Councillor Braun dared to suggested that before the City spends $300 million to solve a problem, the City take the time to make sure it was a problem that required a solution.

To avoid having  the City find itself with the true problem still needing to be addressed, having squandered $300 million and years of time ‘solving a problem’ that did not require a solution.

And the mayors’ reactions? Mayor Peary……ahem….Banman: “My tendency is to focus on solutions rather than spending valuable time and resources re-examining the problem“.

Apparently Mayor Banman has caught the SPEND, SPEND, SPEND fever that infected prior mayors and councils, where the important thing is to be spending large amounts of taxpayer funds and whether it is being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Abbotsford/Mission doesn’t matter. After all, it isn’t his money, so why should he make the effort required to spend it wisely and on needed infrastructure?

Similarly Mayor Adlem “At the end of the day, we have a water issue that we need to address.” From Mayor Adlem’s words it seems that, since the issue is clearly some kind of water issue spending $$millions, hundreds of millions$$ of tax payer dollars addressing a water issue, any water issue is the important point. Mayor Adlem also apparently sees no need to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Mission/Abbotsford.

It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?

Henry David Thoreau

It is clear from the Mayors comments pooh-poohing the suggestion that, before spending $300 million on a water issue, they make sure all those millions of dollars will be spent on the issue/problem that actually needs to be addressed, that Councillor Braun had no choice but to bring his concerns to the attention of those who will be stuck paying the tab, if – in the well established traditions of local politicians – the dollars are spent pointlessly.

This was an issue that engaged voters and the number of votes Councillor Braun and Councillor Ross (the only prior council member to oppose the Stave Lake proposal) got and the 75% NO vote to Stave Lake make it clear voters, the people who pay for Council’s profligate spending, did (do) not agree with the City’s conclusion and contention that a new water source was needed.

One could argue the top mandate Councillor Braun was given in the election was to ensure taxpayer’s monies were spent wisely and only as needed on appropriate and necessary issues – especially the water issue.

Therefore Councillor Braun’s actions are clearly in line with the duty of care due those who voted for him and the duty of care he owes all citizens of Abbotsford as a City Councillor.

Meaning those who, as Mayor Adlem’s puts it,  “…stepped a bit out of line” are the mayors and councillors who are ignoring the voters and rushing to spend $$millions$$ regardless of whether the money is spent unnecessarily upgrading water sources more than adequate for decades to come, rather than on the issue that truly needs addressing.

As to the cost of performing a review to determine what (if any) issues our water delivery system has that require addressing and what the timeline for addressing the issue(s) is (are), I have no idea where the figure of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the cost of the review comes from. Perhaps that is the going cost for a report that is written to support the City’s desired course of action; however, the review called for is to be a review of the facts, and what actions the facts indicate are required.

Under these circumstances a review should not be that costly……..well assuming adequately competent and frugal management by the City; which admittedly is a rather large assumption based on how the City conducts its business affairs and the City’s past management performance.

If cost is the only issue I (and I am sure Councillor Braun and others) can think of several ways to structure a review that would ensure that $300 million is not spent where no expenditure is needed, that adds no additional costs for the City.

I do wonder why Mayor Banman considers the cost, even if City was to somehow run the cost to several hundred thousand dollars, to be the deciding factor for whether or not you do or do not undertake the  review?

It seems to me an excellent business decision to invest the cost of a review when there is more than reasonable doubt as to what the necessary, wise and prudent fiscal behaviour is with respect to our water delivery system.

Much wiser and far more fiscally prudent than being in a rush to waste $300 million on a non-problem.

Beware of the man who knows the answers before he understands the question. Anonymous