Council's balancing act explained

The more experienced I become in civic politics, the more I come to understand that the job calls for balancing the minuscule and the gigantic, the intimate and the public, and the practical and the visionary. Nowhere is this more apparent than when council must deliberate on a rezoning application, as we often do—particularly when it involves densification in an existing and well-established old neighbourhood.
Exactly such an issue was on our agenda on Monday night, March 26, as council took part in a public hearing on an application from Springbanks Development (Dogwood) Corp. of Surrey to rezone two lots at 730 and 734 Dogwood Street to allow for the construction of a 22-unit stacked townhouse building.
The lots are half a kilometre from the planned Burquitlam station on the Evergreen Line, a project that is already driving up land prices all along its projected route. The City has long anticipated that increased demand for housing near the line, especially affordable housing of the kind facilitated by multi-family developments, would lead to the redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods and the overall densification of the area.
Although the neighbourhood in question is primarily composed of single-family dwellings, its present designation in the Official Community Plan is “Medium Density Apartment” and its present zoning is RT-2 Townhouse Residential. Springbanks’ application asks for a rezoning to RM-2 Three-Storey Medium Density. Significantly, the OCP would allow for RM-3 zoning, which is even denser.
It is also significant that most of my colleagues on council and I campaigned in favour of taking action to further housing affordability, and that one of the most important and direct actions we can take in this regard is to allow for the construction of more multi-family dwellings, from duplexes and townhouses, to condominium complexes and high-rises.
And so we proceeded with the public hearing, at which several residents of the neighbourhood expressed their heartfelt concerns about the adverse effects of densification. None of them was especially specific about just what those impacts would be, but it was clear that all were worried about how the development would unsettle their neighbourhood and change its character for the worse.
The developer, on the other hand, explained that his project fit into what the City is planning for the area, and that the company had, in fact, gone to great lengths to limit the complex’s profile so that it appeared from one side, at least, to be just two-and-a-half storeys high, not three. I’ve reproduced an architect’s sketch, above.
Ultimately then, our votes would hinge on decisions we would make about the minuscule (one neighbour’s concern that the development would block the breeze) and the gigantic (the City’s vision for redevelopment of Burquitlam), the intimate (a young man’s worry that he would lose the neighbourhood in which he grew up) and the public (supporting the process which led to the development of the OCP), and the practical (local residents’ concern about increased traffic) and the visionary (our commitment to providing low-cost housing).
I realized while considering all of the above that we will be faced with scores, if not hundreds, of such applications over the next three years. We’ll consider each one on its merits, weighing the pros and cons, listening intently, asking questions when necessary, and then attempting to make the best decisions possible.
In the case of the application for the Dogwood Street rezoning, council convened following the public hearing and voted unanimously in favour of giving Second and Third Readings to City of Coquitlam Zoning Amendment bylaw No. 4293, 2012, thus bringing the development two steps closer to reality.

My interview on Roadkill Radio

Terry O'Neill Returns!!! from RoadKill Radio on Vimeo.

Here's my recent interview with Kari Simpson and Ron Gray, talking about my transition from journalism to politics, and much more. Hope you enjoy it.

Rock-solid facts, not emotionalism

Take one part self-serving, subjective and emotional special-interest group, stir with an equal part of one-sided, unbalanced news coverage, and you end up with last week's front-page story in the Tri-City News about the allegedly endangered state of the Coquitlam River.

Last night's council meeting, at which the minutes of a recent Coquitlam River Aggregate Committee meeting were presented (along with last year's annual report), gave me, as chair of CRAC, the perfect opportunity to add some balance and shed some light on what is really going on in the river, and about the role of the aggregate industry (popularly known as gravel mines) in impacting the river. Here are some highlights of my presentation:

We were pleased to learn at our committee meeting that the Ministry of Energy and Mines has developed a new inspection matrix, centred not only on health and safety but also on environmental issues. This is a key, because the ministry is the permitting body which has ultimate control over the mines. The ministry rep at the meeting explained what the standards are and reported that the gravel operations are largely in compliance, except for heavy rain days.

The committee also heard from various members and sources that siltation occurs naturally in the river and that, naturally enough, such turbidity would be associated with heavy rain days.

Significantly, the committee unanimously agreed that tremendous progress has been made in the river's health. This is an environmental success story – an assessment with which the rep from the Coquitlam River Watershed Society was in complete accord.

And this brings me back to the Tri-City News story of March 14, which is based on a subjective report from a special-interest group, the Outdoor Recreation Council, which placed the Coquitlam River on its list of the province’s top 10 most endangered rivers in the province, citing the gravel mines and the impact of development.

But how seriously can we take the ORC's findings when it it blankets itself in mumbo-jumbo, mixing emotionalism and spiritualism. Specifically, the story quotes the Council’s concerns about the “Sacred Headwaters” of the Kokish River on Vancouver Island being of special concern. Sacred? Typical hyperbole and emotionalism -- environmentalism as a religion.

What’s next for the Coquitlam River, calling it the “holy heart” of the Tri-Cities? Or the hallowed heartbeat of Coquitlam Watershed? Or perhaps the “Sanctified Centre” of life in the Northeast Sector? All this sort of stuff, which is typical for green propaganda groups, is designed to stir emotions, not deal with the facts.

Interestingly, the story quotes the chair of the Burke Mountain Naturalists as saying, “We all know the river gets very silty from the gravel mines and that’s not a good thing.” Let me respond by pointing out that our not a single person on the CRAC – not the rep from the Coquitlam River Watershed Society, not the rep from the DFO and not the rep from the Ministry of Mines – said that this is the case. Yes, turbidity does increase in times of heavy rainfall, but it is entirely incorrect to assert unconditionally that "the river gets very silty from the gravel mines."

The Naturalists' representative also said that, “Ideally, what we’d like to see is the turbidity entering the river stopped.” My response: It would not only be impractical and impossible to eliminate all turbidty-causing agents from entering the river, but also completely unnatural. Natural events like erosion are always causing fluxuating levels of turbidty in any natural watercourse.

That said, our committee will continue to do its duty to ensure that the mines live up to their obligations to restrict turbidity-causing runoff so that the Coquitlam River can be a healthy watercourse. That's my fact-based, rock-solid pledge.

(Photo from www.env.gov.bc.ca)

Just say No to politically correct pandering

Jon Strocel, the increasingly well-known and well-read guy behind the local news site, thev3h.com, has criticized the position I took the other day in Council regarding the GHG-reduction strategy being drafted for the City (see March 6 item, below).

I've responded on his site, but will take the opportunity now to reprint part of Jon's comments, and my entire answer, as follows:

Jon Strocel: In our next episode of Coquitlam Councillors Say the Darndest Things, this week Councillor Terry O’Neill’s blog is Exhibit B. The topic is the Community Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy, essentially what the City can do to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Terry trots out the usual arguments against doing anything to protect the environment. Doing anything will cost too much, and if climate change exists at all, there’s really nothing we can do about it, so we should just adapt.

Global warming is not a controversy, it’s a fact. You may quibble with spending Coquitlam city staff time on how we can help the environment, but obvious contempt for environmental concerns doesn’t win a lot of votes in this town. Let’s review our top vote getters in the past three Coquitlam civic elections: Fin Donnelly and Selina Robinson. The biggest environmentalists on council. We the electorate care deeply about this stuff. Come on Terry, join the forces of growth AND care for the planet AND precious electoral votes. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for it...

My response: It seems to me that there are two distinct parts to your criticism of my position on GHG reduction. 1. That I am wrong and should embrace the truth for the truth's sake. 2. That, regardless of my personal beliefs, I should heed the will of the electorate (which has consistently given poll-topping support to environmentalists) and change my position so it aligns with the majority.

On No. 2, let me say this: I did not run for office to be a mere conduit of received wisdom. My views as a climate-change sceptic were well-known, and I believe that my successful candidacy gives a voice to those who share my position. To change now for the sake of political expediency would be nothing more than political pandering. And, frankly, I don't care if my position makes me unelectable. I'd rather be faithful to what I see as the truth than grovel before the grubby altar of misinformed public opinion.

On No. 1, I am not saying that the climate is not changing. But I do say that: a) the change might be entirely natural. b) But even if mankind is changing the climate, why is it so horrible when mankind is responsible for changing the climate, but it is such a wonderful part of the natural cycle when Mother Nature changes the climate, as she has done innumerable times through the life of our planet? c) And that, regardless of what's behind the climate change, it makes far more sense to adapt to the change than to throw billions of dollars at it--expenditures that will impoverish us, but won't likely make a dent in the climate.

GHC strategy needs financial details

At yesterday’s public committee meeting, Council heard a lengthy presentation about the City’s draft Community Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy. It is a detailed document, showing how, at the least, GHG goals are now integrated in the very fabric of this city’s future direction.
However, to my mind, the document is too vague in its predictions of financial implications, and overly-detailed in its minute dissection of every tiny little thing that the city is involved in that might have an impact on emissions. Several other councillors agreed on the latter point, and worried about the massive amount of staff time that must have gone into it—especially considering we are awaiting other, more pressing, reports.
Happily, however, as the presentation unfolded and as the answers came from staff, the realization dawned that the city doesn’t actually have to do very much more than what it’s already doing, in the way of densifying new development and encouraging more public transit, to achieve its goals. Moreover, most of these goals will actually be achieved by actions being taken by senior levels of governments. The biggest task ahead for Coquitlam, apparently, is one of collecting and analyzing information, and not taking drastic action to force the public to cut emissions or to do something like buying carbon credits.
Nevertheless, I still have some concerns. Firstly, there’s the odd way in which the reduction targets are stated (and, remember, these are not the targets for reducing City of Coquitlam emissions, but the targets for the entire community). The targets are stated as follows: “Coquitlam will work in cooperation with senior levels of government to reduce the City’s annual community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 15% below 2007 levels by 2031 and per capita annual greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2007 levels by 2021.”
I find it strange and potentially misleading that the long-term goal is stated first and, moreover, that the goals are stated in two different measures, one being per capita emissions, the other being overall emissions. Using population-growth estimates and 2007 gross emissions, I took some time to do some calculations to restate the goals in a more coherent manner, and here is what I came up with:
The City’s per capita annual greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced 30% below 2007 levels by 2021 and 52% below 2007 levels by 2031.
That’s a pretty daunting ultimate target, but I was assured by staff that it is quite achievable, given current programs by senior governments and current Coquitlam development policies.
Nevertheless, the risk of a growing financial burden exists. Indeed, I found several places in the report where financial implications were noted or suggested—none of which had a dollar figure attached. This worries me. These pages included:
Page 5 of introductory report: Financial Implications. My read on this is that, short term: no implications; medium term: maybe some; long term: let’s stay in touch!
Page 43 has a bit on incremental costs, but no figure. Page 45 has something on expenditures, relating to community carbon offsets, but no dollar figure attached. Page 57, there is a discussion about staff time for monitoring, but no dollar estimate. I quote: “As part of future implementation plan development, it will be valuable to understand……. This incremental cost should be the focus when estimating the true cost of implementing future actions.”
There’s more in the appendix, on an unnumbered page, when there’s a discussion about “Potential financial tools”, many linked to inducements. My take on this is that, where the tax man induces, he must invariably increase elsewhere to make up the difference.
Look, I won’t revisit all the controversies surrounding Global Warming and climate change here, including the many indisputable falsehoods and exaggerations in the International Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report; or the Climategate scandal, showing how leading global-warming scientists conspired to exaggerate impacts, and suppress information that didn’t fit their models; or even the emerging consensus that, even in the face of human-caused global warming, it might make better financial sense to adapt rather than try to prevent—a strategy, by the way, that would work whether global warming is being driven by natural causes, human ones, or a combination of both.
But I will point out that, in its list of “Key Strategic Risks” facing the city, the Strategic Risk Register that was presented to council earlier this year makes absolutely NO MENTION of any risk being posed to the city by climate change.
In a way, given the long history of this project, it feels like we’re on a ship that set its course five years ago for some fantastic dream port. But since then, the currents have changed, the winds have shifted and, oh yes, we never really figured out how much the voyage would actually cost and how we’d pay for it. Let’s just hope that the best-case scenario – that the targets will be achieved with minimal local expense—comes to pass.
(Photo from my personal files)

Jumping the gun. Insulting council

Last Friday, Newgen Real Estate Development Inc. of Burnaby took out a half-page advertisement (reproduced above) in the Coquitlam Now promoting its new, four-storey office and commercial building at 837 Lougheed Highway, at the corner of Blue Mountain Street.
It's a handsome building, located at an important intersection--a place that had been crying out for just this sort of building for years.
Newgen's ad called the building "Coquitlam's newest commercial landmark," and urged interested readers to "Register Today!" to "Invest in your own strata office or retail property." Pre-sales begin March 10.
So far so good. But there was only one problem, and a rather significant one at that.
At the time of the ad's appearance, Coquitlam Council had not approved the rezoning that would allow construction of the building. In fact, Council had given only first reading to the bylaw. Still to come was a public hearing, second and third readings, and then fourth and final reading.
That public hearing, followed by second and third readings, was scheduled for last night. And so, following an uneventful public hearing, I began consideration of second and third readings of the bylaw with a pointed speech, revealing the existence of the ad, and then informing my colleagues on Council and, moreover, all of Coquitlam, that I considered the ad to be premature and, moreover, to be an insult to Council and the people of Coquitlam.
I take my responsibilities seriously, and I work hard to abide by the processes that we must legally follow. Our society is, of course, built on the rule of law, which is something we must all respect.
I don't know Newgen's motives in placing the ad. Maybe the company assumed that, after giving the bylaw first reading, Council would automatically push the rezoning through. Maybe the company simply made a mistake in timing (the excuse offered by the Beedie group last year when an ad promoting its new Austin Heights tower appeared prematurely).
If the early placement was based on a presumption that first reading was tantamount to passage, I think it is important to send Newgen and other developers a message: first reading is only one step in an important process that has several subsequent steps, not the least of which is the public hearing. Assuming automatic passage based on a preliminary vote is wrongheaded and, in essence, an affront to the role of Council and the public.
I am thankful that each and every one of my Council colleagues agreed with me, and I also appreciate the fact that both the manager of planning and the Mayor said they would communicate with Newgen, informing it of our displeasure.
Thus satisfied, I was pleased to add my vote to the unanimous vote in favour of the rezoning bylaw needed to accommodate this fine building.

You start with the facts

A long-time council-watcher (who is often very critical of council actions) sent me a lengthy note the other day congratulating me for my outspoken commentary at last Monday's council meeting. Besides thanking her, I didn't quite know what to say, but thought she'd appreciate this, which I'll share with you now:

I am so pleased that you appreciate my fact-based approach to issues, one that often has me at odds with many of my colleagues. My years as a reporter taught me the value of gathering facts. My years as an opinion writer trained me in analysis. My years as an editor taught me how to stand my ground. And my experience as a father taught me the value of humour!

Seven Myths of Local Government

One of the presenters at the Local Government Leadership Academy (aka "boot camp for council rookies") that I attended earlier this week in Richmond told us about what he considers to be the Seven Myths under which newly elected Local Government politicians labour. They are humorous and insightful, so I thought I'd share them:
1. Your election was a certainty.
2. You have to fit in to be effective.
3. You are effective if you are busy.
4. You need to lay low for the first year.
5. Your administration was loyal to the last council and therefore can't be trusted.
6. If change is needed, everybody will be on board.
7. This role is more important than anything else you might do.
I must say, I wasn't burdened by misconceptions 1-4, and I think my actions to date speak to that. I have found through experience that 5 isn't the case, I never believed 6, and 7 might tempt me, but Mary keeps me grounded.
Nevertheless, good insights and advice.

'A manifestation of collective panic'

By all accounts, my speech last night in opposition to the Cosmetic Pesticide bylaw went over very well. Many of my fellow councillors told me they were impressed by my marshaling of facts and the vigour of my presentation, and I heard similar comments from most of the bureaucrats in attendance. The mayor told me later that he can’t wait to post the video of the presentation on his site.
The only problem is, I didn’t change a single mind, and the bylaw sailed through.
I began the presentation by reminding everyone that Health Canada had conducted a major review of cosmetic pesticides, and had approved them. In Victoria, the provincial government was in the process of studying the issue too. Meantime, I had been repeatedly challenged by environmentalists to study the issue. I did so, and the more I looked into it, the more I realized that something didn't add up – that the drive to eliminate cosmetic pesticides was being driven by something called the precautionary principle.
Here’s the definition: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” — The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, January, 1998.
I noted that this has three key elements: 1. If something raises a threat of harm to health or environment; 2. Precautionary measures must be taken; 3. Even if cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
My interpretation: So even a mere threat of harm automatically ignites the need for action, even if there’s no scientific basis for it. But operating under this principle, we’d have to take old wives tales, myths, and urban legends as legitimate causes for action. Remember what mother used to say: “Don’t make a face, because if the wind changes you’ll be stuck with it….” If you’re a true believer in the precautionary principle, you’d better heed that advice, and not dismiss it as the unfounded rubbish that it is.
I continued: With this in mind, we can better understand what author Benjamin Kerstein meant when he wrote three years ago in his book, The Age of Catastrophic Thinking: “The precautionary principle is not so much a legal or scientific principle, but rather a manifestation of collective panic.”
Then for my clincher: But when there is some sound scientific evidence of cause and effect, there is a case for the precautionary principle. In fact, according to an article published in REASON magazine in March 2009, the precautionary principle, particularly as it can be applied to human health and well-being, actually argues against enacting pesticide prohibitions.
How’s that? Well, according to Dr. James D. Lu (medical health officer for the Vancouver Coastal Health Unit) in a Feb. 19, 2009 letter to Richmond, B.C. Municipal Council: “The aesthetics of urban landscapes has public health value. Appealing and well-kept neighbourhoods increase the public’s sense of safety and increase outdoor activities in neighbourhoods... A comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach offers a better alternative to cosmetic pesticide ban bylaws. IPM strikes a balance between prudence, public policy, and private choice.”
This would speak to allowing cosmetic pesticides to be used in gardens, an especially useful exemption given the alarms being raised over the Coquitlam ban’s catastrophic effect on the city's prized Rose Garden.
And consider this, too: Since Ontario banned the use of cosmetic pesticides on April 22, 2009, there have been many media reports of an increase in allergic reactions, due to the greatly increased presence of weed pollen. Again, the Precautionary Principle weighs in favour of the use of pesticides to avoid or lessen ill effects to humans.
I concluded: Starting two years ago, environmentalists began challenging me to educate myself on the cosmetic pesticide issue. Well I have. And for the reasons above, I can now state firmly and unequivocally that I am opposed to the bylaw.

UPDATE: This morning, the folks at the BC and Yukon branch of the Canadian Cancer Society sent all councillors an email congratulating us for giving first readings to the bylaw to ban cosmetic pesticides, but urging us to extend the ban to sports fields as well.
I am pleased that the bylaw exempted sports fields, and would, of course, vigorously oppose any move to broaden the ban. The following statement, which appears on the website of the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, explains why:
“On sports turf, safety considerations also influence treatment decisions because bare areas or large weedy patches can increase the slipping hazard.” — IPM Manual for Landscape Pests in British Columbia, B.C. Ministry of the Environment website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/ipmp/publications/manuals/landscape_pests/chapter5.htm
The REASON article points out that proper weed control on turf helps prevent slipping injuries by eliminating broad-leaved weeds. On the other hand, proper weed control on turf does not result in injuries. Therefore, the Precautionary Principle dictates that, with the choice between treating and not treating, the decision for proper weed control must be made—and therefore turf pesticides should not be prohibited. But I guess the crusading cancer fighters just don't care about that.

Photo from littlemountainhomeopathy.wordpress.com/

Yes, I support the new Coquitlam budget

On Monday night, seven of my council colleagues and I voted in favour of a new budget for the City of Coquitlam. Only one councilor, the perpetually opposed Lou Sekora, voted against it. The budget wasn’t perfect but, all in all, I am satisfied that it is responsible in two important ways: it relieves some of the ever-upward pressure on taxpayers, and it provides for all the important services that our residents need, including new firefighters and police officers.
During the run-up to the election last fall, my main campaign pledge was to cut back on the high rate of property-tax increases. A look at some of the figures over the past five years shows the problem: In 2007, the average tax rate increase was 5.42%; 2008, 5.175; 2009, 7.11%, 2010, 4.96%, 2011, 3.18%.
On Monday, we passed a budget calling for an average tax rate increase of just 3.16%. I would have liked to have seen the figure under 3% and, indeed, worked hard to achieve that figure during our closed-door budget deliberations, but I’m just one voice on council and I couldn’t always persuade the majority of my colleagues to see things my way.
You might also remember that, in late September of last year, I signed the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s Taxpayer Pledge. Here’s how the three-point pledge reads, with my analysis following each section.
1) Property Tax Fairness – by committing to reduce the gap between what commercial property and residential property owners pay, you would be committing to help create conditions that enable small businesses in your community to thrive.
PROMISE KEPT: While council has been working slowly to lessen the gap, by implementing a 0.75% tax shift annually for the past several years, the pressure from the CFIB and pledgers such as me clearly got through, and council increased the shift this year to 1.0% percent. The result will be that, while the average tax rate increase will be 3.16%, it will be 2.56% for commercial properties, and 3.56% for residential properties. Worth noting is that the business-tax rate reduction will bring the rate to 4.66 times that of the residential rate, as opposed to 4.85 times larger last year. It’s still one of the highest rates in the region, but the actual tax bite is in the middle of the pack because of assessment differentials.
2) Reasonable Spending – by committing to keep operating spending increases reasonable, i.e., at or below the level of population growth and inflation or the rate of growth in disposable income, you are giving yourself the fiscal room to reduce taxes and fees, not increase them.
PROMISE KEPT. Here’s the calculation. The Consumer Price Index for last year registered a 1.9% increase, while Coquitlam’s population grew by 2.1%. Add those two figures together, and you get 4%, which would be the maximum allowed increase in operational spending. So, what is Coquitlam’s operating spending increase for 2012? There are two ways of looking at it. First, if you add up all operational spending, even including spending for which the city is receiving grants or transfers from other levels of government, our spending will increase 3.92%. Second, if you look at only operational spending that is directly supported by the taxes we raise ourselves, our increase will be 2.92%. Either way, we’ve bettered the target.
3) Transparency, Openness and Accountability – by supporting in principle, the creation of a Municipal Auditor General for BC, you are building on and enhancing your already existing systems of financial reporting, and standing to benefit from the best practices identified through performance audits.
PROMISE KEPT. I supported the Local Government Auditor General from the outset, and am pleased that the provincial government has now enacted legislation to bring this position to life.
I am pleased that we have a budget that allowed me to meet the CFIB pledge. But there’s work to be done. For starters, I’d like to see the average annual residential property-tax increase to be more in line with the average or median rise in household income. With this in mind, it appears the 2012 tax increase is about one percentage point too high.
And there’s one more word of caution here, and that’s the unknown impact of the upcoming contract talks with the city’s 1,400-plus CUPE workers. I ended my budget speech last night with a request to CUPE to restrain their contract demands. They’re coming out of a contract that saw CUPE members enjoying very large annual increases (in the 4% range) for several years. CUPE salaries are now considerably higher than those paid to comparable workers in the private sector. Personally, I’d favour a “net zero” contract over three years. This would be prudent and positive.

A risk in being productive?

It’s a risky world we live in. Around the globe, people face natural disasters, civil war, terrorism, the threat of government default, corruption and crime. But, according to the new “Enterprise Risk Management Plan” unveiled at council last night, the biggest risk that Coquitlam faces is a demand for increased productivity at City Hall.
At least that’s how I now interpret the meaning of the top “Key Strategic Risk” identified in a report presented to us on Monday. The exact wording of the risk is as follows: “Increasing public focus on municipal finances and spending results in additional pressure to achieve expected service levels with fewer resources.”
My first take on this surprisingly benign risk (what, no floods, earthquakes or tsunamis!) was to interpret it as meaning that there is a risk the electorate could become so unreasonable that, in demanding ever-lower taxes while also insisting on constant or rising levels of service, the city would become ungovernable. Take a look at Greece and you’ll get an example of what I was imagining.
And, indeed, when I spoke with City managers, they explained that they had identified this particular risk last fall, a time when the headlines were full of news about allegations of government overspending—news driven by reports from groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
To City Hall management, then, these groups (and, by extension, the politicians who championed their causes, such as me?) represented a threat to the status quo and, therefore, a significant risk. The report listed the possible impacts: erosion of public confidence in governments; erosion of the reputation of municipal councils; increased staff time and resources to investigate, analyze and respond to spending inquiries; and “sustainability of tax increases which impacts revenues and consequently expenditure budgets.”
But how much of a threat does this really constitute? The more I thought about it, the more I concluded that the “threat” actually boiled down to a public demand for increased productivity—getting more services out of existing revenue. And is this really so unreasonable?
All well-managed private companies are forced to look for such efficiencies on a regular basis. But governments too often take the easy way out, avoiding making the hard choices about finding ways to increase productivity and, instead, choosing the “easy” way by increasing taxes. Interestingly, the report identifies several “mitigation strategies” designed to answer the risk, but none of them specifically suggests that the City actually commit itself to increasing productivity.
Wonder why? Well, insofar as increased productivity can be accomplished by bringing down civic workers’ salaries so they are more in line with those paid in the private sector (thus allowing the City to hire more workers for the same overall payroll), any concerted effort to meet the public demand for the City to get a better bang out of the taxpayer buck is sure to generate considerable resistance from the labour organization that represents city workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Perhaps, then, the real risk implicit in the public’s demand for more productivity is of a protracted contract battle between the City and CUPE.
But this only becomes a risk if the City is determined to act on the public’s demands rather than defend itself against them.
I recognize that many city workers are talented, dedicated and hardworking—and, therefore, quite productive. All I am suggesting is that they would be even more “productive” if there were more of them at no extra cost to the taxpayer.
Photo from innovativesignage.com

Photos from Sunday's Walk for Memories

As I wrote earlier, Sunday's Investors Group Walk for Memories in aid of the Alzheimer Society of BC was a great success, and I really enjoyed the opportunity to be the Master of Ceremonies for another year. Congrats to everyone who walked, organized, and volunteered. And a special tip of the hat to Connor and Dawn, without whose leadership the event would not have flourished.
Photos courtesy of 'Photos by Cheryl'

The 'freeman' phones it in

Going "off the [electrical] grid" is one thing. But taking a headlong, flying leap off the entire governmental-legal-societal grid is another thing entirely. So what am I referring to? It's a loose organization called the "freeman of the land" movement. And one of its adherents made his presence known this morning in Coquitlam Council Chambers, where the regular bylaw adjudication hearings are held.
First, a bit about this "freeman" thing. Here's a good article from the U.S. point view. And here's a link to one of their sites. I first stumbled upon this movement 10 or 15 years ago, when I was invited to speak at one of their events. I had no idea what I was getting into--arguments about how a freeman isn't a legal person, about how the only real law is contract law, about how a government is a corporation and, if a person hasn't signed a legal contract with that governmental corporation, he wasn't bound by its rules or regulations.
All fascinating stuff in a nerdy, law-student, over-a-couple-of-beers kind of way. But it simply doesn't hold water. And every time someone tries to employ the philosophy's circuitous logic to get out of paying fines or taxes, the courts smack him down but good. Just ask actor Wesley Snipes (pictured above), who fell for the "freeman" baloney and ended up in the slammer for three years. This story gives details of his case without getting into Snipes's freeman ideology. This story, though, gives more of that background.
The scheduled appearance of "Peter of the Family Moore" at 10:30 a.m. this morning caused a bit of a buzz around the bylaw-enforcement and legal-services offices of City Hall because he had already spoken to a screening officer and explained his bizarre defence against a $75 parking ticket. Essentially, it boiled down to his declarations that he did not believe our governments have the power to make laws and, further, that a person is ruled only by common or contract law.
Coincidentally, Councillor Craig Hodge and I had decided to attend the hearings this morning in order to better acquaint ourselves with the workings of the city government. We witnessed an interesting morning of appeals, primarily against parking tickets, but one also involving a grow-op that the defendants said was legally licenced, but which the evidence showed was not.
The icing on the cake of a most interesting morning was the Moore adjudication. He didn't attend in person, as is his right, so the hearing was conducted by conference call and speaker phone under the auspices of provincial adjudicator, Mr. Wise (Wyse?).
"Peter of the Family Moore" proved to be a full-blown "freeman," contesting every aspect of the case. He didn't agree that the piece of paper that had been affixed to the car in question should be called a ticket. He was evasive about the car's ownership. He didn't agree that the government had the power to issue tickets. He didn't agree that the government had the power to compel him to pay the ticket. He didn't even believe in the government. And on and on.
The adjudicator kept his composure throughout the hearing, but in the end signalled he had had enough and rejected the appeal. Not surprisingly, the man known as "Peter of the Family Moore" gave every indication he would ignore the finding.

Photo of actor Wesley Snipes from people.com.

A special award for a special woman

Last night's 11th annual Business Excellence Awards, staged by the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce, was (as expected) highlighted by an award. But it wasn't to a business or a business leader. Rather, it was to an inspiring woman.

First, though, there definitely was some excitement and pleasure surrounding the awarding of several prizes to local businesses and business leaders for their outstanding accomplishments--not only for their financial successes but also for their community involvement. You'll likely read about them in upcoming editions of the Now and the News, but here's the scoop now:

Douglas College Foundation, winner of the Non-Profit of the Year.
Sandpiper Signs & Decals Inc., Small Business of the Year.
Jim Irwin: Westwood Honda, Business Leader of the Year.
Mr. Mike's Steakhouse & Bar, Business of the Year.

Other award winners, announced previously, were Fred Soofi, Member of the Year; and the late Betty Fox, Legacy Award. Betty's daughter and granddaughter accepted the award on behalf of the Fox family, and were deeply touched.

Regarding the award, the Chamber's program notes said it beautifully: "Betty Fox was the mother of an icon who became an icon herself. She was our national mother, our national hero, an inspiration we have always watched with awe...In carrying on her son's legacy, Betty Fox created a legacy of her own."

Betty Fox died on June 17 of last year, and she, like her son Terry, is greatly missed.

Photo from salt-spring-island.org

What to do with Coquitlam's land holdings?

One of the more fascinating bits of information made public today during our first day of listening to budget presentations is that the City of Coquitlam owns about a quarter-of-a-billion dollars worth of real estate within city boundaries, the majority on Burke Mountain in areas that are to be developed.
Citizens might see this figure and immediately think the City should sell off the land in today's hot market, and then use the proceeds (including the interest) to keep taxes low for years to come. Extra revenue would also be gained from the collection of property taxes on the land, which would be owned by private interests and, therefore, taxable.
As explained in public today, the city's policy is basically to bank this land, to buy and sell judiciously as the need arises, and also to set aside reserves to replace capital assets in the future. Furthermore, it was explained that controlling a large parcel of land on Burke Mountain gives the City more say over how it should be developed.
Readers with long memories will recall that the Province of British Columbia had an opposite approach to land sales when it came to the Expo Lands, which, controversially, were sold as one large, undeveloped parcel to Li Ka-shing after Expo '86. Most observers said the Province got nowhere near as much money for the land as it should have received--and would have, if it had held onto the land, serviced it, and sold it parcel by parcel.
At the other end of the spectrum, the City of Surrey is now actively working as a developer in its own right--and this is controversial, as well.
I'll be studying the matter further in the coming weeks. But, in the final analysis, it may come down to a matter of one's opinions about the proper role of government and about one's philosophy regarding budget processes.
One way or the other, though, it's a good problem to have.
Photo from bestofcoquitlambc.com

Supporting the Nordic model

As noted in yesterday's entry, I attended an event in downtown Vancouver yesterday morning, at which 60 Social Justice 12 students from Dr. Charles Best Secondary, led by teacher Ken Ipe, were collecting signatures for a petition asking the federal government to toughen the laws against prostitution and pimping.
Significantly, the "Nordic model" they support treats prostitutes as victims of oppression. It does not seek to normalize prostitution and, in fact, embraces a philosophy that is the opposite of what the mainstream media are calling for these days -- legalization of prostitution in order to make the practice safer for women.
From my perspective, the Nordic model is by far the better approach. It does have one flaw, however, and that's that, by defining the prostitute only as a victim, it relieves the prostitute herself of any responsibility for her actions. I am a fierce believer in individual responsibility; we are all individual actors in the moral universe and have the power to make up our own minds.
Nevertheless, I understand that the abuse and addiction that often precede a woman's entry into prostitution can seriously undermine her ability to make responsible decisions--and that is why I signed the petition.
Above are photographs from yesterday's event. I took all but the group photo and the photo showing me with some of the students; these were taken by Mr. Ipe.

Students take aim at prostitution

I'll be braving the snow today to travel downtown to support students from Dr. Charles Best Secondary who, as part of their Social Justice 12 class, are setting up a display table and collecting signatures on a petition that would have the federal government toughen Canadian law against prostitution. I think it's significant that their approach represents a complete rejection of the misguided "sex-trade worker" line of thinking that is favoured by many "progressives."

Here's the text of a note I received from teacher Ken Ipe explaining the project:

For your information, my Social Justice 12 classes (60 students) have chosen to pursue a federal government petition campaign on Saturday, January 14th, from 9:00am-12:00 pm next to the Vancouver Art Gallery. The goal is to gain signatures to change the current criminal code in relation to prostitution. Please see below for the Petition specifics. Since this is a time when Canada is wrestling with such laws, this is a timely event chosen by the students for their final exam.
We continue to appreciate your support in the activism that this course generates.

Petition to the House of Commons

January 9th, 2012

Whereas:

1. Prostitution is by its nature a form of male violence against women.

2. Countries that have legalized or fully decriminalized prostitution such as New Zealand, Netherlands, and Australia have seen a significant increase in human trafficking, illegal brothels, and increased organized crime activity. For example in New Zealand, organized crime has now controlled 80% of the prostitution of which only 20% are legal. For example, the organized crime in the Netherlands has forced the government to close down 1/3 of the Red Light District.

3. Prostitution normalizes sexual exploitation. Prostitution is systemic violence against women and a major deterrent to equality.

4. Prostitution is not a choice but rather a lack of choice and opportunity. The vast majority of prostitutes starts as young as 13 years old and is denied true choice and opportunity.

5. Women are not to be bought and sold as commodities.

We call upon the government of Canada to

· view prostitution in its essence as violence against women.
· amend the Criminal Code by rewriting our prostitution laws in a way that criminalizes the sex buyers and pimps and decriminalizes the person being sold. We ask to use the Nordic model of Prostitution Law. This is called the Nordic Model (and abolitionist perspective) as seen is such countries as Sweden, Norway, and Iceland which has seen a dramatic reduction in prostitution and an increase in the stigma of buying and selling women.
· close all brothels and bawdy houses such as massages parlors where such prostitution occurs and pimps control.
· to not allow men to avoid court involvement by offering john school, anger management classes, etc… instead of court.
· provide prostituted women with immediate access to women-only detox, counseling, and longer term recovery beds.

A small step forward

The big announcement re gaming funds for the arts and culture sector wasn't as big as I was hoping. Basically, some last-minute money that was put into the system last year has now become permanent. And some important sectors have had their eligibility restored.

Although it wasn't part of the announcement, I learned that funding to community foundations, which was cut off a few years ago, would not be reinstated.

Nevertheless, the extra money being put into the budget is a step in the right direction, although nowhere near the 33% of gaming revenues that was the original provincial target many years ago.

Here's the text of the government news release:

B.C. acting on commitment to support community groups
VANCOUVER - Changes to the way community gaming grants are awarded will help ensure non-profit organizations have greater certainty and support in the vital work they do, announced Premier Christy Clark today.

"Through an open public engagement process, we heard from more than 1,700 British Columbians about what we can do to improve our gaming grant system," said Premier Clark. "We listened and we're taking action. Community gaming grants will be made available to more groups so they can focus on what they do best - delivering essential services to B.C. families."

In July, Premier Clark appointed Skip Triplett - former Kwantlen Polytechnic University president - to lead the Community Gaming Grant Review. The primary goal of the independent review was to get advice on how to improve the governance and funding formula for community gaming grants.

In response to Mr. Triplett's report on the review, which provides 16 options for consideration, the Province will reinstate funding eligibility for adult arts and sports organizations, environmental groups and animal welfare agencies. The Province will also increase support for other organizations that have experienced funding reductions in the past three years, including those responsible for fairs, festivals, youth arts and culture, community service, the B.C. Senior Games and community education organizations.

In addition, government will continue to work on streamlining the application process for grants, including exploring options for introducing multi-year funding in the coming years.

"Non-profits do tremendous work for British Columbians. In some smaller communities, they are the sole service providers, ensuring B.C. families have access to important resources that improve their quality of life," said Ida Chong, Minister of ommunity, Sport and Cultural Development. "By investing more in our non-profits, we're investing in stronger communities, healthier families and a more culturally diverse British Columbia."

"I applaud the work of Skip Triplett, Chair of the Community Grant Review, and thank Premier Christy Clark and Minister Ida Chong for this very timely policy decision," said Norman Armour, executive director, PuSh International Performing Arts Festival. "Reinstating adult arts within the eligible criteria for Provincial Gaming support recognizes the important role that the arts play in the lives of British Columbians. The social profit arts in B.C. are a remarkably vibrant and resourceful sector; the news of this investment will have a profoundly positive and lasting
effect."

To apply online for community gaming grants, go to:
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/gaming/grants/community-gaming.htm

Triplett's independent report has been released in full and can be found at: www.communitygaminggrantreview.gov.bc.ca

A backgrounder follows.

Contacts:

Chris Olsen
Press Secretary
Office of the Premier
604 220-1640

Jeff Rud
Director of Communications
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
250 953-3677

BACKGROUNDER
For Immediate Release
2012PREM0002-000020

Jan. 11, 2012
Office of the Premier
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Outcomes of the Community Gaming Grant Review

* The Province has increased gaming grants in its annual base budget to a total of $135 million, beginning this fiscal year.
* That will mean $15 million more in gaming grants than originally budgeted for 2011/12.
* This funding will reach right across the province with a large part going outside of the Lower Mainland to more than 2,000 organizations in hundreds of communities.
* Groups focusing on adult arts and sports, animal welfare and environmental concerns will be eligible for community gaming grants.
* These reinstated groups will receive a total of $8 million. The Province will conduct a special intake of applications from Jan. 16 to Feb. 13 to ensure these groups are eligible for funding this fiscal year. Interested organizations will be required to apply online.
* Of this $8 million, $6 million will be allocated for adult arts, culture and sport organizations, while environmental organizations will be allocated $2 million.
* This funding will benefit non-profit organizations that deliver key community services such as animal shelter organizations, fish and wildlife associations, lake and stream stewardship societies, district arts councils, museum societies, and theatres.
* The remaining $7 million will be used to increase funding to groups that have experienced reductions during the past three years, including those responsible for fairs, festivals, youth arts and culture, community service, the B.C. Senior Games and community education organizations.
* Funding will benefit community-focused organizations such as Kiwanis and Lions Club, heritage and folk music societies, non-profit child development societies, youth music schools and pipe bands.
* The Province is also exploring options for introducing multi-year funding in the coming years for groups that have achieved earned independence through sound fiscal practices.

Contacts:

Chris Olsen
Press Secretary
Office of the Premier
604 220-1640

Jeff Rud
Director of Communications
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
250 953-3677

Connect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

Transition to nowhere

A major development in the winding down of the HST: the BC government has reached an agreement with the feds on the orderly repayment of that $1.6-billion signing bonus. Full text of press release, below. Now, if only Victoria can provide a firm date on when the HST will actually end.

Jan. 11, 2012

Ministry of Finance

Terms agreed for repayment of B.C. HST transition funding
VICTORIA - The Province has concluded an agreement with the Government of Canada for the orderly repayment of the $1.6 billion in transition funding it received when B.C. moved to the Harmonized Sales Tax, Minister of Finance Kevin Falcon announced today.

Under the new agreement, the Province will have five years to repay in full the transition funding, and Canada has agreed to waive any interest charges over this period. While the Province has always acknowledged its responsibility for the repayment of the federal transition funding, the actual timing of when that repayment was to occur remained something for B.C. and Canada to further discuss.

The extended repayment schedule will save the Province debt interest costs that would otherwise have been incurred had the Province had to pay back the full amount right away-money that can instead go toward protecting core B.C. services.

The full cost of the $1.6-billion repayment will still be booked in the provincial's government's 2011-12 fiscal year, but the Province will instead be able to flow the cash over the coming five years.

Falcon will be available to comment to media at 11:15 a.m. at the Premier's Vancouver Office (999 Canada Place).

A memorable afternoon

Mary and I really enjoyed--and, moreover, were deeply moved by--the Tzu Chi "Thanksgiving & Blessing Ceremony" yesterday in Richmond. It was a real eye-opener for me to learn how this Buddhist organization has transformed the lives, not only of its grateful adherents, but also of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people around the world, from drought victims to tsunami survivors, who have been beneficiaries of Tzu Chi's "Buddhism in action" philanthropic efforts. The afternoon featured a few speeches, including a touching one by our mayor, Richard Stewart. But the highlights were songs and carefully choreographed dances that acted out Tzu Chi principles, which centre on reflection, repentance, compassion and service.