Canada Post delivers some spin

I continue to be disappointed that something for which our Eagle Ridge neighbourhood fought with so much vigour three decades ago--door-to-door mail delivery--is being abandoned without any apparent effort to find a middle-ground solution, such as limiting door-to-door delivery to Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays only (and Tuesdays and Thursdays the following week).

Municipalities throughout Canada also continue to be upset, and have used the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to bring their concerns to Canada Post President and CEO Deepak Chopra. Mr. Chopra has now sent a letter to the FCM explaining Canada Post’s five-year phasing out of home delivery, starting in late 2014. Here is the text of that letter:

January 29, 2014

Dear Municipal Leader

Last month we announced a five-point plan to protect the postal service in a world in which digital communication is rapidly replacing traditional mail. In a key initiative, Canada Post will convert the remaining five million addresses that have door-to-door delivery to community mailbox delivery. This will occur over the next five years. I would like to assure you that the transition of delivery service in your community will be handled responsibly and with respect.

While the majority of Canadians will not see any change to how their mail is delivered, a fair number will be impacted. As we carefully plan our next steps, I would like to share with you the guiding principles that will govern our approach in the communities that are affected:

• We recognize that dense urban cores in our larger cities, with their older neighbourhoods and smaller lots, present different challenges for locating community mailboxes than suburban areas. With this in mind, we will leave the majority of these areas until the final stage of this multi-year project. We will take the necessary time to understand their unique needs and find solutions that work for these neighbourhoods.

• We will be sensitive to the needs of seniors and of disabled Canadians. We are developing alternative approaches for people with significant mobility challenges, who lack viable alternatives and upon whom delivery to a community mailbox would impose an unacceptable hardship.

• There will be no change in delivery to people living in apartment buildings, seniors’ buildings and condominiums who already have mail delivered in the building lobby. In addition, customers who have mail delivered to a rural mailbox (a customer-owned mailbox at the end of a driveway) will not be affected by this change.

• We will work with community leaders and municipal planning officials to choose safe and appropriate sites.

• We will seek the views of affected citizens directly, through multiple channels including surveys and online feedback tools.

• We will be as innovative and flexible as possible, while being responsible towards our goal to protect the financial sustainability of postal service for all Canadians. We will look at various solutions and different equipment, taking the necessary time to address any significant challenges in a given community.

• We will respect the needs of businesses to have mail delivered to their door. The vast majority of business addresses will continue to have mail and parcels delivered to their door and will experience no change.

The businesses that will continue to have delivery to the door are located in well-established business areas, such as main streets or “business corridors”; or receive a relatively large volume of mail or parcels.

This initiative is a crucial aspect of our plan to protect and sustain postal service for Canadians, both today and for tomorrow. As we execute it, I intend to see that we live up to our special responsibility to serve every Canadian and every community. We are committed to doing this in a thoughtful way, and to keeping you informed as this initiative unfolds.

Yours sincerely,

Deepak Chopra

President and CEO

Canada Post Corporation

Just say no to campaign-spending limits

The provincial government is asking for public feedback on proposals to limit campaign spending, and has set the end of this month as a deadline for receiving such feedback. The issue has been generating some headlines of late.
Being a civic-minded fellow, I decided to take up the invitation and offer my two-cents worth. Below, you'll find the text of a press release I've just issued on my submission, followed by the text of the submission itself.

News Release

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2014

Coquitlam Councillor says campaign-spending limits would be unfair and harmful to new and independent candidates

COQUITLAM – City of Coquitlam Councillor Terry O’Neill says the Province should not impose campaign spending limits on civic politicians because such limits would not only constitute an attack on free speech, but could also hurt the electoral chances of new and/or non-affiliated candidates.

In a submission to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, which is seeking feedback on Local Government Elections Reform, O’Neill says candidates’ fundamental Charter right to freedom of expression would be jeopardized by spending limits, which would have the effect of  limiting the number of advertisements, flyers and other forms of promotion that candidates might use during a campaign.

“I do not believe that something as important as an election campaign, which involves two fundamental aspects of our democracy – free elections and free speech, should face the sort of restrictions being considered,” O’Neill says.

O’Neill also fears that new candidates, who face an uphill battle to get their names known, would have one hand tied behind their back if spending limits were imposed.

As well, O’Neill suggests that independent and non-affiliated candidates would be similarly handicapped, because they might lose one of the only options they have— sizeable advertising budgets—to try to level the playing field with slates, parties and other electoral machines that can draw on large numbers of campaign volunteers.

“It’s important that the provincial government give careful consideration to this important area of our democracy,” O’Neill concludes. “Victoria should be wary of any new campaign-spending rules that not only undermine our fundamental rights but also stack the cards in favour of big electoral machines at the expense of new and-or independent candidates.”

CONTACT: Terry O’Neill, 604.362.3251. toneill@coquitlam.ca

(Coquitlam Council is meeting Monday Jan. 27 at 2 p.m. and will have only limited breaks until about 9 p.m.)

                                                                -30-  

To: Local Government Elections Reform

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

PO Box 9847 Stn PROV GOVT

Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2

From: Terry O’Neill

Councillor, City of Coquitlam

Home: 1331 Steeple Drive,

Coquitlam, BC, V3E 1K3

Re: Feedback on Expense Limits in Local Elections

If there are to be new campaign-expense rules, I believe that the Task Force’s suggestions are headed in the right direction. However, my submission today will, in fact, oppose the concept of setting campaign-expense ceilings.

Thoughts on some of the Task Force’s major findings:

1.       The Province would set expense limits. I agree. If there is to be a mechanism in place, then the Province is the natural place where these should be set.

2.       Elections BC would enforce the limits. Again, I agree.  This body is already involved in election monitoring, and enforcing campaign-expenditure rules would be a natural extension of its current work.

3.       Expense limits would apply in school-board elections. Yes, if there are to be limits, it’s only fair to have them applied to the election of trustees as well as mayors and councillors.

4.       Population size would be taken into account in setting expense limits. I agree, but would take it even further. 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 that a candidate in a town 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.

5.       Expense limits would apply not only to candidates, but also elector organizations and third-party advertisers.  Again, I am in general agreement with this; if there is to be a new regulatory system, then it seems fair to have it applied to all aforementioned groups.

Philosophical objection to spending limits

Let us now turn our attention to the actual concept of campaign-expense limits. In fact, I oppose any 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 on 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 such as that regularly employed by labour/union, for example. 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. 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.

The need for timely disclosures

That said, I believe it is also important that the source of the funds being spent during an election campaign be disclosed in a full and timely way.  Although the issue of campaign donations is not the subject of this exercise, I believe that there would be less concern over campaign spending if voters were given full and timely information about the source of campaign donations.

On this subject, at present, campaign-expense 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 have access to information on the source of a candidate’s funds before they cast their ballots, not after.

In Conclusion

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

Lacing up for Walk for Memories

Participants in the 2011 walk.  Good weather is also predicted for 2014!

We're hoping to see a big turnout on Sunday afternoon at the Hyde Creek Rec Centre in Port Coquitlam, as we launch the 2014 Investors Group Walk for Memories, in aid of the Alzheimer Society of B.C.
The walk, which I will MC, is one of a score of regional walks. Ours takes in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby, New Westminster, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.
Our honoree this year is Dr. Faisal Beg, a medical engineer at SFU, who is developing ways to detect the onset of Alzheimer Disease, even before the patient shows any symptoms.
Congratulations to all the organizers and volunteers, especially the society's Lori and volunteer extraordinaire Dawn, with whom I have had to pleasure of working for all the years (five now?) that I've MC'd the event.
Registration begins at noon. Opening ceremonies at 1 p.m. Walk from 1:30 p.m. til 3 or 4 p.m. You can get more information about the walk by clicking here.
Meantime, here is a press release on the subject that has just been distributed by the provincial government:

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2014HLTH0010-000075
Jan. 24, 2014

Ministry of Health
Alzheimer Society of B.C.

Lace up and Walk for Memories

VICTORIA - Help support families living with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, by joining thousands of British Columbians for one of the Investors Group Walk for Memories taking place on Sunday, Jan. 26, 2014.

Health Minister Terry Lake and MLA for Kamloops-South Thompson Todd Stone will be taking part in the Kamloops walk and Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Linda Larson will lace up in Vancouver.

"Government is committed to ensuring that those with Alzheimer's and dementia have access to early diagnosis, treatment and support," said Lake. "We value the work that the Alzheimer Society of B.C. is doing to improve the lives of diagnosed individuals and I look forward to joining British Columbians of all ages this weekend to show support and raise awareness."

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive and degenerative neurological disease and is the most common form of dementia. At this time, the cause of Alzheimer's disease is unknown and there is no cure.

"We know the impact that Alzheimer's disease can have on diagnosed individuals and their families," said Larson. "The Investors Group Walk for Memories is an opportunity to bring families together to raise awareness and show support to those currently facing this heart-breaking disease." 

Fundraising through the Investors Group Walk for Memories helps people in British Columbia who are living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias connect to a provincewide network of information, services and support. 

"Much of what we now know about Alzheimer disease has been learned within the last 15 years," said Maria Howard, CEO of the Alzheimer Society of B.C. "The Investors Group Walk for Memories literally brings us a step closer in the search for the cause of and the cure for dementia." 

The Investors Group Walk for Memories is an annual provincewide fundraising event for the Alzheimer Society of B.C. 
This year, the event will take place in 23 communities throughout British Columbia: Aldergrove, Barriere, Campbell River, Chetwynd, Chilliwack, Dawson Creek, Duncan, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Nelson, Penticton, Port Alberni, Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Richmond, Smithers, Surrey, Vancouver,
Vernon and Victoria. 

"We are proud of our partnership with the Alzheimer Society of B.C.," said Murray Taylor, CEO of the Investors Group. "An event like this is just one way we can help to improve the lives of those living with Alzheimer's and dementia." 

There are currently up to 70,000 British Columbians living with Alzheimer's disease or related dementia. Government's Provincial Dementia Action Plan and dementia guidelines outline collaborative actions that can be taken by health-care professionals and caregivers to support diagnosed individuals through person-centred care.

"Supporting Alzheimer Awareness Month and the Walk for Memories is 
very important to me," said Stone. "I encourage all British 
Columbians who have had Alzheimer's or dementia touch them in their 
lives to join the conversation and help raise awareness." 

Learn More:

To find out about the Investors Group Walk for Memories in your community, please visit: www.walkformemories.com/

For more information about Alzheimer's disease and dementia, please visit the Alzheimer Society of B.C.'s website at: www.alzheimerbc.org

To read the provincial Dementia Action Plan, please visit: 
www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2012/dementia-action-plan.pdf

Media Contact:

Kristy Anderson
Media Relations Manager
Ministry of Health
250 952-1887 (media line)

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

Mundy Forest must be for the people

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

You’d be forgiven for thinking that there was little potential for controversy in relation to a forest-management plan for Mundy Forest, which is the subject of a press release issued today by the City of Coquitlam.

However, the plan was actually the subject of some rather intense discussion, initiated by yours truly, at Council-in-Committee's meeting on Monday afternoon.

My concern was centred squarely on the vision for the forest, specifically on whether the management plan would see actions taken to protect and enhance the forest primarily in

the name of “ecological integrity” or rather--and, more properly, I feel--for the enjoyment of the people of Coquitlam, for whom the forest, and the park itself, is a fabulous amenity..

I spoke to the issue at some length on Monday afternoon because my examination of staff documents involving the plan did, in fact, reveal a shift in the focus towards a Nature-first approach, something with which I most heartily disagreed because I believed it could lead to increasing exclusion of people from the park. We needed a balance, I said, in which a healthy park existed so that the people of Coquitlam could enjoy it to its fullest.

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

In the end, I received a firm declaration from the acting GM of Parks, Recreation and Culture that the plan would reflect a more balanced approach than what was indicated in a key document that had sparked my investigation and ultimate presentation to committee. And that’s good.

So, if you’ll bear with me, I’ll walk you through the research I did and the conclusions I reached. First, from a report to committee dated March 4, 2013 (but actually presented to council in committee on March 11, 2013), comes this important vision statement:

‘The forest in Mundy Park provides tremendous benefits to the community, which are directly linked to the health and aesthetic qualities of the forest. Without a comprehensive Forest Management Plan (the "FMP") there is the risk that the pressures the Park faces such as insect and fungal pest infestations, wildfire, windstorms, invasive plant infestations, and unsanctioned uses may erode or eliminate the benefits residents currently enjoy. ‘

Note, the emphasis here is on keeping the forest healthy so the citizens of Coquitlam can continue to enjoy the ‘tremendous benefits’ to the community that are linked to the health and aesthetic quality of the forest.  This, I believe, is the correct and proper vision.

But now, let’s look to Attachment 2 of Monday’s report, dated Aug 22, 2013, where we read about the mandate of the community focus group. I quote bullet three:

“To provide input on and support recommendations for the preservation and enhancement of the forest in Mundy Park and the benefits it provides for the community.”

Note the “and.” It’s important, and it represents a slight shift in focus. Let me explain. If this sort of statement were to adhere to the vision laid out last March, this “and” should have been the phrase “in order to” – as in “To provide input on and support recommendations for the preservation and enhancement of the forest in Mundy Park in order to provide benefits for the community.” But, with this new “and,” we see the focus shifting away from the original vision – that a healthy forest is needed to provide benefits to the citizens, to one in which the health of the forest (moreover, the “preservation and enhancement” of the forest) is a goal unto itself, and is merely a complementary goal to that of the benefits a healthy forest can provide to the community. This shift isn't particularly worrisome by itself, but took on new significance when read in relation to a more recent report.

Indeed, the whole vision thing gets particularly troubling with the staff report we considered on January 20. Look to page 3 of the main body of Monday's report, and we find the original vision sliding even further out of sight. Here, we read:

“The key objective of the Forest Management Plan is to maintain the ecological integrity of the Park by allowing natural process to occur, with the intention of accommodating sensitive recreational uses while allowing the forest to reach the climax stage of maturity.”

Mundy Park (Photo: City of Coquitlam)

Get that? Where we started out by describing a vision that clearly stated the main reason for having a healthy forest was for the benefits to be derived by the citizens of Coquitlam, we now have a vision that declares the main reason that we intend to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to better manage this forest is – not to better serve the public – but, rather, to protect the forest’s “ecological integrity” [something, by the way, that I consider an impossibility in an urban setting] while merely "accommodating" use by the citizens – and only “sensitive” recreational uses at that.

I must note here that the Diamond Head Consulting report, which summarizes ideas coming from a workshop with the Community Focus Group, contains different wording yet again – including a Draft Vision Statement that is more in line with council’s original intent. This report is appended to the January 20 staff report.

But, regardless of that Draft Vision Statement wording, what’s important is how staff interprets and puts into action the wording. And, given the interpretation on page three of Monday’s report– where “sensitive recreational uses” are merely to be accommodated -- I feared that staff may be headed in a direction that is not in line with either council’s or the advisory committee’s intentions.

With all this explanation complete, I then told committee that, if we are going to spend all this time, effort and money, our primarily vision should be to maximize the benefit that this expenditure will deliver to our citizens. This is the view of Mundy Park that is held by the vast majority of Coquitlam residents, I'm sure.

Indeed, it would be a regrettable waste of taxpayers’ money if we proceed with a Forest Management Plan whose primary goal is to enhance impossible-to-achieve “ecological integrity” at the expense of protecting and improving the park so that the benefits to the residents of Coquitlam can be maximized.

I argued that we should return to the original vision, the one that received clear support from council and is reflected in the Community Focus Group’s Draft Vision Statement. I said that we needed to spell out very clearly that the goal of spending this money is not to foster a healthy urban forest primarily for its own sake, but rather so that it may continue to provide the tremendous benefits that it currently provides to the Citizens of Coquitlam.

And, in the end, I received very firm assurances that public use and forest protection/enhancement would go hand-in-hand, and that the forest would not be treated as some sort of pristine ecological preserve from which people would be excluded. And thank goodness for that!

A distorted view of history

Pres. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, 1964. (Wikimedia Commons)

It's a relatively small thing, it's an American thing, and it's about something that happened 50 years ago.
But it still took only a few minutes for PBS's newest American Experience episode, about the year 1964, to get under my skin, to provoke me to mutter at the screen, and finally to inspire me to turn the program off in protest.
What so bothered me was the section of the show dealing with the U.S. Senate's passage of the historic Civil Rights Act. The episode made the unmistakable assertion that the bill risked defeat at the hands of filibustering Republicans and that it was only when some Republicans ended up being persuaded by Lyndon Johnson to change their minds that the bill became law.
But this assertion set off some alarm bells in my noggin. I know enough about American history of that era to know that Southern Democrats, not Republicans, were the main force against integration and equal rights for African-Americans.
Yes, there must have been some Republicans who opposed the bill and, yes, there must have been some Republicans who changed their minds and ended up supporting it. And those GOP senators may have even been the deciding factor. But surely, I thought, the major opposition to the bill must have come from Southern Democrats--and the PBS show didn't utter a peep about them.
And so I started a bit of online research and it took all of one minute to find this voting record in the Senate on the Civil Rights Act:
Democrats in favour, 46; opposed, 21. Republicans in favour, 27; opposed, 6. Far more Democratic Senators by number (21) and percentage (31%) opposed the civil rights bill than Republicans (6, 18%).
One would have thought that PBS would have found this worth noting. But one would have been wrong.
Perhaps if I had read the online description of the episode, offered on the PBS website, I would have been better prepared to accept the historical distortion it contained. Here's a slice of the "Introduction" the network provided for the show:
"In myriad ways, 1964 was the year when Americans faced choices: between the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson or Barry Goldwater's grassroots conservatism, between support or opposition to the civil rights movement, between an embrace of the emerging counterculture or a defense of traditional values."
Notice how neatly the sentence aligns "liberalism" and a Democratic president with support for civil rights, while at the same time aligning the Republican Party (Goldwater's) with opposition to civil rights? Yes, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act but remember: 82% of Republican senators supported it.
And so, what's the bottom line? Is it more evidence to support the oft-made assertion (by US commentators like Rush Limbaugh and the like) that PBS has a left-wing or liberal bias? Does the big omission tell us something about the sorry state of American culture? Or does it simply make us aware that TV documentary-film makers can make mistakes? I have my suspicions. What are yours?

Still thinking of the Philippines

After Typhoon Haiyan tore through the Philippines last November, I learned that the City of Coquitlam had a special relationship with a one of the hardest-hit cities, Ormoc, and I immediately started wondering whether we here could do anything, on a city-to-city basis, to assist in Ormoc's recovery. I am pleased to report that I have now received word from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) that discussion has started at the national level that may see some relief being offered.

Photo from: storify.com/ZackStieber/

First, some background. Coquitlam's relationship with Ormoc was not a "sister city" type one, but is better characterized as an "adopted little sister" type. Specifically, under a program funded by the FCM, Coquitlam shared some of its administrative expertise with Ormoc to assist it in modernizing city management. It's my understanding that some Coquitlam officials travelled to Ormoc several years ago to give first-hand instruction. And that's where the relationship ended.

Regardless of whether Ormoc is our "sister city" or merely an "adopted little sister," I still thought it was worthwhile exploring whether Coquitlam could do anything to help the city of 191,000 in its time of crisis. I learned that, under B.C.'s Community Charter, we are not allowed to provide any direct financial assistance, even a token amount.

However, I was pleased when Mayor Richard Stewart ended a council meeting late last year with a fine speech outlining our relationship with Ormoc and urging everyone to consider donating to a relief organization, such as the Red Cross.

Following all that, I contacted the FCM before the Christmas holidays to enquire about the possibility of it restarting the program that allowed Coquitlam to help Ormoc several years ago. I didn't hear back, so I sent another email this month, this time to a different address at the FCM, repeating my earlier question.

This week, I finally heard back. Here is the partial text of the response I received from Pascal Lavoie, Program Manager for Asia with FCM International:

First of all, I’d like to thank you for contacting us. The devastating event that occurred in the Philippines last October [sic] drew a lot of attention from our members. We appreciate your interest and support in seeking ways to provide assistance to the reconstruction effort that affected communities are facing.

At the moment, we don’t have programming in the Philippines anymore hence our capacity to get involved has been limited. We’ve expressed our support to national politicians and met with staff at DFATD (formerly CIDA) to offer our assistance and discuss opportunities to get involved in the reconstruction effort.

FCM is considering a program to help with the reconstruction phase. However it is unclear if will consider funding such an initiative. Our experience (with similar natural catastrophes in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Haiti) is that it takes some time to put such a program in place (12-18 months). At the moment, we are still at the stage of preliminary discussions.

And there you have it. It's certainly something to keep our eyes on throughout the year.

Factoring in assessed values for 2014

Our home in Eagle Ridge: The assessed value decreased this year.

If you're a homeowner, you probably received your 2014 Property Assessment Notice in the mail last week. And, if you're like many homeowners (especially the thousands of new homeowners in Coquitlam), you might be somewhat confused about the relationship between your property's assessed value and the property taxes you pay to the City every year. So, here's a basic explanation.
First, City Council decided last fall that it needed to raise revenue from residential property taxes by 2.8% in 2014 in order to cover the costs of inflation and increased services, such as the new fire hall on Burke Mountain and two new RCMP officers. This means that, if you own a typical residential property in Coquitlam, your property tax, for city purposes, will increase 2.8% this year.
Second, we must factor in the property assessment issued by the BC Assessment Authority. This year, the authority found that the average Coquitlam home decreased in value by 1.8% increase over last year. (By the way, the average single family home in Coquitlam is valued at $701,000.)
What this means is that, if your property value decreased by the average 1.8% this year, you'll be facing the above-mentioned 2.8% tax increase. But, if your property value decreased by less than that -- or increased --- you'll be paying an incrementally larger increase. If the value of your property declined even more than 1.8%, your tax increase will be less than 2.8%.
For the record, our 33-year-old home in Eagle Ridge was assessed at $624,000 this year, a decrease of $8,000 (or about 1.3%) compared to 2013.
Here's a link to a Tri-City News story about assessments in the province. Here's a link to the BC Assessment Authority website, where you can find pages that explain the process and let you know how you can appeal or complain about your assessed value; deadline for all complaints is January 31, 2014.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me directly at toneill@coquitlam.ca if you have any questions or comments about any of this.
Note: This blog has now been updated with new figures regarding assessed values in Coquitlam.

The always-thorny issue of councillors' pay

Several years ago, Coquitlam council adopted a policy of awarding itself the same annual percentage pay raise that the city's workers receive through the bargaining process. Last night, however, the councillor-in-permanent-opposition-who-sits-among-us (CIPOWSAU) attempted but failed to overturn the policy.

My 'pay stub.'*

CIPOWSAU used the discussion around final reading of the 2014 budget bylaws to raise the issue. Remember: this is a budget that, as I wrote last week, once again lowers the average tax increase facing Coquitlam taxpayers while, at the same time, increases services and programs across a broad spectrum of areas, from police and fire, to parks and culture.
At first, CIPOWSAU wielded some erroneous math in making his argument to kill the 1.75% hike, incorrectly saying at one point that it would result in the mayor receiving a raise in the magnitude of tens of thousands of dollars a year.
In fact, all the raises for all council will amount to $9,850 a year. This, in turn, creates a 0.01% tax increase, which in turn equals 17 cents a year per household.
But, of course, the strongest argument in favour of killing the increase is one of optics, and I certainly understand how it appealing it might look for a cost-conscious council to axe its own increases.
On the other hand, it's also being penny wise and pound foolish, because the logical outcome for a council that refuses to raise its own pay incrementally is that, because of inflation, council's pay would become increasingly minuscule--to the point where, in 15-20 years or so, qualified candidates might very well decide that its not worth the time and effort to be on council. And that would certainly not be in Coquitlam's best interests.
Moreover, a future council would eventually have to take the always-controversial step (remember Port Coquitlam's quandry of a few years ago?) of attempting to bridge the big gap in one big raise--a move that would have a significant negative impact on the homeowners who happen to be paying taxes in that year, while letting previous taxpayers off the hook.
Personally, I didn't need this year's raise, and said as much to my colleagues in private several weeks ago. I also agree with a position advanced by Mayor Richard Stewart last night that the provincial government should take the issue out of all councils' hands by legislating a standardized pay scale reflecting the size of the jurisdiction being governed.
Ultimately, I supported the increase on the principle that a small, incremental raise in councillors' pay is the best way to link current council remuneration to current taxpayers. Delaying increases only serves to unfairly burden the future taxpayer.
In the end, council voted 7-2 (with Bonita Zarrillo siding with CIPOWSAU) to support the increase.

*I've illustrated this blog with a copy of one of my recent pay stubs. It shows that a councillor's salary for two weeks is $1422.12 before taxes. This works out to just under $37,000 a year. On top of that, we receive a $711 bi-weekly indemnity related to our service, plus a car allowance.
You'll see in the bottom left corner of the print-out that gross year-to-date pay amounts to $57,786. I understand that this figure is higher than you'd rightly conclude (if looking at the above numbers) because it reflects lump-sum retroactive payments we received following the approval of the city-workers contract last year.
And, for the record, councillors are not enrolled in any pension plan, gold- or otherwise-plated.

Budget breathing room for taxpayers

By a vote of 8-1 (with the lone dissenter being the usual opponent), Council gave the first three readings to a series of budget bylaws last night. Here are the notes for the speech I delivered in support of the 2014 budget.

I will oppose this budget. Actually, let me change the tensing of that sentence. I would oppose this budget:

• If it didn’t continue lowering the average tax-rate increase.
• If it didn’t continue lowering the residential tax-rate increase.
• If it didn’t continue the one-point tax shift that makes commercial tax-rate increases even lower.
• If it didn’t provide for major new public-safety initiatives.
• If it didn’t respond to taxpayers’ requests for transportation improvements
• And if it didn’t carry with it a major commitment to continually examine city services, to see what should be added and – significantly – what should be stopped.

And so, what does Budget 2014 deliver?

Spirit Square, Coquitlam (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

First, and importantly, it calls for an average tax rate increase of 2.42% -- almost a full half-a-point lower than last year’s increase, which was lower than the year before’s, and which in turn was lower than the year before that. Indeed, since the high-water mark of an average 7.11% increase in 2009, the average tax-rate increase has been on a straight line down. And that’s good.

Hand-in-hand with that, both the residential rate and the commercial rate increases are lower as well, compared to last year. And, because of our continuing commitment to a one-point tax shift, the commercial rate increase will be only 1.8%. This is good news too.

And what about those public-safety initiatives? Four new firefighters and two new RCMP officers represent a pretty major commitment, and so I think we’ve met that standard.

As for transportation improvements, which our annual Ipsos Reid survey continues to ranks very high our citizens’ wish list, this budget commits significant funds to road rehabilitation and road enhancement in every part of Coquitlam.

And what about future decisions? I was very pleased when I heard, as part of our budget deliberations, that our management team was launching a new initiative to identify services and programs that are no longer needed, with the aim of eliminating them….. thus allowing the property-tax-payer to keep a few more dollars in his or her pocketbook or for the city to add new services. The initiative is called the Stop-Doing List, and if there’s one initiative that should never be put on that list, it’s the Stop-Doing List itself!

And so: I had six criteria for the budget, and all six were met.

This doesn’t mean the budget is perfect, from my point of view. The record of our lengthy deliberations shows that I opposed some spending measures that the majority approved. But while the budget is not perfect, it is certainly good enough. And it’s even better when you factor in the major decrease in utilities fees which the mayor mentioned. In fact, it means the average homeowner will pay only $15 more on his or her combined property-tax/utilities bill this coming year. 

But on the strength of its diminishing tax-rate increase alone, a rate which gives us the second-lowest tax increase in more than two decades (the lowest, in 2005, being 2.27%) it is definitely good enough. On the single issue of tax increases -- the one everyone watches, the one that makes the headlines --  it’s certainly better than the budget of 1994 (4.8% average increase), '95 (4.8%), '96 (3.45%), '97 (5.36%), '98 (4.5%), '99 (4.5%), 2000 (5.78%), 2001 (4.9%), 2002 (2.77%), 2003 (4.1%) and, well, you get the picture.

If there is any hesitation among my colleagues over whether to support this budget, let me suggest: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. --meaning that insisting on perfection often results in no improvement at all. If a majority of us voted against this budget, not only would all the hard work we’ve done be put in jeopardy, but the landmark low levels of tax-rate-rise that we’ve achieved might also be threatened.

There’s also something called “the Pareto Principle” or 80–20 rule, which observes that it commonly takes 20% of your effort to complete 80% of a task, while to complete the last 20% of a task—that part of it which it takes to achieve a perfect outcome-- takes 80% of the effort. Considering this, along with the fact that achieving absolute perfection is impossible, leads us to the law of diminishing returns, in which it becomes clear that the closer one gets to achieving perfection, the increasingly inefficient your work becomes.

And so, what does it mean for the budget tonight? As I said before, it’s a good one, but not perfect. But, remember, not only is achieving “perfection” is impossible, but the longer we work trying to achieve perfect, the harder and more inefficient that work becomes, and the greater the chance that we’ll become stalled and achieve nothing at all.

Something is certainly better than nothing.

And this something – this budget which answers the needs of so many of our citizens, from the hopeful new homeowners on Burke Mountain to the actively involved seniors at Dogwood Pavilion, from the commuter looking for better roads to the merchant looking for a lighter tax load – is certainly something worth supporting.

   

The importance of being James Moore

James Moore (macleans.ca)

I had to smile. On the very day I dove into Maclean's "50 Most Important People in Canada" cover story to discover that our very own MP James Moore was named as the 14th biggest wheel in the country, I received a mailer from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting ripping into the aforementioned Mr. Moore for cutting the CBC's budget--thereby breaking a rather prominent promise he had made.
Not that I found the situation humorous or pleasing or anything. Rather, the smile was more about the irony and the bad timing and the fact that being a politician is a helluva job: up one second and down the next. It was also in sympathy for James the person and the road he has traveled and the heights he has scaled.
I first met James when he was a teenager--a whirlwind of a young man who spoke a thousand miles a minute and a was a true-believer Reformer with a capital-R. He was quite the dynamo as a political worker and then as a talk-show host in Prince George.
And I remember when he decided to run federally at such a young age, just 24, to seek the Canadian Alliance nomination. And then win it. I recall writing a column for the Tri-City News (in the days before I became a regular debater in the Face to Face feature) predicting very big things for the young Mr. Moore, stating that there may come a time when some of us would be proud to say "I knew him when he was just...."
James went on to clobber the Liberal incumbent, a certain Lou Sekora, in the May 2000 general election, and the rest is history.
But not history that has been perfectly recorded. The Maclean's piece on James doesn't get it quite right. For example, its description of his mother as "a teacher-turned-homemaker mother" fails to note a few very important factors. One: his mother was Golf Canada hall-of-fame member Gail Harvey Moore. Two: it was after his mother's death at a relatively young age that the teenaged James came to the realization that he'd better make something of his life, and decided that getting involved in politics was the way to go.  James and I have talked often about that important time of his life, and it's a pity Maclean's wasn't able to chronicle it.
I suspect, however, that there will be many more opportunities for magazine writers and perhaps even historians to more fully report on the life and times of James Moore.

When I was an alleged 'enemy' of human rights

I was saddened to read in this morning's National Post that Jennifer Lynch, the former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had died at the age of only 63. I had known for a few years that she was ill, but news of her passing, especially at such a relatively young age, was still an unpleasant surprise.

One could say--and, indeed, I feel-- that her death closes the book on an era in Canadian public life

Jennifer Lynch photo in today's National Post.

that saw broadly defined human rights trump the more fundamental right of freedom of speech. This is because Lynch was the head of the CHRC at a time when it had the mandate to prosecute Canadian citizens for, essentially, hurting the feelings of other Canadians. Thankfully, Parliament finally removed that power last year, as the Post story describes.

I wrote often, not only in the Post, but also in the Report and Western Standard magazines, about the injustice of the CHRC's anti-free-speech powers. Most of my pieces dealt with broad philosophical and legal issues. But one, published in the fall of 2009, about the "enemies list" that Lynch said she kept, was particularly personal. Here is that Post op-ed:

When Jennifer Lynch, the prickly princess of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, revealed in an interview with this newspaper last June that she kept a file on the many critics of her renegade fiefdom, I have to admit that my first thought in response to the news was not that of a concerned citizen, outraged that a civil servant charged with protecting human rights was compiling some sort of Nixonian enemies list.

And I certainly wasn’t vexed over the potential adverse consequences, of being included on the enemies list, to high-profile CHRC critics such as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn; no, they’re big boys and can certainly take care of themselves.

Rather, my first response was actually to hope that I, red-badge-of-courage like, would be named in her file. After all, I’ve been writing critically about the censorious nature of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act for more than a decade and I reasoned that if I hadn’t caught the evil eye of Ms. Lynch by now, one of my professional life’s great passions would somehow be diminished.

I needn’t have fretted because I am pleased to report today that, after submitting a freedom-of-information request over the summer, I am now in possession of a 49-page printout listing the contents of Ms. Lynch’s file, and that two articles bearing my byline are among the 1,001 news articles, columns, op-eds, editorials and blog entries which the Chief Commissioner has collected. Break out the champagne.

Actually, break out the champagne and a cheque for $62,840 because a certain Heather Throop, “Director General, Corporate Management Branch” (of the CHRC, I presume), informed me by way of registered mail that I would need to pay that amount to obtain information beyond a mere listing of the contents. Sadly, I don’t happen to have that sort of money lying around.

My FOI request had sought copies, not only of all the clippings and printouts in Ms. Lynch’s file, but also of any “notes, memos or correspondence” that Ms. Lynch or anyone else in the CHRC may have written that are “directly on any of the clippings or printouts, appended to any of the clippings or printouts, or placed in the aforementioned file.”

I asked for this because I figured that if Ms. Lynch were paranoid enough to maintain such a file (as she was) and then sloppy enough to reveal its existence (as she did), she might also have been angry enough to at least scrawl a telling comment or two on offending articles. I dreamed of uncovering handwritten notes such as, “We’ll watch this one—he’s in trouble!” or “I’ll let Richard know about this, for sure!” (“Richard” being CHRC attack dog Richard Warman.) Such information would surely embarrass the commissioner and, in doing so, would further advance the case against Section 13 and the CHRC.

Alas, Ms. Throop informed me in a three-page missive that any further digging by the CHRC to fulfill my request would entail e-mail searches, electronic records management system searches, typing and reading involving up to 100 employees and 6,284 hours of government time at $10 per hour, hence the $62,840 figure, of which I was requested to immediately send half (or $31,420) to Ottawa to enable my request to proceed. Either that, or narrow my search and reduce the cost accordingly.

The fact that the CHRC wants to charge me for this FOI request puts me in somewhat the same precipitous boat as a defendant ensnared by the CHRC machinery: while a complainant’s every expense is covered by the CHRC, a defendant is forced to foot the bill on his own, and isn’t even allowed to collect costs if he successfully defends himself.

Bottom line: I won’t be digging into any of my RRSPs to further my search for truth and justice and I don’t care to censor my application, so I guess my exploration ends here. But my FOI request has at least accomplished several things, including confirming that Ms. Lynch’s list really does exist and that it contains, not just opinion pieces that are critical of the CHRC, but also news stories about the CHRC and human rights in general, a fact that suggests the commissioner is taking note of critics who are quoted in those news stories.

The entries, which are listed in reverse chronological order, begin with a June 29, 2009 editorial by the Montreal Gazette (“Rights commission threatens our liberty”) and end with a February 16, 2008 column by the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente (“Human Rights Commissions: A day at the theatre of the absurd…”).

In between, the titles and headlines reveal that Ms. Lynch has been keeping a close eye on both the national media (articles from this paper, for example, account for 16 percent of the entire file) and the regional press (in fact, one of the two entries under my name is of a column I wrote for a twice-weekly newspaper in suburban Vancouver).

One can only conclude that, 1984-like, Big Sister has been watching. And watching very closely, at that.

Culture community thinks big

Artist's conception of new theatre at the Evergreen Cultural Centre.

Council has just wrapped up its two-day budget-requests hearings. Today was devoted primarily to hearing requests from cultural groups, two of whom -- Place des Arts and the Evergreen Cultural Centre -- have especially-major and -costly capital-project desires.
The PDA presentation asked for some significant dollars this year to move ahead with a major expansion of their Maillardville-area facility.
The folks from the ECC weren't quite as advanced in their requests, but did urge council to move ahead with a long-dormant plan to build a major new theatre-- or at least start coordinating/communicating with our neighbouring cities to get planning started.
The ECC presentation was supported by an architect's conception of that much-larger theatre (see above) than the current Studio Theatre. This idea has been on the drawing boards for several years now.
Council has yet to make any decisions, but we did remind everyone that the city is currently in the midst of developing a Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan--a document that will certainly help us prioritize our needs over the next several years.

Hope for the homeless in our community

Photo from HopeForFreedom.org

Coquitlam Council voted unanimously last night to approve a temporary-use permit to allow Eagle Ridge Bible Fellowship to join the rotation of Tri-Cities-area churches that are relaunching the cold/wet-weather mat program for the next two years--until Coquitlam's permanent shelter at 3030 Gordon opens. This good news was capped by some great news from my Council colleague, Brent Asmundsen.

First, some background: Following several successful seasons, from 2007-2011, of providing emergency shelter to the homeless, the temporary emergency-shelter program changed in 2011-2012, moving from the model of monthly rotations between churches to one in which it was based in just one church, the Grace Campus of Northside Church in Port Coquitlam.

But for reasons that have still not been fully explained, Port Coquitlam council voted last summer to deny Northside the right to continue this year, thus threatening to kill the entire program.

Happily, however, the Hope for Freedom Society was able to organize a new schedule of monthly rotations through other churches in the three Tri-Cities communities. The last "i" to be dotted was Coquitlam's approval of the temporary-use permit for Eagle Ridge Bible Fellowship.

But one other consideration remained: some sort of bus was needed to collect the homeless and deliver them to the emergency shelters at night and, of equal importance to local residents who didn't want indigents hanging around their neighbourhoods, taking the shelter-users back to their normal haunts in the morning.

And that's where Asmundson quietly sprung into action. Working behind the scenes, he not only obtained an out-of-service shuttle bus from Translink, but he also raised $22,800 from several local developers to cover operational costs for at least this year. Asmundson had made no public announcement of this act of community leadership, but Mayor Richard Stewart asked him last night to tell the public what he had done.

And so, his voice cracking with emotion at times, he told the story to the public last night. The audience applause was spontaneous and their admiration genuine. My congratulations to Brent and to all involved in this truly charitable enterprise.

Saving a precious piece of history

The City of Coquitlam announced this afternoon that it had purchased one of the most historic homes and properties in the city-- the Booth house and farm. It's great news.

Jill Cook of the Coquitlam Heritage Society. (Terry O'Neill photo)

In making the announcement, Mayor Richard Stewart took time to thank Councillor Craig Hodge, who chairs the Maillardville Commerical and Cultural Revitalization Committee, for all the good work he and the group has accomplished. Hodge also used to be on the board of the Coquitlam Heritage Society, which also urged the property's preservation. (One of the happiest people at today's announcement was Jill Cook, executive director of the society. See photo above.)
The Mayor also kidded Hodge for the over-eagerness he displayed on the Booth issue when he first arrived on council. Stewart quipped that my council colleague now understands the proper way to get things accomplished.
From my perspective, that "proper way" involved having the draft Maillardville Neighbhour Plan completed. The plan identified the Booth property as an important piece of our historic-property and park-land inventory.
With that clear identification in place, I was ultimately quite happy to vote in favour of the purchase of this precious piece of Coquitlam's history--a property that will provide much enjoyment for all our residents.
Here is the official press release about today's announcement:

 Coquitlam acquires historic Maillardville property

COQUITLAM, BC, Wednesday, October 30, 2013   – Booth Farm, an historic property in Maillardville, will be preserved thanks to the City of Coquitlam’s recent acquisition of the land.

Located at 1746 Brunette Ave., the 112-year-old home was originally owned by Ralph Booth, a pioneer of the Maillardville community. It was identified in the Maillardville Heritage Inventory as a “Primary Building” having architectural, historical and contextual heritage significance to the community.

“Our city enjoys a rich and unique past, which is especially evident throughout Maillardville – Coquitlam’s most historic neighbourhood,” said Mayor Richard Stewart. “It is our responsibility as a Council to ensure that we preserve and celebrate that history.  I’m very pleased that the most recent owners shared that sentiment, and have worked with us.”

The acquisition and preservation of Booth Farm aligns with the City’s Heritage Strategic Plan, and was specifically identified as a priority in the recently-drafted Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan.

 “Our goal is to continue to grow and revitalize Maillardville’s vibrancy and diversity as a neighbourhood,” said Councillor Craig Hodge, Chair of the Maillardville Commercial and Cultural Revitalization Committee. “Preserving Maillardville’s cultural identity through the safeguarding of heritage buildings and properties is an important component to our strategy for future growth of the neighbourhood.”

Purchasing Booth Farm provides the City with certainty in preserving the heritage elements of the land, and allows for the completion of a more detailed analysis to determine the optimal use of the building and site over the long-term.

Metro Vancouver wants us to eat local

One of the undeniable benefits of the (relatively) free-market system which our society has embraced is that it provides us fresh food from all parts at the world, year-round at affordable prices.

On the other hand, history has shown us repeatedly (hello, North Korea, etc.!) that centrally planned economies, especially centrally planned agriculture, don't work.

That's the big picture.

The small picture takes us to the Metro Vancouver regional government (officially known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District). Its basic job is to coordinate land-use planning, and water, sewer and garbage-disposal services, which it does fairly well.

(from Metrovancouver.org)

But it also has shown a propensity to grow. And one of the areas into which it appears to want to grow fairly large is the coordination of food-production in the Metro area. It's all part of Metro's "sustainability" agenda.

The region has been nosing into the food-production area for several years now; evidence can be found all over Metro's website, including reports on annual grants to encourage non-profits to educate the public about farming. There's also this draft report from three years ago. 

And now, Metro is planning to stage a "Regional Food System Roundtable" discussion (Nov. 20, 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m., at the Executive Plaza Hotel in Coquitlam). According to Metro, the roundtable is the "first step" in developing an "Action Plan" (the capitalization is Metro's) for implementing a "Regional Food System Strategy."

Really? Do we really think that central planners at Metro can devise a better food system than the marketplace can? Is this what we want Metro to be spending our taxes on?

I have no idea what the initiative will cost, but every time a committee or board meets, the politicians involved get extra pay. More expensive, though, are the bills associated with staff time, material production, room rentals and the like.

And, of course, there's also the cost of feeding attendees. I suggest that organizers take advantage of our excellent food-production and -supply system, and look for the best-quality food at the least-expensive cost.

An opportunity delayed--or lost?

Strike while the iron is hot. You've all heard this expression and appreciate its worth. In the context of Coquitlam, the hot iron can been seen as the coming of the Evergreen Line, a rapid-transit link that is in the process of transforming our city.
For the most part, City Council has been moving quickly to take advantage of the Evergreen--striking while the iron is hot. Council and staff are doing this by moving ahead with development in the areas around the Evergreen line stations. This has many beneficial effects, not the least of which is to supply of more market housing, which helps moderate price pressure.
Things are moving especially fast in the Burquitlam area, which is seeing an explosion of medium-density construction, and in the core City Centre area, which is seeing major high-density (high-rises!) construction.
So, you'd think that a developer that was planning a medium-density mixed commercial-residential development in the shoulder area of a rapid-transit station, and also within the City's transit-development-friendly "Transit-oriented Development Strategy" (TDS) growth area (see the adjacent map), would be welcomed with open arms by Coquitlam.
But that was not the case on Monday night. The staff report on the proposal by Epix Developments strongly recommended that Council not approve the project because the "City Centre Area Plan Update" has not been completed, and because moving the proposal forward would strain the planning department's resources.
In the end, the majority of Council agreed and voted 4-3 to reject the plan. And that's a shame.
I voted on the losing side to move it forward because I believe the public has the right to have their say on this proposed development, which appears to be a fine fit for the area: it's close to Port Moody's Inlet Centre Station and will be even closer to a Falcon station, should one ever be built. It's on a piece of land that has been empty for decades. It's close to existing townhouses and commercial areas. And it's in the City Centre TDS Area (it is on the left side of the red City Centre TDS in the above map).
The developers have been told they now have to wait a few years--a delay that is sure to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in carrying costs.
In a way, Epix is a victim of Coquitlam's success in attracting Evergreen-related development. I have no doubt that the planning department is up to its eyeballs in work. But it's still a pity that we couldn't find the time and resources to allow this project to move ahead.
Here's a link to the Tri-City News' story on the issue.

Time to exercise your franchise

And so, we are now just a week and a half away from the October 26 by-election to elect two new members to Coquitlam Council. Today is marked by two firsts: the first of four advance polls. And the first of two all-candidates meetings.
The advance poll is at the Poirier Sport and Leisure Complex, and runs from 8 a.m.-8 p.m. The next one is Oct. 19 at the Pinetree Community Centre, followed by one on Oct. 23 back at Poirier, and then the final one on Oct. 25 at Pinetree once again. Click here to see all the times and addresses.
On election day proper, you'll be able to cast your vote at any one of 11 polling stations. Click here to see the complete list.
Tonight's all-candidates meeting is at 7 p.m. at the David Lam campus of Douglas College. The second and final all-candidates meeting is tomorrow night at Banting Middle School. Click here for the details.
A healthy voter-turnout is important for many reasons, not the least of which is because it has the positive effect of diluting the impact of the left-wing CUPE electoral machine, which has shown it can deliver a sufficient number of voters to take control of a by-election in which there is a low overall voter turnout. On the other hand, CUPE's impact in a general election is diluted because of the greater voter turnout.

Doug Macdonell and MLA Linda Reimer

And why is keeping the CUPE machine in check important? Simply because I believe that voters should be concerned that an organization with a direct and ongoing financial link to the city (which CUPE has, because it represents more than a thousand workers who are paid by the city) also fields a slate of carefully selected candidates.
Can you imagine the uproar if any other organization with a direct financial link to the city (such as Smithrite, which has a contract to deliver garbage-collection and recycling services to the city) were to field a similar slate of candidates?
For the record, the two CUPE-backed candidates in this election are Chris Wilson and Bonita Zarrillo. Both appear to be strong candidates on their own right, but when Zarrillo asked me if I would endorse her, I said that, on principle, I could not.
On the other hand, I have made public the fact that I have endorsed Doug Macdonell, whose website you can visit by clicking here. I believe that his record of accomplishment during his previous time on council warrants his return.