I wrote that I thought it only fiscally responsible for Abbotsford and Mission to cost out a P3 – as long as they were also costing out a public project and that there was full disclosure on the terms of the P3 as well as addressing ownership and control issues.

I see nothing wrong with a city council that explores all its options when a financial commitment the size of the water project is in the process of being made – as long as council does due diligence on ALL the options .

However it is clear that the public, the people who pay the bills, are opposed to the P3 option.

Since the public’s concerns are understandable and not unreasonable, the public being opposed to the P3 should be the end of considering the use a P3 for the water project.

I salute the District of Mission for their quick recognition and acceptance of the public’s position on the matter and their listening to their citizens and voting not to waste time, resources and taxpayer’s money pursuing the P3 any further.

What can one say about Abbotsford council except – business as usual.

A recent example of council’s business as usual: the residents of Clayburn Village and area are at council – new housing development isn’t approved. Two weeks latter without the residents present and one of the councillors opposed to the housing development not present – the decision is reversed and the development is approved.

Deferring a decision until the public isn’t there, or out and out reversing a decision when the public is no longer there in numbers, is the established modus operandi for Abbotsford council in ignoring the public, the people who pay the bills, and doing as council wants.

Hopefully the District of Mission’s ‘No’ decision will prevent Abbotsford council from ignoring the public’s wishes on the matter. A sad state of affairs when Abbotsford’s citizens must depend on the District of Mission council sticking to its guns (there is little doubt Abbotsford will be pressuring Mission to ignore the public and do what Abbotsford council wants) to deny their own Abbotsford council the ability to once again ignore citizens and do as they please.

Abbotsford council’s actions make it clear that their intention was P3 or nothing to try to force voters to vote yes to the P3 in November – no matter how bad a choice it may have been for taxpayers. Again behaviour we have seen before and that has saddled taxpayers with the money devouring black hole that is the AESC and has Abbotsford taxpayers buying a profession hockey team for a few wealthy and well connected Abbotsford residents.

So it is imperative the public turn out in force at the next council meeting to prevent council, in business as usual mode, voting to proceed with the P3.

In a way the public weighing in and speaking so strongly against the P3 is a relief. While I do think it is due diligence for a city council to explore a P3 option, we are not dealing with just any council but Abbotsford city council. Typical Abbotsford council behaviour is to proceed with the P3 as the only choice and sell it to the public – branding as naysayers those who dare to suggest that the P3 was a bad choice.

For council a P3 represents a ‘get out of jail free card’ since they avoid the need to deal with the consequences of their financial mismanagement of the City’s resources with the added bonus that it is easy – the P3 private partners do all the work.

A public project will force council to deal with the consequences of the financial decisions it has made and it requires a lot more work on the part of council and staff.

Let me amend that – in a well managed municipality a public project requires a great deal of work and attention to detail in order to maximize taxpayers bang for their buck.

Which means that if the public keeps the pressure on council and prevents Abbotsford council from sneaking back to the P3, the real hard and long work for the public begins – to keep Abbotsford staff and council’s noses to the grindstone on the matter of the public project.

If taxpayers are lucky November elections will present voters an opportunity to elect financially responsible councillors to ensure the cost of the water project does not become another albatross around the necks of taxpayers.