Category Archives: The Issues

Municipal

Jay’s Words of Extortion and Nonsense.

Leave a comment

General Manager Economic Development and Planning Services Jay Teichroeb had this to say about the referendum on the proposed P3 water project:

“It’s important that the public understands what is in front of them. It is not an either/or question … The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” said Teichroeb.

That means the public either says yes to the P3 water supply or no. The traditional design/build is not one of the options. He said if people don’t understand this then “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

If the public says no to the P3 proposal, Teichroeb said the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

If this was the best of 19 options that city staff could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff.

If Mr Teichroeb actually believes what he says above and is not merely using threats, intimidation and scare tactics (old favourites of City Hall staff, mayor and council) to stampede taxpayers into panicking and doing what staff, the mayor and council want them to – vote for the excessively expensive, flawed and problematic system, the City’s inept P3 proposal – that would explain why the City derives at best minimal benefit from the $892,000 it budgeted for Economic Development and Planning Services.

Rather than accepting Mr Teichroeb’s Chicken Little ‘the sky is falling’ routine let us proceed in the matter Mr Teichroeb, city staff, mayor and council clearly don’t want the public to, by thinking about what he said rather than being intimidated.

“The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” It is not “ or nothing,” It is a choice of overpaying for a flawed and problematic system by $100,000,000+ (a Hundred Million Plus dollars – a phenomenal waste of taxpayer dollars even by current staff, mayor and council’s standards of waste, waste, waste) OR saying ‘enough’ and demanding a financially responsible and operationally sound plan for upgrading the Abbotsford/Mission water supply system.

“we have not served the community.” OK, I cannot dispute that. Plan A and the numerous costs staff and council were aware of and did not reveal to the public until after the referendum; Plan A with its massive cost overruns; not obeying the law (Community Charter) which was designed to protect taxpayers from being saddled with multi-million dollar subsidies to private business, which staff, mayor and council worked to circumvent so they could burden already overburdened taxpayers with ten years of million(s of) dollar(s) subsidies to the Heat’s owners; usury fees for the use of city facilities to subsidize a professional hockey team; and so on and so on….

Clearly Mr Teichroeb is correct in stating “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

The public is certainly entitled to have a list of the 19 options as part of evaluating the “best of the 19 options.” It is vital to a proper evaluation of the options for the public to have the list of names of those who were members of the “teams of engineers and financial experts.” and their analysis.

Please none of this ‘we cannot give out the names’ usual city claptrap and excuse mongering. Unless the City is saying the members of these “ teams of engineers and financial experts.” are not willing to stand behind their analysis. Which would inform the public just what that analysis is worth – nada, nothing, less than the paper it was written on.

The public is entitled to the 19 options, the names of the engineers and financial experts and the analysis of each of the 19 options. Or Mr Teichroeb’s resignation.

“If the public says no to the P3 proposal, …… the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

Really? This is the best staff, mayor and council can come up with? They are going to take their ball and go home and sulk?

Clearly, if giving up and sulking is the best option that city staff, the mayor and council could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff and elect a competent and effective mayor and council

On November 19th, save your pocketbook and Abbotsford’s water future.

Vote NO to the P3 – another mayor and council debacle in the making.

Vote YES to elect James W Breckenridge. You can examine James W Breckenridge’s proposed approach to upgrading the water infrastructure at: http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176 http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176

Feedback and ideas are welcome. I never have met a good/better idea I was not willing to….ummmmmm….adopt.

Finances, Municipal

Abbotsford’s Water Infrastructure Upgrade

Leave a comment

Here is the James W. Breckenridge plan to upgrade the water infrastructure supplying Abbotsford’s water.

On November 19, 2011 – the day of municipal elections across BC – the voters of Abbotsford vote NO on the P3 referendum, defeating the P3 proposal.

On November 19, 2011 – the day of municipal elections across BC – the voters of Abbotsford vote for James W. Breckenridge and elect him to council.

The new council passes a resolution apologizing to the mayor, council and citizens of Mission for the bullying, intemperate words and unacceptable behaviour of the prior mayor and council on upgrading of the water supply infrastructure.

Abbotsford and Mission turn their attention to working together to upgrade the current water infrastructure, a shared water infrastructure. That, as originally planned Abbotsford pay 2/3 of the cost and Mission pay 1/3 of the cost of the water infrastructure upgrade.

That we do not use current councils preferred method of design/build. Under this system the builder maximizes their profit by delivering the least project they can at the lowest cost they can at the highest price they can.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build. We need to be able to ensure the upgraded infrastructure meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water.

To do that council and the public need to have an opportunity and sufficient time to study the plans to discover and correct any errors and omissions.

It has been my experience that the skills, knowledge and insights a group of people such as the citizens of Abbotsford and Mission possess, can be surprising and serve to ensure nothing gets missed in the plans for the water infrastructure upgrade. Letting people share their thoughts and ideas can lead to valuable insights. At least for a council willing to actually listen with an open mind, accept and act on good ideas.

Going with this approach requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these. But if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met – exactly why are they in or running for office?

We share a bus system, waste management and the Norrish Creek water supply with Mission. Abbotsford and Mission will need to continue to work together managing these systems into the future.

Mission and Abbotsford share many issues jointly, a sharing of issues complicated not just by the fact they are linked by transit bus but by their proximity. Issues such as homelessness and affordable housing are not specific to one city but flow between the cities as the homeless and those in need of affordable housing do.

Abbotsford’s mayor, council and staff should be seeking ways to improve the working relationship between the cities. Not seeking to drive a wedge between the cities.

Undoubtedly Abbotsford’s mayor, council, staff and $200,000 sales pitchmen will seek to drown Abbotsford voters in numbers as well as confuse the voters and the issue with Abbotsford City Hall doublespeak.

Here are several important items to remember and question.

Abbotsford will continue to need to work with Mission even if Abbotsford proceeds alone, rather than in partnership with Mission on upgrading the water infrastructure. Abbotsford needs permission to run a new water pipeline across Mission to get water to Abbotsford. If Abbotsford wants to tie into the current shared water delivery system, would not such an action require permission from Abbotsford’s partner in that system – Mission?

The working relationship between Abbotsford and Mission is too important to act in a way that negatively affects the working relationship, merely because Abbotsford’s mayor, council and staff insist on getting their own way.

Why should the taxpayers of Abbotsford once again be forced to pay millions of dollars extra in order to feed the mayor, council and staff’s egos? Are not the friendship garden and the sports and entertainment complex sufficient City Hall ego taxes on taxpayers?

City of Abbotsford’s cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less the maximum (we do not know the actual amount) of federal subsidy $61 million, leaving Abbotsford ‘s best case cost at $230 million.

City of Abbotsford’s cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less Missions 1/3 share $97 million, leaving Abbotsford’s cost as $194 million.

The City of Abbotsford needs councillors and a council who comprehend (as the current mayor. council  and staff continue to demonstrate they do not, and seem incapable of learning) that increasing the cost to Abbotsford taxpayers from $194 million to $230 million is a net cost to Abbotsford’s taxpayers of $36 million. That the $61 million dollars ‘savings’ (federal grant) our current mayor, council and staff are chasing is only an illusion of ‘savings’, an illusion that will cost taxpayers $36 million more than they have to pay. Actually $66 million extra when you add in 30 years of $1 million per year increased  operating costs that result from  using a P3, as set out in the report prepared for the city.

The taxpayers of Abbotsford cannot afford to spend $66 million extra because mayor, council and staff cannot grasp basic financial reality.

On November 19, 2011 vote NO to the P3 and the $36 million more than necessary the P3 proposal will cost taxpayers in upgrading the water infrastructure.

On November 19, 2011 vote to elect James W. Breckenridge to council; vote to pay (actually save) $66 million less to upgrade our water infrastructure.

Finances, Municipal, Snafu

Facts? Balance? Thoughtfulness?

Leave a comment

Sadly, as the September 30, 2011 Global News Hour Final stories on the Abbotsford Heat and Abbotsford’s need for upgrading the city’s water system made clear, traditional broadcast media coverage all too often has little or nothing to do with facts, balance or thoughtfulness.

While the segment on the Heat did reference the $1.4 million subsidy paid directly to the Heat ownership for last year’s (2010/2011) season under the ten year revenue guarantee made by Abbotsford’s mayor and city council, it ignored or missed several important points.

Points such as: the indirect subsidies taxpayers pay for items such as the Heat banners adorning city lampposts or the advertising materials that adorn city facilities and buildings or the use of city staff to conduct business on behalf of the Heat.

Nor was there any mention of the yearly multi-million dollar operating subsidy to the Heat in the form of subsidizing the operations of the Sports Complex, the Heat’s home.

But the truly criminal aspect of Global’s story was the failure to address Abbotsford’s mayor and council signing an agreement to subsidize the Heat’s ownership that is illegal under the Community Charter that governs municipalities in BC.

No reference was made to Chilliwack’s mayor and council not entering into the same type of agreement to keep the Bruins (who moved to Victoria) in Chilliwack because as Chilliwack’s Mayor Sharon Gaetz stated “Under the province’s Community Charter, the city is not permitted to fund private business with taxpayers’ funds. This is deemed to be an assist to business and is strictly forbidden.”

Nor did Global say anything about Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s acknowledgement that the subsidy agreement with the Heat violates the Community Charter or their claims of having circumvented the law rather than obey it.

Global failed to question a mayor and council who, when a law forbids them from doing something they want to do, ignore/circumvent the law. Or ask just what else was circumvented or ignored behind the closed doors mayor and council prefer to operate from.

Later in the same broadcast Global’s story on Abbotsford’s need for a new water source left one wondering if some in Abbotsford were questioning the need to spend money on the City’s water infrastructure, while failing to address the true issue(s) of concern citizens have with Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s proposed upgrades to the water supply.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Global, nobody is disputing that Abbotsford needs to upgrade its water supply infrastructure. Indeed, many of those Mayor Peary labels as ‘naysayers’ – meaning they disagree with him – were calling on council to upgrade the water supply infrastructure before it built the ‘great white elephant’ AKA the Sports and Entertainment Complex.

There are major differences between the mayor and council’s intentions and the wishes/wants/best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford.

Council insists on using a P3 to upgrade the infrastructure, with Mayor Peary and council liking to talk about the $61 million grant they will get for going with a P3. Mayor Peary and council don’t like to talk about what prior ‘savings’ by mayor and council have cost the taxpayers (considerably more than the ‘savings’) or the fact that the increased costs associated with a P3 will be more (millions, tens of millions of dollars more) than the $61 million ‘savings’. Leaving Abbotsford taxpayers (once again) paying out of pocket for council chasing a mirage they call ‘savings’.

One significant cost the mayor and council like to overlook is that operating costs under a P3 would be at least a million dollars a year more expensive. Ironically this additional cost was included in the report commissioned by mayor and council to sell the project to the citizens of Abbotsford.

The mayor and council’s insistence on using a P3 ignores, as did the Global broadcast, the reality that around the world municipal governments are choosing not to use P3s on vital city resources such as water for a variety of good reasons, including keeping the control of vital resources such as water with the municipal governments.

Then there is the history and experience citizens have with the mayor and council’s promises as to what the total final cost of a project will be. The last time council told taxpayers the price was guaranteed by the contract with the builder (the last project council sold to the citizens) the cost of the project doubled. Costs that run over the cost promised by council by millions or tens of millions of dollars are simply normal operating procedure for mayor and council.

Keep in mind this is a mayor and council that built new Highway 1 interchanges where the roundabouts have signs telling drivers not to get in beside a truck because the design has trucks needing the entire roundabout to manoeuvre or where trucks tip over if they try to transit the roundabouts at or near the posted speed limits. A mayor and council that, with a short window for construction, a window that was open during the late fall/winter/early spring, thought hiring a firm that had never built a pool tank was a good idea.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build as the mayor and council want to. Yes, designing the system first in order to ensure it meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these – but council could always go back to meeting weekly to earn the salaries and perks they have voted themselves in recent years. More importantly, if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met – exactly why are they in office?

By its nature design build is a poor choice as the way to build a project, since the builder maximizes his profits by delivering the least he can, at the lowest cost he can, and meet the specifications of the contract. Design build is how you get roundabouts with signs warning cars not to enter beside trucks.

Abbotsford’s water infrastructure is too important to be built to the lowest standards and costs permitted by the contract.

Those are the major points of disagreement on upgrading the water infrastructure in Abbotsford. The disagreement is not whether we should upgrade, but about taxpayers wanting to ensure the upgrading is done correctly, managed well and has appropriate financial controls and frugality. As opposed to council’s take the easiest way out by going with a P3 and paying whatever the cost comes to.

All levels of government in Canada (municipal, provincial and federal) have a need to deal with a number of serious, complex issues at the same time they are constrained by the need to get their financial houses in order.

Unfortunately politics today are about politicians holding onto their power, perks and overly generous salaries by getting re-elected and has nothing to do with providing good governance and taking care of the people’s business.

Just as unfortunate is that traditional media is not about facts, balance or thoughtfulness. It is about the bottom line and best interests of whichever conglomerate the media in question is part of.

More unfortunate is that with the traditional media having become conglomerate owned and controlled, there is no media outlet for disseminating and discussing differing ideas, points of view and thoughts on what our priorities should be, the issues we need to address and how we should approach those priorities and issues. At least until such time as newer, open internet media such as The Tyee or Abbotsford Today are more well established and the public has an awareness of the new, emerging, information driven media world online.

I say more unfortunate because without information, knowledge and at least basic understanding you cannot make good choices and the functionality of democracy will continue to deteriorate.

With politicians focused on re-election and their own best interests and the public residing in wilful denial, media’s failure or refusal (or inability to recognize or understand?) to raise important issues, challenges and differing points of view in the public forum makes media partners with politicians and citizens clinging to wilful denial in our current sad state of affairs and the inauspiciousness of our future.

Media’s ‘news’ should, at the very least, resemble a broadcast containing facts, balance and thought, rather than having every appearance of being a promotional video for, in this case, Abbotsford’s mayor and council members seeking re-election in November.

The Issues

Transcript: Bare Facts September 22, 2011

Leave a comment

Welcome to the inaugural E-cast of the Breckenridge Zone’s Bare Facts.  I am your host, T. R. Ursidae.

We ask your indulgence for any lack of smoothness as we learn and build experience in E-casting.

Our goal is to peel away the spin, the doublespeak, the gobbledygook, to ask the obvious unasked questions and to remind people of the reality they so often live in willful denial of.

We seek to bring critical thinking and logic to bear on public policy by generating open debate based on the bear facts that are exposed by peeling away the layers of machination and subterfuge.

Because as it says in the Tao of James: Reality does not care what you want to be fact, reality does not care what you believe to be fact, Reality simply is what IS.

********************************************************************************************

At the bare facts we very much enjoyed the Freudian slip contained in the BC Liberal’s attack ad aimed at BC Conservative leader John Cummins.

“Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” The context another is contained in seems to imply that it is not just one other BC politician that is unprincipled but that all, or nearly all, BC politicians are unprincipled.

A conjecture supported by the unprincipled duplicity demonstrated by the BC NDP since their successful support of extinguishing the HST. Since then the air waves have been full of NDP mla’s crying crocodile tears and condemning the BC Liberal government for the budget tightening, leading to program cuts, that is the consequence of ripping Billions of Dollars  out of the BC budget by extinguishing the HST.

Except for Mr Dix who seems to be avoiding visibility in order to avoid reminding voters of the sight of \ Mr Dix going around thanking people for helping the NDP extinguish the HST; seeking no doubt to avoid attracting voter anger at the budget cutting (program cuts)  needed to reduce expenditures as a result of the financial fallout from extinguishing the HST

If the NDP was all that worried about program cuts they should not have been playing politics by supporting extinguishing the HST.

Rather Unprincipled behaviour that continues as they blast the government for the consequences of the NDP’s successful support of extinguishing the HST.

*************************************************************************************************

Speaking of the outcome of the extinguish the HST referendum and the painful financial fallout of extinguishing the HST it would appear the voters of BC are seriously in need of being told to ‘Get Real”.

After voting to rip billions of dollars out of the budget and return $1.6 billion to Ottawa the voters of BC are demanding – at an increasing rate – that the provincial government spend, spend, spend, ignoring or in wilful denial of the fact voters have reduced government revenue by billions of dollars – a reality which requires belt tightening and thus program cuts.

Just what did the voters think was going to happen after they ripped billions of dollars out of the provincial budget.

Is it that they DID NOT THINK or that they live in a fantasy land where there is a grove of money trees growing out behind the legislature?

**************************************************************************************

Of course the Media is as guilty or perhaps are the most guilty – given the major part media played in successfully extinguishing the HST – of  ignoring the financial reality the province must deal with as a consequence of extinguishing of the HST.

The fallout, budget cuts and program closures, makes it easy for media to find lots of budget cuts and program closures to report on in order to increase their bottom lines.

I suppose, when you thinks about it,  we shouldn’t be surprised that media is not reminding those demanding more services or the continued funding of programs that the citizens of BC voted to substantially reduce the funds the province has to provide services any more than it was not  surprising that Media avoided reminding voters of the very significant consequences of extinguishing the HST.

Reminding people of the reality – either of extinguishing the HST or of the state of BC’s finances as a result of having extinguishing the HST – would only serve to cut into the ease of getting bottom line improving theatrical ‘stories’. Not to forget running the potential risk of having voters suffering the consequences of the belt tightening necessary – of the important role Media played in extinguishing the HST by playing up the street theatre aspects of the extinguish the HST campaign while effectively ignoring the financial consequences.

*************************************************************************************************

The current media street theatre circus compounds the difficulty of dealing with the financial realities BC faces because the BC Liberal caucus clearly lacks backbones. This lack of backbone and the overriding desire to get re-elected and continue feeding so handsomely from the public trough   – at any cost – has led to policy and decision making based on the theatrics of the presentation made by media rather than basing the hard decisions involved in living within the new means imposed by extinguishing the HST  on priorities and careful thought

the Reality of the dire state of the provinces finances and the fact BC is in a financial straightjacket means there is no extra funding to reinstate programs. The funding that keeps the recycling program in Maple Ridge or the program at Douglas college going into next year comes from other programs and/or areas of the budget.

Rather than vigorously patting themselves on the back for the reinstatement of funding – Media and voters – might want to consider who it is that is going to suffer paying the price for reinstating that funding and what that price is.

The potential for Irony is mindboggling. How – poetically justice ironic – if the practice of robbing peter to pay paul ( in this case appeasing the media and the public) leads in a few months to the Maple Ridge recycling program etc being back in the spotlight – having lost their funding to reinstate some other program that lost its funding to reinstate the funding and so on and so and so on….. *******************************************************************************************

If we don’t stop and at all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) take a hard look at what the financial realities are, then make plans that reflect that financial reality. Plans based on priorities, hard thought and ethics – letting go of greed and ‘me first’ we are going to find ourselves going around in circles and ending up where we started having accomplished nothing but wasting resources.

****************************************************************************

Finally, might we suggest to Vancouver’s Rock 101 and the firm advertising their electrical services on Rock 101 that we at the Bare Facts (and I suspect most consumers) have no interest in what someone is ‘not afraid to tackle’ . when we are looking for an electrical contractor what we are interested in is what they are competent to tackle. You can live with whatever fear someone competent might have given the fact that with electricity – incompetence can kill you.

***********************************************************************************

That’s the Bare Facts for Thursday September 22, 2011.

Remember your best defence against Politicians, Media, Big Business and others seeking to bamboozle you and manipulate you – is thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJgxH0h0JBI

Caveat emptor, Provincial

BC Liberal Attack Ad a Revealing Freudian Slip?

Leave a comment

 

Listening to the BC Liberal’s radio attack ad on BC Conservative leader John Cummins what struck me was the use of the phrase  “Just what we need,another unprincipled politician.”

According to Freud, slips of the tongue reveal a ‘source outside the speech’; a manifestation of the unconscious, guided by the super-ego and the rules of correct behaviour.

The use of the word ‘another’ is a rather damning Freudian slip of the tongue. The definition of Another: being one more or more of the same; further; additional.

The Liberal statement does not just say, or stop at saying, that Conservative leader John Cummins is unprincipled.

In the use of ‘another’ the Liberals are stating that BC politics already contains at least one unprincipled politician. Indeed the context and usage of ‘another’ in “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” suggests that BC politics is infested with ‘unprincipled politicians’.

In fact “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” can be read as a statement that all or nearly all of BC’s politicians are ‘unprincipled’.

Is the statement “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” a manifestation of an unconscious acknowledgement by the BC Liberals that the behaviour of the BC Liberals and the BC NDP has been, is and will continue to be ‘unprincipled’?

Is “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” an honest (being subconscious) statement that the only way out of the increasing quagmire BC is in is to turn out our current politicians with their unprincipled behaviour and to seek out new principled leadership and representation?