Category Archives: Municipal

Homeless, Issues, Municipal

My Integrity, Emerson Housing and Mayor Peary’s Statements

Leave a comment

Writing a response (see below) to Mayor Peary’s recent statements concerning the status of the $33,750,000 (capital plus operational funding) the province had put on the table to develop affordable housing on Emerson left me feeling unsettled.

As a practitioner of good mental hygiene this unsettled feeling meant I needed to take some quiet/meditation time to gain understanding of what it was about my response that was unsettling my inner balance, my inner peace.

I determined that taking the convenient, safe, easy way out on the status of the Emerson project, by appearing to accept the Mayor’s statements about the project as if I had no doubts as to their accuracy, my response lacked integrity.

No wonder I felt unsettled – when you feel very deeply about something, it’s not possible to sacrifice your integrity about that. Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn’t blow in the wind or change with the weather.

Being an advocate for affordable housing means I have been following the fate of the Emerson project and its status.

A variety of sources have told and continue to tell me that the Emerson project was/is dead despite Council’s claims otherwise; that the actions of Abbotsford’s City Council had resulted in the loss of the $33,750,000 funding for this project. One such source was BC Housing itself which stated that BC Housing had only one project in Abbotsford – the housing project on Clearbrook.

I have no doubt that Mayor and Council will insist that this is not the case, that they have not ‘blown off’ the province and its $33,750,000. Even by Council’s standards, walking away from $33,750,000 is intolerably wasteful and costly behaviour.

Making Council’s desire to avoid responsibility for the multi-million dollar cost of their actions and the Mayor’s recent statements at least understandable, even if unacceptable.

How many times have taxpayers been told that Council cannot provide any solid information, for a variety of reasons, when Council wants to avoid providing facts and figures in response to inquiries from taxpayers?

One can state/imply that $millions$ will need to be taken out of capital reserves to purchase the property and hope that taxpayers scream against this so it can be claimed the $33,750,000 project was rejected by taxpayers, that Council was only listening to taxpayers in losing these millions.

As a point of fact: have not all the cost overruns of Plan A reduced the capital reserves to Zero?

Or one could state one had chosen a location “further away from residential areas and would not generate “a public backlash.”” and when such a site, as must any site meeting such conditions, fails to meet the location criteria set out by BC Housing as part of the original agreement between the City and BC Housing for funding the two affordable housing projects – well then it is BC Housing’s fault.

I expect that my words on the status/fate of the Emerson affordable housing project to be … displeasing.

It was the potential for conflict to arise from the difference between the Mayor’s recent statements on this matter and information I have received on this matter, which tempted me to respond to the Mayor’s statements taking the easy path by ignoring the differences.

A betrayal of those in need of affordable housing – and an advocate; a betrayal of my own integrity; little wonder my actions unsettled me internally.

You are in integrity when the life you are living on the outside matches who you are on the inside. Alan Cohen

Sigh, as Admiral David Farragut is purported to have said: “Damn the Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead.”

Reading Mayor Peary’s comments concerning the province’s second offer of $11 million plus $650,000 per year for support services for affordable housing brought to mind George Orwell’s 1984 and ‘Newspeak’.

“The snag … is that the city would have to buy the land.” That is not the snag. The snag to addressing the overwhelming, even desperate need in Abbotsford for affordable housing was and is that City Council has demonstrated neither the desire nor the will to address this pressing issue.

Indeed, the City’s behaviour on this issue supports the observation of a homeless friend that City Council must be happy with the social and criminal problems that arise from a lack of affordable housing since they have failed to act in a manner to effectively address the need for affordable housing.

It is Council’s lack of will that has Abbotsford facing purchasing land or blowing off the $11 million and $650,000 a year for 35 years of support services.

“The Emerson proposal collapsed … amid strong public opposition.” The Emerson proposal collapsed because Council lacks the desire and the Will to begin dealing with affordable housing issues. It was this lack of desire and Will that had Council fold when faced with fear mongering and screaming NIMBYism.

Since nobody knew or knows who was proposing to develop the Emerson site and what they proposed for the Emerson site there was no rational reason for the opposition. In turning tail and running council behaved as irrationally as the panicky public.

Personally I would be very interested in knowing who and what proposal was chosen for the Emerson site by BC Housing in conjunction with the City? Exactly what housing was lost as a result of Council’s lack of intestinal fortitude?

It is exactly this kind of lack of planning and acting for the future that led to “… the city owns very little vacant land suitable … the result of a decision made by [previous] council … in which the city sold much of its acreage to private developers in order to collect tax dollars.”

Rather than paying for its spending as it should have through tax revenue Council unwisely chose to sell assets to enable its addiction to spending beyond its income.

Note: selling off land assets is not collecting tax dollars.

I suppose nobody should be surprised that Abbotsford is mired in debt, financial woes and social problems when Mayor and Council think along the lines of “… that would likely make more sense than turning down $11 million.”

As if turning down $11 million made any sense. Especially in light of the fact that it is Council’s lack of Will and rational behaviour that makes it necessary to purchase land at all.

Note: it was/is not just $11 million but $11 million plus $22, 750,000 ($650,000 for 35 years) for a total of $33,750,000.

Municipal, Snafu

Mayor’s, Council’s Actions raise dobts about their Words

Leave a comment

“Welcome to the club” crossed my mind while reading “Mayor George Peary responded quite curtly to my e-mail that this fee will generate $125,000 and “if you have any suggestions for additional revenue sources for the city or recommended cuts in city services for 2010, we would like to hear from you.”” in a letter to the editor.

The letter writer joins a growing list of citizens dissed by Mayor Peary and City Council for daring to suggest that Abbotsford’s Council live within its means.

Further, while I have no doubt Mayor Peary would love to hear suggestions for additional revenue sources that would permit City Council to continue its financially irresponsible spending ways; I do doubt, based on council’s actions in searching for new ways to divert taxpayer’s money into City pockets rather than the prudent fiscal behaviour of reducing spending, Mayor Peary or Council having any real desire to hear suggestions on spending cuts.

City Council did not cut one single dollar from the budget for this current year. Any ‘phantom cuts’ they claim to have made were only reductions of proposed spending increases. Any suggestions made during the budget process that Council cut spending in order to begin living within their means, were either ignored or, as in the case of the Abbotsford Ratepayers Association, publically scorned.

Focusing only on feeding Councils insatiable appetite for spending leads to a mindset where, when questioned on imposing user fees on sports fields, Mayor Peary focused on “… this fee will generate $125,000” rather than the truly important consideration – the devastating effect these extra fees will have on many young sports players ability to afford to participate.

Especially in these economically tight times when so many are forced to count how every penny is spent – except it seems, Abbotsford City Council.

A significant portion, if not all, of the money that the fees will raise could have been saved by the simple action of not spending the tens of thousand of dollars the city is spending to replace what was a perfectly good sign in front of the Abbotsford Recreation Centre, with an electronic sign. The old sign would have served fine until such time as the city’s financial house was in order.

But then, why should Council be expected to behave responsibly when the sign was shiny and bright and new and required spending taxpayer’s money?

Behaviour that holds little hope of this Council getting Abbotsford’s financial house in order; behaviour that leaves informed taxpayers shuddering at the thought of how wasteful and costly to the taxpayers Council’s spending will become if they ever get their greedy hands on a gasoline tax as a revenue source.

Municipal

This Time it’s Field User Fees

Leave a comment

In reading Barry Crocker’s statements concerning the imposition of user fees next year I was appalled by his cavalier attitude towards increasing the cost for kids to participate in soccer. Not to mention his total lack of logic or reasoning concerning the new fees.

Mr. Crocker apparently has not met a fee he is not happy to impose, thereby increasing the cost to participate and play soccer. With his attitude that parents have bottomless pockets from which to pay fee increases, he should be on city council.

Fee increases do not occur in a vacuum – they are added on top of what it costs to play soccer already. An additional $10 – $15 is going to deny some kids playing soccer.

“It’s not going to affect us at all. It will probably cost kids $10 to $15 a year more”. Mr. Crocker: if it puts the cost up $10 to $15 it IS going to have an affect. If it had no affect fees would not go up.

According to Mr. Crocker 20 years ago Abbotsford had the best fields anywhere. It follows that in order for Abbotsford to now be “…near the bottom end of the list in terms of what is spent on sports fields” City Council has chosen to invest and spend less and less on fields and maintenance.

Why would one expect this behaviour to change just because Abbotsford will now be imposing user fees? The City has demonstrated by its behaviour over those 20 years that playing fields and park maintenance are a low priority for the City.

There is no evidence that imposing user fees for use of fields will in any way change the City’s neglect of fields and parks. Whether Mill Lake parking fees or user fees for sports fields these “fees” are about City Hall’s inability to manage their finances in a responsible manner and that has City Hall seeking to hide tax increases by calling them user fees.

“If we get three or four all-weather fields I think it will be worth it because the kids will be with us.” I do not recall City Hall making any announcement about building three or four all-weather fields?

If there is an agreement in place that City Hall will be building these all-weather fields and bring playing fields up to par and maintaining the fields as they should, let’s hear all about it. If not …

“The biggest problem will be the administration of it.” There is a simple solution to this. That is to do what Mr. Crocker should be doing: standing up for the soccer players not making excuses for another revenue grab by the City.