Category Archives: Hmmm

Hmmm, Municipal

Only in Abbotsford……

Leave a comment

You know, when it reaches the point you have to paint, in a bright yellow colour, instructions so city employees do not pile items in a doorway or stand in the doorway when it is closing……it is time that city hiring criteria become based on ability, knowledge and at least a minimal level of intelligence rather than who you know and/or nepotism.

Either:

The water crisis is a LOT worse than city council acknowledges – a lot worse since taxpayers know it is worse (much worse?) than council will admit. At least one hopes it is a case of won’t admit and not another instance of head in the sand, have no clue about.

Or:

Someone needs to explain to council you keep plants green by watering them not by painting them green. Although…….not knowing plants require water, not painting. to stay green would serve to explain city council’s lackadaisical attitude towards the need to increase the supply of water available to water plants, fight fires or for drinking to sustain life.

Hmmm

Salutary end for 2010.

Leave a comment

I am on occasion razzed (or take some flak) for ‘always being negative’. My reply is that it is not that I am negative but that politicians, government and bureaucracies demonstrate a profound capacity for accomplishing negative outcomes or actions and that where praise is due I bestow it.

Since there were several items that ended 2010 on an upbeat note I thought I would kick off 2011 with those items.

Swimming laps on a (almost) daily basis is a necessary part of my mental and physical wellness plan.

Which is why I give two big thumbs way up to the person (or persons) responsible for the Abbotsford parks and recreation program that will enable those of us who need to make frequent use of the recreation centre’s facilities for exercise and wellness to purchase a year pass even if our budgets do not enable us to pay for it in one large lump sum.

Excellent news to end 2010 on – Kudos and Thanks.

I found myself stopping at the Wave Pool on Clearbrook Road to snap a few pictures of the growing hole in the ground as construction of the supportive, affordable housing complex for women and children began.

With the growing need in Abbotsford for properly managed and healthy affordable housing the ground breaking for this project was a positive end to 2010.

On a negative note, and what would the end of 2010 be without a demonstration of politician/government/bureaucracy non-think?

I sent a Christmas card to a relative in Kent Institution in Agassiz and as I do with all personal correspondence used sealing wax and signet to sign the card. December 31, 2010 brought the now opened card back to me. The reason cited for the return has me pondering whether a major contributor to Abbotsford, BC and Canada being in such dire straits is that prolonged exposure to bureaucracy causes brain damage.

‘Unknown Substance’? Exactly how badly damaged does ones mental capacity have to be not to be able to recognize wax, especially wax that has been impressed with a signet? As Homer Simpson would say “Doh!”

The question of why they did not simply cut the offending Seal off and deliver the card to the addressee in time for Christmas comes to mind, but I suppose you really do not want someone who cannot recognize wax or a wax seal playing with scissors.

Still, all in all 2010 ended well – and should Santa have brought politicians, bureaucrats and prison authorities an abundant sized stocking stuffed with common sense, careful consideration, thoughtful decision making, sound judgment and appropriate priorities this trend could extend into 2011.

Hmmm, Media

Obligation point?

Leave a comment

I am under no illusion, sufferer no delusions that media, the news departments, is other than a business and about the bottom line. Awareness of the profit motivation of news departments and the media means I do not share in the popular misconception that media and/or news departments have any interest in behaving in the best interests of the public, fair and balanced reporting or in making sure the public is fully informed on matters of governance or public policy issues.

The media are under no more obligation to behave responsibly or in the best interests of the public over the best interests of self, than any other citizen is.

Indeed, it could be argued that as media organizations are about making profits, in situations where irresponsible, self-centered behavior will benefit the bottom line the organizations are required to ignore the public interest and act selfishly.

Up to a point.

Determining that point is difficult because it lies in the realm of free speech and is a question of not only what is said but what is left unsaid, the questions left unasked.

We are all aware that the Supreme Court has said free speech ends at a point of yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

What about a crowded theatre where, seeing there is a fire starting the media does not yell ‘FIRE’ but leaves the theatre to set up outside to photograph/video/report on the fire, damage and mayhem that ensues because that would make for much more compelling video and story that a small fire caught and put out in a timely manner?

If, by choosing not to put mikes in the faces of Mr. Vander Zalm, Ms James, the NDP and citizens to ask what they will cut in order pay the $1.6 billion cost of repealing the HST, is the media guilty of choosing to stand silent in order to photograph/video/report on the damage and mayhem that the HST issue is effecting?

In choosing not to bring the $1.6 billion dollar cost of repealing the HST to the forefront of the story, has not the media has made the choice to slip out of the theatre without alerting anyone to the fire so that they may profit from photographing/videoing/reporting on the fire, or in the case of the HST the anti-HST campaign.

Just as there is a limit to the right free speech (‘Fire!’) is there a limit to the right of not speaking (not shouting ‘Fire!’)?

At what point do the media become responsible, are the media liable for, the consequences – the loss of $1.6 billion of federal funds – of questions it chooses not to ask, actions it chooses not to take?

What about Carole James, the NDP and Mr. Vander Zalm? At what point do they become responsible and liable for the $1.6 billion cost of a HST repeal?

At what point is media, at what point are politicians, obligated to act in a responsible manner?

Hmmm, Municipal, Snafu

Shame, Shame, SHAME …

Leave a comment

… on that naughty Lynn Perrin. Imagine Ms Perrin daring to think that the purpose of the short 15 minute question period at the end of public council meetings was for … … asking council questions.

Why should council be accountable to citizens or have to answer the questions of citizens? What do people think Abbotsford is – a democracy?

Why should council be expected to explain:

·Why it is that while council always cries it has no money to do anything about housing for Abbotsford’s poorest citizens it has millions of dollars to purchase a professional hockey team/franchise for wealthy Abbotsford citizens.

·Why it is council pleads poverty when it comes to building affordable housing yet it can find $45 – $50 million to cover the cost overrun in building the arena.

·Why should citizens have any right to expect council to explain why the arena cost was almost (as far as citizens know) 100% over budget and why council felt free to spend double the amount council guaranteed citizens was the maximum cost and to hold council accountable for the doubling of the cost.

·Why would citizens expect the mayor or councilors not to vote on matters that directly affect the profits of companies or people who have contributed money to their election campaigns? The fact that these companies or people have made payments, make that contributions, and may possibly make future payments, I mean contributions, surely would not have any influence on how the mayor or councilors vote. You wouldn’t let the fact someone gave you money make a difference in how you voted on a matter of interest to them– would you? Although it does make one wonder whether any of the ownership group of the Abbotsford Heat made any political donations to members of Abbotsford council.

·Certainly citizens have no right to expect the mayor and council to respect the intent and spirit of legislation governing BC’s municipalities rather than finding ways to circumvent the legislation in order to obligate the taxpayers of Abbotsford for a $75 million dollar liability.

·Just because watering restrictions began April 1st and a total ban began July 1st, even though this was a wet cool spring, citizens certainly have no rights or reasons to question council about their actions, or lack thereof, in preparing to meet Abbotsford’s current and future water needs. I have no doubt that should there be a need for rationing water from the municipal system City Hall will find any monies necessary for bottled water for city hall.

·Why would citizens question how or why it is that in just two short years Abbotsford has gone from being debt free to BC’s most indebted municipality?

No, citizens should not be asking council questions they should be grateful to mayor and council. After all:

·The unfunded $75 million liability council committed taxpayers to covering is now down to only $67.5 million.

·The $7.5 million reduction in this unfunded liability only cost the taxpayers $2.6 million. Well $2.6 million in direct subsidy payments to the Heat ownership plus the additional $2.5 million cost of the operating loss absorbed by the city as the cost of operating the arena for the Heat to play in.

·Council will no doubt get on top of the water supply issue – hopefully before the taps run dry.

·Even if there are no restaurants or coffee shops or any other such amenities open latter in the evening people, couples looking for something to do in Abbotsford later in the evening can always go to ARC and workout in the gym until midnight.

·Look at all the money saved by council not doing proper maintenance at Matsqui pool and then using the condition of the pool to close it.

How dare Ms Perrin force council to cancel the public’s opportunity to ask council questions by asking them questions.

Of course Mayor Peary is quite correct – council bears no responsibility for cancelling the question period simply because they cancelled the question period to avoid taxpayer/voter questions.

Ms Perrin should have known that the purpose of the question period was not the questioning of the mayor or council but to provide an opportunity for people to praise councils decisions and behaviours.

Of course that would be a lot easier if the decisions and behaviour of the mayor, council. councilors and city management were not of such a questionable nature and they had accomplished anything praiseworthy.

Hmmm

Season’s Greetings**

Leave a comment

Season's Greetings

**This statement of good wishes (”Greeting”) from me (”Sender”) is intended to be generic in nature. “Holiday” is intentionally left an undefined term. This holiday may include, but not be limited to, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, New Year’s Day, Saturnalia, or even Elvis’ Birthday (”Elvis” is a registered trademark of Elvis Presley Enterprises, Memphis, TN). Further, the recipient of this greeting (”Receiver”), may insert his or her own holiday into this Greeting, either explicitly or implicitly, or no holiday at all, if he or she chooses. If Receiver celebrates no holidays during the intended period of Greeting, assumed to be roughly mid-December, 2007 through the first week in January, 2008 (”Greeting Period”), he or she may consider Greeting to be merely general, and a simple wish of good feelings and joy, suitable for any time of year, or no time at all.

Greeting should in no way be construed to guarantee or warrant happiness or other good feelings during Greeting Period, or warrant or guarantee an acceptable holiday. By accepting Greeting, Receiver expressly agrees that he or she assumes the risk for his or her own holiday. Receiver will hold Sender harmless should Receiver’s expectations for Greeting Period and wishes contained herein not coincide.

Greeting is at all times subject to withdrawal by Sender, and it may be cancelled or modified at any time, without notice to Receiver. In the event of cancellation, Receiver shall receive no credit or proration for any time left in Greeting Period.

Greeting is not intended to be transferable, and has no cash value. Under no circumstances may Receiver in any way alter Greeting, or publish Greeting directly or indirectly without express written permission of Sender. Permission may be withheld for any reason within the sole discretion of Sender, with no rule of reasonableness.

Should Receiver not accept the terms of Greeting listed above, no rights or benefits related to Greeting will accrue.

Should a dispute arise from Greeting, Receiver agrees that jurisdiction and venue will be in the courts of the BRECKENRIDGE ZONE Sender and Receiver agree that personal jurisdiction will lie in those courts, regardless of the location of either party. Greeting will be construed under the laws of the BRECKENRIDGE ZONE without regard to Choice of Law or Renvoy.