Booze, Malls and Public Opinion 09/04/2009
A public hearing was held last night in which the main event featured a request for a zoning change at the newly redone Harewood Mall, now known as the University Village Mall. This rezoning application was required as the present zoning does not permit a liqour outlet. Both the licensee, who wishes to transfer his license from another mall location (Woodgrove) and the mall owner who believes that the outlet will attract business would like this grant from City Council. If it were any normal business such as a bank, restaurant or dollar store which were suggested by the public at the meeting no rezoning would be necessary. But as the present case involves what is essentially a controlled substance, rezoning it must be. I attended the meeting to see how the situation would be handled. As we are dealing with a controlled substance I had hoped to be presented by the City with some information which might let me make an intelligent decision. No such luck. There was no information concerning the number of liquor licenses in surrounding or comparably sized towns. There was no map of the location of current licenses to show either need or plethora. There was no map of liquor related problems from the police or from social services which might suggest where more outlets might -or might not- be acceptable. Instead there were pleas and passions. The mall representative plead that the liquor store would generate traffic and he needed a tenant. The fact that the rezoning application comes now rather than when the entire proposal to remodel the mall indicates that a liquor store is not a necessity but a circumstance. Some of the public plead that they were happy to have the convenience of a liquor store available when they went to the mall for groceries or to the drugstore despite there being a number of licensed outlets already within a relatively small radius. The vast majority opposed the rezoning application, feeling that Harewood was now, partly through the efforts of the mall developer and community action, leaving behind the old "Scarewood" title and becoming a desirable neighbourhood again and thus did not wish to tempt the fates to go back to the situation when there was a liquor store in the Mall, the old "Scarewood" days. There was also considerable discussion of the difficulties related to the existence of a 7/11 outlet which was open 24/7. One suspects that Council will take this under advisement. In the end, even without the kind of rational presentation which I believe the city should have made concerning the presence or absence of liquor in the city, I became convinced that it should be up to the residents of the area in which the controlled substance establishment is to be located to decide. We are not dealing with an ordinary commodity in such a case, but in a substance which, while legal under some conditions, still requires special permitting. Who should decide the location of such establishments: mall owners?; liquor dealers? the City?; or the residents who will be most impacted by its presence?? I vote for the residents. 1 Comment HST Petition 08/19/2009
Whether you are pro or con on the NDP, I recommend this petition to you as a means of preventing the HST from being implemented. There is no way in which this tax can be considered revenue neutral and studies done to date indicate that it will cost about $500 for every man, woman and child. That is a lot of money for many and it falls hardest on those least capable of paying. Given the state of incomes in Nanaimo, this will be a tax increase between 2.5 and 5% for many households. This is unreasonable, especially following an election in which the matter was not discussed. Go to: http://www.bcndp.ca/hstpetition and let the Liberals feel your wrath on this one. Monday's FPCOW meeting 08/19/2009
The Finance Policy Committee of the Whole meets periodically to discuss the budget and, as the name implies, policies related to the budget. Two items were of particular interest at the meeting on Monday, August 17: Policies relating to the terms and conditions of city management staff and funding for a new theatre. Councillor Bestwick brought forward a motion that the city bylaw dealing with management compensation and related employment conditions be reviewed. This motion with amendment to include the terms and conditions of the CUPE, Fire Fighter and city contractors was passed with only Councillor McNabb dissenting. It will be interesting to see the nature of this examination and what, if any, modifications to the bylaw will be made. Readers should note that at this time the bylaw is not available on the city's web site. It make for interesting reading and all can compare these terms and conditions to their own. The Port Theatre Society made a last minute appearance with a request for a $2 million loan guarantee from the city to enable them to pursue an $8.5 million dollar grant request from the federal government. The $2 million guarantee will only be needed if the money is forthcoming from the feds, so if that grant falls through, no harm done. If the grant is made however, the City is responsible for the $2 million loan (which the Port Theatre Society hopes to raise and thus eliminate the debt), plus any cost overruns, plus the operating expenses of the facility forever. To the best of my knowledge there has been no risk analysis on this project, nor any detailed market analysis. The last I knew, it cost taxpayers about $5 for each ticket sold at the Port Theatre, i.e. 100,000 seats sold in a year and a $500,000 annual grant from city taxpayers. Also, the city recently purchased another theatre and added it to our local stage inventory. This may be a good deal if all goes well, but if it does not ???? Who is holding the bag??? Nanaimo taxpayers have seen several very costly deals go sour when "partners" fail to perform. I keep my fingers crossed for the grant and for the success of the project, but if it does succeed it will be without the appropriate examination -- a shot in the dark. We all have to gamble all the time. The question is whether we are playing the odds or praying for luck. It was also revealed at Monday's meeting that the "Hay" system report which is used by the city to set pay scales has been received. It was not provided to Council? Why not? What massaging goes on before the information is given to our elected representatives? Post Title. 08/07/2009
The following letter to the Editor was sent recently to all our local newspapers. To date neither the Daily News or the Star have even reported that the event took place and the article in the Bulletin ignored entirely the srole of general taxpayers in supporting the objectives of our downtown businesses. BIAs and the DNPS are not well understood, but a significant amount of our general tax money is going to their objectives. I am not against downtown businesses organizing for their own objectives, nor do I object if they wish to tax themselves for that purpose. But to take my tax money for their objectives is a step too far. I hope that the letter explains this clearly. ___________________________________________________________________ Downtown Nanaimo Partnership Society meeting at the Shaw Auditorium on Wednesday, July 29. In our society groups are free to organize themselves to promote their own interests and Nanaimo offers many examples. Specific areas of the city are likewise free to organize for their own interests, i.e. neighbourhood associations. There has been yet another type of special area/special purpose association, created by provincial legislation: BIAs. Business Improvement Areas can, given a successful majority vote of their members, cause all owners/businesses in that area to pay a special tax to serve their special interests. There are currently two BIA groups in Nanaimo and a number of them in British Columbia. In Nanaimo, and only here, has the BIA system been extended by city bylaw and through an organizational structure recently described as Byzantine, to a system in which general property tax payers match the funds raised by the BIAs. In the past five years, this has meant that general taxpayers have contributed nearly $1,200,000 to the purposes of the BIA members. Readers may be aware that all has not been well in the DNPS camp. At Wednesday’s meeting it appeared that the primary point on which all could agree was that the matching funds from general taxpayers should continue. Why? It can hardly be maintained that the city and its taxpayers have scrimped on funds spent in the downtown in recent years. Hundreds of millions in capital funding have been spent (VICC, Port Theatre, and the downtown Library just to name the biggies). In addition to the DNPS matching grants, healthy operating grants over the last five years have been given to societies and agencies located in the downtown: Museum Society, $1,389,109; Port Theatre Society, $2,248,688; Tourism Nanaimo, $1,565,500, plus an unclear amount in annual operating funding to the downtown Library, the VICC and other lesser agencies. I do not object to the funding of public purposes, but to fund a special group or area of the city the purpose of which is to serve the city by first serving itself is questionable at best: and if this is done for one group or area, why not for others? I am sure that my neighbourhood could improve the city by improving itself. Why is Nanaimo the only city in BC which provides matching grants to BIA monies? And why was this meeting not promptly reported in our local newspapers? Conference Centre Capers 05/10/2009
Many of you may remember one or both of the two talks given in Nanaimo in 2004 by Dr. Heywood Sanders, North America's leading expert on Conference/Convention Centres. He has recently written an article in the Georgia Straight about the Vancouver Centre which many may find of interest. I look backward at many of similarities with the stories surrounding the development of Nanaimo's Centre and look forward to the release of some useful information on the return which we are receiving from our "investment". Provincial Election is on MAY 12, 2009!! 05/10/2009
A previous posting gave voters far too long to consider STV and candidates. The provincial election of 2009 is on MAY 12, NOT June 12. Please read the noted web page... 05/10/2009
The following was written in response to someone whose views I value, but in this case must choose to ignore: More on STV 05/07/2009
Why I am Voting for the STV on June 12 05/05/2009
I have read with great interest newspaper comments regarding the referendum on the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which will be up for consideration at the June 12 election and offer the following observations: It takes guts... 04/23/2009
Most of us have now read the front page Daily News article in which our Mayor admits to having shown insufficient consideration for his office by advertising a cruise under his leadership. Do not overlook the significance of this event. My hat is off to our new Mayor. How often do we hear a politician who admits a misjudged step and corrects it before moving on? |
