Michael Moriarty at the Coquitlam Grill

A very familiar man walked into the Coquitlam Grill just before noon today. It took me but a second to recognize him as Tony-Award-winning actor Michael Moriarty, former star of stage, screen and television, the latter medium providing him his most enduring success in the role of District Attorney Ben Stone in the original cast of Law and Order.
Here is the text of a story I wrote about him for the Western Standard several years ago: 

Actor Moriarty

Michael Moriarty’s reputation precedes him as he shuffles through a standing-room-only audience at a Vancouver nightclub. Moriarty, who appeared in such films as Bang the Drum Slowly and The Last Detail before rocketing to fame in the early 1990s as assistant district attorney Ben Stone in the Law and Order television series, is today more famous for his turbulent personal life than for his once-considerable dramatic skills. Indeed, it has not been his acting, but his boozing and multiple court appearances—both as accused and victim—that have kept the lanky American actor in the public eye for most of the decade or so he has lived in Canada, the last five in the Vancouver suburb of Maple Ridge.

On this balmy mid-summer’s evening, however, Moriarty is playing neither drunk nor brawler. Instead, having sworn off booze, specifically red wine, a year and a half ago, a thoroughly sober Moriarty takes a seat behind a piano and starts to play some jazz. He’s very good. He blends his music—standards and original compositions—beautifully with that of his two sidemen; his face brightens as the audience erupts in applause after a particularly deft solo. It’s no wonder the trio is working on a new CD.

It’s not the big screen or the Broadway stage, but it’s just about all Moriarty has these days—that, a Screen Actors Guild pension, some residuals, and a knot of close friends, including his manager-cum-common-law wife, Margie Brychka, whom he met in a bar in Surrey, B.C., and Hollywood icon Burt Reynolds, both of whom are in the audience this night. In fact, Reynolds eventually joins Moriarty in singing a duet of “Ain’t Misbehavin’”

In an earlier interview, the 64-year-old Moriarty recognizes that his Emmy- and Golden Globe-winning days are behind him. The permanent, booze-induced slur that muddies his once-crisp voice has seen to that. He also uses a cane to walk. And the boyish good looks that helped win him so many top roles have now abandoned him. But he insists his mind is sharper than ever and that he still has one more big role to play. “I’ve got to complete my run for the presidency,” he declares. You heard that right. Michael Moriarty wants to act out his final, great, real-life role at centre stage in the Oval Office. He wants to be President of the United State of America. Really.

Moriarty also thought about running for the presidency back in 1994. That was the year he left Law and Order following a meeting with then attorney-general Janet Reno. He alleged he was dismissed after he threatened to sue Reno, whom he accused of trying to censor the show. But he has said the departure had at least one positive effect: it transformed him from a liberal into a conservative. He soon resettled in New Brunswick (a woman, who became his third wife, drew him to Canada) and publicly mused about running for the leadership of the old Reform Party of Canada. Nothing ever came of it. This time, however, he says he means business. His strategy will be to get on the ballot in the state of Florida, where he aims to garner five percent of the vote—enough to give him some leverage to make a difference in what has, for the last two elections at least, been a tightly-contested state.

But while he says he has opened an office in the state, Moriarty suggests his campaign, which will be run under the banner of “Realists 2008,” is as much poetic pie-in-the-sky as political reality. In fact, asked about his campaign’s infrastructure, he says he will organize his bid with the help of “divine intervention and a very proven skill at capitalizing on the authentic arrival of angels.” He also admits he hasn’t raised any money yet, and has just a handful of supporters, only one of whom is actually qualified to vote.

Nevertheless, he likens his candidacy to something in between the quixotic campaigns of the late comedian Pat Paulsen, who ran for the presidency five times, and the more serious efforts of consumer activist Ralph Nader, who ran twice for the Green Party. Unlike Paulsen, however, Moriarty has some serious policies, a fact that becomes apparent as he spells out his unique political beliefs in a long, oft-times disjointed but nevertheless compelling soliloquy at a Vancouver restaurant.

Moriarty announced his candidacy in May on the conservative Web site Enter Stage Right (www.enterstageright.com). He has stated that his primary goals in running for the presidency are to reduce the power of the U.S. Supreme Court; to overturn that court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion; and to take the U.S. out of the United Nations. In his interview with the Western Standard, it became clear that Moriarty’s beliefs spring from a deep conviction that collectivism in all its forms is evil. In fact, he suggests that the modern world is a vast battleground between communist and individualist philosophies.

In between alternating sips on a coffee and Diet Coke, and drags on his Export A cigarette, Moriarty’s ideas arc out like sparks: sometimes brilliant, sometimes distracting, sometimes irritating. Here’s one of his typical insights: Pierre Trudeau was the diabolic mastermind who first fused communism and capitalism though “dialectic materialism.” This fusion, he once wrote, is related to “the slow and barely discernible transformation of [the] American Republic into a socialist federation.”

There’s more: Bill Clinton is a Marxist and Hillary Clinton is a Leninist, under whose direction “the feminist arm” of her husband’s “third way” presidency “literally expropriated the Supreme Court.” On terrorism: “Big picture on terrorism, all of it—Jerry Adams is not an Irish Catholic. Yasser Arafat was not a Palestinian. Osama bin Laden was not Islamic. They are communist, agent Leninist provocateurs. This idea [communism] will not work without terrorism.”

On why anti-abortion activists should not despair: “Sir, sir, the anti-slavery movement was just as lost….But, in the end, God, reality, put Lincoln into the Oval Office, the way God put Ronald Reagan into the Oval Office.” On why the UN headquarters should not be in New York: “No, it should be in Paris. And I’ll order it. If Reagan can order Moscow to tear down that wall, I can order the United Nations to move it back to Paris, tear down [Napoleon’s] vainglorious tribute to himself, the Arc de Triomphe, and put Napoleon’s real achievement [there], which is the United Nations.”

On whether he is still a practising Catholic. “No, no. I pray all the time in my own inimitable way. My Christ is not your Christ or anybody else’s Christ. And in the end, we come into an intimate association with Our Lord. Our Lord shapes himself to you, not the other way around. Now, there are certain basic Christian fundamentals. Golden Rule. Honoring our father.” His mouthing the word “father” immediately throws his thoughts into a new direction. Without so much as a one-word segue, he declares, “The situation where the Church of the United Nations, they’ve told us, with the help of the environmentalists, that there is no male divine principle in the universe. Mother Earth impregnated herself.”

His speech impediment doesn’t make it any easier to follow any of this, and neither does his southern-gentleman’s accent, which catches the interviewer by surprise, given the fact Moriarty grew up in Detroit and was educated in the northeast U.S.  What’s with the drawl, then? “Since I came to Canada, and its increasing anti-Americanism,” he explains, “I get more and more southern American, because that’s the most identifiable American accent, it’s southern.” So he does it on purpose, then? “I am not going to be made ashamed of being an American,” he continues. “And for me to try to hide it, and don politically correct Canadianese, I ain’t going to do it.”

The interview ends with Moriarty taking a drag from his cigarette and once again denouncing Janet Reno. Maybe he’ll finally get his revenge when he becomes president.

(Photo from www.pbs.twing.com)

Kwikwetlem formally claim Riverview, Colony Farm

You might have heard or read that the Kwikwetlem First Nation has, this week, formally claimed a portion of southeast Coquitlam. The KFN announced last summer that it intended to claim the Riverview lands, and now it has followed that up with a formal claim, filed with the Supreme Court, for Riverview, Colony Farm and other associated areas.
I don't plan on commenting on the claim, but I thought it would be useful to share the exact text of what the KFN is saying about its claim. So, here is its press release:

Kwikwetlem First Nation title case aims for fair relationship

VANCOUVER, Feb. 9, 2016 /CNW/ - Today, Kwikwetlem First Nation (KFN) filed an Aboriginal title and rights and Charter claim with the Supreme Court.

KFN has filed this claim as a part of KFN's continuing efforts to ensure its title and rights over key areas in its traditional territory are properly recognized and protected.

KFN is a small community, with a traditional territory based around the watershed of the Coquitlam River. KFN's traditional territory has seen significant development over many years, which is expected to continue.

"Our community has worked hard to be consulted and meaningfully involved in decisions about the planning and management of our land for years," said KFN Chief Ron Giesbrecht. "Although governments have taken some steps to involve us in making decisions about how our lands will be used, we do not feel our title and rights interests are being taken seriously. Given there are limited processes for resolving Aboriginal land claims for a small Nation like ours, this claim is the next logical step."

The claimed title areas in the case filed today amounts to less than 1% of Kwikwetlem's core territory, and includes the following lands, and their surrounding areas:

• Colony Farm Forensic Psychiatric Institute Lands. The Province of BC is the fee simple owner of this area, and it is managed by Shared Services (previously administered by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation).
• Colony Farm Regional Park. The Greater Vancouver Regional District operating as Metro Vancouver - is the registered owner of this area.
• Riverview Hospital Lands. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation is the fee simple of this areas. It is managed by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

KFN believes that the case will help to ensure it is meaningfully involved in decisions made about its lands, a process highlighted by the Supreme Court of Canada, which called for a consent-based decision model in its 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision.  Chief Giesbrecht stated: "We hope that the government will follow the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada and negotiate a fair and respectful resolution to our claim, which will allow us to build a strong future for our community."

Support from other organizations
BCAFN Regional Chief Shane Gottfriedson
"Our First Nations have always hoped by supporting a meaningful consultations, that it will build a bridge of understanding towards reconciliation and partnership. Our Aboriginal title and rights should be respected and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations supports Kwikwetlem First Nation and urge BC Government to build a relationship that benefits true reconciliation." 

President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
"I applaud Kwikwetlem First Nation's declaration of their inherent Title and for protecting their Rights. It is vitally important for KFN to be truly involved in the management of their territory not as an interested stakeholder but as respected Title holders. The BC Government can no longer pretend KFN Title does not exist nor treat our inherent constitutionally-protected and judicially-recognized Aboriginal Title and Rights as an inconvenient checkbox of doing business in our respective territories."

SOURCE Kwikwetlem First Nation

For further information: Media contacts, CopperMoon Communications, Laura Taylor, laura@coppermoon.ca, 604 336 8771; Richard Truman, richard@coppermoon.ca, 778 929 1662

Let B.C. info be more completely free

The B.C. government has struck a special committee to review the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The public has been invited to submit its input into the review, and so I've taken advantage of the invitation and have just submitted my thoughts, which I've reproduced below. If you are also interested in the subject, the deadline for submission is the end of this week--January. 29, 2016. Click here to access the committee's webpage, which has all the information on how to submit.

My submission:

Summary: To adhere to both the spirit of the freedom-of-information movement and the stated intent of the B.C. FOI legislation, Section 22.1 of the Act should eliminated.

Detailed submission: Triple-deleting of emails, lengthy delays in responding to requests, redacted information dealing with finances and a general reluctance to share information: these are the sorts of provincial-government actions and attitudes that have sparked the most public concern during the current statutory review of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

All such concerns seem to be legitimate and need to be addressed. But there’s at least one more outstanding issue that, if left unrectified, can only lead the public to conclude that the provincial commitment to freedom of information is an illusion. I will detail this in a moment.

First, though, a reflection on the importance of freedom of information (FOI). We in the democratic West take it as a given that FOI is an absolute “good,” both in principle (as an integral part of a free society) and in practice (as a necessary way for the public and politicians to obtain the information to make good decisions).

Indeed, this belief is now widespread among advanced nations. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, for example, has declared, “The free flow of information and ideas lies at the heart of the very notion of democracy and is crucial to effective respect for human rights.”

But, of course, this understanding has not always been widespread. And, alas, it is not a value to which many current governments subscribe.

The enactment of B.C.’s FOI law was a long-awaited and much-celebrated fulfillment of the aspirations of those who believe transparency in government, as manifested by a citizen’s right to have free access to government records (as long as such records do not trample on the privacy rights of other citizens), is integral to a more-democratic government.

Such a noble sentiment arose in the West at a time of great intellectual growth. Consider these words: “The freedom of a nation cannot be upheld by laws alone, but also by the light of the nation and knowledge of their use.” They were written in 1763 by Anders Chydenius, an Enlightenment thinker and politician whose work helped inspire the first freedom of information law, in Sweden and Finland in 1766.( www.freedominfo.org.)

Two hundred years later, John F. Kennedy observed, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is afraid of its people.”

Yet, British Columbia’s FOI law has, since 2001, contained a censorious and anti-democratic provision that seems to embody President Kennedy’s dark vision of a nation afraid of its people. I refer to Section 22.1, “Disclosure of information relating to abortion services.”

Under this section, the law makes it illegal for “The head of a public body…to disclose to an applicant information that relates to the provision of abortion services.” The effect of this provision is to make it illegal for authorities to disclose information about the number and type of abortions being performed in the province, even though these abortions are funded by the public and often take place in public facilities.

One might appreciate the value of this section if and only if it prevented the release of personal information that would best be left private. But this is not the case. Indeed, no one is suggesting that personal information would be ever divulged.
Rather, the section was made law simply to stifle the free flow of information about a legal, taxpayer-funded procedure which was and remains the subject of legal, medical and moral controversy in the community.

This is certainly contrary to the purpose of B.C.’s FOI act, which is “to make public bodies more accountable to the public” and to give “the public a right of access to records” while also protecting privacy.

The censoring of such information has the deleterious effect of limiting informed public discussion on such important, specific subjects as sex-selection abortions (usually of females), late-term abortions, and abortions based on the results of medical or genetic tests.
Further, any informed discussion and debate on the larger and more general subject of the provision of abortion services is also strangled by the censoring of this information.

Therefore, I would urge the committee to recommend the lifting of the abortion-information ban; this is a simple matter that can and should be enacted by amending the legislation to eliminate Section 22.1.

Diversity, and then what?

When it comes to the sort of ethnic, cultural and racial diversity of which our country and our community are so proud, can there be “too much of a good thing”? The answer is “yes,” according to Martin Collacott, Canada’s former ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, whose opinion was featured as the “Letter of the Day” in the November 30 issue of the Vancouver Sun.

Is Collacott correct? It’s a timely question, not only for Canadians to consider, but also for Coquitlam residents to ponder as we continue to welcome new immigrants into our community on a regular basis and, more notably, also await the arrival of Syrian refugees in the coming months.

Results from "I love Canada because..." mural.

Collacott acknowledges that the increased diversity this country has experienced in recent decades “has made Canadian society more vibrant and interesting in some respects.” However, he continues, “too much diversity can create major problems.” This “has been amply illustrated in the case of more than a few European countries that have begun to discover there are limits to how much diversity they can absorb without harming themselves.”

Canada’s diverse composition may, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently said, be “our strength,” but Collacott answers that diversity is not an unqualified good, in and of itself.

Looking at the question from a common-sense point of view, Collacott makes a good point. Consider the question this way: We may say that “variety is the spice of life,” but there are limits to the sort of variety sane persons will subject themselves to.

Whether it’s in our choice of what we wear (comfortable and warm in winter, not irritating and cold) or what we eat (nutritious and delicious, not poisonous and disgusting), we have boundaries.

Similarly, while we may say that we embrace diversity, most of us would not want to live in a truly diverse community filled with, for example, unrepentant members of Pol Pot’s murderous Cambodian regime from the second half 1970s. Or, of course, with unrepentant members of ISIS. (And, for the most comprehensive look at what ISIS is all about, please click here to see a story from The Atlantic magazine.)

When diversity works in Canada it is not because of the simple fact that the country accepts diversity, and neither is it because of the celebration of diversity; rather, it is because of the fact the new Canadians reciprocate with a commitment to fit into Canada. It’s called integration, and it’s a vital and too-often unacknowledged part of the Canadian success story.

Coquitlam Canada Day activities.

Coquitlam’s official position on diversity is one of unalloyed acceptance, inclusion and celebration. You can read the policy by clicking here. It’s great as far as it goes. But even the city’s own Multicultural Advisory Committee, of which I am vice-chair, is acting of late as if there is more to multiculturalism than celebration of diversity.

Consider, for example, the committee’s successful 2015 Canada Day display which was the subject of a report to council-in-committee on November 23. The display went beyond the usual “tell us where you are from” interactive display and, instead, asked participants to write a message on an “I Love Canada Because…” mural.

For the record, six top themes emerged – natural environment, people, values and culture, safety, family, and general satisfaction with the country. City staff also presented a word cloud, shown at the top of this blog, to illustrate the predominant themes. You can read the full staff report by clicking here.

The real import of the mural is not so much in the answers it found, but in the question it asked: Why do you love Canada? The question springs from an implicit understanding that diversity is a two-way street, that “We’ll accept you, but you have to buy into what Canada is all about, too.”

This represents a real and important maturation in the development of multiculturalism in our country. It’s not just about celebration of diversity. And it’s not even abut embracing the more advanced concept of “inter-culturalism,” which encourages cross-cultural understanding.

Rather, it is about identifying and celebrating those values that we hold in common—the values that are not signs of our diversity but of our unity. And that’s a good thing.

Picturing a more meaningful Remembrance Day

Beny-Sur-Mer

At the urging of a friend, my brother Doug and his wife Wendy visited the Beny-Sur-Mer Canadian war cemetery in Calvados, France, a few years ago while travelling in Europe. They were told it would be a moving experience.
It was certainly all that and more, for they stumbled upon information about a grave bearing the inscription: "Lieutenant F.S. O'Neill, the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, 26th June 1944."

Arnprior, Ont.

Knowing that, upon arriving from Tipperary, Ireland in 1848, our ancestors, Francis and Julia O'Neill and their young family had settled in the Ottawa Valley, Doug and Wendy wondered whether the F.S. O'Neill was related to us. They obtained a photo of the headstone and sent it to me and my five other brothers.

Peace Tower book.

Intrigued, we dove into some on-line and personal research shortly thereafter and we discovered that, yes, F. S. O'Neill was, indeed, a relative, and a rather close one at that -- he was my father's first cousin, Frank Smith (his mother's maiden name) O'Neill, and that, according to a story my father related to us for the first time, Frank had died on a patrol or a scouting mission shortly after D-Day.
Just hours after I first posted this blog, a distant cousin in Toronto came across it and sent me more information about the death--information which came to him by word of mouth from my distant cousin's grandfather. Reportedly, Frank was clearing a farmhouse or gatehouse, inland on the road toward Caen, and was hit in a doorway by light artillery or possibly rocket fire. He was killed instantly.

Lt. Frank Smith O'Neill, RIP

My family's Internet sleuthing and emails also produced a wealth of images, including: a photo of a cenotaph, in Arnprior, Ontario, bearing cousin Frank's name; and a photo of the page on which his name is recorded in the memorial book, displayed at the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower in Ottawa, which bears the names of all those who gave their lives for Canada in the Second World War.
But there was one image we hadn't found--a photograph of cousin Frank himself.
And so, on the eve of Remembrance Day 2015, I decided to restart my Internet search. It didn't take long for me to find what I was looking for on Veterans Affairs Canada's Canadian Virtual War Memorial website.
There, alongside a photo of his grave marker, and a photo of a Roll of Honour produced by the Bank of Nova Scotia (commemorating employees who died during the Second World War), was a photo of the man himself.
What a difference such a photo makes to our remembrance of this relative who gave his life for his country.

Cameron Highlanders, in Iceland, en route to England.

Making the photo even more moving is the fact that cousin Frank bears a passing resemblance to our father and an even closer resemblance to one of my brothers' sons.
And so, Remembrance Day has an especially deep meaning for us this year, as we remember the life that our cousin, whom we can now picture, gave in defence of his country and all it stands for. Thank-you, Frank!

Five schools on four sites

SD43's plan for 5 schools at 4 sites on Burke Mountain

UPDATE: In November, 2017, SD43 once again issued new information about timelines for construction of schools on Burke Mountain, including a timeline that includes a possibility of an advanced joint middle-senior school. Please see:

http://www.sd43.bc.ca/BMSI/Documents/Burke%20Mtn%20Presentation%20Nov%209%202017%20FINAL.pdf

 OLDER INFO:

  This past January, I posted an item on this blog dealing with the location and timing of schools on Burke Mountain. Well, a fair bit has changed since then (here's a link to a Tri-City News story about the issue, from this past June), so I thought I'd better post a new item.
And so, with the help of School District 43 (from whose staff I confirmed this information), we can say that there are plans for five schools to be built on four sites. (Please see adjoining map and timeline chart for more detail.)
1. First would be the "Smiling Creek" elementary school, the funding approval (from Victoria) for which is being eagerly awaited by the SD (and everyone else, for that matter). If all goes well, the school will open in the autumn of 2018. More on this later.

Latest timeline projections from SD43.

2. Next up would be the "Partington Creek" elementary school, to be built at the Sheffield site. It could open in 2020-'21.
3. Next would be the "Northeast" middle school, to be constructed on part of the long-established high-school site in the Lower Hyde Creek neighbourhood. It could open in 2023-'24.
4. Following close on the middle school's heels would be the "Burke Mountain" secondary school, in the 2024-'25 time period.
5. Finally, we have the "Marigold Street" elementary school, on the far eastern side of Burke Mountain. It's pencilled in for opening in the 2025-'26 period.
There may be a need for another elementary school, in the Riverwalk area, but that decision-making process has to wait until after the current city-run Northwest Burke visioning exercise is complete.
No official names for any of the proposed schools have been selected.
As for the Smiling Creek school, SD43's Judy Shirra, chair of the board of education, released a letter on Nov. 6 saying the school "continues to be the top priority for this Board on our Five Year Capital Plan recently submitted to government."
Shirra explains, "In anticipation of a funding announcement from the Government of BC, a great deal of work has already been done by the district to prepare for the start of construction. Our staff continue to have numerous conversations with the Ministry of Education regarding this matter, as recently as today, and continue to speak with them on a regular basis with a positive outcome expected soon.
"In support of our commitment, SD43's Board has already invested significant funds upfront to keep the project moving forward to enable us to build and open the school as soon as possible. The school district continues the planning and preparation process including school site preparation, architecture work and other important tasks. Although we have not yet received funding from the Government of BC, no delays have been caused to date."
She also noted that Council recently passed OCP and zoning amendments for the site (which is jointly owned by the SD and the City), and that the district is "prepared to apply for a building permit at the start of December pending provincial funding approval."
So there you have it!

A city-wide CAC would worsen affordability problem

What is the best way for cities to raise funds for amenities that are needed as communities grow? Higher property taxes? Spending-authorization referendums? Increased fees?

Cities in B.C. raise all their basic money through property taxes and also get to levy Development Cost Charges against developers to fund some basic infrastructure. But, by provincial law, those DCCs cannot be used for amenities such as fire halls, community centres and swimming pools.

In Coquitlam, we also have a Density Bonus system through which the city collects revenue from developers who, in exchange, get to build their projects to a more-dense standard that normally allowed. In the City Centre and Burquitlam areas, this typically translates into higher condo towers than would otherwise be allowed.

The City also established a Community Amenities Contribution program in Burquitlam that accepted even more funds from developers. This money is being used to fund the City’s share of the proposed new YMCA.

Now, there’s a plan afoot to extend the CAC program throughout Coquitlam and to have it apply to all residential development that involves a rezoning, even on a single lot where, for example, the owner wants to subdivide in order to build two smaller houses. The proposed charge is about $5,000 for every new lot. All the details can be found by clicking here.

On Monday, Nov. 2, Council voted 6-2 to support the plan in principle; it will now go to the public and to the development industry for its feedback. I was one of the two (along with Councillor Asmundson; Councillor Reid was absent) who opposed its going forward. And my main concern is that I believe such a program worsens to the affordability problem.

Simply put, I don’t agree with the contention, advanced by staff and strongly supported by Mayor Stewart, that the CAC charge will ultimately be borne by the person who sells the land to the developer.

The argument that CACs do not negatively impact the cost of housing is a fragile one, but is one that has gained traction throughout Metro Vancouver because of one consultant who is not an economist, but is a planner. Our staff cites, on page 10 of the report to council, the consultant’s study concluding that CACs have not impacted home prices; however, it appears no economic analysis was put forward to support this conclusion.

Dr. Michael Goldberg, Dean Emeritus of the UBC Sauder School of Business and one of North America's most celebrated urban-land economists, has taken a contrary view. He has explained that, in a mythical, totally-elastic market, where land supply is infinite, the consultant’s claim that--land prices will fall to account for the CAC burden--could be realistic.

However, Metro’s developable land market is notoriously inelastic due to geographic and regulatory constraints on land supply, like Metro Vancouver’s Urban Containment Boundary, which I spoke about 10 days ago at the Metro Council of Council meeting; there, I asked about whether anyone had studied its impact on housing affordability. Apparently no one has, even though it surely must have a negative impact on affordability.

Continuing with Dr. Goldberg, he has said another reason the developable land market is inelastic is due to the political risk associated with obtaining land-use entitlements. Since there is a limited supply of developable land, a vendor of a development site will hesitate in selling if he believes he must discount his land, resulting in less land available and higher land costs overall in the market.

At a macro-economic level, CACs are simply inefficient. Altus Group has done a number of studies on this over the last decade for the Canadian Homebuilders' Association. In effect, if the CAC cost is built into the home price, the homeowner ends up financing that cost in the residential mortgage market. (In the case of an estimated $5,500 CAC cost, the homeowner repays the original $5,500 plus $3,405 in interest cost over the life of a 25-year mortgage -- assuming a 4.25% mortgage rate). So, $8,905 is the real cost of that contribution to civic infrastructure.

On the other hand, if we, as a municipal government, borrowed through the MFA to finance that infrastructure, our borrowing costs would likely be 2% to 2.5% lower and we would amortize the borrowing over the life of the infrastructure – more like 50 years instead of the limited 25-year amortization of residential mortgages.

But what about the political considerations? Yes, it’s easier for a council to charge CACs than to hike taxes or user fees to pay for a new swimming pool. But this doesn't really represent full disclosure. By hiding this tax burden in the cost of new housing, we’re fooling taxpayers. We are pretending we are limiting taxes, when we are really hiding part of it and targeting the burden on a select group of taxpayers.

Mayor Stewart launched a strong rebuttal to my anti-CAC speech last night. One of his main points was that, because of market pressures, the added CAC cost will not be reflected in the selling price of a home. The market is the market is the market, he essentially said. The implication is that either the seller of the land or the developer would eat the cost of the CAC.

I didn’t get an opportunity to reply to the mayor, but I will do so now with this single point: if, as the mayor declared, the retail market is the market is the market (and I don’t completely buy that, of course; instead, I believe the CACs will drive up the price), then surely the land-sale “market is the market is the market,” and the price of that land won’t be discounted in response to the CAC charge.

This being the case, it will be the developer who must bear the burden of the CAC – yet another charge, hoop, obstacle, and hurdle with which the developer must cope.

Pity the developer? No, not really. Instead, pity the prospective home buyer who will have fewer opportunities to buy a home when a developer concludes, reluctantly, that the CAC is the straw the breaks the camel’s back, making the proposed development economically unviable. I hope it doesn’t come to this.

Remembering my mother-in-law

McKINNON, Mary Elizabeth (“Betty”) (nee James)

May 8, 1922 – Oct. 23, 2015

A woman of deep faith, an inspiring teacher, a loving wife, a parent of boundless affection, and a loyal friend to many, Mary (also known as Betty) went to meet the Lord in the early hours of Oct. 23 after her great heart finally gave out at Eagle Ridge Hospital in Port Moody. She was 93.

Born in McMurdo, B.C., Mary was predeceased by her parents, Marguerite Josephine Chaloner and David Atlee James, by siblings Atlee and William, son-in-law Richard Bylin, daughter Susan Pummell, and her husband, J. Douglas McKinnon, to whom she was married for 67 years. She is survived by her older sister Neetta Moriarty and sister-in-law Ann James.

Her wisdom and compassion, sense of humour and joy, and religious devotion will long be remembered and treasured by her seven surviving children and their spouses—Katherine Bylin, William, Timothy (Ruth), Christopher (Valerie), Mary O’Neill (Terry), David (Doreen) and Elizabeth Keobke (Brian)—and by her 26 grandchildren and 26 great grandchildren. The life she gave to so many was her greatest gift.

Doug and Betty started their life together in Surrey, and also lived in Mission, Prince George, Vancouver, Burnaby, Lake Errock and Port Moody. She taught at the elementary-school level, primarily in Vancouver, and was celebrated for her exceptional work with special-needs students. After retirement, she and Doug spent many memorable winters travelling through the southern U.S. in their RV.

The family is indebted to the dedicated emergency-service personnel and medical professionals who supported Mary in her final years.

Prayers will take place at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 28 at St. Clare of Assisi Church, 1320 Johnson St., Coquitlam; a funeral mass will be held at 11 a.m., Thursday, Oct. 29 at the same church.  A reception in the church hall will follow. 

Warmer weather would help Canadian economy!

For the record, I wrote a controversial cover story for the Western Standard in 2007 which declared that global warming would actually have a beneficial economic impact for Canada. .Cover story is here.
Now, eight years later, the CBC is reporting the same thing. CBC story here.
Just saying....

Sanctimonious crap'?

If it's true that Justin Trudeau called David Suzuki's views about climate change "sanctimonious crap," then I wonder how Mr. Trudeau would describe the these comments:

- "We are completely misunderstanding the fundamental relationship we have with this planet that sustains us. Our relationship with the natural world needs to fundamentally inform, shape and guide our lifestyles, from the simplest element to the biggest." (Victoria Times Colonist, Oct. 19, 2006)

- "All of our advances in science and everything have led us to this point, and now we're going to have to do something that no civilization has ever been able to do, which is to have certain behaviours, to reach the top, and then suddenly change direction, change our habits, and change our ways away from the very things that brought us here." (National Post, Nov. 8, 2006)

To me, these quotes represent the same sort of environmental apocaplytic rhetoric as anything Dr. Suzuki has ever uttered.

Yet, they were mouthed by Mr. Trudeau himself when he was on the speaking circuit, buffing his image in preparation for his political career.

Something to think about.

Kube is in. Why not Byfield?

As head of the B.C. Federation of Labour in the 1980s, Art Kube was the leader of the Operation Solidary movement that fought against the Bill Bennett/Social Credit government’s labour-reform and austerity measures and very nearly sparked a crippling general strike. That destructive meltdown was averted, however, by the intervention of IWA leader Jack Munro. 

I raise this today because the nation has just learned that Mr. Kube, now a seniors advocate, has been named to the order of Canada. 

Which leads to me ask: If firebrand Kube’s history-making radicalism didn’t disqualify him from Order of Canada membership, why has the legendary Ted Byfield’s history-making radicalism as conservative journalist and publisher* apparently disqualified him from membership in the same august body?

Just asking.

*And, yes, I worked for and with Ted for a decade and a half.

Coquitlam's tax-shift policy is working

Just a quick note about council proceedings last night. One of the highlights was our passage, by unanimous vote, of fourth and final reading of the bylaws enacting the 2015 budget.

As noted earlier, the budget calls for the smallest property-tax increase (2.34%)  in a decade and continues the laudatory trend of decreasing annual percentage increases.

The budget also calls for another one-point "tax shift" which seeks to gradually reduce the large gap between the too-high property-tax rate that commercial properties pay and the rate that residential properties pay.

As I pointed out last night during our brief discussion about the budget, our tax-shift policy appears to be working. Indeed, the bylaw contains a rather revealing graph (see adjoining graphic) showing quite clearly that the tax burden on business is declining in relation to the burden on homes.

Some of this change is undoubtedly due to the fact that the residential-property base in Coquitlam is growing faster than the commercial-property base. But I am also assured that the tax shift is contributing to this pattern as well.

This is good news for business and business-lobby groups, which have long complained that our commercial tax rate is far to high. Here is a link to one of many stories on the issue. But it's also good news for residents, because a healthy business community is good for everyone.

Today is Coquitlam Foundation's grant-application deadline day

Just a quick reminder: today is the last day you (students, community groups, non-profits and the like) can apply to the Coquitlam Foundation for grants, scholarships and bursaries. Deadline is 4 p.m. Please visit the foundation's website for all the information on how to apply. Www.coquitlamfoundation.com

About those schools on Burke Mountain

NOTE: The information, below, is out of date. I've now written an updating piece on the current status of schools on Burke Mountain please CLICK HERE to read it -- Nov. 9, 2016.

Last Monday's public hearing, on the proposal to rezone land on Burke Mountain to facilitate the development of the first full neighbhourhood in the Partington Creek area, as well as to zone land for a school there, elicited much interest from the public, specifically on the issue of why no new schools had been built on Burke Mountain, even though the city had designated so many sites for schools.

Both the News and the Now devoted quite a lot of coverage to the subject, as you will see if you click on the links. But there's still some information I'd like to get on the record to allow the public to better understand the situation.

Many members of council, including myself, spent a fair bit of time during that public hearing explaining that it is not the city's job to build the schools; that responsibility rests with the Ministry of Education and School District 43. Nevertheless, we acknowledged that the City does have a role: we designate land in our Official Community Plan and our Neighbhourhood plans as (possible or potential) school sites, and we rezone land to allow school construction once the SD is prepared to move ahead.

But we recognized that the OCP and the NPs can create  uncertainty, in that some people interpret them as meaning schools WILL be built in the designated areas, when, in fact, the identified sites are only potential sites.

Also, it appears the SD communication on the issue, as to the number and timing of schools on Burke Mountain, has not been noticed by many members of the public.

So, for the record, here's what's happening:

1. Our OCP shows eight potential school sites on Burke Mountain, as per the map above. However, the school board announced in December 2012 that it would be needing only five -- not eight -- schools on Burke Mountain. I have circled the three sites that are "not preferred" by the School District.

2. Of the five preferred sites, the E site in the Smiling Creek area is now in the process of being acquired. In fact, the City and the SD announced last fall that the land acquisition was proceeding for a joint school-park site.This is the Smiling Creek Elementary School. Here a link to a story about that site.

3. The S site in the Lower Hyde Creek is where a new high school will, in fact, be built. That's firm.

4. The E site in the upper Partington Creek area is the site that was the subject of Monday's public hearing and eventual rezoning vote (unanimously in favour).

5. The School District has also released a projected time line for the construction of the five schools.  See the nearby chart. The black bars indicate planning-to-construction-to-opening. Please note that the Smiling Creek project is already a year behind this schedule and likely won't be completed now until sometime in 2017 according to the board.

Stay tuned for more information from the School District in the coming weeks and months. Burke Mountain residents are rightly frustrated by the slow pace of school construction, and it's high time that the process for approval and construction was speeded up. It simply isn't right that, as we heard on Monday, every child on one street is attending a different school -- a half dozen or more schools in total. That's no way to build a neighbourhood!

We're Number Three in BC!

We were all excited to learn earlier today that BC Business magazine had named Coquitlam as #3 in its new list of "Best Cities for Work in B.C." Here is the magazine's press release:

BCBUSINESS UNVEILS FIRST-EVER “BEST CITIES FOR WORK IN B.C.”

Coquitlam's Lafarge Lake.(Photo by me)

Burnaby B.C. –

BCBusiness editor-in-chief Matt O’Grady is excited to announce that Coquitlam has ranked #3 in BCBusiness’s inaugural list of the “Best Cities for Work in

B.C.”

The exclusive list was developed in concert with Environics Analytics, weighing seven

economic indicators to reflect the health of a city’s job market: income growth, average

household income, population growth, unemployment, labour participation and the

percentage of people with degrees and taking transit.

“Developing the first-ever list of this kind in B.C. has been an extraordinary project,“

says O’Grady. “We expect the results to attract a lot of attention and provoke a lot of

discussion across the province.” The driving force behind the Best Cities project,

BCBusiness associate editor Trevor Melanson, adds: “This ranking will undoubtedly be

considered controversial by some, but there’s appeasement in the fact that, no matter

how we sliced the data, the ranking came up mostly the same. High income and

population growth, low unemployment—all the indicators we measured tended to go

hand-in-hand.”

The top 10 cities in BCBusiness’s 2014 list of Best Cities for Work in B.C. are:

1. Fort St. John

2. North Vancouver

3. Coquitlam

4. Burnaby

5. Dawson Creek

6. New Westminster

7. Langley

8. Richmond

9. Surrey

10. Vancouver

A complete list of the top 36 cities as well as details on the methodology and supporting

stories on the impact of LNG, what cities are booming and declining, and why Metro

Vancouver will always dominate the list’s Top 10 can be found in the January 2015

issue of BCBusiness – available online at BCBusiness.ca/BestCities and in the iTunes

store now and on newsstands as of December 31st.

About BCBusiness

Published for more than 40 years, BCBusiness is British Columbia’s foremost business

authority and the most widely read business publication in the province. Focusing

exclusively on business in British Columbia, BCBusiness provides unparalleled behindthe-

scenes coverage, chronicling major deals and putting faces to the major players.

BCBusiness is published by Canada Wide Media Limited, the largest independent

publisher in Western Canada.

Contact Information:

Media Inquiries:

Holly Pateman

T: 604-637-3472

E: hpateman@canadawide.com

Let freedom reign in campaigns!

Here is the full text of my submission to the B.C. Government's Special Committee on Local Election Expense Limits. The deadline for public submission is today.

Opening Comments

Graphic from news1130.com

The committee may recall that in January, 2014, I submitted a brief on the question of campaign-expense limits.  With the new call for submissions on the subject, the deadline for which is December 5, 2014, I feel compelled to restate my opinion on the subject, which I will do today.

 As well, I will add to it in response to the increasing calls to ban corporate and union donations.  In short, I oppose expense limits and I oppose banning corporate and union donations.

First, though, let me state that, If there are to be new campaign-expense rules,  I believe that the Province should set expense limits and that  Elections BC should enforce the limits. This body is already involved in election monitoring;  enforcing campaign-expenditure rules would be a natural extension of its current work.

Furthermore, if expense limits are enacted, they should apply in school-board elections.  It’s only fair to have them applied to the election of trustees as well as mayors and councillors.

As well, population size should be taken into account in setting expense limits.  Moreover, if there are to be limits, they must take into account not only the population of the jurisdiction, but also the physical size.

A candidate running for office in a town of 10,000 that is concentrated into one square kilometre would likely have an easier time reaching voters during a campaign than a candidate in a community of 10,000 that is spread over a 100-square-kilometre area. The former might be able to easily hand-deliver flyers, for example, while the latter might have to employ a more expensive delivery method, such as Canada Post.

Finally, if there are to be expense limits, they should apply not only to candidates, but also elector organizations and third-party advertisers.  If there is to be a new regulatory system, then it seems fair to have it applied to all aforementioned groups.

A question of free speech

Irrespective of the above, I actually oppose the concept of campaign-expense limits.  I believe such restrictions would infringe on fundamental freedoms as found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2. I quote:

 “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

1. freedom of conscience and religion;
2. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
4. freedom of association.”

Specifically, I believe that any restriction on campaign spending would be a direct attack on Section 2.2, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.”

 Allow me to explain: Since the major part of one’s campaign involves communicating with the electorate, and since such communication involves the transmission of thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions through the press and other forms of communication such as flyers and posters, a restriction on campaign spending would have the effect of restricting the “fundamental right” of an individual to engage in that communication.

I understand that “reasonable restrictions” to Charter rights have been enacted, but I do not believe that something (an election campaign) that involves two such fundamental aspects of our democracy – free elections and free speech – should face the sort of restrictions being considered in the current exercise.

If a citizen decides to spend her life savings on an advertising campaign to support a civic cause or oppose a candidate, then let it be. If a candidate feels that being elected is so vital that he must take out a second mortgage to pay for a massive advertising campaign, then so be it. What’s important in both cases is that these people have the full and unfettered right to participate in democracy.

Practical objection to spending limits

Here, my objection to campaign-spending limits comprises related issues: unfair obstacles that such limits put in the way of new candidates; unfair obstacles that such limits put in the way of lone or unaffiliated candidates.

First, the new candidate.  It’s a given that name recognition plays a large role in all politics, but it is an especially significant factor at the municipal level. For the new candidate, the biggest challenge is not only getting his or her platform in front of voters; it’s also—and, arguably, more importantly—getting his or her name known.  Either way, one sure-fire way of presenting oneself to voters is to spend money on advertising, signage and other promotional devices. It’s less important for incumbents to “put their name out there” because they are already relatively well-known.

But campaign-spending limits would fetter a new candidate’s ability to spend freely to have his or her name become as well-known as an incumbent’s. Therefore, I submit that campaign-spending limits would have the unintended consequence of diminishing the opportunity for electoral success for newcomers, while favouring incumbents.

Second,  the lone or non-affiliated candidate. Consider the situation facing the lone, non-affiliated candidate who is running against a candidate or candidates from a well-organized campaign slate, party or endorsement mechanism.  In all likelihood, that lone candidate does not have an “election machine” supporting his or her candidacy—no supporter lists to work from, and no election-day teams to “get out the vote,” for example.

What such a lone candidate would have the ability to do, however, is to match or even exceed the campaign spending of his or her rivals. But if that spending were limited by force of law, that lone candidate would face an unfair restriction on one of the only ways by which he or she might be able to achieve a level playing field.

We need to look deeper into the mechanics of a well-organized party, slate or endorsement body to truly appreciate the advantage they would be given over independent candidates should campaign-spending limits be put in place. Such bodies can attract many volunteers and often have extensive lists of possible supporters for those volunteers to call by phone, contact by email, or send letters to. With voter turnout for municipal elections being relatively low, these well-organized campaigns give their candidates a very tangible edge over any independent candidate.

This situation is both legal and fair under the current system because non-affiliated candidates always have the option to counter the “election machine” they are facing by spending more money on advertisements, automatic phone calls, and the like.

That leveler disappears in a universe of campaign-spending limits, however. Such limits would not likely place any limit on the number of volunteers working for parties, slates or endorsement bodies, nor would they place any limit on the amount of hours those volunteers could work.  But they would limit the opportunities for non-affiliated candidates to level the field by spending extra funds to buy advertising and otherwise promote their candidacy.

In conclusion, I would argue that a campaign-expense limit would have the unintended consequence of handicapping both new and lone, independent or non-affiliated candidates, while inadvertently giving incumbents and slate- or party-backed candidates an advantage.  

Therefore, practically speaking, campaign-expense limitations would be unfair.

Donation sources

I understand that many individuals and organizations are calling for a ban on all corporate and union donations. I do not support this call for reasons that echo some of my positions, above. I believe that the banning of such donations would have the effect of hamstringing lone, independent or new candidates. This is because those organizations or incumbents that have extensive lists of committed supporters and volunteers would have a big head start when seeking donations, as they would be able to immediately tap into an already-existing database of likely individual donors.

On the other hand, the new candidate or the lone, independent one would have no such existing database and would be severely handicapped in his or her fundraising efforts.

I believe that there would be less concern over corporate and union donations if voters were given full and timely information about the source of all campaign donations. On this subject, at present, campaign-donation documents need not be filed until several months after the campaign has ended. I believe that the Provincial Government should examine the feasibility of establishing a real-time, campaign-donation-reporting mechanism to enable voters to have access to information on the source of a candidate’s funds before they cast their ballots, not after.

One other idea that might be considered is to place special limits or reporting requirements on candidates who receive donations from corporations or unions with which the candidates’ city has a direct and ongoing contractual/financial relationship. I am thinking here of companies such as private garbage-collection services, and unions such as those that represent city workers. 

I personally will not accept donations from such organizations because of the appearance of conflicted loyalties or interests. On the other hand, I have no difficulty accepting a donation from a corporate citizen that, like my neighbor, does business from time to time in the city, or even does business on a continual basis.  As long as there is not a direct and ongoing contractual/financial relationship, this is acceptable.

In Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to present this advice. These are important issues and deserve careful consideration.