know, we’ve got a lot of big hills in this community, and we’ve had truck routes that were set out in the past, I wasn’t persuaded that it was crucial enough for Council to preemptively, without the proper background, to make a decision to, even for a trial period, to override those existing routes, in an area as contentious as Mariner.

So mine was just a matter of process.  It wasn’t a matter trying to say that this would be leading to death and destruction or anything like that.

 And I resent – this is a personal comment – I resent the suggestion that it’s somehow my responsibility to talk my Council colleagues out of a decision that they made simply because they have been receiving a lot of negative blowback on it.

I’m sitting here saying I’m on the side of the angels on this one.  Thank goodness I voted the way I voted.  It was no certain thing.  I’m seeing all these emails and letters coming in and I’m saying These guys have to make their bed and they’ve got to lie in it.

I’m thinking if they see the need to change  this, please go ahead and change it.  I didn’t think any of you would change your mind, but it sounded like you wanted to end it, I din’t think you wanted to change it because you didn’t make a motion.  But I go the impression that you were were ready to change, so I said Ok, good, and I made a motion, and no seconder. And I don’t really get that.

And the fact that there’s so much angst about this.  We didn’t start this fire, folks.  I didn’t start it.  The Mayor didn’t start it, Councillor Asmundson didn’t start this fire.  If the fire was started, the fuel was put there by Council’s decision.  Maybe somebody lit a match to that fuel, but we didn’t put that fuel there, we didn’t start this fire folks... 

 There was a quote from Macbeth: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Well what does that mean?  Well it’s something about human nature.

You find it with somebody who’s maybe trying to explain away a decision. And they’re protesting. No this, no this, no that, no that.

All they have to do is admit that, "You know, maybe I shouldn’t have made that decision. I guess I shouldn’t have made that decision in the first place or taken that action in the first place," instead of accusing this and having that innuendo that and insulting language there.

If you still think you made the good decision, stick to it!  That’s fine.

I wasn’t happy with the decision to begin with, it was more a process thing for me, and I’m still in that position right now.

I told you I had a conversation with Mr. Allard, after this happened, to let him now that I voted against what I thought he really really wanted, because I didn’t want him to find out second-hand. I told him I voted against it. He said “I don’t blame you.  I would have waited until after the big forum at the end of the month with truckers.”  I said “Oh, good.”  I don’t like being shouted at by Mr. Allard any more than anybody else does.  But you know, we all have to live with our decisions, and I thought I’d face up to mine with Mr. Allard, I’ve known him ... seen him in the community a lot. 

And he’s all of a sudden saying “I don’t blame you Terry.”... 

Did you make the right decision or not?  If you made the right decision, stick to it by all means.

In the face of this massive public outcry, stick to it if you think the right decision, and if you think you’ve made the wrong decisions, second my motion and let’s end this right now.  That’s the way I see it.

Councillor Sekora (interrupting the last two sentences): What massive outcry?  What are you talking about?  Massive outcry. You’re drinking your own bathwater!  Massive outcry. Massive outcry, big deal.

[Soon after, my motion was seconded, and council eventually voted unanimously to end the truck-route trial immediately.]

Making it official: I'm running for re-election

Well, it's official. With the encouragement of countless supporters, friends and family, I've just declared that I'm running for re-election to Coquitlam City Council. I've dropped off my newly designed re-election brochure at the printers and I've distributed a news release to the local news media (text below). I've also re-engaged my completely new and redesigned primary website, www.terryoneill.ca. For the past three years, visitors to that address have been redirected to this blog. For the next couple of months, at least, terryoneill.ca will take you to the campaign website, while this blog can be reached at its direct address, electterryoneill.blogspot.ca. Wish me luck!

COQUITLAM – Coquitlam Councillor Terry O’Neill has announced he will run for re-election in the Nov. 15 general election. O’Neill, an award-winning writer and editor for 35 years before entering public life, was first elected to Coquitlam Council in the 2011 general election.

 “We’ve accomplished much over the past three years, but it is crucial that the gains we have made, in areas such as budget restraint, be protected,” says O’Neill, 63, who is not affiliated with a slate. “The taxpayers of Coquitlam cannot afford to go back to the days of recklessly high annual tax increases.”

Property taxes increased an average of 5.1% over the three years before O’Neill took his seat on council. Since then, the rate of increase has declined each year, averaging 2.8% annually, and was just 2.4% this year. All this, while the city improved roads, added parks and trails, and built a new fire hall.

“I’ve also worked hard to ensure that the city moves quickly to meet the demand for new housing,” O’Neill says. “It means more families can put down roots in our beautiful community. As well, increasing housing supply is the most efficient way to make housing more affordable.”

O’Neill also points to accomplishments in the area of democratic reform. His motion led to Coquitlam’s first e-Town Hall meeting. And, when the provincial government asked for input on campaign-spending reform, he argued successfully for regulations ensuring a level playing field for all candidates.

“Terry’s hard work as a City Councillor demonstrates his deep commitment to his constituents,” says Senator Yonah Martin of Coquitlam, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. “I am certain that Terry’s re-election will continue to provide a strong, independent voice on Council that will greatly benefit the citizens of Coquitlam.”

Council has some important decisions to make in the coming four years. “With change coming so rapidly to Coquitlam in so many areas, it is imperative that proper public consultation occurs before Council takes action,” O’Neill says. “I will work diligently to do what’s best for Coquitlam. That’s my promise, and you can count on it.”

Closing a Riverview loophole. Phew!

Riverview landmark. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

You might recall that Council and the City of Coquitlam spent a fair bit of time and effort earlier this year to commission and then distribute a major new report on the City's vision for the future of the Riverview lands.
However, when BC Housing's lastest public-consultation summary report was made public last week, I noticed that it made absolutely no mention of Coquitlam's detailed and well-received report -- this, even though Coquitlam's report was distributed during the most-recent period in which BC Housing had collected public input, and even though BC Housing's report summarizes the input it received, not only at open houses and from official advisory groups, but also from additional persons and organizations.
And, so, I set about to find out what exactly was going on and to fix the problem.
First, some background: Written by mental-health expert Dr. John Higenbottam, the City's report recommends the establishment of a health-and-wellness campus on the grounds.
Immediately after the report was made public in mid-June, city staff circulated it to all interested parties, including various departments of the provincial government.
And so, after noticing that the report wasn't mentioned in BC Housing's latest summary of the input it has received, I messaged the organization coordinating BC Housing's visioning exercise, Brook Pooni Associates Inc. The company answered that BC Housing's Consultation Summary Report "includes all the communications material that has been officially [emphasis added] submitted to BC Housing to date."
Yes, the City's vision had been received by BC Housing and was being reviewed and considered by the provincial body, the company added. However, "It [Coquitlam's report] was not ... submitted to be included in the report."
My immediate reaction upon reading this can be summed up in one word: Yikes! My more-detailed thought was: Well, we'd better take steps to close this little loophole, in order to ensure that the City's report becomes part of the official record. 
The message from Brook Pooni ends with these sentences: "The next set of Open Houses will take place at the end of September. We would be happy to include the City's Vision report as part of our next Consultation Summary Report following the upcoming events."
Yes, I think that would be exactly what the City would want to happen, and I have now taken steps at City Hall to ensure that this does, indeed, take place.
I would hate to think that provincial decision-makers, who may very well be buried in paperwork, might downgrade (or, worse yet, not even be aware of) Coquitlam's report because it hadn't gone through official channels.
In the end, it's looking like "no harm, no foul." And thank goodness for that.
AUGUST 29 UPDATE: The folks at Brook Pooni have sent me an email saying that, in the interim (that is, until the City report can be officially submitted), they will place on the Renewing Riverview website either the full Coquitlam report or a link to that report. Most appreciated!

Never Evergreen for Skytrain line?

Evergreen Line construction tour. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

What's in a name? Well, when it comes to the name of the Evergreen Line, there's a lot. A lot of importance, that is. It's a name that Coquitlam has embraced, that has inspired our residents and that even a few property developers have borrowed to describe their condominiums.
However, I learned several months ago that Translink might abandon the Evergreen name in favour of something else, but I didn't discuss it in public because the decision was not final and I didn't want to do or say something that might hurt the chances for the Evergreen name to remain.
However, now that the Tri-Cities Now has broken the story about the possible change, the coast is clear to delve into the issue.
The problem began when the Evergreen Line changed from being a spur off the Millennium Line to a continuous service with the Millennium. Under the old model, eastbound travellers from Vancouver to Coquitlam would have had to disembark at Lougheed Station and board a distinct and separate line from Lougheed into Port Moody and Coquitlam. Having a separate name--Evergreen--made ultimate good sense under that model.
But at least three years ago, the model changed to one that would see the Millennium and Evergreen lines merged into one continuous whole. Folks travelling, for example, from Broadway-Commercial to Coquitlam's Lincoln Station would enjoy one continuous, uninterrupted ride. And that's good, of course! (But not so good for commuters used to travelling with no transfers from, for example, Broadway-Commercial to Braid in New Westminster; they'll have to disembark at Lougheed and get on a new eastbound train to get to Braid.).
When, about two years ago, I confirmed the new configuration, I said in public that it would provide a great service to Coquitlam residents but that it would also create a naming problem for Translink. This is because it would be very confusing for commuters riding eastbound on the Millennium Line to, once they had passed Lougheed station, suddenly find themselves on the Evergreen Line. The new, merged and continuous line would have to have one new, merged and continuous name, I told Translink. (This discussion took place in an open council meeting called to provide council input into the name of the Coquitlam stations -- input that Translink took to heart, by the way.)
Given that both the Millennium and Evergreen names were quite firmly established, I suggested a compromise: turn "Evergreen" into an adjective to describe the "Millennium," and name the entire Vancouver-Coquitlam line the Evergreen-Millennium.
The Now story suggests that Translink thinks the name is too long. And there would undoubtedly be extra costs involved in changing all the existing Millennium Line signs to make them read "Evergreen-Millennium," but I think it's the best option we have. Otherwise, I fear that we'll be stuck with the "Millennium Line" along the full length of the Vancouver-Burnaby-Port Moody-Coquitlam service.
You can let the Translink board know what you think by clicking here. And you can contact the the provincial government's Evergreen office by clicking here.
AUGUST 25 UPDATE: The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the Evergreen Line will keep its name after all! Read the full story by clicking here.

Big country, friendly people

Swiss vacationer Lustenberger. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

My old reporter's instincts kicked in this morning while I was at the RBC branch at Barnet and Johnson near Coquitlam Centre.

I noticed this fellow (see photo) in the parking lot. It looked like he was at the end of a long bike ride, and so I asked him about his journey.

Sure enough, he was in the final day of a five-week, two-day ride from Montreal to Vancouver. The man's name is Rene Lustenberger, and he's a retired office worker from Switzerland. And the mammoth ride was his vacation!

He spent most nights in campgrounds but had to resort to motels three times because of inclement whether (as in torrential rain).

Rene's "best" day was 222 kilometres, which he achieved while riding through Saskatchewan.

His impressions of Canada? "Big country" and "friendly people." I couldn't have said it better.

Congratulations, Rene, and have a safe journey home!