Well until the City provides us with the actual recording of Monday’s session, we’ll never really know whether Mr. Niesh was out of bounds or simply doing his job.
It’s a strange thing when a record of a council meeting suddenly goes MIA, it’s return would certainly help to clear up what so far is mostly the usual rumour mongering that is famous around town.
[quote=“CharlesMHays”]
Well until the City provides us with the actual recording of Monday’s session, we’ll never really know whether Mr. Niesh was out of bounds or simply doing his job.[/quote]
Agreed. I would also appreciate it if the City makes the recording available.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
This is an example of democracy not working …
No, this is an example of democracy working. Council members should speak their minds at the public meetings, and not just the closed meetings where its no doubt easier to speak with candor since the public is not listening in. Sometimes they will disagree, but debate is good. According to the viewpaper report councillor Cunningham also voted against the development.
Councillor Niesh was not in a conflict of interest just because he lives in that neighbourhood. A genuine conflict is where a council member uses their elected position to advance the interests of a business or association they are part of.
It sounds like some of councillor Niesh’s words were not well chosen, but if the developer is concerned they can have a lawyer write him a letter. I doubt that they will though.
It would be good to be able to confirm what he actually said and the context, but unfortunately the video is still not available < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … e-for.html >.
Most of the current council ran on platforms that included doing something about the rental housing situation, although with little detail about what exactly they wanted to do. If the council wants more low rent accommodation they’re the ones that need to come up with the plans and proposals. It’s not very realistic to expect the private sector to fulfill their election promises for them.[/quote]
My point about democracy not working pertains to the electorate making ill advised choices based on a supposed need for change. How many people think that AnnaA should have been ousted? It wasn’t malcontent that left her on the outside looking in, it was a system and a demand for change. One that left the only councillor left to have been part of the decision to spend anticipated Skeena Cell revenue for three years when it would never come. That, in my mind, is a failure of this system.
No, this is the will of the people. The current slate is what the people chose and I can live with that. I am very thankful that I live in a country where I have a say in who forms the government. If you don’t like what’s going on get involved: write letters, argue vigorously for the issues you care about, support a candidate that you believe in. You can even run for office. Democracy is a great thing.
[quote=“hitest”]
No, this is the will of the people. The current slate is what the people chose and I can live with that. I am very thankful that I live in a country where I have a say in who forms the government. If you don’t like what’s going on get involved: write letters, argue vigorously for the issues you care about, support a candidate that you believe in. You can even run for office. Democracy is a great thing.[/quote]
It was not the will of the people to oust Anna Ashley. It was an over zealous need to influence change. In that, the people took one of their most vocal change agents and put them to pasture while leaving the the only remaining member from the Herb Pond years and left us with a Council that is debating procedure and arguing with investors. We screwed ourselves over is what we did. Failure - of - democracy. I’m still a fan of the democratic process but this one bit us n the ass.
Argue viroriusly? I think I do that already. Run for office? Been there, done that.
[quote=“hitest”]
[quote=“CharlesMHays”]
Well until the City provides us with the actual recording of Monday’s session, we’ll never really know whether Mr. Niesh was out of bounds or simply doing his job.[/quote]
Agreed. I would also appreciate it if the City makes the recording available.[/quote]
From what I heard from a credible source. He called the property developers liars, and said they would likely back out of the deal to make it seniors housing.
As far as I’m aware, calling someone a liar, is slander.
[quote=“bubbasteve735”]
As far as I’m aware, calling someone a liar, is slander.[/quote]
That is something for the legal system to decide if a person feels that they have been wrongfully accused of something and they wish to pursue the matter.
[quote=“bubbasteve735”]
From what I heard from a credible source. He called the property developers liars, and said they would likely back out of the deal to make it seniors housing.
As far as I’m aware, calling someone a liar, is slander.[/quote]
Well… he did. I watched the video on YouTube, and now that video is gone.
Using the word “liar” is considered an unparliamentary language, and will get you kicked out of the legislature if you don’t retract.
[quote=“PLA”]
That is true. If said in Parliament or the provincial legislature the offending words may get an MP or MLA kicked out by the Speaker, but they will not result in a defamation suit because whatever is said in either legislature is privileged, which is why MPs and MLAs are sometimes challenged to repeat their words outside where privilege does not apply.
None of this applies to municipal council members, though, since they cannot invoke parliamentary privilege. They can sued for defamation just like anyone else, regardless of where they speak.
It is strange that the video has been taken off because it is really councillor Niesh’s problem, not the council’s. I have heard something about possible ‘technical problems’ but that does not sound credible.
The video is back; link plays at Niesh’s “liar” comment for your convenience: youtu.be/NNzf6qAYc8U?t=1h27m31s
Good to see the video finally released, should help clear up a good number of rumours about what happened last Monday night.
Three things:
Niesh was off base with his comments. I could see how there was a misunderstanding over what Brain said regarding the honesty of he developer, but calling the developer a liar and suggesting that this is the kind of person that the city shouldn’t do business with is just plain wrong.
Those speaking, especially the newer members, please move back from the mic. It’s distorting your speech.
Nelson Kinney is not active enough in discussion. He’s the longest serving member in Council and should be able to offer more in the way of guidance, thoughts or ideas.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]Three things:
Niesh was off base with his comments. I could see how there was a misunderstanding over what Brain said regarding the honesty of he developer, but calling the developer a liar and suggesting that this is the kind of person that the city shouldn’t do business with is just plain wrong.
Those speaking, especially the newer members, please move back from the mic. It’s distorting your speech.
Nelson Kinney is not active enough in discussion. He’s the longest serving member in Council and should be able to offer more in the way of guidance, thoughts or ideas.[/quote]
Niesh should issue a short, to the point retraction and apology at the next meeting, which should be recorded in the minutes.
[quote=“CharlesMHays”]
Good to see the video finally released, should help clear up a good number of rumours about what happened last Monday night.[/quote]
If you go before where this video starts at you will see more outburst from Niesh, including his “calling out” of the mayor.
[quote=“bthedog”]
Good to see the video finally released, should help clear up a good number of rumours about what happened last Monday night.
If you go before where this video starts at you will see more outburst from Niesh, including his “calling out” of the mayor.[/quote]
Other than perhaps some troublesome wording, I don’t actually have a problem with any Councillor challenging decisions that are made at City Council. It is kind of what we sent them there to do. And really is what democracy and transparency is all abouut.
Actually, we probably would be better served if more of the work of Council was discussed in such a fashion, though obviously without the accusatory nature of the conversation.
Hopefully, Councillor Niesh continues to express himself in Open Council, though I imagine in the future with a bit of thought to the words he chooses to use.
Even better, and of more importance, maybe the rest of the Council team will provide for a continued push to provide public comment on events that are important for all of us to know more about.
There is nothing wrong with debate and expressing ones opinions…but doing so in the matter in which he did was NOT the right move and does not cast a good light on this council or our city to would be investors.
His comments could be seen a damaging to the city’s reputation with potential investment…as taxpayers that is certainly something we should be concerned with…I hope he retracts at the next council meeting.
[quote=“bthedog”]There is nothing wrong with debate and expressing ones opinions…but doing so in the matter in which he did was NOT the right move and does not cast a good light on this council or our city to would be investors.
His comments could be seen a damaging to the city’s reputation with potential investment…as taxpayers that is certainly something we should be concerned with…I hope he retracts at the next council meeting.[/quote]
I understand the frustration the council member must be feeling given the current rental situation his actions are simply human. $1800 per month apartments I question how practical they are anyway
[quote=“jamesbrown”]
[quote=“bthedog”]There is nothing wrong with debate and expressing ones opinions…but doing so in the matter in which he did was NOT the right move and does not cast a good light on this council or our city to would be investors.
His comments could be seen a damaging to the city’s reputation with potential investment…as taxpayers that is certainly something we should be concerned with…I hope he retracts at the next council meeting.[/quote]
I understand the frustration the council member must be feeling given the current rental situation his actions are simply human. $1800 per month apartments I question how practical they are anyway[/quote]
Who cares if they are practical or not…that should have no bearing on whether the city decides to rezone the land. Whether these units are 180, 1800 or 18,000 per month should have no bearing. I wouldn’t pay 1800, but that doesn’t say there isn’t people out there who would and who cares anyways, it is their right and their choice to spend that much on housing, not mine and absolutely not councils. The selectivity of some on council on this project is truly ridiculous. These people are simply trying to build high-end 1 bedroom apartments for executives, end of story. Who cares if they don’t become senior housing down the line or not…why does that aspect change anything? It is not the private sectors job to allow for senior and low income housing.
If the city wants low income housing solved in this city, they should be selling their land at bottom barrel prices to developers willing to bring in this type of housing with restrictive covenants attached to the development.
These are 1 bedroom units, each with 1 parking spot…that is within the legal limits allowed by the city…they should be focusing on how much taxes they will be getting and less about whether or not if the city actually needs high income housing. The city collects under $100 per year right now with the church located there…they will collect probably close to 50K per year with the apartment complex. Furthermore, a new build like this will likely increase the property assessments for the surrounding area, resulting in further tax revenue for the city.
I am absolutely dumbfounded how two coucillors could oppose the rezoning…last time I checked this city was broke was it not?