The minutes of Nanaimo's City Council for April 6, 2009, reports the following:
19109 It was moved and seconded that “OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2009 NO. 6500.004” pass third reading. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillors Kipp, Pattje and Sherry
19209 It was moved and seconded that “OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2009 NO. 6500.004” be adopted. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillors Kipp, Pattje and Sherry
This bylaw converted some 21% of Nanaimo's available heavy industrial land into a resort category for the benefit of the Cable Bay Development scheme. You may notice that while three Councillor's opposed this conversion, six supported it. This situation raises questions about propriety and governance in the wake of political donations made at election time a few months ago. Four of the six supporters received substantial campaign donations from the proponents of Cable Bay: Holdom ($500); Johnstone ($500); Unger ($1000) and McNabb ($1000) and these contributions made up a substantial portion for their total campaign spending.
Is there any connection? Who is to say? Certainly questions may be unavoidable, but as they involve intent, there is no way to demonstrate whether this is simply a matter of a meeting of the minds between a developer and a candidate on a project; or of the generation of an expectation which, were it to be explicitlyexpressed, would definitely constitute a conflict of interest . As I have noted before, when the question has previously been raised, candidates have simply noted that we should not think that they could be bought so cheaply.
This same group also gave funds to other, unsuccessful candidates. One of these candidates, had he been re-elected might have raised the bar on this discussion considerably. In addition to the $2,250 which the group provided directly to his campaign, another $10,557 was spent on his behalf by a "Campaign Organizer" outside his direct campaign. Thus $12,807 was spent by the Cable Bay folks on one candidate, Mr. Korpan. While, under the circumstances it remains hypothetical, what if he had won re-election and had voted for the Official Community Plan Bylaw Amendment requested by Cable Bay, what would we think then? Is there any sum which one should automatically consider to constitute a conflict of interest? What do you think?
Last night we were given the answer the question: Does City Council recognize that there has been a very dramatic shift in the economy since Staff first put together the 2009-2013 financial plan? The answer we have been given is that they do not. Staff's original plan remained unscathed excepting that 1% of the overall 5.3% increase will come from taxpayers savings rather than their current pay cheques (if they are fortunate to still have them, or if their pensions have not been hit).
It is to be hoped that our new Council will continue to struggle with the budget through the next year so that they can understand what it is that they are passing. It is my opinion from watching recent Council meetings that they have been easily flummoxed. By next year it is to be hoped that they understand the ins and outs of the budget closely enough that they can avoid the difficulties of the boards of Enron or GM or Chrysler.
On another note, Katherine Davis and James Cunningham made informed and impassioned pleas to have a review of the Busking Bylaw (a task which was apparently supposed to have taken place a number of years ago). While citing a number of problems with the current bylaw, it became apparent that central to the discussion is the definition of buskers (street performers). The buskers see themselves as modern day troubadors, artists who should be dealt with by the City's Arts and Culture Committee, while the City's perspective is that they are a nuisance to be dealt with by the SAFER Committee (made up of the RCMP, VIHA, Bylaw Enforcement, etc.). I suspect that any of us can take either view, depending on the calibre of the entertainment offered.
The buskers argue that there need be no Bylaw and that the market will sort out the wheat from the chaff. In fact, the city does have other nuisance bylaws by which panhandlers (it can be argued that a "busker" with no recognized talent is in fact a panhandler) can be dealt with. Let's hope all the groups involved can work together to make a summer visit to our downtown streets a pleasure for our citizens and visitors, our merchants and our street entertainers. Let's not forget that Robin Williams started out as a busker.
I regret that I have been unable to maintain my blog for some time. I have joined the ranks of Nanaimoites with the lurgy and I am only recently back together enough to be coherent again. At least I think it is coherent.
As you are aware we have a Council meeting on Monday. This will be the last kick at the can for the 2009 budget/2009-2013 financial plan. I still find it incomprehensible that our taxes are to be increased by two times the increase in the cost of living in 2009 and continuing through 2013 a pattern of tax increases set during far different times.
It appears unseemly for taxpayers to be taken to the cleaners by both sides of the equation. Let us hope that those elected to represent uswill show some spirit in defending taxpayers from those who would like to continue padding their slush funds despite major economic changes.
Want to spend a week schmoozing with the mayor this September? Have that project you would like to discuss? It can all be yours for the cost of a cruise line ticket from Nanaimo Travel and Cruise, says an ad in a recent Nanaimo newspaper. I am not sure this is appropriate under the circumstances. What do you think?
Well, at least nobody can say that there is no debate in Council these days. While continuing to loan millions in interest free taxpayer money to Millennium/Suro does not seem to bother 5 of our Councillors, for this and many other good reasons four others strenuously debated the issues involved and voted against. As it unfolded we were also reminded that the bulk of the money to be received from the Arena/Foundry lands will no doubt go to the developer to put in a high rise parking lot for the public as there would otherwise be no parking at the park. Beyond the sizable loan over at least two years, taxpayers will also be asked to put up more money to try to find a developer who will perform. I thought that these developers would perform this job for the sake of their own reputations if for no other reason. Then again, we may wish to ask, if this is what should be done, why was it not done at the start. It is all a great puzzle to me, though it appears that the major hidden element behind this is that if this default were actually recognized, that any new proposition would have to be brought to the public for agreement. I guess we really don't want that to happen, when the majority Councillors now have the public in the palm of their hand.
After some further discussion and by a 6 to 3 vote, Council voted to exchange some 21% of our available heavy industrial land for a resort classification at Cable Bay. This means that they need not fall back on the parcel which they tried to get the city to annex for them by the suspect means of a negative option referendum, a popular means by which an unsuspecting public can be "led". It seems that we go to a lot of effort to avoid democracy when it comes to issues. Like the cartoon said, representative democracy is where you elect your dictators.
It also became increasingly evident that Council has not been given a good grasp of the budget and what is involved. I felt that staff did not seem to feel it necessary to ensure that Councillors had a clear idea of what was before them but that they should take or leave what was put forward as "suggestions . It felt it little bit like stockholders at GM must have felt when they asked the Chairman and CEO about what the company was doing and were withered with dire consequences and previously untendered details. And as it turns out the budget information given to Council apparently only reached them minutes before the meeting began.
We now know what is happening to GM. Do we know what is happening to Nanaimo?
For about one and a half hours this evening Council listened to both project proponent and supporters who I would judge to be about 2/3 to 3/4 of the audience and the rest who were not so happy. It seemed as the backbone of the supporters was made of developers, contractors of all types and related real estate people. I don't blame them. They are counting on getting some scraps from the feast which will take place if the proponent follows through on his promises. And there could be jobs, etc. for some time. Buy how about buyers? Times have changed and it is too early to tell by how much. Of course we now know that promises made to the public about no initial city expenditure on project infrastructure, can be written on the wind. Taking all that Cable Bay presents as gospel, the project does not seem to present a risk. But we all know that any billion dollar project in these times is a risk and where private business usually has a get away plan, the public's pocket always remains available. There has been no risk analysis for the public on this project and I feel this is negligent.
There were a number of counter arguments which ranged from the procedural (that the process is ultra vires due to a previous public hearing about which I certainly would like to hear more); the strategic (do we really want to give up the only on-the water heavy industrial site in town); the economic (where is the study that says that all this infrastructure will pay for itself); and the logistic (do we want to revitalize our downtown or do we want to spend our development efforts on the periphery).
Those who are watching closely will find that a decision on this subject will be coming forth on Monday, April 6, as Council today announced that a special meeting of Council has been called for that date at 7pm in the Shaw Auditorium. Other items of interest include the budget, the proposed next deal for MIllennium and other items of interest. Of course as this is a special meeting of Council, the tv cameras will not be there to broadcast the manner in which these very significant issues will be dealt with.
This week end will see the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities annual meeting in Nanaimo. For more about AVICC see: http://www.avicc.ca/ If you want to know more about the conference itself, see the program at: http://www.avicc.ca/upload/nwd101.pdf
This is only one of the municipal meetings that are aimed at Municipal Councils, and Municipal Management Staff. There are many opportunities to share information about running a city and managing citizens which are held each year. Others include:
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities: 2009 Conference June 5-8 in Whistler.
The Local Government Management Association of BC: Conference in Nanaimo, June 9-11.
The Union of British Columbia Municipalities: Conference Sept 28 - October 2 at the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre.
The Vancouver Island Chapter of the Local Government Management Association of BC, Nov 4-6, at the Crown Royal Resort in Courtney.
There are still others for various professionals, i.e. planners, engineers, personel folks, IT types, etc. etc.
These conference help city management and employees to keep up with what is happening in the field and to exchange ideas on how to better manage their flocks. On the whole, I would say that this is a laudable practice. But does it not seem strange that there are no such meetings for citizens and taxpayers which could serve to focus on their interests and how to achieve them. Will we always be outclassed? Is their promise in a citizens protection league or some such organization?
If you are interested in the development of Nanaimo as a Community, don't miss the Public Hearing at 7pm in the Shaw Auditorium of the Vancouver Island Conference Centre. This will be the second time the Cable Bay folks have tried to expand their empire in the boondocks, and again they are trying it by a method which appeals to Council with little public input. Promises have been made which, at least in my mind, are as good as those made by another partner for a conference centre hotel. Citizens perform, they reneg. We will hear on Thursday about how this rezoning step (by the way, the land in question does not belong to the developer which raises its own questions), must lead to a "Comprehensive Plan" before development can begin. Of course the rezoning will increase the value of the land substantially. Someone may want to ask on Thursday what the estimate of the value which Council is granting (if it approves the rezoning), and how much the citizens of Nanaimo who gave Council the right to grant this increase will get. And a whole lot of other questions. This may be our last chance to discuss a project which professionals have said will sink downtown revitalization if it goes ahead.
I hope to see you there on Thursday. It is OUR town, not just that of a few.
Despite the fact that the 2009 budget has not yet been completed and the deadline in rapidly approaching, there will be no FPCOW (Finance Policy Committee of the Whole) meeting until April 6. The next Council meeting will not be held until April 20, when, if I am correct, the budget must be given first and second readings. Given the evident lack of cohesion among Council for what to do with the budget in these trying times, one would have thought that there would be more public debate on this issue before the issue is forced by the schedule. Maybe Council does not think that public debate on such issues is warranted?
This week will see at least two other items of interest, i.e. the Public Hearing on the Cable Bay/Island Timberlands proposal to replace our dwindling supply of industrial land by converting a large part of it to a resort/golf course (mare about this later) and the Meeting of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities from April 3 to 5 at the Conference Centre. It should be interesting to hear what this group has in store for us, but as far as I am aware, meetings and seminars are not open to the public.
A Modest Proposal: Recent headlines which show local EI applications up by over 40%, local welfare applications up by over 40%, and bankruptcies rapidly increasing, provide a prime opportunity for city council and staff to provide real leadership, real hope and real local stimulus. A prudent use of the 2008 budget surplus (estimated at between 3 and 5 million dollars), discretionary reserves (estimated at $22 million dollars), and some belt tightening in the annual budget would allow Nanaimo's 2009 property tax increase to be held to 0 (zero) percent without seriously impacting our reserve situation. [If $750,000 represents 1% on the property tax, holding the budget increase to 0 percent requires only a small fraction of the sum represented by these three sources.] Such a move would offer significant benefits to our community. It would provide a fiscal stimulus as the millions of dollars saved on our property taxes would be available to support our local businesses and our citizens in their efforts to survive in a harsh economic environment. It would provide a major bragging point as we could expect to be one of the few, if not the only, community in BC to meet the recession so boldly. It would give heart to citizens who feel that City Hall has lost touch with those who it represents. And it would aid us in establishing a more realistic five year plan as our existing plan is based on an economic environment that no longer exists. Now is the time to grasp the bull by the horns and begin the lifestyle changes that we will all be forced to make in the next few years. If this makes sense to you, contact your Council and encourage them to act on your behalf.
