The Whistler city council said NO to building a sports/arena complex, even though part of the price was to be borne by the province and the 2010 Olympic Committee. Why did they say no? Because they felt that building the complex was not in the best interest of the taxpayers of Whistler. There was no demonstrated need for the complex other that the one time usage as the venue for Paralympics sledge hockey (which can and will be held at another location), the costs just kept rising and the City’s money could be better spent on needed projects.

What is the matter with those people? To actually consider the taxpayers best interests and apply the idea of responsible spending of taxpayer dollars – what a concept. Councils around the province must be lying low and hoping fervently their taxpayers do not notice such behaviour, lest their taxpayers adopt the attitude that they have the right to demand that their councils spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely, effectively and with due care and diligence.

Members of Abbotsford’s current council have to be praying that local citizens do not call on councillors to explain their massive capital plans. How could they possibly explain the nonsensical wasting of taxpayer dollars for a referendum that according to Councillor Beck is not to give taxpayers a say as to whether these are projects our City needs, but only to decide if Abbotsford should rush madly into these projects so as to: waste even more taxpayer dollars on skyrocketing costs in an over heated construction boom, fail to be able to adequately plan and design the structures to meet the needs of our community now and into the future, deny the citizens (who foot the bills) any input into setting what our community needs and priorities are for capital projects (i.e. fire hall; a library building whose wiring is not hazardous to electronics and serves to encourage and enable students/citizens to research and writing tools such as the internet and word processors).

Why, if council was to be held to a standard where they had to consider taxpayers best interest – councillors and city staff members under such a standard would not be building their own pet projects and wants, but be required to build projects that the citizens and the City really need. Next thing you know the taxpayers would be demanding their civil servants be both Civil and provide actual Service.

What ever could the city council of Whistler have been thinking to actually consider the best interests and needs of their citizens? How heretical can you get? Take the needs, wishes and best interests of the citizens into consideration while having to think and act with due deliberation – politicians and City staff must be trembling at the thought of actually behaving rationally and in the best interests of their citizens.

Question of the Week: “Do you think the Legacy Plan to build several new Abbotsford projects, including a multiplex facility, will be approved when it is finally put to a public vote?

Could you have asked a more banal question? Frankly I cannot think of a more pointless question on this matter. Especially in light of the quote in your paper of the same date (Tuesday August 1) about “… the referendum is not about whether these projects will happen”. With all the issues that this quote raises, you considered the question of approval germane? Because if a yes or no vote does not really matter, then is not the question of approval moot? Now questions about what Mr. Beck’s statement implies about the City administration’s and Council’s attitude to the wants, needs or opinions of the citizens would be news worthy.

While on the subject of the city’s capital plans I would like to enquire why the News has failed to address

Since I have raised the subject of pointless behaviour, why choose to waste valuable editorial space on an opinion about another moot point, as you did with the “opinion” piece on the strike by city staff? If the News had chosen to print that piece earlier it would have been an opinion. Now it is just old news, although it does serve to underline the questions raised by the fact that during the strike the News chose to print only letters portraying CUPE as poor, under paid, misunderstood victims of terrible HR policies on the part of the city. I find it extremely hard to believe that no taxpayers wrote in to suggest that if they did not like their overly generous salaries, they should quit and let someone familiar with the real world enjoy the wages and benefits.

Vibrant communities need ideas and vision. A curious, undaunted local paper is needed to give voice to questions, facts, opinions, discussion and happenings around the city and in local politics. If you are going to claim to be the “news leader”: less drivel, more hard news, asking the hard questions, timely positions and opinions, a willingness to charge Hell with just a water bucket if necessary and above all the desire to engage your readers in their community issues and decisions.

“At the end of the day the referendum in the fall is not about whether these projects will happen, it is about whether or not it make sense to accelerate the time frame” – councillor Bruce Beck.

Do I understand correctly? We are wasting thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of taxpayer dollars and countless thousands of hours that city employees could use to accomplish something useful (like catching up after the recent labour strife) on a referendum where we, the taxpayers who foot the bills, will not be allowed to say either build or NO! DO NOT BUILD?

Sense: something wise, sound or reasonable

All this money is being flushed down the drain to decide: If it makes sense to build these projects in an overheated construction market where building costs will be maximized in an artificially high market, rather than waiting until the boom has passed and value for money would be maximized.

If it is sensible to rush into the projects without taking time to consult the end users, to plan out the project and carefully select your contractor on their ability to deliver quality work on time and budget – avoiding situations such as ripping the roof off ARC in the winter monsoon rains, allowing the leaking water to soak everything inside, instead of planning and doing it during the DRY summer days. To say nothing of the massive cost overruns the arena project at ARC incurred, for overlooked items such seating for spectators, I mean who would have thought that spectators would prefer to sit through games.

If it is sensible to allow, in then name of hubris, “Pet Projects” to be built while badly needed projects and the services they would provide are ignored and go un-built. To allow decisions about building priorities to be made behind closed doors at City Hall rather than through open and public discussion, input and thought. Having the referendum about these “Pet Projects” rather than it being about thinking and setting the City’s priorities based on the City’s needs.

I have no idea what kind of “sense” Mr. Beck is speaking of. Perhaps he is speaking of some kind of warped politicians idea of “make sense”, since it is clear that this referendum and its outcome have nothing to do with common sense. Then again, when one is speaking of the actions of City Hall and all too many of our local politicians and leaders, one has come to expect this kind of nonsense.