Category Archives: The Issues

Consider, Municipal

Paranoia?

Leave a comment

Did you read the News story about using the helicopter in catching a stolen car? I did and really did not spare another thought to the matter, except the thought that a helicopter is useful for following and guiding ground units to avoid the need for high speed chases to catch criminals in vehicles.

Until I was standing near the Salvation Army watching the helicopter circle time after time, six, seven, eight times… just up there watching. Then a member of the homeless community told me about the ‘copter seeming to follow him as he walked from the Salvation Army to Wal-Mart. It just sat there hovering, as if waiting for him to come running out of the store after stealing something. After all, every police officer knows if you need to be dealing with the Salvation Army or are a member of the homeless community, you belong to a class of people who are doing (or will be doing) something illegal.

This got me thinking about the privacy questions and issues raised by not only the helicopter, but by the technology available to “law enforcement” in general. Think about it. How often is something like the ‘copter needed to accomplish a specific purpose or task? What is it doing the rest of the time? It spends the vast majority of its air time just sitting up there, providing a bird’s eye view to peep at everyone and anyone.

If you raised this point with the Abbotsford police department I am sure they will have fine words to reassure the public and spin this spying as not something the public needs “bother their non-police heads” about. Trust us. I admit that my view is coloured by my experiences with the police interactions with the homeless community. After all, it is far easier to spot an illegal tent in the woods from above that it is to notice actual property theft crimes. Which reflects why so much police time is wasted moving along the homeless, while the only reason to report stolen property is to obtain a police file number for insurance claim purposes. As if the police cannot waste enough resources harassing the homeless enough from the ground, they now can do it from the air.

You cannot UN-invent the ‘copter, besides which it has some very useful purposes. However, it also has a large potential for misuse and raises some very Orwellian questions concerning its “big brother is watching” abilities. We need to address these issues not by burying our heads in the sand but by thinking about and putting in place safeguards to protect the publics right to Privacy.

We need clear policies and guidelines designed to protect us from any unreasonable spying, protecting our right to, and expectations of, reasonable privacy. We also need some way to provide “encouragement” for obedience to these guidelines.

Based on my experiences of the way the police behave towards the homeless, the feedback I have gotten from members of the general public about their interactions with our local police force and the privacy protection issues technology is raising I think that it is time the general public had input into police behaviour and some influence on police priorities. This is why I believe that the citizens of Abbotsford must exert civilian control over our police department. The way to do this is with a civilian board overseeing the department and civilian review of police actions and complaints against the members of the Abbotsford Police Department.

PS it is back again this weekend and behaving in the annoying manner of one of thyose people who insist on looking over your shoulder constantly to read what you are reading or see what you are doing – it is just with the their great height there are many more shoulders for them to look over.

Municipal

News: new information

Leave a comment

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.

Federal, Municipal, Provincial

A ‘raspberry’ for Mr. Rushton

Leave a comment

“Methinks it’s time for some serious debate in City Hall” trumpets Mr. Rushton, ignoring the fact that what passes for public debate these days is what has lead Abbotsford to its dubious #1 status and is at the core of many social problems across Canada. Debate has become about “spin”, allowing the public to hear what they want to hear OR to hear something that sounds good (because they want simple, easy answers to complex questions) and to avoid having to actually LISTEN and THINK. Our current #1 ranking, which you rail against, is the result of formulating public policy on what people believe or would like to believe as opposed to what REALITY is.

Debate as practiced in the political and public arenas is about winning, whether it is your point of view or an election. It has nothing to do with defining the issues, understanding the reality of the situations or of considering the consequences and outcomes of proposed actions. Instead it is about “spin” and waging a “war of words”, in the process ignoring the fact that basing public policy on mirages built of words guaranties not only failure to obtain your goals but also substantially increases the chances of negative consequences.

I watched that new TV commercial that implies that chocolate milk comes from brown cows and wonder how many now believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows because they “saw it on television so it must be true”. We are dealing with people so nothing is going to be neat, easy or cut and dried. If your goal is to address crime effectively you should have called for examining the current state of affairs to gain an understanding of what the actual facts are; for the setting of realistic goals; for thinking through what the actual consequences of proposed actions will be (as opposed to what you would like them to be) and for making our decisions based on reality (no matter how unpalatable that reality may be) not upon wishful thinking.

Methinks it’s time for some serious though in our City, Province and Canada as a whole. Then we can decide on appropriate actions to pursue and have a reasonable expectation of attaining positive results.

Municipal

Nonsense

Leave a comment

“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.

Consider, Municipal

Granting credit to offset Need

Leave a comment

I was speaking with a Special Olympics swimmer at the pool and our conversation turned to the City’s recreation credit program for citizens on some form of income support or special needs.

This program is a very good idea but I do feel it needs a review since it has been the same for several years now. As was pointed out to me, this means a very limited (small) number of visits or requires that you go to special price swim sessions in order to stretch the credit into as many visits as possible. Unfortunately many who need this credit lack the ability (i.e. transportation) or flexibility of schedule to go only to these cheap swims. At between $4 and $5 the current credit is quickly exhausted.

As people who use the recreation centers know there is a picture swipe card system in use. Thus it is would be easy for the City’s credit program to be changed to grant a certain number of visits as opposed to granting a (low) $$$ credit amount. I believe that using this method would be a better method of ensuring those citizens in need of help reasonable access to the recreation facilities of Abbotsford.

The recreation centers also have a special lower price for those who drop in for just a shower. Since cleanliness is such a challenge for the homeless, and the picture swipe card system already exists, the city needs to examine putting in place a shower program for the homeless. The facilities exist, the picture swipe card system is in use and the Salvation Army and others interface with the homeless so that for next to $0 such a program could be instituted. Allowing for the City to successfully, in a certain sense, clean up the streets – or at least add a little cleanliness to the City’s citizens residing on the City’s streets.

As stated, I think the recreational credit program is a much needed and beneficial program. However I also think that a review would ensure it is meeting its original objectives and allow us to examine what changes would enhance the provision of service to those in need of a helping hand. Not to mention giving our Special Olympic swimmers more opportunities for needed practice.