Category Archives: Municipal

Issues, Municipal, Politics

Is There a Barkman Homeless Plan?

Leave a comment

When Mr. Barkman didn’t supply the details following his announcement of a plan to solve homelessness in Abbotsford [February 2014] I thought he had decided to wait until the municipal election campaign to set out how he plans to bring about Abbotsford not needing housing for homeless persons in 2 years.

The campaign for seats on Abbotsford’s City Council has begun and Mr. Barkman is running for re-election, but there has been no mention of any Barkman Homeless Plan.

At least one assumes that Mr. Barkman meant he has a plan to end homelessness in Abbotsford when he voted to turn down $$millions of dollars$$ of provincial funding by voting down the ACS Housing First project stating:  “We need housing now, not in two years.”

Because, if Mr. Barkman didn’t have a plan to end homelessness in Abbotsford, and Abbotsford will need housing for the homeless in two years, surely Mr. Barkman should have voted to accept the millions of provincial dollars and to build the ACS housing proposal?

After all it would have been nonsensical [or as John Smith called it – irrational] for Mr. Barkman to vote against building housing the city would need even more desperately in two years.

Unless………… “We need housing now, not in two years” was simply another example of an Abbotsford city councillor excuse mongering and the totally vacuous, totally absurd “We need housing now, not in two years” was the best pretence Mr. Barkman could fabricate for voting to turn down millions of dollars from the province and to continue Abbotsford City Council’s policy of increasing the number of homeless on the streets of Abbotsford?

In which case Mr. Barkman voted down the ACS Housing First proposal for reasons he is unwilling to publicly admit to.

So Mr. Barkman, did you vote NO because you have a plan or for self-serving reasons?

Watching the Misadventures of Abbotsford City Council I wondered why somebody didn’t do something about this debacle.

Then I realized I AM SOMEBODY.

 

Homeless, Issues, Media, Municipal, Politics

What a Concept – Homeless Have Rights!

Leave a comment

Yes Andrew, the homeless – being Canadians – have Rights that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And as anyone who is following the matter knows, The Abbotsford News obfuscation notwithstanding, the case is about the Rights and Freedoms all Canadians are entitled to and protecting the Rights and Freedoms of Canadians.

Anyone even moderately informed is aware the court case is not focused on the right of the homeless to camp in city parks. The right to camp in a city’s parks is a right only as a consequence of and in redressing the city’s violation of the Charter Rights of the homeless. As Section 24 states:

  • 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

As to the question of the need to go to Court……..where else, how else, would Mr. Holota have us, have Canadians, settle fundamental questions about Charter Rights and Freedoms and questions concerning the violation of those Rights and Freedoms by governments [in this case the municipal government of the City of Abbotsford]?

Pistols at dawn in front of City Hall?

Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that the question of whether the factual errors, lies of omission and disinformation written, printed and disseminated by Black Press and Andrew Holota about homelessness, the homeless and the actions of the City of Abbotsford are a violation of the Rights and Freedoms of the homeless or simply served to abet the City of Abbotsford in its continuous violation of the Rights and Freedoms of homeless Canadians will be asked or answered.

As a result, although they may be culpable, neither Black Press nor Andrew Holota are likely to suffer any consequences for contributing to the violation of or violating the Rights of homeless Canadians in Abbotsford.

Mr. Holota’s editorial is rife with statements demonstrating the part Black Press and Mr. Holota have played in creating conditions in Abbotsford where going to court to protect the Rights of homeless Canadians from the City of Abbotsford is not a matter of choice but of necessity.

“....the homeless issue in this town got hijacked by special-interest groups.”

Pivot is a non-profit Society [supported by the community through thousands of donations] whose purpose is to represent and defend the marginalized and disenfranchised by defending their human rights through the provision of access to the legal system. In doing this Pivot also protects the Rights and Freedoms of all Canadians.

Perhaps to Black Press, Andrew Holota and the City of Abbotsford a non-profit Society widely supported by its community, a Society that defends the Human Rights, the Charter Rights of the disenfranchised, is a special interest group.

To the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the poor, to all those without the resources to defend their Rights Pivot is a Champion who fights for and defends the oppressed.

It is understandable why, as the oppressors, the City of Abbotsford, Black Press and Editor Holota would view anyone, anything or any group that would fight for and/or defend a class/group of people that the City of Abbotsford, Black Press and Editor Holota wish to oppress, harass, persecute and victimize as a ‘special-interest’ group. In protecting the interests of the homeless Pivot acts against the interests of the oppressors, threatens to force an end to the oppression and drags the oppressors into court, out of the shadows, into daylight and makes a public display of them.

It would be interesting, potentially entertaining, to see by what convoluted process Editor Holota came to label the Abbotsford chapter of the Drug War Survivors, whose membership consists almost entirely of those who have been homeless, are homeless or in the process of becoming homeless as a special interest group vis-à-vis the subject of homelessness in Abbotsford.

To the Homeless in Abbotsford the motivation of Barry Shantz in founding the Abbotsford chapter of the BC/Yukon Drug War Survivors is moot.

What matters to the homeless and all others who are powerless in Abbotsford is that the involvement of Mr. Shantz and the DWS solved a years old dilemma, a dilemma not limited to just the homeless – the barrier raised to holding the City of Abbotsford accountable for its actions by prohibitive legal costs.

Whether it was/is the City of Abbotsford’s violation of the homeless and powerless or the costly illegal subsidy agreement with the Heat, bottomless taxpayer pockets, at least from the view of Abbotsford’s municipal government and politicians, has been an insurmountable barrier to those seeking Justice.

Until Pivot, and the community that supports them, stepped forward to say ENOUGH to the City of Abbotsford and its politicians.

Pivot a special interest group? I suppose if you consider an interest in Human Rights, in protecting the Charter Rights and Freedoms of all Canadians [not just those of the privileged or wealthy], in standing up for the marginalized and disenfranchised as a ‘special’ interest.

Personally, irregardless of what the City of Abbotsford, its’ politicians, Black Press or Andrew Holota obviously believe I do not regard the behaviour of Pivot as ‘special’; to me Pivot’s behaviour is simply the behaviour of the ethical, behaviour the City of Abbotsford – although highly unlikely to – could learn a great deal from.

As English philosopher Edmund Burke stated “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Consider, Municipal, Politics

All Ideas Are Welcome

Leave a comment

Ken Wuschke’s “Moving Forward Requires Open And Frank Dialog” calls to mind courses and trainings in Communication, that Listening is vital to Communication and that both are necessary to facilitating the setting of goals and moving forward.

With all the diversity found in a Canadian city the size of Abbotsford ensuring all the participants have a clear understanding and agreement about what is being discussed, and ensuring all the participants have a clear understanding of what each other means by what they are saying, clear communication is a complex challenge.

One of the first things basic communications courses make sure participants understand is how often people are talking of apples and oranges when both are operating under the mistaken impression they are discussing bananas. The two people, supposedly speaking the same language, are in fact hearing something different from what the speaker was [or thought they were] saying.

Ensuring clear understanding of all aspects of the conversation, by all parties to the conversation, is fundamental to building trust.

Complicating clear communication and understanding is the need, often either unrecognized or ignored, to establish which facts are fact and which fall into the category ‘what ain’t so’.

As Mark Twain said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Mr. Wuschke’s statement: “It seems that every council out of the past three terms have had their lightening rod issue” implies that we are talking about separate and distinct councils.

However, an examination of the members of these councils reveals that the core voting majority is the same for the councils elected in 2005, 2008 and 2011. Thus to me it has been, in a very real sense, the same council since 2005.

That the majority of council has been the same since 2005 explains the continued growth of the disconnect and distrust between council and many citizens that Mr. Wuschke writes of.

Mr. Wuschke’s statement ‘…..and now the homeless issue. It seems that every council out of the past three terms have had their lightening rod issue’ demonstrates the importance understanding the history of the councils, mayors, councillors and an issue such as homelessness; and the need to establish or at the very least explore the history of the issue[s] if clear and effective conversation is to take place.

Abbotsford Community Services was not the first BC Housing proposal to pay for construction of affordable housing and – more importantly – to fund programs and supports that significantly raise the probability of resident being sober a year after treatment from the 3% of the traditional approach. Council also blew off the September 2008 proposal – $11,000,000.00 for the capital costs and $22,700,000.00 for programs and supports.

The approach to homelessness, and the excuses, has remained the same over the years that the core of council has remained the same. Over that period of time we have experienced the misnamed ‘Compassion Park’ and its consequences; watched affordable housing being built in Mission and Chilliwack but not Abbotsford; could stand beside Highway 1 and watch modular housing from the 2010 Olympics trucked through Abbotsford to provide affordable housing in Chilliwack; been through numerous city pogroms against the homeless; watched the city ignore the negative consequences of their behaviours and actions, then repeat the same behaviours and actions over and over again as though next time the outcome would be different.

Homelessness is not simply an issue of the current council; it was an issue when I became involved with poverty, affordable housing, mental illness, substance use 12 years ago.

!2 years of council’s politically correct spin on the homeless issues; of councils taking actions that steadily worsened the issue homeless, ignoring advice and actions that had been demonstrated elsewhere to be effective in addressing homelessness; actively blocking resources and services that would have served to reduce homelessness.

The current council, the majority of the current councillors, are now reaping what they sowed in previous terns on previous councils.

The fact the core of the council in 2005 remains the core of the council in 2014 is also the reason it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve Mr. Wuschke’s call for “The community needs to have open and effective communication to city council” and “One where everyone’s ideas are welcome”.

However, faced with homelessness and other social issues, the economic and financial realities facing the city, the OCP, city services, infrastructure, Abbotsford Centre…….

…….neither the city nor its citizens can afford the current state between city hall, the politicians and citizens.

Moving forward does not require unanimous consent. It does require citizens take the actions necessary for them to be able to give informed consent and avoid the negative consequences of decisions based on Mark Twain’s “what ain’t so”. Moving forward also requires that decisions made by the city be based on reasons that are clearly set out, understood and rational.

Communication and trust are two way streets, must be two way streets if they are to exist and function.

APPENDIX 

City of Abbotsford Council 2011 – 2014

Mayor B. Banman, and Councillors L. Barkman, H. Braun, S. Gibson, M. Gill, D. Loewen, B. MacGregor, P. Ross, and J. Smith

City of Abbotsford Council 2008 – 2011

Mayor G. Peary; and Councillors L. Barkman, S. Gibson, M. Gill, L. Harris, D. Loewen, B. MacGregor, P. Ross, and J. Smith

City of Abbotsford Council  2005 – 2008

Mayor G. Ferguson; Councillors B. Beck, C. Caldwell, S. Gibson, M. Gill, L. Harris, D. Loewen, P. Ross, and J. Smith

Caveat emptor, Consider, Finances, Municipal, Politics

Apples and Apples OR Oranges?

Leave a comment

That is the Question that I asked myself after I finished reading Let Minor Sports Use Abbotsford Centre.

Now I know that people after reading the opening sentence may well be thinking ‘He’s lost it’ if they know or read me and that anyone reading my writing for the first time is going ‘Huh?’ how can comparing an arena to an arena not be comparing apples to apples? Especially if they have stood in both the Abbotsford rink and the Langley rink and know how very similar the rinks are.

Disclosure:

When the Abbotsford Centre was originally completed and city council was scrambling desperately because they had built this $100,000,000.00 facility and had no tenant lined up to play there I called for council not to let their egos have them paying any price to save face by getting a hockey team to play in their Great White – Empty – Elephant and to save the Abbotsford’s taxpayers $3,000,000.00 a year by leaving the facility closed until they had a sound business plan.[Here we go again – Rush, Rush, Rush,  Not another costly ‘profit’,   Abbotsford’s $expensive$ AHL pipedream ]

Since the Heat have left town I want to know why council renegotiated Global Spectrums contract for the Centre rather that mothballing the Centre, an action that would save taxpayers $3,000,000.00 per year. At least until such time as council finely came up with a viable business plan.

The fact is that in several ways comparing the Langley arena to the Abbotsford arena is comparing an apple and an orange.

Consider this chart:

One of the things that always leaves me shaking my head sadly is that once you have stood inside both Arenas and experience the extent to which both arenas are the same, it boggles the mind that the taxpayers of the Abbotsford paid 667% more than Langley’s taxpayers paid.

Given that Abbotsford City Council always makes excuses and never accepts responsibility for the consequences of their errors in judgement it is no surprise Council has refused to explain to taxpayers how it is that Abbotsford’s taxpayers paid 667% more than Langley’s taxpayers did, for what is effectively the same arena.

It is even more mind boggling that for some unfathomable reason, Abbotsford taxpayers, in light of the fact they have re-elected those responsible and never question the WHY of paying 667% more [6.67 times as much], seemed to be comfortable with and accepting of the fact they, as Abbotsford taxpayers, paid 667% more for the same arena, than did Langley’s taxpayers.

I find that acceptance unfathomable because the only reason for the difference – the vast difference – in the cost to taxpayers between Abbotsford and Langley is the decisions, actions and competence of the two councils.

During the fiscal year Abbotsford pays $6,696,000.00 [7,884,000.00 – 1,188,000.00] more then Langley for their arena.

So, even if you assume that Langley’s arena is as badly managed as the Abbotsford Centre is and thus runs the same yearly operating deficit of $3,000,000.00 as the Abbotsford Centre does, the $6,696,000.00 less per year for construction and interest costs paid by Langley and its taxpayers, gives Langley significantly more flexibility, affordability, when it comes to paying for an annual subsidy of $3,000,000.00.

I think it highly unlikely that Langley’s arena is as badly managed as Abbotsford’s arena for several reasons.

First is that over the past decade plus Abbotsford’s council has time after time demonstrated a lack of basic financial and management sensibilities or abilities. Every time that council has promised a profit or savings or senior government grants, the reality has turned out to be losses/operating subsidies or large cost over runs or Zip, Nada, Nothing from the senior levels of government – because Abbotsford council failed to handle the grant request properly. So while Langley’s council may not have demonstrated masterful financial, business or management skills…… they have demonstrated their ability not to ‘screw up’ financial, business or management as Abbotsford’s council has repeatedly done over the past decade plus.

Second is the fact that the Langley Chiefs were partners with Langley in building the arena – after Abbotsford’s council turned down the Chief’s offer to partner with the City of Abbotsford to build a new arena for the Chief’s to move into and play out of. Langley benefits from the Chief’s experience with the arena in Chilliwack. More importantly Langley has a stable, profitable franchise as their anchor tenant.

The final cost consideration that needs to be consider, another significant negative financial factor for Abbotsford is that Abbotsford’s council has been playing….fast and loose shall we say….with the DCC [Development Cost Charges] funds, using the funds to avoid the large tax raises that were required to pay for council’s profligate, spending.

Actually, not avoid having to have large tax raises but to push the large tax raises into the future in hopes of……an economic miracle that would allow council to avoid or further delay having to crank taxes by double [10% or more] digits?

There has been no economic miracle and Abbotsford’s taxpayers are on the hook to pay back the money used to keep tax increases artificially low. Since the DCC funds are to be spent on infrastructure, not operating the City, Abbotsford’s taxpayers are facing large tax increases, deep cuts to city services or some combination of tax increases and service cuts to repay the DCC funds.

It may well turn out that Abbotsford’s civic government either saves $3,000,000.00 by mothballing the arena OR cuts $3,000,000.00 from other parts of its operating budget or raises taxes by $3,000,000.00.

No matter how similar the Abbotsford and Langley arenas may be in structure, when it comes to the financial realities of each building, the buildings are as different as a luxury penthouse condo and one of Abbotsford’s many [thanks council] homeless camps.

There are also significant differences between two Centres structure and infrastructure.

Langley’s arena is part of a complex that has outdoor sports field, indoor basketball courts, meeting rooms etc. Abbotsford’s arena is squeezed onto a piece of property that only has room for the arena itself..

The Langley complex is surrounded by acres of parking – free parking.

From the day the site of the Abbotsford Centre was proposed parking has been an issue, a nonexistent nightmare.

Why would any local sports team, teams that depend on parents and their participation, want to use the Abbotsford Centre and tell parents: you can park free at a mall and transport yourselves and all the hockey equipment to the arena by bus, reversing the process [bus to shopping centre parking lot] in order to leave; there is paid parking available for only $1 for every 2 hours. Of course the parking is a long or longer distance to be hauling hockey gear so you might want to consider dropping your hockey players off before looking for parking; parking times are strictly enforced and fines for violations are not cheap; there is free parking available if you can handle the 2 – 3 [or longer] kilometre walk to the arena.

Finally, importantly, there is also the fact that there was no need for another ice surface in Abbotsford. The ice surface at the Abbotsford Centre was constructed not to meet a community need or demand for more ice but to meet the needs of mayor and councillors egos.

Enticing teams to use the ice surface at the Abbotsford Centre simply reduces the use, the revenue, at other city rinks – at the cost to taxpayers of $3,000,000.00 a year.

Oh, BLEEP!  An idea that will cost, waste $3,000,000.00 of taxpayers hard earned dollars? Just the types of idea Abbotsford’s mayors and councillors have shown they love.