Council swims with the sharks

Last night, after some spirited and informative debate, council passed a motion asking staff to prepare a bylaw to “ban . . . the possession, trade, sale and distribution of shark fins . . . and that staff provide a report on how to proceed with such an initiative especially focusing on the issue of compliance.”

The action is in response to the widespread revulsion being felt in response to exposes on the abhorrent nature of the shark fishery – fins are chopped off live sharks, and the beasts are then left to bleed to death, their carcasses sinking to the ocean floor.

Not only is this wasteful, but it’s cruel. On this, everyone on council agreed. In fact, we unanimously voted in favour of sending a letter to Ottawa asking the federal government to ban the importation of shark fins, whose primary use is in expensive soup favoured by the Chinese.

There was no unanimity on the motion to enact a local bylaw, however. Mayor Richard Stewart, Councillors Linda Reimer and Brent Asmundsen, and I spoke against the motion, largely because of two concerns we shared: That this is properly a federal matter; and that the action opens the door to countless other social-justice actions which are not properly in our mandate.

When it came time for the vote, however, Stewart, Reimer and Asmundsen did not raise their hands either in opposition or in favour of the motion, which left me as the only official opponent. So be it.

One of the points I made in my speech was that Councillor Mae Reid, the sponsor of the ban, often complains about downloading by senior governments of responsibilities onto the city. She invariably says cities need new ways to raises taxes to fund these new responsibilities.

It is ironic, then, that she’s now seeking new responsibilities that properly rest with senior levels of government – responsibilities that call for more expenditures, through compliance efforts, by the city government. Where once she opposed “downloading,” she is now in favour of its opposite – “up-grabbing” (a term I think I invented last night).

Also of note is the form of the motion itself. It doesn’t talk about exploring the issue, researching the facts, and confirming that these outrageous acts are actually taking place. No, unlike the simplest zoning bylaw amendment, for which we ask staff to present detailed background on everything from the impact on tree coverage and water drainage, to traffic congestion and noise, this motion seeks no information other than how it might be enforced. This just doesn’t seem right.

Moreover, the motion is rather contradictory. At first, it asserts that the city implement a ban on anything to do with shark fins, and then it asks that staff provide a report on how to proceed with such an initiative, especially how compliance might be achieved. But isn’t this rather like shooting first and asking question later?

I also suggested that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with using shark fins, and that, perhaps one day, shark fins can be “certified” by some international agency as having been obtained in a way that is neither inhumane nor wasteful. 

Another issue surrounding this has to involve the unfortunate precedent it sets. As I suggested in my Facebook posting last night, it opens the doors to countless other animal-welfare initiatives. Moreover, I have to wonder whether an even wider range of social-justice-type motions are now poised to be unleashed on us.  These might include a motion to ban the sale of iPads, iPods and iPhones, which some activists say should be shunned because of harsh working conditions at factories in China.

Or perhaps, we’ll boycott minerals from South America because of low wages paid to miners, or clothing from developing nations because of child labour, or products from Nestle because of a decades-long boycott campaign over its production of baby formula.

I’ve even heard of an international boycott on all global food conglomerates, including Nestle, Philip Morris and Unilever. Are we now poised to send the bylaw enforcement officers into Safeway, Save-On and the Real Canadian Superstore to purge these supermarkets are the products of these companies? I hope not, but the door is now wide open.

Let’s get one thing straight: the shark-fin fishery, as now constituted, is despicable. We humans are supposed to be good stewards of the environment and, at the very least, the shark-fin fishery is horribly wasteful.

That’s one of the reasons I called for the sending of the letter to Ottawa (a call which Councillor Reimer adroitly transformed into a formal motion) – a call to action that I am pleased council supported unanimously.

Shark image from tomorrowisgreener.com

How our eco-embrace hurts workers

A briliant column in today's Vancouver Sun prompted me to write the following to the piece's author, Fazil Mihlar:

Brilliant op-ed on poverty today! Very good way of presenting the information. Interestingly, I've read many left-wing pieces in the US, questioning why low-income Americans "vote against their interests" by voting for Republicans (answer: tricky Republicans dupe them by waving the flag).

But your piece today has me asking: how is it that so many Canadians, of all economic levels, "vote against their interests" by supporting what I call "green tape" (environmental red tape). Furthermore, I also wonder how the NDP is allowed to get away with self-describing itself as the party of the working person while, at the same time, also being the chief supporter of job-killing green tape.


One more thing: since the two by-election results earlier this month, I've been thinking that the Number One peril posed by an NDP government isn't higher taxes, ballooning deficits, or trade-union protectionism; it's the spectre of more green tape (which, of course, will soon lead to higher unemployment, lower wages, ballooning deficits and higher taxes). Just look at what's happened/happening to California.

I'll no doubt be speaking about this general topic during deliberations of Coquitlam Council (of which I am now a member) in the coming months and years. I've already been quite outspoken about some other enviro-related issues. See http://www.terryoneill.ca/.

Once again: congratulations.

Sorry to miss Town Hall Meeting

I'm sorry that a long-planned trip to northern B.C., involving personal business, will prevent me from attending this Saturday's Town Hall Meeting at the Centennial Pavilion, 620 Poirier Street, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It's a short trip, but the earliest flight back will get me to YVR at 12:15 p.m. on Saturday, making it impossible for me to catch even the tail-end of the Town Hall meeting. I'm always reachable by email, toneill@coquitlam.ca, or phone, 604.362.3251, so please contact me directly if you'd like to discuss a matter that you were hoping to talk to me about at Saturday's meeting.

Remembering my days at The Review

The Richmond Review, where I worked for four years early in my career, is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. Reporter Matt Hoekstra is preparing a story about the anniversary, and asked me for my memories. Here's my response:

Congratulations on the Review’s 80th birthday. I worked at The Review from 1979 to 1983, the first two years as assistant editor (under the late Ms. Jean Baker), the final two years as Editor in Chief.

After graduating from SFU (BA) and Carleton (Journalism) in 1975, I worked for two years with The Canadian Press in Vancouver, and then two additional years as Legislative Correspondent for CP in Victoria. But my new wife and I became homesick for Greater Vancouver, and so we moved back to the mainland. My timing wasn’t the best, however, because the Sun and Province went on what turned out to be a half-year-long strike almost immediately upon my return, and my job opportunities were limited.

I was most grateful to land the job at The Review, and it proved to be an invaluable experience. As a matter of fact, the first two years at the paper exposed me to City Hall on a regular basis, as I was the council reporter. I actually loved the close-to-home, close-to-the-people responsibilities that council had, and I learned much about local government. Fast forward to the present, and I’m now a city councillor myself, in Coquitlam, and I can say that my experience in Richmond helped contribute to my decision to run here in Coquitlam.

Perhaps my favourite memory from my time at The Review was in preparing the 50th anniversary edition. At the time, it was widely thought that a certain woman had founded the paper in 1932. But my research led me to discover that the actual founder was a man who was still living in Cloverdale. I tracked him down, and he told me he had founded the paper in the depths of the depression as, essentially, a make-work project. Little did he know that the paper would end up “making work” for hundreds if not thousands of people that would follow! We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Pesticide ban is law, but not without a fight

After three years of study and discussion, City Council finally passed a bylaw banning the use of cosmetic pesticides in Coquitlam. I knew passage was inevitable, but it didn't stop me from making one last attempt to dissuade my colleagues from taking the action. Here is the text of that speech.

In my earlier dissertation against this bylaw, I essentially spoke about how it represented the “precautionary principle run amok.” Tonight, I want to focus on other aspects of its shortcomings.


Specifically, let’s look at Page 2 in the report to council: the boilerplate about how the initiatives described in this bylaw are said to reflect the corporate strategic goals of:

1. Achieving excellence in City governance;

2. Strengthening Neighbourhoods.

3. And Enhancing Sustainability of City Services and Infrastructure.

Let’s go through these one by one.

Achieving “excellence in city governance”. Is this what you call it when a city council commissions a costly expert study, then ignores its principal recommendation, to establish a permitting process? And then attempts to implement a near-complete ban? Excellence? And exactly how is “Excellence achieved” by implementing a bylaw of such magnitude without coming to grips with the massive financial implications it carries: According to page seven of the report, it could cost the city up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS over 10 years in extra labour costs to manually tend to “weed-impacted planting beds.” One million dollars? That’s not “Excellence” in city governance. That’s “extravagance”, pure and simple.

Strengthening neighbourhoods. If one believes the conjecture, that the ban will make our residents healthier, then you might be able to say that this is the case. But, of course, when viewing the hard evidence from Health Canada, which suggests that properly used pesticides aren’t dangerous in the first place, it’s hard to see how banning them can improve residents’ health. On the other hand, as I previously noted, neighbourhoods might actually be weakened, because --insofar as a ban would lead to more weeds growing in the city, adverse health risks associated with respiratory afflictions will increase, as per evidence I provided previously, associated with the City of Toronto. Moreover, as I also noted previously, feelings of general wellbeing may decrease, as per Dr. James Lu, medical health officer for Vancouver Coastal Health Unit, who wrote in a Feb. 19 2009 letter to Richmond council. “The aesthetics of urban landscapes has public health value.” Flowers, not weeds, make people happy, and this has a beneficial health effect. Because of this, he said, “a comprehensive integrated pest management approach offers a better alternative to cosmetic pesticide ban bylaws. An I.P.M. strikes a balance between prudence, public policy and private choice.” And, then, there’s the POSSIBLE $1 million price tag. What services will be lost/ or how much will taxes be raised to pay for this? Either way, it’s hard to see how neighbourhoods will be strengthened by overtaxing property owners or slashing services to cover the costs.

Enhancing sustainability of city services and infrastructure. Well, insofar as the bylaw essentially exempts the city from having to stop using weed killers on the city’s playing fields and medians – and now includes an exemption on the Pacific Rose Garden, too-- one wonders how this is to be interpreted.

Let’s take a closer look. Taken at face value, we are led to believe that a bylaw that allows the use of cosmetic pesticides on city property somehow enhances the sustainability of city services and infrastructure. Logically, though, if this is so, it must also be true that the bylaw (which has an opposite effect on private property), must also have an opposite outcome on private property when measuring sustainability. Bizarrely, this would lead us to conclude that the ban would have an UNSUSTAINABLE impact on that private property.

You can’t have it both ways! Allowing usage on city property and disallowing use on private property can’t both be sustainable at the same time. Oh the irony!

Reviewing the impact of the bylaw on the corporate strategic goals, then, it’s highly questionable whether “excellence in city governance” has been achieved, it’s doubtful that “neighbourhoods have been strengthened,” and it’s impossible to determine whether city services and infrastructure will enjoy “enhanced sustainability”.

In conclusion and sticking with the subject of irony I mentioned a moment ago, I must also draw attention to a letter dated Feb. 24, 2012 and signed by Verne Kucy, acting manager of environmental services, in which he responds to questions from the BC Cancer Society about the aforementioned city-fields exemption.

In defense of the exemption, Mr. Kucy declared, and I quote, “You should be aware that our Parks Department only uses products [that] have been authorized by the relevant Federal health agencies responsible for researching and approving their use and only as permitted under Provincial regulations.”

Ironic? Of course it is, because, absent any city-bylaw banning the use of cosmetic pesticides on private lawns, every citizen of Coquitlam could make exactly the same statement – that they use only “products [that] have been authorized by the relevant Federal health agencies responsible for researching and approving their use and only as permitted under Provincial regulations.” So it seems that the city deems itself responsible enough to make this argument, but has concluded that average citizens and property owners are, as a whole, completely IR-responsible.

Actually, this is beyond ironic. It’s insulting. And it’s discriminatory too, because it prejudges citizens, and finds them all guilty of reckless and unhealthy pesticide use.

It should come as no surprise, then, that I will vote against this bylaw on the grounds that it is expensive, illogical, unscientific, and unfair.

Removing trees improves Glen Park

The following is an expanded version of a speech I delivered at Council on Monday night in relation to the controversy over the removal of about 200 trees, most of them unstable or rotten, from Glen Park. The opportunity arose to address the controversy because of the presentation by staff of an update on the park improvements (see graphic).

I’m so glad this update has come to council at this time, because it provides us with an opportunity not only to showcase the excellent plan that the city has for Glen Park, but also to respond to criticisms surrounding the removal of some trees in the northwest corner of the park.
As the Approved Concept Plan shows, the area in question will, in the near future, be home to an Urban Skills Skate Park, Sports Courts and a Picnic area – none of which would be possible if all the trees were retained.
What we will see are modern, well-planned recreational facilities appealing to all age groups – facilities that are of high priority as the surrounding area becomes increasingly diversified. Indeed, at a recent open house staged to showcase a high-rise proposed for just south of the park, a Coquitlam couple expressed to me their fears that increased densification of this area would lead to overcrowding around Lafarge Lake.
They were especially concerned about conflicts between bicycle riders and pedestrians. I was able to explain to them that development of Glen Park was proceeding in response to just such concerns – that it would alleviate overuse at existing parks. The couple was most gratified to hear this.
I would imagine that most Coquitlam residents would also support development of the park, given that it is another manifestation of a consistent approach that the city has taken to providing such facilities – an approach that, it must be noted, has led 99% of citizens to rate the quality of life in the city as either very good or good.
This is according to the most recent Ipsos Reid survey done for the city. Tellingly, 31% of those polled said that the quality of life had improved over the past five years. And, at 20%, the leading reason cited for that improvement was improved recreation facilities. Following not too far behind, at 15%, was more recreational facilities - that is, parks.
And so, a great many Coquitlam residents are not only very pleased with the quality of life in the city, but also cite the recreational opportunities being provided them as a top reason for the continued improvement of the quality of life.
But, as my colleagues and I have been hearing in recent weeks, not everyone is happy with the specifics of the tree removal at Glen Park. We’ve received numerous letters; we’ve been stopped in the street; we’ve been cornered at public gatherings – all by concerned citizens asking us about what’s going on at the park. Personally, I answer them by outlining some of the facts, as I’ve explained earlier. And that’s usually good enough.
But for the most extreme critics, there’s no good answer. These are the people who describe the selective tree removal as a clear-cut, or, more outrageously, as a “slaughter” or a “massacre.” I am not making this up. We’ve got the letters and emails to prove it.
I can only wonder how such people can sleep at night, knowing that, every day, throughout the world, not only are hundreds of thousands of trees being “slaughtered,” but so are billions of blades of grass!
Their nightmares must be horrific.
One correspondent urged us to watch a video by David Suzuki so we could, “reacquaint ourselves with Mother Nature.” Well, let me say that I’m already quite acquainted with Mother Nature. In fact, I’ve seen her in action on numerous occasions:
*I’ve seen the tsunamis that have killed tens of thousands of people in Japan,
*the droughts that have wiped out entire regions of Africa,
*the plagues of locusts that have destroyed hundreds of square miles of crops,
*the volcanic eruptions that have buried towns,
*the hurricanes that have devastated coastal communities,
*and the tornadoes that have sent babies hurtling through the air to their deaths.
Yes, I’ve seen all those, and I’ve concluded that I, personally at least, have no great need to reacquaint myself with Mother Nature. In fact, if anyone needs reacquainting, it’s those critics who need to be reacquainted with the amazing power of human ingenuity.
Humanity’s great progress over the past five hundred years rests in large part on our ability to, for example: 1) control the ravages of Nature – by inventing amazing medicines to beat back deadly diseases, by designing buildings to withstand earthquakes, by building dikes to hold off floods; and 2) to harness Nature for our benefit – by building hydroelectric dams, and by turning fossilized or liquefied organic material into fuels, for example.
I know that the critics mean well, and that they think they are the voice of reason, while evil city planners and councillors conspire with big bad developers to pave paradise and put up parking lots. But I believe these extreme critics have been green-washed by the likes of the aforementioned David Suzuki into believing, at best, that there’s a moral equivalency between human life and the nature world, and, at worst, that humanity is like a virus or a cancer to the natural world.
But this is palpably foolish. Does the deadly Dutch Elm disease, which is a natural occurrence, “slaughter” or “massacre” trees when it kills millions of them indiscriminately? If not, then why is our judicious removal of a few hundred trees, many of them rotting from the inside anyway, so horrible that it must be described as a slaughter or a massacre?
Are humans doing something evil by cutting down trees? Of course not. Unless, of course, you also believe that a beaver that cuts down a tree to block a stream and make his little, mid-pond hut, is evil incarnate as well.
And so, my message to the folks who have been horrified, mortified, scandalized, bewitched, bothered or bewildered by the removal of 200 trees (representing only 20% of the total) at Glen Park is this: Get a grip. Or better yet, go hug a tree at nearby Walton Park. There are plenty to go around.

Facebook is friendlier, for now

My apologies for not being very active on this blog in recent weeks. There's definitely more action at my Facebook page, which I invite you to visit regularly. I promise I'll get back to some longer-form writing here in the near future. Thanks!

Another inconvenient truth for the alarmists

Posted yesterday on the Globe and Mail's website, a most fascinating story, headlined: Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

Its main points are in this paragraph:
"The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic."

So let's think this through:
1) At one time, all bears were land animals.
2) When weather got colder, one adventurous type of bear adapted and then evolved to live on the ice for part of the year.
3) Now that the weather is warming, and the ice is less plentiful, the same bear is adapting to living back on the land, where
4) Because of warmer weather, more plants are growing for longer periods,
5) Thus providing more food for smaller animals,
6) Which in turn provides more food for carnivores like polar bears.
7) As a result, polar bears are thriving.
8) Common sense (the opposite of which is Suzuki Sense).

Photo of polar bears from Reuters, via TheGlobeandMail.com

James Gordon Stewart Fund to aid medical research, patients and students

We've done a lot of work at the Coquitlam Foundation over the past several weeks on a major new initiative, so I thought I'd use my blog to help spread the good news. Read away!


COQUITLAM – The Coquitlam Foundation is proud to announce the establishment of a major new fund benefitting medical-research, health and educational initiatives.

The new foundation-directed fund has been seeded with $355,588 from the estate of the late James Gordon Stewart (pictured), a longtime resident of Coquitlam who passed away in December 2009 at the age of 83. The fund is named in his honour.

As called for in Mr. Stewart’s will, the fund is designed to aid several charitable causes, specifically: research and support of persons with Alzheimer’s Disease; research and support of persons with kidney disease; and scholarships for students from Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam who are attending Simon Fraser University.

“This is a remarkable bequest from a remarkable man,” says Colleen Talbot, chair of the Coquitlam Foundation. “The generosity and community spirit Mr. Stewart demonstrated are truly exceptional.” The foundation’s executive director, Dale Clarke, adds, “We are honoured to have been given the responsibility to steward this exceptional gift, and have committed ourselves to maximizing the good that it will achieve.”

Coquitlam lawyer Donald A. Drysdale, a co-executor of Mr. Stewart’s estate, says Mr. Stewart wanted to leave a perpetual legacy, and originally thought of establishing a standalone foundation in his name. However, upon further research, Mr. Stewart determined it would be far more efficient to make use of an existing foundation.

“And, as Jim wanted the foundation to have a focus centred on Coquitlam, where Jim had lived all his adult life, it was felt the Coquitlam Foundation would be the best choice,” Mr. Drysdale explains.

The Coquitlam Foundation has already contacted groups that will be sure to benefit from Stewart’s generosity. “The Kidney Foundation of Canada is both honoured and grateful to be named as one of the charities that Mr. Stewart’s foundation-directed fund will help support,” says Lorraine Gerard, Executive Director of the BC Branch. “We look forward to working with the Coquitlam Foundation to actualize Mr. Stewart’s legacy in support of kidney-related research and patient services.”

“Mr. Stewart’s gift to the Alzheimer Society of B.C. is a noble example of compassion for individuals and families impacted by this devastating illness,” says Jean Blake, CEO of the province-wide non-profit organization. “His bequest will help to ensure we can continue to provide support for those already on the dementia journey as well as fund research to find the cure.”

The establishment of the James Gordon Stewart Fund gives the Coquitlam Foundation yet another reason to celebrate this year, the 20th anniversary of its establishment. The foundation now manages about $2.2 million in foundation-directed and donor-advised funds.

Operating as the charitable “Heart of Coquitlam” for the past two decades, the foundation has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to local non-profit organizations, individuals, and students by way of grants, bursaries and scholarships.

The foundation is planning to distribute upwards of $50,000 within the community at its annual Awards Night, May 29 at the Evergreen Cultural Centre.

The Coquitlam Foundation is always pleased to accept donations, c/o P.O. Box 2, 1207 Pinetree Way, Coquitlam, B.C., Canada, V3B 7Y3, or through the Foundation’s website, www.coquitlamfoundation.com.The Coquitlam Foundation is registered with Canada Revenue as a charitable organization, No. 890762347 RR0001.

BACKGROUNDER

‘He made his small corner of the world a better place’

COQUITLAM – James Gordon Stewart was always simply “Jim” to his family. But by the time he passed away on December 30, 2009 at the age of 83, Jim Stewart had outlived all his immediate family and close relatives.

Nevertheless, while Jim might have had few loved ones left in his life during his final years, he still loved the life he had lived in Coquitlam and wanted to give something back.

That is why, when it came time to write his will, he decided to give the bulk of his estate to the city’s leading diversified philanthropic organization, the Coquitlam Foundation. He left clear instructions for the funds to be used for research into Alzheimer’s Disease and kidney disease, and to assist patients afflicted by those diseases. As well, he directed the foundation to use the funds to provide financial assistance to Tri-Cities students attending Simon Fraser University.

Stewart and his family moved to Coquitlam more than 50 years ago, and he made many lasting relationships with fellow Freemasons throughout the area; he once served as Master of the Capilano Lodge in North Vancouver. He enjoyed a successful career in sales, working in the fuel-supply business and then in wine marketing. His business sense carried over into retirement, where he displayed a knack for investing.

Eronne Ward, his longtime Arbury Avenue neighbour, remembers him well. “Jim was not blessed with a big family, but he had one of the most cherished gifts in life—he had true love,” she says.

Stewart’s wife Jean Pauline (nee McLean) passed away in 1997 and their lone child, Marilyn Louise Stewart (who had no spouse or child) died in 2008. Other relatives were either estranged or had also passed away.

“Marilyn’s passing was heartbreaking,” Ward recalls, noting that she died of kidney disease. “I cannot even begin to understand how he managed so well. During that time, Jim felt extreme grief and the realization that he was alone scared him so much, but he carried on.”

The struggle was especially daunting because he had gone blind a few years earlier following complications from cataract surgery. “But Jim took everything life handed him with a truly inspiring resilience,” Ward continues. “Whenever I expressed feelings of remorse for his handicap, he’d say, ‘I’m just blind. Other than that, I’m perfect!’”

That Stewart would bequeath funds to the Coquitlam Foundation is not surprising. “Jim had a truly generous nature, and his compassion will extend far beyond his years,” Ward says, adding that he often gave financial support to troubled young people that she took under her wing.

“The last two years of his life brought me to tears so many times, but never Jim,” she says. “He just put one foot in front of the other, took a deep breath and kept going. He made his small corner of the world a better place.”

Indeed, he did.

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