1. This year let council and city staff adopt a “Can Do” attitude as opposed to their current practice of coming up with a list of excuses on why they cannot do such things as get more grants from senior levels of government to reduce the burden on local taxpayers.

2. Less excuse making, more acceptance of responsibility and a willingness that instead of offering excuses taking corrective actions.

3. Adopt at least minimal ethical standards; council and senior staff had and caused so many conflicts of interest with their behaviour with Plan A that it appears council and city staff currently has no code of acceptable ethical standards. Not to forget ethical questions arising from the deal for the land the arena is to be built on.

4. Resolve to abandon their “easy come, easy go” attitude to taxpayers money and their “tax and waste” management styles. The purpose should be to get the most out of each taxpayer dollar, not to maximize spending by squandering the citizen’s money ill-conceived projects or spending.

5. Adopt sound financial, business and governance practice. Particularly with respect to day to day operations and yearly budgets/spending. If their practices on day to day matters are no better than those they apply to $85 million spending proposals it is reasonable to conclude taxpayers are taxed to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of council and staff’s spendthrift behaviour. Such things as searching our and going after any possible monies from more senior levels of government, even if it requires a change in plans or practices.

6. Resolve to be in less haste to throw away taxpayers money. They claimed to be investigating getting money from other levels of government and/or other sources to relieve the burden on local taxpayers. But if they are awarding contracts in January ’07, looking to break ground in April or May of ’07 there is no time to investigate or find such funds.

7. Resolve that council and senior staff will, in future, save the taxpayers $60,000,000.00 by doing their homework and practice due diligence when spending City funds, even if this entails a little effort. This way you spend the $15 million Langley will spend on arena and recreation complex and not the $75 million Abbotsford will spend thus saving taxpayers $60 million.

8. Resolve to attract business to Abbotsford and not to drive them away over petty matters as occurred with the Sandman. Better yet, demonstrate to the citizens exactly what benefits we get from our large expenditures on the development office at city hall. Besides Mr. Teichroeb to act as chief apologist and excuse maker for city council and staff

9. Resolve to stop making excuses for why businesses pass by Abbotsford and locate in neighbouring communities and to adopt attitudes and behaviours that welcome and encourage business investment in and relocation to our City. Get out and actively pursue investments in the City that have high tax-base advantages such as office tower/jobs relocated here from downtown Vancouver.

10. Explain to citizens, in a way that makes sense, why it was the city drove the Chiefs out of Abbotsford, and then decided to build a monster sized arena. Would the size and location of an arena for the Chiefs not have been any benefit to UVFV’s bid for University status and if the City is building the arena in support (why else beside the University with all the parking and traffic flow difficulties; why else so over sized a seating capacity) should not the University and Alumni be contributing to the cost?

11. Take at least one (preferably many) actual action with respect to homelessness, poverty, hunger and affordable housing. Words, committees, pointing fingers, making excuses, screaming from the rooftops, crying poor when proposing to spend $60 million more than necessary, none of these count as actions.

12. Actually listen to citizens and address their concerns rather than trying to avoid difficult questions by making statements in support of city staff and council positions that have nothing to do with the actual question posed. Citizens have the right to be heard and should be able to speak at any council meeting, not just those where staff and council condescend to all citizens to ask questions and raise their concerns. Citizen input – a novel concept for Abbotsford to adopt.

13. Council will cease functioning merely as a rubber stamp for the bureaucrats of city hall and begin to represent the best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford, demanding senior staff perform their jobs thoroughly and competently rather than allow them to set a standard of “good enough”. Council will remind them that as civil servants the citizens of Abbotsford are entitled to civility and service.

14. Finally stop patting themselves on the back for Plan A. They spend large amounts of citizens money to trample over citizens rights to equal representation for their position; they spent large amounts of money promoting their position while denying the free speech rights of those who did not agree with them (not allowed to put up “No” literature or materials at “public information meetings” funded by taxpayers). They disdained ethics with a total disregard for the concept of “conflict of interest. They are guilty of gross negligence in their failure to do their homework and practice due diligence meaning Abbotsford will pay $60 million more for an arena and recreation complex than Langley and Langley has a tenant for their arena.

The appalling ignorance of basic economic reality demonstrated by recent letters and comments based upon the erroneous assumption that only those wealthy enough to own property pay into city tax-coffers does help explain the poor decision making by voters for municipal, provincial and federal representatives.

Everybody pays. Those well off enough to own property merely see the direct costs of the tax on their property in a much more in your face manner. It would appear that most fail to appreciate the hidden city taxes everyone pays. The most easily visible of the non-property owner’s property tax payments is the portion of rent that pays the landlords rental property taxes. One can be sure that landlords who can will pass any tax increases to their tenants.

Only the most gullible would believe that business and commercial taxes are not passed on to the consumer – whether they own property of not. It is unfortunate that all non-property owners could not take all their business to other jurisdictions and demonstrate to the property owners just how much they contribute to city coffers – without the benefits of property ownership to offset the city’s constantly increasing appetite for tax revenue.

One can build a solid case for the fact that the homeless and poor are unfairly burdened in being required to contribute a much higher proportion of their income to city coffers than the much better-off property owners. The basic deductions and differing tax rates at the federal and provincial levels is intended to address the unfair effect taxation has on the poor and those living in poverty. There are provincial and city property tax rebate programs for the poorest of the property owners, but none for the effects city taxes have on those to poor to afford property.

Of course this ignorance is particularly appalling in those who call themselves business people, especially leaders of various business organizations within the city. Although I suppose in the case of the Downtown Businesses the special treatment this area receives, at the expense of other taxpayers, warps their view of who pays into the city coffers and thus into their pockets.

It is just unfortunate for so many of the taxpayers who fund this largess that it failed to cause them to consider the effect driving the poor and homeless out of downtown and into other parts of the city would have on the lives of residents of these areas.

Or perhaps it was just another example of the growing practice of failing to actually think before forming conclusions. Even a situation that appears as simple as who pays into the city’s coffers is more complex than a superficial glance would suggest. Whether financial, social or some other aspect of the decisions, challenges, issues and problems we as a City, Province or Country face they all have a complexity that demands thoughtful consideration. We as a community, as a society, can no longer afford the luxury of not paying attention to what reality IS – as opposed to making decisions based on what we want to believe are the facts.

Time after time people complain about politicians lying, then vote for the politicians who tell them the lies they want to hear or believe. Citizens need to become questers who consider carefully and are willing to vote for those who, while one may not like everything they say and would prefer to believe something else, when examined with careful thought and consideration are found to be not only truthful but aware of the reality of our streets and country.

It is time we begin to stop, examine, learn and think before deciding. Otherwise financial, social and the multitude of other complex problems such as homelessness will simply continue to grow into overwhelming crises. Or we will continue to burden ourselves blindly and unheedingly with politicians mirages such as Plan A.

Sigh! I hate to lose, but there was a good turnout, close to the numbers for our last municipal. Besides, it was impossible to get worked up about the vote results on Plan A when standing in the lobby of the Council Chambers looking through the bank of windows at the snow falling. I could not avoid thinking of all the people I know who would be out on the streets, homeless and trying to survive the night. Not to mention all the city’s homeless that I don’t know, but who also share the city’s streets and face the challenge of surviving the weather. Standing there watching the snow fall and remembering last year when I was on the same streets – let’s just say that it tends to put losing a vote about what are ultimately luxuries for the better off of our city’s citizens in a very different perspective.

This difference in viewpoint was driven home during a conversation with a member of city council. We were shaking hands about the outcome when I commented that I could not help thinking more about those on our city streets than I could dwell on the vote outcome. Just then the council member’s spouse came up to us and stated “that it was very nice that the “pretty” snow was falling on a weekend when it could be “enjoyed” without causing major problems”. In light of our conversation the council member winced at their spouse’s comment. This conversation did underscore the different perspective one gains when one has experienced the streets. It also underlines the willful ignorance of so many of Abbotsford’s citizens. That the spouse of a council member is so unable to see the cruel reality of Abbotsford’s streets, says something about the attitude of council, senior city staff and the citizenry at large.

We are willing to spend $85,000,000+ on buildings to play in, while others wander the city streets. Oh, I forgot – that is somebody else’s responsibility so we can ignore our neighbours plight. The city spent $300,000+ on consultants, $250,000+ on the referendum, $30,000+ (such as city workers on overtime putting back up YES signs blown down) and $60,000+ donated from supporters – but the city has not a penny to spare for those in desperate need.

We had better pay careful attention to taking a look at our values or we will find ourselves, a few years from now, a city with three fancy new buildings – and no more soul than our current behaviours demonstrate. The true worth of a City as a place to live is not in its nice buildings and the amusements it provides for residents, but in its soul and the values the community lives by.

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win,
you’re still a rat. Lily Tomlin

It became very obvious that the reason that I could not get a clear idea of exactly what it is that council and city staff are proposing we build for facilities is because council and city staff have NO CLEAR IDEA of what exactly it is they will build. The know the types of facilities (entertainment center, recreation complex and art gallery/museum), they have a wish lists of what they want in those facilities (eg. Basketball court, ice surface) and they have a price they propose to pay. But as to what exactly the city will get for spending all that money – they have no idea.

They will tell you that this is because it makes no sense to spend money to come up with any kind of actual plans or hard numbers because it would be wasted if the plan was turned down. They would rather spend those dollars on a high pressure sales campaign than developing actual ideas and plans they could present to the public so they had layouts and numbers of a real nature for the public. They would appear to be so lacking in vision and leadership that vague generalities and snake-oil salesmanship is their way of operating on this and many other pressing issues facing Abbotsford.

In a nutshell they planning/proposing to put out their building types, wish lists and the price they will pay in what is referred to as design/build. They seek offers to build a facility at that price. The company then designs and builds the building. You know what it is you paid for and are getting when they are finished. You better hope their vision of the wish list and what a, say, entertainment complex looks like are reasonable close to what you thought you were getting/wanted/needed.

As I said lacking vision and leadership. If you believe that the City needs facilities you make that part of your platform at election time. You do not avoid this subject to get elected, so that you can then use access to taxpayer money, city staff and facilities to steamroll vague promises and proposals over any opposition by denying their rights of free speech and answers to questions and fool the public into thinking they have a good idea of what the final shape of these facilities will be, when nobody knows or has a good idea what the final structure will be.

You present your vision, your reasoning and your plans in the public forum and more level playing field of a municipal election. You design the facilities, hiring reputable engineers and architects; you come up with business plans, projected income or losses at which point you present this information to the citizens. Then you listen to them. The concerns are addressed or you explain why you are not going to address a particular point. Listening is the key, they have a right to be heard, to present their views and above all they have a right to access city facilities in presenting their views to their fellow citizens.
City Staff and Council are so use to ignoring citizens that even at a session they claimed was for public questions to be answered they repeatedly gave answers that did not answer the question asked by a citizen/taxpayer. Which may help to explain their time limit on questions – it provides an excuse to avoid those pesky follow up questions if the citizen tries to insist the City answer the actual question posed. Especially when the moderator is one of the city staff selling these mirages to the public.

They have no interest in explaining why the management fees paid to Global Spectrum to manage the facility are apparently not considered an expense by the city since in answering questions about operating costs, they failed to include fees paid to Global Spectrum in the entertainment facility costs. But then they also chose to ignore maintenance and upkeep costs for the facility. Perhaps they plan on using they profits they choose to imagine for the complex to pay fees, maintenance and upkeep. Which raises the question: if big profits are such a sure-fire guarantee, why is it that Global Spectrum wants a management fee? Should they, since the company speaks so blithely about big profits be rewarded via a profit sharing plan? If they are promising profits and the city is depending on a profit, should not Global Spectrum have the incentive of being compensated out of any profits, profits net of all operating and maintenance costs? Should Global Spectrum, based on their promises and assurances of profit share with the city’s taxpayers the risk that there will in fact be no profits?

It was fascinating to learn that Councilor Beck, through words out of his own mouth, sees no difference between an Abbotsford citizen and taxpayer who questions the wisdom of proceeding with such vague plans for unneeded facilities while needed facilities go un-built – and an American company wanting to build SE2 and pollute our air-shed. Personally I have no idea what this comparison was meant to mean, you will have to ask Councilor Beck. I suppose this insult should have come as no surprise in light of the distain and disregard the council and city staff has shown for anyone who would dare question their infallibility.

I was amazed to learn that the city has a fairy godmother? Leprechaun? whom magically fills and refills the reserve fund. How else is it that taking money out of the reserve fund is not spending taxpayers money – at least according to city staff and council. After all, when asked if the cost of the land should not be included in the proposed entertainment complex the question was told “No, it came out of the reserve fund” and thus was not an expense. Which begs the questions: Where exactly does this money come from if not from the taxpayers?; If it does come from taxpayers, does that not mean that buying the land was an expense paid out by taxpayers? And just how bad is the city staff’s and council’s grasp on basic financial principals that they see money in and out of the reserve as magical not revenue/expense in nature?

It is clear that what staff and council have is labels such as “entertainment complex” and wish lists but no definitive plans for the proposed facility. So what it comes down to is handing them a blank cheque for $85 million and hoping/praying. I was talking to a non-senior (pity!) staff member who was willing to listen and discuss ideas, questions and Reality about Plan A. S/he was correct what the city’s Plan A boils down to is blind faith. I just cannot support turning all that money over to a group I would not trust to build an outhouse. So I must vote NO.