Category Archives: Municipal

Consider, Municipal

Words of Bamboozlement

Leave a comment

Reading Mr Pizzutto’s comments on the AESC loss brought to mind the words Barack Obama used at a fundraiser:

“They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you.”

Mr Pizzuto stated “the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…” Either Mt Pizzuto has failed to do his homework, or he is attempting to re-write history vis-a-vis City Council and Staff and the preposterous $100+ million dollar construction costs, the never-ending multi-million dollar subsidies to operate the AESC and the millions of dollars of taxpayer monies subsidizing the purchase of a profession hockey team.

A subsidy for the favoured few who stepped forward to enable Council and Staff to ‘save face’ by avoiding having built a hockey arena with no team and no hockey. I suppose that measured against the loss of $30+ million of funding from senior levels of government through city halls ineptitude, a $2 – $3 million dollar yearly cost for Council and Staff’s ego project seems paltry.

At least to a City Hall whose lack of financial and mathematical ability prevents the use of simple multiplication to see that 10 (years) times $3 million equals another $30 million dollar ‘ineptitude’ tax bill for taxpayers?

Nor will taxpayers be “you all forgot” that in the real world, as opposed to Mr Pizzuto’s revisionist history fantasy world, there was no mention to the voters that “The city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million annually to operate the AESC……” when Plan A was being sold to the public.

Council and Staff sold the AESC to the public with promise that the AESC would earn $1+ million a year and reduce, not increase, taxes. Indeed, Council and Staff issued guarantees of profits after those pesky naysayers dared to suggest AESC would require yearly subsidies by taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million.

And Mr Pizzuto, those $1+ million dollar a year profits were guaranteed without a hockey team. A hockey team was suppose to increase the million dollar profits of AESC, not require millions of dollars in yearly subsidies to lure a money loosing franchise to Abbotsford.

But hey, a few millions of dollar losses per year instead of a $1+ million dollar profit is no big deal – at least to Council and Staff.

“The operating shortfall…… in 2011 has been finalized at $2.83 million…….” ” That figure is a $410,000 improvement over the projections made by the city in March……”

Why not a $820,000 ‘improvement’? All that would have required is for Council and Staff to have projected an operating shortfall of $3.650. Better yet, Council and Staff could have ‘improved’ the operating shortfall by 50% if they had the projected operating loss at $5.66 million.

“the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…”

Of course as it turned out there were millions of dollars worth of costs and expenses that Council and Staff were aware of and felt the public did not need to know. After all one would not want to give the public who pays the bills information that would cause them to come to a rational, therefore different, conclusion than Council and Staff desire.

In Abbotsford Council and Staff ‘consult’ with the public by giving the public only the information that supports Council and Staff, deeming contrary information ‘not needed for the public to know’ and dismissing any points raised by concerned citizens  that Council and Staff cannot refute as naysaying.

Whether AESC, subsidizing professional hockey or a water processing system were the problem is storage to meet peek demand, not the ability of the system to process enough water – consultation for Council and Staff is not about facts and good decision making but about hiring consultants to put together a sales campaign to sell councils wants to the public.

And any facts that might have a negative effect on public support of council and staff’s wants are facts that would only confuse the public and therefore the public does not need to know.

At least until it is time to Bamboozle the public about the expensive consequences of Council and Staff”s behaviours. Then suddenly those guaranteed $!+ million profits become “the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…”

Issues, Municipal

A New Front?

Leave a comment

Homelessness, Poverty, Affordable Housing, Hunger are social issues about which Abbotsford City Council uses all the right buzzwords while accomplishing nothing – or at least nothing of a positive nature.

Thus you have Olympic housing rolling through Abbotsford on its way to provide affordable housing in Chilliwack. And the opportunity of $11 million dollars of financial funding for affordable housing from the provincial government lost to city council’s inaction and ineffective, inappropriate actions.

You have the Warm Zone on the verge of closing their doors despite support from the police department and concerns the police have about the repercussions should the Warm Zone close its door.

Mayhap if the woman of the Warm Zone were to re-organize into a hockey based operation, put together a franchise and join the Canadian Women’s Hockey League, they could gain access to the millions of dollars City Council has to subsidise profession hockey franchises?

With City Hall’s latest ethnic cleansing campaign against the homeless in full swing and destroying what shelter the homeless have to provide some protection from the elements, members of the homeless community find themselves soaking wet, cold and faced with the need to find a place to warm up in order to survive.

Finding oneself watching a soaking wet human being huddled into himself  and shivering uncontrollably, desperate for warmth to avoid dying of ‘natural causes’ – as if there is anything natural in our wealthy society about a homeless person dying of hypothermia – brings you face to face with society’s thoughtless indifference.

It is the experience of living with the consequences of City actions that had the homeless, the poor, the hungry and other members of Abbotsford’s growing underclass questioning whether city council was expanding its ethnic cleansing to include the hungry poor among the ‘unworthy’ to be cleansed from Abbotsford when the signs suddenly appeared along Gladys Avenue.

The disquieting growth in the number of seniors, families and others needing to avail themselves of the food distributed and meals served at noon means vehicles spill along Gladys Avenue. No parking meant being unable to park along Gladys Avenue because a parking ticket represents a disaster they cannot afford. No parking meant being forced not to come for food, to go hungry.

The City stated their reason for the appearance of the no parking signs along Gladys Avenue……..but the City’s ‘reasons’ have often been indistinguishable from excuses.

On the other hand the City has a long and well established history of failing to think its actions through with costly, often very costly, consequences for Abbotsford citizens.

Fortunately the appearance of the no parking signage was noted immediately, brought to the City Hall’s attention and resulted in ‘No Parking’ becoming ‘2 Hour Parking’ in the ‘Food Zone’. Which should ensure that ‘No Parking’ does not turn into ‘No Food for You!’.

Unresolved however is the appearance of ‘No Parking’ signs raising fears that this was the opening move to add the hungry poor to those the City feels need to be cleansed, and what that fear signifies about city council, Abbotsford and its citizens.

Municipal

Misconstrue

Leave a comment

It is clear from Ms Patterson’s letter (below) that she fails to understand that the Heat are not the issue, merely evidence of City Hall’s financial mismanagement and flawed priorities.

I really don’t care enough about the Heat as an organization to be either negative or positive about the Heat.

On the other hand I am intensely negative about Abbotsford City Council using taxpayer dollars to pay yearly, multi-million dollar subsidies to the owners of the Heat.

If the ownership group of the Heat want to own a professional hockey team, that is their right. However, a professional hockey team is a business and it is the owners of a business who are suppose to assume the risks associated with a business.

Who is it at City Hall and/or around Abbotsford who thinks it is a good idea for the taxpayers of Abbotsford to assume all the risk for the Heat, rather than the owners assuming the risks involved?

If the Heat ownership felt the probability of multi-million dollar losses was too certain to invest in the Heat and move them to Abbotsford without guaranteed protection from multi-million dollar losses – City Council had no business agreeing to cover the Heat’s losses in order to indulge their egos.

Yes indulge their egos. City Hall turned away the Chilliwack Chiefs when they approached City Hall to partner in building a new home for the Chiefs because “Abbotsford didn’t need a new arena or a new hockey team” – until Langley said yes to the Chiefs. Then suddenly Abbotsford needed a new arena and a hockey team.

Perhaps Ms Patterson thinks it makes sense to subsidise the owners of a professional hockey team…… but it seems loony to me to raise fees/costs and deny participation in athletics to increasing numbers of young amateur athletes as part of raising the millions of taxpayer dollars required to allow a few – paid – professional athletes to play hockey in Abbotsford and subsidise ownership of a professional hockey team.

As it is with the Heat, so it is with the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports Complex building. I am neither positive nor negative about the building itself.

I am negative about the fact that based on the construction costs of arenas built in other BC cities at the time AESC was built, the AESC should have cost taxpayers half of what it did.

Adding to the insult and injury of taxpayers paying 100% more than construction should have cost, carelessness and arrogance cost the taxpayers of Abbotsford millions of dollars from provincial or federal government funding. Funding that every other city – except Abbotsford – got.

And when citizens dared to suggest that council needed to line up funding from senior levels of government before plans were finalized, council told the citizens to run along and let those who “knew what they were doing” handle the matter.

Abbotsford City Council does not have $50,000 to build a handicapped accessible playground, it does not have money to make city sidewalks navigable to citizens in wheelchairs so they do not have to wheel along on the roads of Abbotsford, it does not have the money to paint lines on the roads that would be visible in the rain or do other road work needed to make driving, walking and cycling safer in Abbotsford.

Abbotsford City Council does not have money to meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable or to address safety concerns and issues. But when it comes to City Councillor’s ego projects, the city has millions of dollars a year to squander to subsidise Heat ownership for the millions of dollars the Heat lose and millions more to subsidise the losses of operating the AESC for the Heat.

While it is nice that Ms Patterson enjoys the Heat games, it would be a lot more enjoyable for taxpayers if the ticket price Ms Patterson and others pay included the $30 subsidy that taxpayers pay per person attending a Heat game.

While those attending Heat games may not find them as enjoyable if the ticket prices for Heat games included/covered the $30 per fan per game subsidy,  taxpayers would find the change a positive development.

*****************************************************************************************************************

I have read too many negative remarks about the Abbotsford Heat. I wonder if the people complaining have ever gone to a game and felt the community spirit there.

I am not a real hockey fan, but I really love the atmosphere at the Heat games. I recently attended the game with my dogs. It was fabulous. The great thing was that $5 from each dog ticket  was donated to the SPCA.  As I walked through the lobby the SPCA was there with information about their programs, and there were other freebies for pet owners.

The national anthem is an awesome event in itself. Local talent sing, and they are exceptional. When they finish, the crowds roar. Clayburn Middle School students are producing broadcasts, young hockey players are out on the ice playing a game, parents selling 50/50  tickets, and kids even get a chance to ride on the Zamboni.

I love seeing all the red in the audience! People catching T-shirts, bags of chips, winning jerseys, playing the Tim Horton game. Great music, Hawkey, friendly people, yummy popcorn, The Kiss Cam, it is all so much fun. It isn’t just about the hockey. Families are there. Lots of happy children dancing and cheering in the stands. I challenge you to come out and see for yourself.

Shelley Patterson

Hmmm, Issues, Municipal

Panhandlers curbed in Abbotsford

Leave a comment

Screamed the eye catching headline on the front page of the Abbotsford News Friday April 6 2012 edition. A headline that enticed me into reading the article, which brought to mind some thoughts on the clarification that currently manifests on the Abbotsford Today website.

It would seem to me that if Black Press is concerned about inferences being drawn (or suggested) that The News is bias in favour of or had lost objectivity about the City of Abbotsford as a result of undue influence resulting from a) the City of Abbotsford spends all its advertising dollars in the Abbotsford News which, if it doesn’t make the City the newspaper’s the #1 advertiser, makes it a crucial contributor to the health of the bottom-line and b) it is the City, where advertising is not affected by the economy or the competence of management, which would multiply the extent to which these advertising dollars are indispensible to the financial health and/or continued existence of The News, The News should simply focus on consistently demonstrating “The Abbotsford News … long history of independence and integrity with respect to its editorial content”

This does not mean I expect or demand The News to agree with me and disagree with the City’s actions, claims or view point. I too am “acutely aware of the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and freedom of the press…” for organizations as well as people. I consider public discussion and debate of issues to be vital to good governance. Indeed, given the current economic and financial realities of all levels of government discussion and debate is imperative if the voters are to have a say in the direction of our economy and our financial futures.

No, all that is required for the News to demonstrate their commitment to the “… long history of independence and integrity with respect to its editorial content” is to provide an explanation and cite reasons and evidence as to why the News supports a particular action or position. In the same manner as do I and others when we feel the behaviour, actions or positions of Abbotsford City Council are not only less than wise, but financially irresponsible, even ruinous.

The News has every right, a right I would defend, to think the young athletes of Abbotsford should be helping to subsidize professional athletes. The News simply needs to provide an explanation and cite reasons or evidence to as to why they have take the position they have..

For example: I feel that if any subsidizing of sports occurs in Abbotsford it should be directed to the youth and young athletes of Abbotsford, not professional hockey players. The chief reasons that I feel this way are the Canadian Government studies that show a) kids today have a shorter life expectancy than their parents (meaning that for the first time in generations life expectancy is going down not up) and b) kids today are falling far short of the hour of exercise per day they require for healthy living.

So what are the reasons, the evidence that has The News supporting the subsidizing of professional athletes?

It does not seem unreasonable to ask that The News explain and cite reasons and evidence  as to why they support actions taken by Abbotsford City Council. It would also be beneficial to addressing any questions of City influence or independence if The News were to ask/address the obvious questions about issues and situations that any reasonable person would, as well as take any obvious actions associated with articles, the position and coverage by the News.

Which brings us back to the question of panhandling and why an article on panhandling led to thoughts on the clarification on Abbotsford Today’s website..

Right across the street from The News building one would find one of the new No Panhandling signs touted by the City in The News front page story.

CITY COUNCIL’S SOLUTION

I would think it only reasonable that those who are responsible for the content of The News to cast an eye across the street and see how City Council’s panhandling solution was working.

It is taking simple actions such as looking through a window and applying some thought to matters that has led many citizens to consider it wise to question the efficacy of City Staff and Council’s actions.

REALITY

Except of course the squandering of millions of taxpayer’s dollars, behaviour Staff and Council have demonstrated complete mastery of.

Addiction, Issues, Municipal

Harm Reduction

Leave a comment

Reading Simon Gibson’s recent comments on harm reduction had me wondering if someone ought to inform Mr Gibson that ‘I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out’ is a Joke, not a statement of reality.

Change is uncomfortable, conspicuously so in instances necessitating changing one’s mind.

It is far more comfortable, far more the usual human way, to let inertia keep us bogged down in what we know – no matter how inaccurate that ‘knowledge’ is.

“Gibson said he worries Abbotsford could end up being a centre for drug treatment programs that support continued addiction without addressing the deeper problem.”

If Abbotsford council were to repeal the bylaw there would be NO flood of people into Abbotsford. For the simple reason that harm reduction is part of healthcare everywhere in BC except Abbotsford, and since people everywhere else in BC already have access to these services they have no need to come to Abbotsford.

While the health of Abbotsford’s citizens should be of concern to Abbotsford City Council, council’s actions make it clear the health of Abbotsford’s citizens is not a matter of concern to council, at least not in the manner an Arena or professional hockey team or paying million dollars subsidies are..

Still, City Council’s anti-harm reduction bylaw is consistent with Council’s policy of profligate mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Because of the bylaw, dollars for Fraser Health programs containing even the tiniest amount of harm reduction are spent in every Fraser Health community BUT Abbotsford.

“Needle exchange, safe injection sites and free-standing methadone clinics will perhaps be desirable for some addicts but without a full detox facility, they could almost certainly create an environment of social acceptance [for drug addiction],” said Gibson.

Hmmm. I had not realized that there was an environment of social acceptance of alcoholism – despite alcohol being legal. I was also under the impression that cigarettes being legal did not preserved the environment of social acceptance that existed prior to public knowledge of the serious negative health consequences of smoking. Nor did legal status stop the development of an environment of social disapproval/non-acceptance of smoking.

Leaving me wondering how Mr Gibson could conclude that heath care services to address the serious negative health consequences of addiction would in any way encourage social acceptance?

Indeed, would not a focus by the health authorities on the negative health consequences of drug use serve to decrease social acceptance of drug use?
Would not a public focus by the health authorities on the serious negative health consequences discourage drug use period?

Harm reduction could act as a disincentive for addicts to seek treatment, he [Simon Gibson] added“

The evidence makes it clear that drug users involved with harm reduction programs such as Insite get into treatment faster. I know it seems counterintuitive, but then substance use is a people issue and people are contrary.

The reality that substance users involved with harm reduction programs seek recovery and wellness sooner is why David Portesi, director of public health for Fraser Health, stated.

“[The bylaw] drives clean needle distribution into the shadows, increases the value of used needles on the street and increases the risk of HIV and Hep C infection.”

“And at the same time, it reduces our ability to engage users in treatment discussions.”

This outcome, people seeking recovery and wellness faster with harm reduction, is consistent with the fact that stable, safe, supportive housing results in people seeking recovery and wellness sooner.

Councillor Gibson went on to state “Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

It doesn’t really matter whether the above statement arises from philistinism or from the wilful ignorance of a closed mind, sealed tight to prevent a single new thought entering and disturbing the mind. What matters is the blindness reflected in the statement and the negative consequences for ALL citizens of Abbotsford.

Harm reduction is not about drug treatment programs it is about healthcare – for the individual substance users/abusers and the other members of the community the users/abusers live in.

The women selling themselves for money for drugs depend on upstanding citizens purchasing sex because those good citizens are the ones with the money they need to feed their addiction.

Have you seen the advertisement for the vaccination against Hepatitis A & B if you are travelling? An advertisement that uses how easy it is to be infected with Hepatitis A or B to scare you into using their product? You don’t have to go to a foreign country to get infected with Hepatitis A or B.

This sobering reality is why I was/am sure to be vaccinated against Hep A & B.

Unfortunately there are no vaccinations for Hepatitis C or AIDS.\

Should you suggest that perhaps we should build some housing for these vulnerable members of our community, given the clear evidence that providing housing gets people into treatment quicker and supports them staying in recovery instead of relapsing, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over needles, needles, needles begins.

Given the litany of citizens worries about dirty needles and the potential negative health consequences of dirty needles, how does council justify refusing to allow programs that reduce the number of dirty needles left lying about?

Negative health consequences do not discriminate, do not play favourites, their nature is to spread everywhere they can.

I suppose it is only to be expected that Councillor Gibson and council gave no thought to the fact that their bylaw would negatively impact healthcare in Abbotsford. Or that Councillor Gibson sees no benefit in council no longer interfering with the providing of healthcare to Abbotsford’s citizens.

“Harm reduction will do little to make Abbotsford a safer and more secure community.”

I am driven to abjure any association with the above statement.

The indifference to, the callous disregard for, the state of our fellow citizens, the wellness of our neighbours, evidenced by that statement is anathema.

‘If there ain’t nothing in it for me, then there ain’t no reason for me to care or be benevolent or have concern for the welfare of my neighbour’

While it is not easy, is in fact most times a struggle, both ethics and spirituality mandate an approach to those abusing substances (of any description) based on:

‘………….. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’