Might I suggest……
……city council practice what it preach?
The editorial on Abbotsford Today that began with “Last night we were roundly criticized by a City Councillor for not doing our bit to support the Abbotsford Heat hockey team” came to mind today as an irate citizen approached me (having had no success approaching the mayor or councillors) to speak about Heat attendance.
What he had to say brought the above article to mind and had me thinking that, before council starts chastising others they might want to look at their own behaviour.
But then blaming anyone or anything they can is a trademark behaviour of Abbotsford’s City Council. Well, more accurately the trademark behaviour is not accepting responsibility for the consequences of their (council’s) decisions and/or actions and always having an excuse or someone or something whose ‘fault it is.’
It is possible that council would accept responsibility for a positive outcome but we are most unlikely to ever find out given that the probability of this council making a decision based on sound, responsible decision making and fiscal management……approaches zero.
When this citizen spoke to me I did suggest that he could go as a ‘delegation’ which would give him the opportunity to address council at a council meeting – although many citizens who have ideas or comments are not comfortable standing up in public and addressing council at a council meeting.
Admittedly he is not a wealthy individual seeking to have council subsidize his purchase of a profession sports team nor did he contribute to the election campaign of local politicians nor is he likely to contribute to any politicians campaign in our fast approaching municipal election.
Still, since it was obvious he had given thought to the matter and that he had a valid point that council should consider I said that if he was agreeable I would like to write and share his point and comments with his fellow citizens.
He is a big Heat fan and as such would like the attendance to be much higher so that the Heat remain in Abbotsford.
He is also (as are many) a smoker and as a smoker he finds being “confined to the building for 3 hours” more than simply uncomfortable. Heat fans who are smokers are condemned to making a choice between watching the entire hockey game or giving into the need to smoke and watching the game only to the point they need to leave the building (and the game) to smoke.
The gentleman had checked and both the Vancouver Canucks and the Chilliwack Bruins have designated smoking areas so that fans who are smokers are not forced to choose between watching the entire game and their need to feed their tobacco addiction.
Being a fan he attended the sold out game between the Heat and the Manitoba Moose (the Canucks farm team).
6000 extra bums in the seats. An opportunity to impress the people those 6000 bums belong to and to sell those people on returning to watch more games. Thereby reducing the subsidy Abbotsford’s taxpayers shell out for the privilege of having the Heat play in Abbotsford.
And what do these potential future customers find, besides the well known built in parking problems? The smokers have the unpleasant surprise that they cannot take a smoke break between periods and then return to the game to watch the next period.
Smokers must choose between suffering through the entire hockey game without a cigarette or giving in to the need to smoke and leaving the game. Council has mandated that if you leave the building to smoke, you cannot return.
Leaving aside the fact that such a policy encourages smokers to find somewhere inside the building to sneak off to in order to be able to have a smoke and return to watch the game, can you think of any policy council could choose that would discourage smokers more from attending Heat games?
Not according to the Heat fan who spoke of all the smokers who had the unpleasant surprise of discovering council’s no smoking disincentive to attending Heat games at the sold out Manitoba Moose visit.
There is nothing that can be done about the huge parking disincentive council chose to burden the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Complex with. But something can be done about the major disincentive to attendance of councils no smoking policy.
Perhaps if council were to spend less time blaming others, they would have time to remove their own disincentives to Heat attendance.
Season’s Greetings
Carole James Legacy
Watching the coverage of the challenge to Carole James’s leadership of the NDP and her resignation, the tone of the reporting gave one the impression that the dissenters within the NDP caucus were a tiny minority and that an overwhelming majority of the caucus supported James.
Until one does the math and finds that the 13 dissenting MLAs are 40% of the caucus. Thinking in terms of 40% of the caucus opposed to James’s leadership puts a quite different spin on her decision to resign rather than force the confrontation she had announced.
The irony is that James’s resignation ensures that James’s time as NDP leader will be remembered in a positive light, which is very different from what her legacy would be if she led the NDP into the next election and lost.
Several recent polls have suggested that the NDP winning the election in 2013 and forming the government was not the mere formality statements by NDP insiders and strategists declared it to be.
The fact that the best approval rating Carole James could achieve against an extremely unpopular Gordon Campbell (9% approval) was 26% suggests the electorate has serious questions about James’s ability and leadership, and that with Carole James as leader the 2013 election was a long way from a sure thing. Especially in light of the poll that put the Liberals under ‘anyone but Campbell’ in a virtual dead heat the Carole James led NDP.
In resigning now, James’s legacy is as the leader who took the party from its low point of 2 MLAs to a party poised to be crowned as BC’s governing party in 2013; a far different legacy than she would have if (when?) she led the NDP to failure and defeat in 2013.
I do not mean to belittle the job Carole James has done but I would assert that only a complete incompetent would have failed to win more than 2 seats in the election following the Liberal landslide in 2001 as the need to punish the NDP and the shiny newness of the Liberals under Campbell wore off.
The pundits within the NDP party speak of the 2013 election as James’s to lose – because of the anger with the liberals. I would like to remind the pundits that a realistic evaluation of the 2009 provincial election is that it was James’s to lose – because of all the negatives the Liberals carried into that election – and that James’s proceeded to lose that election.
Given that: a realistic evaluation of the outcome of the 2013 election, in light of a leadership change for the Liberal party with its opportunity for new direction, policies and to blame Campbell (who was ‘punished’ for his ‘crimes’ by losing the leadership and retiring from politics), is that with the doubts voters have about Carole James’s abilities and leadership James may well have lost another election (2013) that was considered ‘the NDP’s (or James’s) to lose’.
In resigning now James will be viewed as a leader who took the NDP from the wilderness of 2 seats to their current 34 seats and a party that is (was) a shoo-in to win in 2013. This legacy becomes even more golden should the Liberals rebound strongly and the NDP lose in 2013 (even though a loss in 2013 is not an improbable outcome should Carole James have remained leader).
As noted earlier there is a great deal of irony that in choosing to resign ‘for the good of the party’ Carole James will be remembered for her solid (excellent?) leadership of the NDP, with the question of the voting public’s doubts about James’s abilities and leadership being forgotten.
All because James was stabbed in the back she could shoot herself in the foot.
“villagers demand answers”
When I read that headline in a local paper it struck me as being more like the headline from a news report of flooding in the third world than in a city in BC.
It is a little concerning that Abbotsford’s mayor, an ex-school teacher and ex-principle, does not see a clear connection between cutting down trees; removing the ground cover; replacing the trees and ground cover with asphalt, concrete and acres of shingled roofs; and increased runoff.
It is also concerning that Abbotsford city council was unaware of the Agricultural Land Reserve and of the federal fisheries regulations concerning streams. After all, if council had been aware of the land reserve or fishery regulations they would have taken those restrictions into consideration when planning and approving development on the mountain wouldn’t they? That would be the prudent, common sense course of action would it not?
Surely if council had been aware of the land reserve and fishery restrictions and prudently taken those restrictions into consideration in planning and approving development on the mountain they would not now be using the land reserve and fishery regulations as excuses for not taking action to help citizens and remedy a problem they caused or significantly contributed to – would they?
Why is the mayor, council or anyone for that matter surprised that increased runoff has resulted in the stream bottom accumulating sediment? It would seem to me that the increased sediment in the stream is a symptom or supporting evidence of a runoff problem, not another convenient excuse for city council to do nothing.
The most mindboggling aspect of the report on the problems with flooding was the mayor’s statement: “The mountain hasn’t seen a lot of development in the past two or three years, but the flooding keeps happening.”
WHAT? Let me get this straight.
The city approved development without requiring any remedial action by the developers involved to compensate for the difference in runoff that occurs between land with trees, bush, grass and other assorted ground cover versus the same area covered with asphalt, concrete and shingled roofs.
The development took place, there was an increase in runoff that occurred after the development took place, this increase in runoff resulted in flooding for those located downhill from the development (hardly unexpected in light of the laws of gravity), city council has done nothing to address or remedy the flooding problems, and the mayor is surprised that the flooding hasn’t, somehow miraculously, stopped?
Moreover the mayor cites the fact that the flooding hasn’t stopped, even thought there has not been much new development, as ‘evidence’ that development is not causing runoff problems.
HUH?
The development caused increased runoff leading to flooding, nothing was done to address the issue/problem of extra runoff, why would Mayor Peary, or anyone, be surprised the flooding continued? Having done nothing to solve the problem of flooding why would you apparently (from your statement) expect the flooding to stop?
Expecting the flooding to stop when no action has been taken is illogical; to use the fact that, having done nothing to solve the flooding problem, the flooding continues as proof that the development had nothing to do with the flooding is……mindboggling and extremely concerning.
The responsible, thoughtful response would be to hold off approving the new development until the Integrated Stormwater Management Plan is prepared.
Why is it unlikely council will act responsibly and put the development on hold until the Plan is done?
Money.
Abbotsford has been so financially mismanaged that council desperately needs the development fees to fund their spend, spend, spendthrift ways.
No doubt the City will cry ‘we are to poor’ to take any action to address the flooding – even though council has unlimited funds when it comes to behaviours subsidizing the purchase of a professional hockey team by privileged, wealthy Abbotsford citizens.
Which in light of the revelations in the diplomatic documents released on WikiLeaks, is behaviour in keeping with that of a third world government.