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".
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 note correct date and VOTE!!
The following was written in response to someone whose views I value, but in this case must choose to ignore:
Very well said. But I must take exception to your comment that under the present circumstances one should not vote strategically. I don't like voting strategically. I am a strong supporter of BCSTV which could set me free. So what am I to do. Vote my conscience as did so many in Germany in the 30's: see http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp ??
FPTP systems in which multiple parties are involved lead to drastic consequences. We have already seen some outrageous outcomes here in BC. We need either two parties and FPTP or multiple parties with PR. The mix we currently have is toxic.
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:
1. Whether STV is the "Best" system is academic. The vote will be between STV and the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system which, as we add new parties, drives our system further toward minorities who rule and majorities which are unrepresented.
2. If simplicity were a required criteria, I would not drive a car, ride in a plane, listen to a radio, use a computer or watch tv. We live in a complex world.
3. While STV may not guarantee to mend a fragmenting society, it offers a better probability that among the candidates elected, one or more might share my ideas rather than having a single representative who may be ideologically opposed to my perception and ignores me.
4. Under STV I can vote for the person(s) I think best, rather than having to vote strategically at all times to try to avoid the person I think worst.
There are many reasons to vote for the STP system, but these, I think, deserve careful consideration.
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?
As citizens we too often want it both ways: to complain about political faux pas and then attack politicians for weakness if they admit it. We want our politicians to be be honest, but penalize them when they are. If we want to overcome our present distaste for politicians, we had better be able to recognize that sometimes a change in action is a result of learning and reflection and not a symptom of perfidy or weakness. My respect for Mayor Ruttan has increased.
On a related matter, I think it is unfortunate that Mr. Bellaart and the Daily News chose to use a phrase in their headline which I suspect may have been uttered as among friends and not for publication. In my opinion this was a cheap shot for a splash headline.
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?