A city-wide CAC would worsen affordability problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering my mother-in-law

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

May 8, 1922 – Oct. 23, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warmer weather would help Canadian economy!

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

Sanctimonious crap'?

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

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

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

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

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

Something to think about.

Kube is in. Why not Byfield?

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

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

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

Just asking.

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

Coquitlam's tax-shift policy is working

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today is Coquitlam Foundation's grant-application deadline day

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

About those schools on Burke Mountain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're Number Three in BC!

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

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

Coquitlam's Lafarge Lake.(Photo by me)

Burnaby B.C. –

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

B.C.”

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

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

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

percentage of people with degrees and taking transit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hand-in-hand.”

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

1. Fort St. John

2. North Vancouver

3. Coquitlam

4. Burnaby

5. Dawson Creek

6. New Westminster

7. Langley

8. Richmond

9. Surrey

10. Vancouver

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

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

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

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

store now and on newsstands as of December 31st.

About BCBusiness

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

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

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

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

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

publisher in Western Canada.

Contact Information:

Media Inquiries:

Holly Pateman

T: 604-637-3472

E: hpateman@canadawide.com

Let freedom reign in campaigns!

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

Opening Comments

Graphic from news1130.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question of free speech

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

 “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

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

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

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

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

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

Practical objection to spending limits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donation sources

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion

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

They may be 'auxiliary,' but their work is essential

We're now getting some more clarity on the impact of last's month's edict from RCMP headquarters in Ottawa, informing us unilaterally (with no consultation)  that our 49 auxiliary officers would have to be under the "direct supervision" of a regular, armed member whenever the auxiliaries were performing their duties. And what we are being told is that the situation may not be quite as problematic as we had feared, and that all policy matters surrounding the use of auxiliaries are under review.

New letter from Supt. Bates.

 Here's a link to my previous posting about the issue; the link also includes other links to news stories about the edict, which Coquitlam Council made into a very public issue when it voted unanimously on Nov. 3 in support of my motion to ask Ottawa to overturn the edict.

At the time, we were concerned that the entire Auxiliary Constables program might be in jeopardy because the City simply couldn't afford to have a regular member shadow an auxiliary member who, for example, might be making a public-safety-related presentation to an elementary school. Similarly, the City couldn't afford to have regular members replace all the work currently done by auxiliaries.

In a letter dated Nov. 21 (see scanned copy of letter accompanying this story. I literally had to cut and paste the letter to have it fit on one page.), Supt. Tyler Bates, director of RCMP National Aboriginal Policing and Crime Prevention Services, explains that the edict was issued in response to the shootings on Parliament Hill. He explained: "...in the current environment, there is increased risk to those wearing the RCMP uniform, including Auxiliary Constables." And since auxiliaries are unarmed, it wouldn't be prudent to allow them to be unaccompanied by armed Regular Members.

That said, Supt. Bates added, "Auxiliaries can still perform crime prevention functions without direct supervision, provided they are not in uniform." He also added that the national policy governing the supervision of auxiliaries "is under review in order to ensure a balance between community policing initiatives and public and police safety."

He continued: "Feedback will be sought from RCMP Divisions on any proposed policy changes. In the meantime, the directive that Auxiliary Constables working in uniform be under the direct supervision of an RCMP Regular Member remains in effect, to ensure the safety and security of our Auxiliary Constables."

Bottom line: It's good to learn that unaccompanied auxiliaries will still be able to address students and youth groups, for example. But I'm also hoping that their educational presentations won't be rendered less-effective because they're being delivered by a non-uniformed auxiliary instead of one in the Mounties' garb.

I'm also saddened to learn that the the auxiliaries' effective crime-prevention patrols--which certainly are made more impactful by the fact the auxilaries are in uniform--cannot continue in their pre-edict form. And that's a real shame.

Thanks! Thanks! And Thanks!

The results are in, and 11,712 citizens voted for us! Wow. We're re-elected. We're in a strong second place of eight elected councillors. And we're back for four years.
All we can say is Thank You! Thanks to the voters of Coquitlam, thanks to my volunteers and supporters, and thanks to Coquitlam!

Just 12 more hours of Internet campaigning left!

This sort of 'sign-and-wave' event will be allowed tomorrow.

In case you're wondering, this page will go silent tomorrow--election day--as should all candidates' Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, blogs and websites. It's all part of a new set of rules enacted by the provincial government. Here's exactly what is not allowed, and what is allowed:
On General Voting Day, candidates and elector organizations cannot:
· sponsor newspaper, television or radio advertising
· sponsor new election advertising
· change their existing advertising on the Internet, including tweets and Facebook messages
· use social media including transmitting messages about getting out to vote
· use automated dialers (e.g., robo-calls)
Candidate and elector organizations are allowed to solicit votes on General Voting Day in the following ways:
· live person-to-person telephone calls
· door-to-door canvassing
· handing out brochures
· placing election signs or posters
· “mainstreeting” and “sign-and-wave”
However, these activities must not take place within 100 metres of a voting place.

New trail would extend Coquitlam Crunch northward

Crunch could be extended to Eagle Mountain Park. (Photo by me)

You might recall reading a story in the Tri-City News a week ago about Fortis BC's plans for some major work in northern Coquitlam. The story focused on Fortis's plans for some open houses, and then mentioned (in passing, or so it seemed) that Fortis was working with City of Coquitlam officials on a plan that would see the company build a hiking trail connection to link the top of the Coquitlam Crunch to the area around FortisBC’s new compressor station.
The story quotes James Lota of Fortis as saying, "Your staff have provided plans for the trail and the proposed configuration of what you want us to build. We have put a lot of thought into it and we are moving forward on the basis that we would like to help you out with that.”
Mr. Lota's comments came in response to my questioning of him on this subject, a subject that was first raised some months ago by our City Manager.
Here's the big take-away: This "moving forward" is, to my mind, all but tantamount to an agreement-in-principle that Fortis will, indeed, be building this new trail. And this, I think, is really great news.
Ever since the Crunch was improved with the addition of new landscape-tie stairs along its steepest section, usage on the Crunch has skyrocketed. Now, with the prospect that the trail could be extended even further north -- to Eagle Mountain Park at the top of Westwood Plateau -- it's bound to become even more popular. This is tremendous news for hikers, walkers and lovers of fresh air and exercise.
Better yet: it would come at no cost to the taxpayer. Fortis would likely foot the entire bill for this million-dollar-plus project!
Just thought I'd mention it.

A day on the campaign trail

Photographer Michelle Doherty followed me throughout the day on Nov. 10 to record what one of my typical campaign days was like. The brilliant, crisp weather was atypical, however....and thank goodness for that. Here are a few of the photos she took. For the full album, please visit my political Facebook page by clicking here.

The handshake at the door. Always a good way to finish.

A lovely way to start the morning with Mary.

Chatting with Mabel Chan about the untimely death of her son Leo.

Ready to plant a sign.

Sharing a light moment Exec. Asst. Carol Jones

With GM of Strategic Initiatives Perry Staniscia

Brother-in-law Bill, Mary, me and friend Ron greeted a.m. commuters.

The elephant in the room

I'm home now from the Chamber of Commerce's all-candidates' meeting, where my opening speech enjoyed the loudest and most prolonged applause I've received for any of the speeches or answers I've given in any of the all-candidates' meetings.

No surprise that the speech also generated some strong --even emotional -- responses/rebuttals from two members of the Protect slate later in the evening during the wrap-up session. Here are the notes from my opening speech:

Hi, I'm Terry O'Neill, and I’m seeking re-election to council.
This is our fourth all-candidates’ meeting, and there have been plenty of big issues discussed: services, densification and taxes. But there’s one we haven't talked about. There’s an elephant in the room, and it’s this:
The NDP is trying to take over City Hall.
*It’s no coincidence that every member of the Protect slate, aka Coquitlam Citizens Alliance, is also an NDPer.
*It’s no coincidence that our local NDP MLA and MP have endorsed the slate.
*It’s no coincidence that CUPE, which represents the city’s unionized workforce and is closed aligned with the NDP, has endorsed the slate, too.
We all know what damage the NDP did to the provincial economy when it was in power. Let’s not let it happen in Coquitlam too.
As an independent, I’ll work hard to keep Coquitlam safe and financially sound. That’s my promise, and you can count on it!

'Real consultation is crucial'

A good-sized audience at Summit community centre for the meeting.

As I reported earlier, my Burquitlam speech on Tuesday centred on truck routes. My speech at tonight's Chamber all-candidates meeting at the Evergreen Cultural Centre will be about yet another, very specific subject. Stay tuned. 
Meanwhile, here are my notes from my opening address at last night's Westwood Plateau Community Association all-candidates meeting--a meeting that went off very well. My speech was fairly general, hitting on my usual themes:

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

My background in journalism and volunteering taught me the importance of standing up for what you believe in, and for working hard to support others.

That’s why I helped found the Eagle Ridge Residents Association. And that's why I'm proud of the role I played on Council in shrinking tax increases over the past three years. I certainly intend to continue keeping a close watch on the bottom line if re-elected.

I also hope you give me the chance to build on the successes I helped initiate in the area of democratic reform. Real consultation is crucial!

As Coquitlam keeps growing, we need councillors with good judgement and solid experience to ensure that services and amenities keep pace. You can count on me to work hard and be prepared, so you receive the high-quality government you deserve.

And one more thing: As an independent candidate, I am not beholden to any slate, team or party. Instead, my priority is you, the taxpayer, the voter, the citizen. That's my promise, and you can count on it!

O'Neill and O'Neill: What's in a name?

Terry O'Neill

Shari O'Neill

Now that the election brochures have been distributed and the lawn signs have been planted, questions are arising once more about the two O'Neills -- yours truly, running for Coquitlam council, and Shari O'Neill, who is running for School District 43 board.
The short answer to the ubiquitous question is: we are not married; we are not even related.
The long answer is: we are not married; we are not even related. Hope that makes everything perfectly clear.
Meantime, I'm wishing Shari all the best in the election!

Actions speak louder than words

A large and motivated audience in Burquitlam. (Photo by me)

We have just returned home from the Burquitlam all-candidates meeting, at Banting Middle School, where most of the questions centred on the many changes the area is undergoing because of densification and the Skytrain.
It was a well-attended affair: almost 200 were in the audience. All the mayoral and council candidates showed up except for Mr. Mandarino and Mr. Kopahi. A big thank-you to the organizers and volunteers who made the event such a big success. Here are the notes for my opening, one-minute speech:

I know that Burquitlam residents are worried about the rapid rate of change here – the densification and the arrival of the Evergreen Line.

Everyone at this table will tell you that they are concerned, too. But I’ve always believed that actions speak louder than words.

And that’s why I was one of only three council members who voted last summer AGAINST a plan to turn Como Lake Avenue-- from Mariner to Clarke -- into a full truck route for at least two months.

Our GM of engineering opposed it, and the public had not even been consulted on a move that would have steered more heavy-truck traffic into the very heart of Burquitlam.

Thankfully, after a public outcry, council finally listened to reason and voted unanimously stop the experiment in its tracks.

I can assure you that there will be MORE of this kind of independent-minded and principled decision-making if you return me to council for a second term. That's my promise, and you can count on it!

Edict from RCMP brass strips auxiliary officers of independence/power, hurts Coquitlam

Council unanimously supported my motion.

UPDATES: Here are some links to media stories about this issue, including explanations from the RCMP and admissions that, as I charged, they failed to consult with us before issuing the edict. Here's CKNW's story. Here's 24hrs'. Here's CKWX's. Here the story in the Tri-City News. And here's the Tri-Cities Now's story. And, finally, the Vancouver Sun's.

Late last month, an RCMP director in Ottawa quietly issued an edict that will have a dramatic and detrimental effect on the delivery of community-safety and –education programs in Coquitlam.

I am not happy about this. And neither are my colleagues on Coquitlam Council, who voted unanimously in favour of my motion tonight (seconded by Brent Asmundson) to express our disappointment with the change.

The heretofore unpublicized edict originated from the office of the Director of the National Crime Prevention/Aboriginal Policing Services, which ordered on Oct. 24 that all Auxiliary RCMP Constables must now be under the “direct” supervision of a Regular Member when performing their duties. Until now, it has been merely “general” supervision.

Until the change, the City had been able to use auxiliaries to, for example, patrol Canada Day festivities on their own, while generally supervised by one Regular Member at a central location. Under the new edict, however, the auxiliaries won’t be able to do this, and will have to be accompanied almost lockstep by a Regular Member.

This would not make sense, of course. The bottom line is that the new edict will either cost the City (and taxpayers, of course) considerably more money – for all-Regular Member patrols—or lead to a reduction in service. We are not amused.

Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact there was absolutely no consultation from Ottawa about this—an astonishingly tone-deaf approach considering the commitment the RCMP made during the last round of contract talks to better communicate with contracting municipalities.

The change in the role of auxiliaries may be no big deal in Ontario, which has a provincial force (the OPP) and city forces dealing with most of their population. But it’s a big deal in B.C., and an especially big deal in Coquitlam, where we have almost 50 auxiliaries performing a wide range of duties, from crime-prevention to community-education. (See the notice of motion, below, for more detail.)

We have every right to be proud of the tremendous work our auxiliaries have done for Coquitlam, and we are certain that they are having a profoundly beneficial effect on the community.

To have Ottawa imperil all that with a stroke of the pen is simply not acceptable.

Notice of Motion regarding Auxiliary Constables

Whereas the Director of the National Crime Prevention/Aboriginal Policing Services (Ottawa) has, of as of the 24th of October 2014, changed the policy with respect to the deployment and engagement of Auxiliary Constables within Detachments across Canada, and

Whereas the policy change identifies a move from 'General Supervision' to 'Direct Supervision' with regard to the deployment of Auxiliary Constables, with 'General Supervision' meaning the Auxiliary Constable(s) may perform specific duties without being under the direct supervision of a Regular Member, and 'Direct Supervision' meaning the Auxiliary constable must be accompanied and supervised by a Regular Member, and

Whereas the Coquitlam Detachment’s Auxiliary Constable Program is responsible for: Crime Reduction Patrols; School Presentations at elementary schools; visits to programs with City Parks and Rec Departments; presentations to Community Youth groups (Girl Guides and Boy Scouts); and providing police presence at Community Events, and

Whereas the announced changes of Oct. 24 appear to have a detrimental effect on the ability of Coquitlam Detachment’s Auxiliary Constables to perform the above-stated duties,

Therefore be it resolved that Coquitlam Council send a letter to the Director of the National Crime Prevention/Aboriginal Policing Services (Ottawa), outlining the impact the policy change has on the safety and well-being of the city of Coquitlam and asking that the policy change be reconsidered.

                                                                                                                                                                                

Moved by Councillor Terry O’Neill           Seconded by Councillor Brent Asmundson

Nov. 3, 2014