I was talking to a friend the other night and she brought up the fact a mutual acquaintance told her that she was not sure she could run in November’s municipal election because it was much harder to run in Abbotsford’s upcoming municipal election than in past years.

Fortunately I had been online to my favourite webzine, which had a story highlighting this matter, and had followed the link to read the questionable piece of writing calling upon Abbotsford council to make it much harder for “fringe” candidates to run. I was able to share that no changes had yet been made to the requirements to file and run in this year’s city elections.

While reading this anti-democratic call, I did wonder just what central committee or Orwellian big brother gets to decide what or who is “fringe”?

I was left pondering the actual purpose or motives behind a call for making it harder for “fringe” candidates to run. Making it harder for “fringe” candidates also clearly makes it harder for anyone to run, a fact conveniently ignored in the call to limit candidates and voter’s choices for city council. Rather a nice boon for current city councillors, would it not be?

Who no doubt find it daunting to be seeking re-election at a time so many citizens have questions and concerns about council’s sense of priorities, decision making, the fact that decisions are made behind closed doors excluding public scrutiny, financial management ability, etc; at a time people want a voice in the decisions, the direction the city takes and the vision that shapes the future; when citizens are engaged in local politics, motivated to participate and highly motivated to get out and vote.

One can understand why some members of Abbotsford City Council might like to make it much, much harder for “fringe” candidates to run thus making it much, much harder for all other candidates to run. The temptation to reduce the number of people who can run against you and thus protect oneself from defeat is understandable.

Just as understandable is the fact that seeking to protect oneself from answering to the voters by limiting their choice in who to vote for is totally unacceptable behaviour.

Democracy can survive a few fringe candidates since it thrives where anyone and everyone, including the so-called “fringe”, has the right to stand up and be heard, Democracy does not exist where some central committee or council is deciding who can run.

Let us be democratic, keep the playing field level, let the citizens hear from all and leave the final decision about who is fit and proper to represent the citizens in the hands of the citizens.

Masquerading under the pretence of being an opinion the Abbotsford News “opinion” of Saturday March 22, 2008 has worrying implications for the democratic process in Abbotsford, particularly as regards the upcoming November municipal elections.

This blatant piece of political partisanship in support of John Smith is unbalanced and unfair, containing as it does misleading factual omissions and implied untruths.

“City projects apparently make good targets for detractors of city council, simply because they all cost money.” Only by being completely ignorant of the public record, whether written by my own hand or made in public debate and comment, could anyone truthfully make this statement.

As one of those prejudicially labelled detractors, I am on record as wanting to build a 50 metre indoor competition swimming pool, more all weather soccer fields, upgrades to both the sewage and drinking water treatment plants as well as other needed projects. I was just as critical of council’s failure to build needed projects in order to hold tax increases to zero.

Despite the implication in the News opinion, being opposed to vanity projects such as John Smith’s friendship garden or new, tenantless arena does not mean one is against projects “… simply because they cost money.”

It simply means one is in favour of fiscally responsible behaviours. Behaviours such as setting priorities based upon the needs of the citizens not councils wants.

An example would be the matter of the lack of a single accessible playground for children with disabilities and handicaps. When approached for $50,000 to make ONE playground accessible, John Smith and council could not find $50,000.

But for city councillor John Smith’s garden – $500,000, ten times the amount they COULD NOT find for children. This is praiseworthy – how?

Let us examine one of the glaring omissions made by the News in its opinion. The grant is not without cost to the city since it is a matching funds grant and in order to be able to spend the provincial funds there must be matching city funds. The city is required to come up with $500,000 to get and spend the provincial $500,000.

“Coun. Smith asserts that the city will be able to find local businesses offering in-kind donations to come up with its share…” Ignoring for the moment the reasonableness of accepting unsupported claims that local business will leap in with the needed $500,000; would this not be the same Councillor Smith that assured taxpayers that the provincial government would be contributing millions of dollars to Plan A costs? We are all aware of how those promised funds failed to materialize, leaving taxpayers on the hook for all those nonexistent $$$ millions.

“… it is surely better for Abbotsford that some of this funding come here …” implies that we spend these funds on this friendship garden or not get any funds. A simple check of the facts would reveal this is not the case.

I would suggest that rather than waste Abbotsford’s share of the provincial program these funds come from on Councillor Smith’s friendship garden, the funds be spent on needed projects such as accessibility – which would be far more in keeping with the spirit of the “Spirit” grant(s).

I wish I could go so far as to suggest spending the entire amount on making more than just one single playground accessible to those with disabilities and handicaps but I am not, unlike others, so fiscally irresponsible.

Without cash on the barrelhead, that is donations in hand, the city is on the hook for $500,000 plus any additional spending (currently projected at $400,00) and cost overruns. Unlike the News I am not willing to ignore fiscal reality or past fiscal performance. Where will we get the funds and what work or projects will not be done in order that Councillor Smith can have his friendship garden?

It is irresponsible for the News to promote the friendship garden without an examination of where the $900,000 in city funds will come from and the effect this will have on city operations and budgeting. Unless the News, in its avid support for Councillor Smith’s garden, will be contributing the $900,000?

As to “…it will be the kind of place people will enjoy and be proud of”. We need to consider all the playing fields, green spaces and park spaces that are overgrown with vegetation run wild and so unusable, simply because Parks and Recreation does not have the budget to clean up and maintain these spaces in usable shape. Leaving one to wonder how much additional green space we will lose in paying for Councillor Smith’s garden? Let us also not overlook Jubilee and other parks that would benefit greatly from care and attention.

Obviously the News and I have very different views on what is “real community leadership”. To the News this is apparently merely having “…councillors who strive to accomplish something”.

There are those in the city who probably share the News’s opinion. Among these would be the people who said to me “I don’t think the Plan A projects are what the city needs but I am voting yes because we have to build something.” HUH?

I am sorry but to me leadership is about seeking to accomplish what the city needs to have accomplished. It is about a pool for competitions and to meet the growing demand from swim clubs, school swimming teams and provide more flexibility scheduling public use of our existing pools; attracting businesses, their jobs and their contributions to the tax base and the community; putting in place the waste and drinking water treatment to service our rapidly growing city; about building playgrounds accessible by ALL children.

Leadership is not about vanity projects such as an arena without a tenant, an arena that there was no demand for, nor is it about finding funds for a friendship garden while having no funds to make even a single playground accessible to handicapped or disabled children.

The News is entitled to its opinion, although as a local newspaper this should be in accordance with journalistic principles. In choosing to be partisan in support of John Smith; in choosing to be unbalanced and unfair; in choosing to mislead through factual omissions and implied untruths; the News has chosen to abandon journalistic principles.

This development, in the months leading up to a municipal election, has worrying implications for the democratic process.

Citizens should be outraged by this development, writing to demand this unacceptable state of affairs be corrected.

The Abbotsford News opinion Saturday March 22, 2008

Abbotsford’s proposed International Friendship Garden is already drawing fire. City projects apparently make good targets for detractors of city council, simply because they all cost money.

Our kudos to Coun. John Smith for spearheading this project to create a beautiful space in the city.

It would be easier for him to be a council member who proposes nothing, and who does nothing except vote against proposals that might raise the tax rate. That approach will certainly win a politician the city’s curmudgeon vote, but it is not real community leadership. Better to have councillors who strive to accomplish something.

Parks are an important part of any city, and every community has their residential developers donate land that is set aside for green space. Taking a city’s green spaces and further developing them into ball parks, trails, playgrounds and other facilities is a goal of any city’s parks and recreation department.

The staff at Abbotsford city hall has been aware of the provincial government’s Spirit Squares program, which aims to improve outdoor public meeting and celebration spaces. City hall has taken heat in recent years for not attracting enough provincial and federal funding to the community, but it was able to win Abbotsford the maximum grant under this program, $500,000, and Premier Gordon Campbell came to Abbotsford last Friday to announce the grant.

So, kudos also to city hall officials, elected and hired, for attracting this money to Abbotsford. Detractors do not even acknowledge the good in this, saying it is all taxpayers’ money. But it is surely better for Abbotsford that some of this funding come here, and not to some other city’s “spirit square.”

Coun. Smith asserts that the city will be able to find local businesses offering in-kind donations to come up with its share of what will be a million-dollar garden. So it should not be costly, but it will be the kind of place people will enjoy and be proud of.

Illegal: adjective forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Immoral: adjective violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Once again I find myself providing definitions for the education of Abbotsford’s city council and staff. Perhaps readers with a spare dictionary could take it to city hall and give it to the mayor? Citizens would then know with certainty that yes city hall has a dictionary; they just choose not to use it.

An aging parent who is ill and needs care, your home is on an acreage with plenty of room for a trailer to provide a home that will allow you to provide care, the rational decision is to put a trailer in for your parent. This is a situation that more and more people across the lower mainland face as our population ages.

Being an honest citizen you go to city hall to inform them of this and get your $287 building permit. Imagine your surprise when you are billed an additional $25,000 for DCCs. Imagine the greater surprise when upon enquiry you are informed that under the city’s new DCC bylaws anyone who gets a building permit for anything is billed $25,000 for DCCs.

Development Cost Charges are the charges municipalities are allowed to levy to cover the cost of providing services (sewer, water etc.) to new developments or construction. It would seem to me that the purpose and scope of these charges is perfectly clear just from their name.

For purposes of clarification the provincial government provides a “Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide”. Finally there is The Local Government Acts, the statute that govern the powers and behaviours of Abbotsford’s municipal government.

DCCs are to allow the City to cover or recover the costs associated with construction or development; they are clearly not and never were intended as a cash grab method. A fact testified to by the law itself.

Section 933(3) of the Local Government Act states that DCCs are not payable if it can be proven that the development does not impose a new capital cost burden on the municipality, or if a DCC was previously paid for the same development.

Section 933(4) of the Local Government Act says that DCCs are exempt where a building permit is issued for the construction, alteration, or extension of a building that contains less than four dwelling units, and the building is exclusively for residential use, where the costs are less than $50,000.
Section 933(4) also states that the reason for DCC exemptions is to avoid capturing renovations that do not require improvements to infrastructure.

For those who have any doubts remaining the Act also states: “…normal costs of repairing and maintaining existing infrastructure can’t be included, in DCCs, nor can operating costs. DCCs represent a way to hold new development accountable for the infrastructure costs it imposes on existing taxpayers.”

This all seems pretty clear and straight forward to me, how does it seem to you?

Apparently it is not clear to Abbotsford City Council or to staff at Abbotsford City Hall – including it seems, legal staff.

Fortunately for Christine Masztalar, her neighbour Russ Walsh is of Irish decent and happy to fight city hall on her behalf. (As a personal aside I would like to state my opinion that this city would benefit from more neighbours such as Mr. Walsh).

The question is: What about all the other citizens of Abbotsford who did not have a neighbour such as Mr. Walsh or were unaware of what “The Local Government Acts” set out as the law for DCCs?

The attitude and behaviours of Abbotsford City Council and City Staff and their actions and lack of actions on the matter of DCCs has and is totally unacceptable.

That City Hall is not taking immediate action to address this matter thus forcing citizens to go to court and get an estoppal order to put a stop to illegal DCC levying, is unconscionable.

Council and staff have been repeatedly informed of their illegal actions, but for reasons only they know, they continue this illegal activity.

As taxpayers we need be concerned as we will pay any financial costs associated with these illegal actions.

As citizens we should be concerned that these behaviours certainly do not “conform to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics”.

The Parks and Rec department in Abbotsford “needed” what had been the community bulletin board – because they had so much they needed to post. It was only after patron complaints to City Council that a community board was put up to replace the board taken over, because of claimed need, by Parks and Rec. After the photos were published (see below) contrasting Parks and Rec’s board with the new, smaller public board; Parks and Rec redid the board as seen below, covering a much larger area of the surface of the board.

In the interests of an informed public we have a picture of the new display, a picture of the new display bluing out all but the information portions of the display (a handout for the public) and a new photo of the current public board.

Leaving us once again wondering: why was it that Parks and Rec “needed” to take over the public board?