Category Archives: The Issues

Municipal

Who cares – close enough!

Leave a comment

I usually park in the Yale high school lot when I go to ARC to swim my lengths since it is a shorter walk to the “(old) pool front desk” – unless the weather is sufficiently bad as to encourage me to use the new underground parking space.

The last time I used the underground parking rain was coming down in a deluge and as I walked down the ramp to the ice and pool area I had to walk around the water dribbling down the ramp and the bucket set out to catch water leaking through the brand new roof.

Monday’s strong winds encouraged me to take advantage of the shelter from the wind the underground parking offered my poor old car. Finished swimming my lengths I rode the elevator down to the parking level and as I stepped out of the elevator I found myself once again stepping around a wet spot on the floor, in this case a growing puddle.

I found myself looking at the ceiling where the water was dripping from and wondering exactly where the water was coming from. I had just walked across the floor upstairs, directly above the spot were the water was dripping down from the ceiling to the floor, and it was dry. The water was dripping from (through? out of?) the bare, poured concrete ceiling.

Water dripping from (through? out of?) a poured concrete ceiling in a spot well inside the confines of the building and under a spot where the floor upstairs above was dry sent me back up the elevator to report the leak and growing puddle to staff at the “new front desk”.

Since they did not come down to check the matter out in the 5 -10 minutes I spent trying to get a decent picture using my cell phone (I need a newer, better camera cell phone) I cannot say what staff’s reaction to the leak was.

The two gentlemen who came down the elevator and stopped to look at the ceiling and floor also wondered just where the water was coming from (through? out of?).

They also shared my less than impressed opinion on the workmanship standards this leak evidenced; especially since the dripped water was running along the cracks, thus highlighting the cracks/cracking, in the brand new poured concrete floor.

I am currently contemplating avoiding the underground parking and confining my activities at ARC to the time-tested solid “old ARC”.

As well as wondering “We paid how much for this?” and “Whatever happened to quality control and pride of workmanship?”

Caveat emptor I suppose.

Federal, Provincial

Bailout the Auto Industry? Bad Idea.

Leave a comment

Let’s get real here.

To listen to the proponents of a bailout you would think that if a bailout is not forthcoming the North American headquartered auto industry with all its assets and jobs will, *poof*, disappear. Trust me, it won’t.

What will happen is that the North American headquartered auto industry will file for court protection via bankruptcy. The North American headquartered auto industry will then have to come up with a viable reorganization plan and get the plan approved by the court. This course of action would result in a reasonable chance that the North American headquartered auto industry would come out of the process in a viable state.

The first point that seems to be getting lost here is the fact that as it is now constituted the North American headquartered auto industry is not viable and is burning through $billions$ of dollars as it haemorrhages loses. A bailout will only allow the North American headquartered auto industry to continue to waste money, this time at taxpayer’s expense.

The North American headquartered auto industry needs to undergo a massive makeover in order to be a viable industry and bankruptcy is the best process to ensure this occurs. Remember that bankruptcy protection of business was designed to facilitate this reorganization, re-emergence process.

The second point to remember is that we are speaking only of the North American headquartered auto industry, the so-called big-three, here. There is an entire North American auto industry that is not headquartered in North America and while it is suffering from the economic downturn it is healthy and will grow, creating jobs, to cover and satisfy any market demand left unmet by the loss of a North American headquartered auto company.

The third point I would make is that the situation the North American headquartered auto industry finds itself in is the direct result of management, shareholder and employee decisions made over the past decades.
These decisions focused not on neither the long-term health and viability of the companies, or even the short-term health and viability of the companies, but entirely upon the greed based decision framework of maximizing the money made by management, workers and shareholders.

Playing these types of paper financial games will always result in, at some point, either the death of the entity or entities playing such games or in the need to reorganize in accordance with the real economic and business position of the company or companies.

The fourth point I want to make, or perhaps share, is that I have no sympathy for shareholders who have not only permitted management to mismanage the companies but actively encouraged them through executive reward and remuneration systems based on meeting quarterly (extremely short term) targets and goals as opposed to remuneration tied to the long term success, viability and health of the corporation. When all decisions are made on short term artificial targets and goals, these decisions are made at the expense of the long-term viability and survival of the corporation and nobody should be surprised that at some point this results in a non-viable corporation.

Points three and four reflect and underscore the reality that unless corporations, in this case the North American headquartered auto industry, refocus or are forced to refocus to consider the long-term effects of the decisions being made they will simply cycle through short-term paper success, financial trouble/disaster, bankruptcy and emergence from bankruptcy. There were sound reasons that the management and financial courses at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce stressed the need for basing decisions not just on the short term but on the long term effects on the survival and prospering of the company.

Which brings me to the final and perhaps most important point I want to make – the situation where greed results in decisions that provide (excessive) rewards for what prove in the longer run to be self-destructive decisions with costly consequences to all is not confined or unique to the North American headquartered auto industry.

The meltdown of the banking system in the US is/was clearly a result of greed running rampant. The only thing that saved Canadian banks from a similar fate was far tighter banking regulations and the luck that without a majority government Stephen Harper was not able to follow the US deregulation craze into disaster.

We either need to stop basing decisions on Greed or (more likely) provide regulation and remuneration systems that prevent short term abuse in pursuit of greed and reward/mandate long-term decisions based on survival, viability and health.

Federal

Only in Ottawa!

Leave a comment

Start with the incredible level of hypocrisy in Stephen Harper and his Conservatives criticizing the Liberals for using the Bloc Quebecois to bring down the Conservative’s minority government when Harper used the Bloc to bring down Paul Martin’s minority government.

Then there is the karma/wheel of fate/justice aspects involved with the Liberals bringing down the Conservatives in the same manner as Harper and his Conservatives brought down the Liberals only a few years ago.

Not to mention the delicious irony of Harper and his Conservatives being done to as they did to the Liberals, being done to as they did unto others.

Listening to the government bleat about mandate leaves one pondering if this is “smoking gun” proof that Harper and his Conservatives just do not get what Canadians want or were saying to them in the last election or if this is just massive cynicism/hypocrisy as they desperately try to cling to power.

The main messages that Canadians sent to Mr. Harper and his Conservatives in the last election, that Canadians did not feel Mr. Harper was too be trusted with a majority and that they were happy with or even preferred a Conservative minority government that needed to collaborate with the other political parties, seems to have been entirely lost on Harper and his Conservatives.

Let us remember that the current chaotic disarray in Ottawa is the direct result of Stephen Harper’s school yard bully behaviour and tactics in parliament in the weeks prior to this discombobulation; that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are reaping as they sowed.

Clearly Canadian voters were correct in their judgment that Mr. Harper was not to be trusted with a majority government. It is apparent Mr. Harper is so blinded by his ideology and world view that he just does not “get Canadians” or the messages Canadians were sending in the election results.

Given that 62.4% of Canadians voted for someone other than the Conservatives I do not think one can deny that a coalition of the other parties has a legitimate right to have an opportunity to form a cooperative minority government, since Canadians voted for a cooperative minority government, albeit with the Conservatives as part of the government.

In choosing to ignore Canadians expressed wishes for a cooperative minority government, the Conservative party as currently constituted forfeited their right to take the lead in forming this minority government.

To be perfectly honest, given the current Conservative governments demonstrated lack of understanding of the social issues and depth of poverty and economic need in Canada it most likely that the most vulnerable people and families in Canada would fare much better in these tough economic times with a minority government Liberal/NDP alliance.

Given the economic downturn and the disproportionate effects our economic woes will have in the real world on the poorest and most vulnerable Canadians it is just as important that a Conservative leader have clearly demonstrated that they understand this reality and are not blinded by ideology.

The reality of the current situation in Canada is that we need flexibility not ideology, open not closed or made up minds, good ideas based on understanding reality not upon “this is what I believe the situation is and that is what I will decide based upon – not reality”. At the same time we need to behave in a fiscally responsible manner.

Any alternative solution that would (as it should) include the Conservative party must result in enough confidence about the future behaviour of the Conservative party in forming or participating in the cooperative minority government mandated by Canadians in the last federal election will require the exit of Mr. Harper and the choice of a Conservative leader who Canadians and the other parties in parliament can trust to actually form a cooperative minority government.

Given Mr. Harper’s behaviour in hoarding power in his own hands together with his dictatorial and school yard bully ways I doubt Mr. Harper or his Conservatives have either the personal integrity or statesmanship to put the best interests of Canada ahead of their own personal interests despite their rhetoric about Canadians wants or best interests.

Should I be proven wrong and a new Conservative leader comes to the table to put Canadian’s and Canada’s interests first, the same applies to the Liberal and NDP leaders – put Canadian and Canada’s best interest first or get out of the way for someone who will.

What Canada needs right now is Leadership, not politics and politicians.

Municipal

Stick to Arts reporting

Leave a comment

Reading Kevin Mills opinion on the Abbotsford election results makes one thing clear – why he is not reporting on financial matters.

“Council also stated that any overruns would be paid for through reserves.” No council swore up and down that the $85 million was all the projects would cost and that the contracts would be written to guarantee that the cost did not go over $85 million.

It was not until council was caught playing fast and loose with costs they were aware of but concealed that talk turned to those costs and any overruns (despite council swearing there would be no such overruns) being covered out of reserves.

Mr. Mills apparently shares the councillor’s view that reserves magically appear, as opposed to the financial reality that reserves also come out of taxpayer’s pockets.

Mr. Mills is certainly entitled to be happy with the fact we got no federal funding because council did not bother to ask the federal government for funding and that we did not get any provincial funds because they did not bother to contact our local MLAs and the province in a timely matter.

However, Mr. Mills has no right to deny other taxpayers the right to be angry about the mismanagement and being stuck paying the extra $$$ tens of millions.

Mr. Mills further demonstrates his lack of logic and attention to detail with his statement “I see a trend here!” in reference to Christine Caldwell not being re-elected because of writing a letter opposing Plan A. If, as Mr. Mills implies, voters were so supportive of Plan A as to be punishing those who were not mindless supporters, how was it that Mr. Gill who voted against the budget in opposing Plan A got re-elected?

Mr. Mills crowning piece of illogic is his assertion that opposition to Plan A was a desire “… to move backwards instead of forwards…”. To anyone who takes the time to review the positions and statements made by myself and others who opposed Plan A it was not a matter of moving backwards but of how we move forwards.

Mr. Mills evidently does not grasp the concepts that taxpayers should have control of the design of capital projects; of the need for priorities that include not just entertainment projects but the nitty-gritty capital projects such as sewer and water on which a big city runs; that good fiscal management of a big city includes making the effort to exhaust all funding possibilities to reduce the tax burden imposed on citizens; or that having become a big city capital projects should be part of a long term infrastructure development plan – not a rushed and hastily thrown together massive expenditure of taxpayers funds.

In extolling all these new and wonderful buildings Mr. Mills ignores the consequences that paying for these buildings are going to have on the city and taxpayers personally, especially in light of the harsh economic reality that is emerging around the world as the bill for years of living beyond our means on borrowed money comes due.

The one point Mr. Mills was correct on is that, as is always the case, the future will reveal what the results and consequences of Plan A are and so enable us to judge what actions should (or should not) have been taken.

*********************************************************************************
By Kevin Mills – Abbotsford News November 17

As I sat at my computer, waiting impatiently for the City of Abbotsford to post the results of Saturday night’s municipal election, I started to wonder if all those letter writers would be right.
Anyone who reads the letters to the editor on a regular basis will remember all the protests and gnashing of teeth surrounding the Plan A projects. It’s still going on.
Letter writers, who in a previous column I dubbed the vocal minority, yelled out that voters would make city council pay for these projects and tax hikes – that apparently nobody wanted.
Of course you have to ignore the fact that we, the voting public, said yes to the projects in a referendum. We agreed to let the city borrow $85 million for the projects. Council also stated that any overruns would be paid for through reserves. If you go to the museum archives and read the stories in The News, you may discover that the city has said that repeatedly.
But I digress.
Despite a vote in favour of Plan A, the vocal minority raised their voices in anguish and declared an ultimatum. Many stated, in print, that voters would make the council pay by getting rid of them and voting in new councillors. Yes, the public would have its revenge.
Late Saturday night, when the results finally came in, voters had re-elected six of the seven incumbent councillors who ran for office.
Let me say that in a simple way so no one misunderstands. The seven people who ran for office were already on council when Plan A was approved.
Abbotsford voters re-elected six of them, giving them a vote of confidence for what they have been doing for the past three years.
I guess the vocal minority really showed them.
The only incumbent candidate who didn’t get re-elected was Christine Caldwell, who just before the final Plan A vote, before leaving on vacation, wrote a letter stating she had partially changed her mind on Plan A and was against the arena.
So voters got rid of a councillor who was against the largest part of Plan A.
I see a trend here!
Our new mayor, George Peary, has stated in The News that he believes council was correct for supporting and approving Plan A – and he won in a landslide.
It’s time for a reality check people. The city is changing and the majority of voters want an arts centre, they want a better recreation centre, they want a sports complex!
Abbotsford is a city on the grow and this election proves, that despite the naysayers, despite those who want to move backwards instead of forwards, despite the always vocal minority, we are a big city now.
Abbotsford’s future looks brighter than ever – a new hospital, a new university, an arts centre, a huge recreation centre and a soon-to-be-open sports complex. I can’t wait to see what the future brings.
Whatever it is, it will be nothing to complain about!

Municipal

Could insanity be the explanation?

Leave a comment

Crime, grow-ops, gangs, increasing violence, murder capital of Canada, homelessness, addiction, poverty, mental illness, affordable housing, hunger/lack of food, children going to bed hungry, sewage infrastructure, drinking water infrastructure, tire eating roads, paving, line painting or repainting, highest municipal tax levels in the lower mainland, $10 million for warehouse space labeled as a Cultural Centre, millions of dollar$ in cost over runs, etc. etc. etc. …

Abbotsford is deteriorating under council’s mismanagement; people are complaining about increasing tax levels, about large tax increases, crime, social problems etc; yet citizens choose to re-elect the very people responsible for the problems as if they expect them to act differently and solve problems rather than continuing to create/worsen problems.

A.A. has a saying concerning repeating the same action (electing, re-electing councilors) over and over again, expecting or hoping for a different outcome.

That is the definition of insanity.