[quote=“BTravenn”]CBC Daybreak interviewed all four mayoralty candidates. An overview and links can be found on North Coast Review: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ction.html >.
There were some rather marked differences between the candidates, in style and what they talked about. I haven’t heard Sheila or Tony for a long while. They are both experienced managers and that is how they came across to me.
Among other things, Tony talked about how the council should not rely on ‘false hopes’. The City should manage its’ finances as they are rather than assuming that proposed projects will be going ahead.
Sheila mentioned the importance of attending to basics, eg having a swimming pool that has water in it. With reference to jurisdiction she talked about how the council should ensure that it is giving priority to issues that actually help the community. She also talked about the council having periodic ‘scorecards’ on its’ performance.
I don’t think that either Jack and Lee had good days.
Jack’s delivery was quite halting and staccato. In answer to a question (the audio is a bit hard to follow at times) about why the City boycotted the Pinnacle Pellet environmental assessment he said that the project was going ahead anyway, whether the City participated or not. But an EA is intended to address stakeholder concerns and set conditions, whether a project goes ahead or not. It was a strange …response.
Concerning Watson Island, Jack said that the council had been working ‘diligently’ (a word he used repeatedly) to find a “credible entity” to take over the facility. Outfits like Petronas, BG Group and Imperial are certainly ‘credible’; they are well known with histories and established track records. Watson Island LNG has no history or track record at all that anyone is aware of. It’s hard to call an unknown entity ‘credible’.
Lee talked about staying within jurisdiction, but then spoke about community partnerships to develop sustainable energy, such as wind or geothermal, particularly if LNG does not go ahead. He said that $700K to $2 million a year could be generated. It sounds too much like a Citywest scheme to me. The City has tied up $30+ million in that investment, and it was supposed to pay $2 million a year in dividends. Citywest has repaid some interest-free debt, but has not paid a dividend in years.
Sustainable energy is a really good idea … for the private sector to pursue; not a City government that has trouble filling the swimming pool and issues boil water advisories.
Lee also talked about doing a third party audit, but I don’t see the point of that either. The City has third party audits, as required by the section 167(4) of the Community Charter. I don’t know where he’s coming from on that.[/quote]
I agree with you on many points Lee loses me on developing sustainable energy we cannot afford another city west been there done it and we can’t afford it again… I am once again pondering my vote as too much time spent on that will take away from what really needs to be done…
I honestly found that Tony’s and Sheila’s platforms made the most sense. Tony’s mentioning of health care concerns was good. Sheila’s sticking to basics and making the city liveable plus the fact she already manages a budget larger than the size of the city’s budget. Jack’s platform I got a bit lost but I know that a great deal of work has been done by him over his several terms, and we have come a long way since the mill shut down.
I still wish Lee was running for Councillor under the direction of one of the 3 experienced, he would make a great Councillor, however it is a great experience to be running regardless of outcome. I will need to hear more before deciding. His connection with Jennifer Rice even though they are both new i still think is a very strong point plus he talks more about the rental housing crisis. He needs to slow down delivery what he is presenting as some points felt disjointed and unclear, but that comes with experience the other 3 are just more polished. It’s going to be interesting