One continuous ride

With preparation work already underway for construction of the Evergreen Line, I recently called the project office to get clarification on something; this is what I learned:

With completion of the Evergreen Line, Sky Train riders will be able to have a continuous ride from the Douglas College Station, at the start of the line in Coquitlam, to the VCC-Clark station in east Van.

However, riders from Coquitlam wanting to head into New Westminster will have to get off at Lougheed and transfer to a new train at an adjoining station, where they can catch a train heading east.

This is is great. In effect, with completion of the Evergreen, there'll be one continuous Evergreen-Millennium Sky Train line from central Coquitlam's starting point to east Vancouver.

The office wasn't able to tell me whether the continuous line will be called the Evergreen-Millennium, the Millennium-Evergreen, or maybe even a new name.

SkyTrain Mark2 car on the Millennium Line (Photo by Ian Fisher, 2002 Aug)

Voting in favour of $2.4-million tax burden?

My council colleague, Lou Sekora, denies it, but by voting against the RCMP contract at last night's meeting, he was doing more than just protesting against a contract that left him and several other councillors unhappy; in fact, he way saying that his dissatisfaction with the contract was so intense that he was willing not to sign the contract and thus expose Coquitlam to great financial risk. This is because Coquitlam's failure to sign the contract would trigger the immediate loss of the 10% federal subsidy which amounts to about $200,000 a month, or $2.4-million a year.

Sekora chuckled when I suggested the impact of his vote would, if a majority supported his position, be to trigger a huge tax increase, and he said later that he certainly didn't support the extra tax burden.

But, realistically, if four other councillors had voted the same way he did, the plain and unvarnished truth of the matter would be that we'd be facing a huge new budgetary expenditure and, in the absence of widespread program slashing, a tax increase-- at least until we could get our own municipal or regional force up and running. And, even then, costs for a local force were projected, in a city study completed a few years ago, to be at least 10% higher too.

A veteran council member, Sekora undoubtedly had added up the votes beforehand and knew that his No vote would not carry the day, and so it carried little risk while, at the same time, brought him some undoubted publicity (which he is getting even here!).

In the end, council voted 8-1 to sign the new contract -- a move that most likely comes as a great relief to the vast majority of Coquitlam taxpayers, not only because of the budgetary considerations but also because some 92% of  residents told our pollsters earlier this year that they are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the job the Mounties are doing.
Photo shows me with two Mounties at a recent civic event.

Living in a denser metropolitan area

It was because of convenience and cost that I took the Westcoast Express train to and from downtown Vancouver yesterday to attend the Vancouver Urban Forum. But the fact I left my car in the suburbs and took public transit into an urban centre could also be seen as an endorsement of some of the conference's major themes, specifically those involving the call for more and better public transit.

On the whole, I found the forum to be not only useful but also reassuring, insofar as the two dozen or so presenters each, in his or her own way, advanced positions that supported Coquitlam's current land-use and zoning policies around housing choices and densification.

The undoubted star of yesterday's gathering was Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser, the author of Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. The fact he anchored his pro-city, pro-density presentations in a firm field of statistics made his arguments even more compelling. The Vancouver Sun's Don Cayo has written about him in today's paper.



This photo that I took recently shows
the view from the top of Onni's
 new Oasis tower on Glen, looking east. Yes, it's Coquitlam!



The forum was organized by former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan, who must be commended for bringing together such a large, diverse and interesting roster of experts. Unfortunately, however, Sullivan was also responsible for two of the gathering's worst clunkers. The first, which he dropped on the audience early in the proceedings when introducing himself, was his declaration, that, "I represent the mother of all invasive species, humans."

Sullivan may think of himself as a noxious weed or a rapacious fish that has been transported into an eco-system in which it doesn't belong, but I don't view him that way and I certainly don't view all human being that way. Extending Sullivan's logic, one would be forced to conclude that the only proper place for humans is in northern Africa, the area from which scientists say our ancestors originated.

I'd argue that it makes more sense to say that, given humanity's success in inhabiting so many parts of the world, that the entire Earth is our "natural" habitat. Whether we're stewarding the Earth's resources wisely is, of course, another question entirely.

Sullivan was also responsible for the Sprawl Meter, to which he referred numerous times over the course of the day-long forum. This meter allegedly measures, by the second, the square footage of land being developed in the suburbs. Like the more famous doomsday clock (measuring the world's proximity to nuclear disaster) or the ubiquitous debt clocks we see at the federal and provincial levels, the unvarnished implication of the Sprawl Meter is that all suburban land development is bad, bad, bad.

However, while it can be argued that the development of one-acre lots for a single-family home might be environmentally irresponsible, surely no one at the conference would suggest that the high- and medium-density development that is going on in Coquitlam, for example, is an unmitigated evil.

Even if you take it as gospel that any further use of the Lower Mainland's limited landbase for residential reasons is wrong (and I don't), the responsible thing to do would be to discriminate between the varying degrees of undesireability represented by different densities of development.

On the whole, however, the conference was most useful. No one was saying we all must live in high-rise towers in order to save the planet. Rather, human-scale, people-friendly neighbhourhood with medium density can do the trick, too. And where there are high rises, engaging, street-level shops and or homes are the way to go--a direction that was pioneered by the City of Vancouver.

Walkability, proximity to transit, and networks of separated bike lanes are also important when densifying. Much of this is common sense, but it was still good to hear it from an uncommonly rich roster of presenters.

The RCMP contract squabble: A game of political chicken?

After a long day of in-camera meetings, public committee meetings, public hearings, public meetings and then a full council meeting, one of the final things on Coquitlam Council's agenda tonight is the policing contract with the RCMP. The Province has given municipalities until the end of this month to approve it. Failure to do so will be a de facto declaration that the balking municipality intends to set up its own municipal force, a la Port Moody and New Westminster. We'd be given two years to wind down the RCMP service and conjure up a local one.
Several of my council colleagues have been asking for more details about the contract and balking at passing it-- and in so doing have made some local headlines, as I pointed out in a Facebook post a few days ago. Nevertheless, even though those questions may remain unanswered, I cannot see how they can vote against the agreement tonight.
I'll be voting in favour of the agreement, primarily because contracting with the RCMP to provide local policing is demonstrably less expensive than the alternative; this is so because the federal government contributes 10% of the cost. And also because I know that voting against is tantamount to declaring that we should get rid of the RCMP, and that's just not something that I think is responsible at this (or, perhaps, any) stage.
But even if I were opposed to approving the deal today -- and wanted to keep open the option of setting up a local force of our own -- I'd still be voting in favour of it, for the simple reason that the City and its people are not at all prepared to go down that path yet. The comparison figures, between a local force and the RCMP, that we have are several years old. The mechanics of the change are unknown to us. And, for that matter, we don't even know what Coquitlam voters think about this option.
Moreover, agreeing to the deal today does not lock the city into the RCMP agreement for the full 20 years of its term. That's because all that a municipality has to do is give two-years' notice to end the agreement.
Therefore, it simply doesn't make sense for anyone to vote against the agreement tonight. If one of my colleagues is opposed to the deal, it would be precipitous to vote against it. My suggestion: vote for it, but then table a notice of motion asking for a new and exhaustive study, complete with extensive public input, into the pros and cons of opting out at a later date. That's the responsible thing to do.

Photo collage from rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Essential fact is missing from Now story

Today's Coquitlam Now carries a front-page story headlined, "Kwikwetlem opposed to vote plan." The story describes how both Metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland Local Government Association have voted in favour of a resolution asking the provincial government to pass legislation that would prevent residents of Indian reserves from voting in municipal elections.

The headline refers to the local Kwikwetlem band's negative reaction to the motions. The story also quotes my Coquitlam Council colleague, Selina Robinson, as saying she voted against the LMLGA motion because it came across as "a bit of bullying." She is further quoted, however, as admitting the current situation presents a problem. The story concludes with reaction quotes from PoCo Mayor Greg Moore.

Despite the several hundred words devoted to the story, one crucial fact is missing -- the reason Metro and the LMLGA supported the motion. It wasn't because local politicians want to deny Natives their rights; and it certainly wasn't because anyone was being mean-spirited or confrontational.

No, the motion springs from the very apparent injustice of the current situation. And that is that reserve residents, whether Native or not, pay no municipal property taxes, yet they still get to vote in civic elections. That's simply not right. And this fact should have been included in the Now story.

With reserve populations set to explode in the coming decades, because of enterprising band leaders' decisions to construct housing projects and the like on reserve lands, the injustice will only deepen.

I was proud to be part of the majority of LMLGA members who voted earlier this month in favour of justice and against the continuation of special privileges for reserve residents.

At the same time, I firmly believe that local governments, like the City of Coquitlam, have an obligation to continue dealing fairly with adjoining First Nations.Coquitlam certainly has a good record of doing that -- and has and will continue to provide services, on a contractual basis, to the Kwikwetlem.

News from the Coquitlam Foundation

I was busy over the weekend writing promotional material for the Coquitlam Foundation's annual Awards Night, which is being held May 29. Here's what I've distributed to the media and put up on the foundation's website, http://www.coquitlamfoundation.com/. Hope to see you at the event next week!:

NEWS RELEASE
May 21, 2012

Foundation to distribute $56,000 in grants, scholarships and bursaries

COQUITLAM – The Coquitlam Foundation, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary as the charitable heart of Coquitlam this year, is proud to announce it will distribute in excess of $56,000 in grants, scholarships and bursaries at its annual Awards Night, May 29.

Community groups such as the Place Maillardville Society, the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre, the Tri-Cities Community Television Society and the Children of the Street Society will receive grants of $3,500 from the Builder’s Trust, one of two dozen donor-advised and foundation-directed funds administered by the Coquitlam Foundation.

As well, three Coquitlam students are receiving awards of $1,500 each from the newly established James Gordon Stewart Fund. In all, 18 students and 19 community groups will receive $56,427.90 in funding. See below for complete list.

“This is a special time of year for everyone at the Coquitlam Foundation,” says Executive Director Dale Clarke. “After all, helping worthy individuals and groups is the reason we exist. And by supporting these students and organizations, we help build a stronger community.”

The Awards Night is being held at the Evergreen Cultural Centre, 1205 Pinetree Way, Coquitlam. It will begin with appetizers and refreshments at 6:30 p.m., followed by presentations at 7 p.m. Entertainment will be provided by the SD43 Student Glee Club and the Children of the Street Society. Tickets are free, but attendees are asked to pre-register by calling 604.468.9598 or emailing info@coquitlamfoundation.com.

Over the past 12 months, the Foundation has established a record number of new funds, including the James Gordon Stewart Fund, the Coquitlam Centre Bursary Fund, the Community Diversity Fund, and the Coquitlam Public Library Living Legacy Fund.

Operating as the charitable “Heart of Coquitlam,” the Coquitlam Foundation has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past two decades. It now manages about $2.2 million in foundation-directed and donor-advised funds.

The Foundation will be acknowledging the contributions of its founders and past directors, celebrating its current success, and looking ahead to its future at a special 20-Year Celebration Event on November 15 at the Red Robinson Theatre. Watch the Foundation’s website, www.coquitlamfoundation.com, for more details as they become available.

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.The Coquitlam Foundation is registered with Canada Revenue as a charitable organization, No. 890762347 RR0001.

-30-

Contact:
Executive Director Dale Clarke: 604.468.2077
Chair Colleen Talbot: 604.290.6128



2012 BURSARY, SCHOLARSHIP AND GRANT RECIPIENTS


Bursaries & Scholarships

Raymond A. LeClair Scholarship:
- award of $1,500 to Kayla Phillips

Brodie Campbell Memorial Scholarship:
- award of $1,000 to Connor Stroup

James Gordon Stewart Fund Scholarships of $1,500 each to:
- Kathryn Beck
- Jai Xin (Ivy) Tan
- Jamie Shorter

Coquitlam Foundation Education Fund
Bursaries of $500 each to:
- Kathleen Chu
- Helen Huang
- Derek Schaper
- Arturo Bustillos
- Maana Javadi

Mayor’s Community Fund Scholarships: (8 x $500 each)
From Pinetree Secondary - Ho Yi Kwan and Jihoon Choi.
From Dr. Charles Best Secondary - Danny Pavel and Jessica Park
From Gleneagle Secondary - Juanpaolo Mercado and Louise Hung
From Centennial Secondary - Erin Keltie and Cole Milton

Community Grants

Peter Legge Literacy Endowment Fund:
- a grant of $1,500 to the Friends of Coquitlam Library Society

Carleigh Rae LeClair Memorial Fund:
- a grant of $3,500 to Big Sisters of BC Lower Mainland

Symington Endowment Fund:
- a grant of $1,000 to PoCoMo Youth Services
- a grant of $2,000 to Tri-City Movement Therapy Society
- a grant of $2,000 to Tri City Gymnastics Society

Johnston Fund – a grant of $1,500 to:
- Society for Community Development

Environment Fund – a grant of $500 each to:
- Watershed Watch Salmon Society, and
- SD#43 – Pinetree Secondary School

Community Wellness Fund - a grant of $2,500 to:
- Kateslem Youth Society

Cultural Fund - a grant of $1,000 to:
- Austin Heights Business Improvement Assn.

Heritage Fund – a grant of $1,000 to:
- Coquitlam Heritage Society

Builders’ Trust – awards as specified to:
- Societe Place Maillardville Society $3500
- Burquitlam Lions Care Centre $3500
- Children of the Street Society $3500
- Coquitlam Place des Arts Society $3000
- Vancouver Intl. Children’s Festival $3000
- Tri-Cities Community Television Soc. $3500
-  Theatrix $3075
-  Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation $2852.90

An appeal from the heart of a hunter

A great many individuals gave well-researched speeches at the shooting-ban bylaw public meeting last night. Some tugged at the heartstrings. Some relied on facts and figures. But no one delivered a more passionate and reasonable appeal than did Chris Bradford of Pitt Meadows. Here, in its entirety, is what he said:

My name is Chris Bradford. I am a resident of Pitt Meadows, a husband, father of two, and I am an angler and hunter. Thank you for the opportunity to have such an open forum on this topic. 

This topic is always an emotional one for people, as some believe that there is no need for hunting in our “modern” society.  They will say that "there are butchers, so you can get your meat there.”  Fair enough. BUT, under that SAME thought process, I could propose that there are a number of other things our "modern" society can do without.

  Libraries for example.  ALL the info you could ever need is available online, and devices like a Kindle let you download and store all the books you want.

Museums are another.  Every artifact in a museum could have its picture taken and be downloaded for your viewing pleasure.

Little girls baking cookies with their grandmas. There are bakeries all over that sell all kinds of baked goods, and they are cheaper too!

  All of these are things are no longer needed in our "new" society. Now just think how absurd that sounds! Well, to those of us in the hunting community, so too does banning it.

  For us, the smell of neoprene waders, rubber boots and freshly poured coffee in a musty marsh, is the same as the smell of those cookies baking in the oven. The lessons of gun safety, ethical shot selection, proper game handling and preparation for the table is the same as the measuring and mixing of ingredients, the dangers of a hot stove and the greasing of a cookie sheet.

  The ever changing early morning light, filtering in and filling a frosted pre-dawn forest to reveal a fresh scrape or a rub is equal to the depth of the painter's brush stroke, or the light cast on a sculpture and the shadows created, revealing its true beauty.

  The pride that is on the face of the little "pig-tailed" girl as she hands you a homemade cookie, is the SAME pride we have all felt, and our children now feel, when we serve our legally harvested wild game to our appreciative family and friends.

  I believe that this council has the understanding to realize that eliminating hunting from this area, as development and nature collide, will only increase the amount of human and wildlife conflicts.

  A lesson taught to me by my grandfather, is that "the most dangerous bear in the woods, is the one that has lost its fear of man."

  I believe that creating a buffer zone for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park will allow all users to safely co-exist and maintain a healthy, non-threatening wildlife population.

  As has been previously mentioned, by this council, the correspondence with the hunting community has been respectful.

That is because hunting is all about "respect". Respect of the environment.  Respect to the conservation of a healthy animal population. Respectfully sharing the land with others and most importantly, respecting the game harvested.  As hunters, we are respectful that there will be those who do not like it.  We would ask not that you "respect" hunting, but rather that an open and objective mind be kept during these discussions.

  There is a misconception that hunting is about "killing", this is simply not true. The death of an animal, be it a fish, bird, bear, deer, cow, chicken or pig, is simply a "part" of the process to bring meat to the table.  Society just does not give the same "Disney" treatment to the last three. Make no mistake, "Fog-horn-leg-horn", "Porky Pig" and the "cow that jumped over the moon" are just like "Winnie the Pooh" and "Bambi". They are all fictional cartoon characters!

  Deer and bear are "wild" animals. Mistaking them as anything else is neither “safe” for the community, nor "respectful" to their wild nature.

  There is lots of area for us all to, safely use.  A buffer zone will work.  We can all safely co-exist.

  I hope that council will consider all information when making its decision.

"Goose Hunter at Dawn" photo from gunsandsupply.com.

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.