Mayor Poll

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
41

[quote=“BTravenn”]

If a question goes to referendum and the electors say no that does not mean that the issue can never again be considered. The council is free to revise a proposed borrowing bylaw (or other decision that requires electoral approval) and/or do a better a job of providing information and take the question back to the electors.

Alternative approval processes are more appropriate for uncontentious issues, such as the landfill expansion, where electors are highly unlikely to disagree or even be concerned.

The problem is that some on council, especially Jack and Gina, seem to think that if the electors may oppose something that by law requires their approval, it’s best to circumvent that by using the alternative approval process to make it technically difficult for the electorate to express their disapproval. That has been a general theme with the Mussallem councils: the preferred course is to avoid public participation and transparency when the law permits.

That and the more democratic view, expressed by councillor Ashley to a lesser extent Thorkelson, are illustrated in this article, cited earlier: < thenorthernview.com/news/225981711.html >.

Lee Brain’s proposed town hall meetings are a good idea if the meetings support but do not pretend to take the place of more formal decision-making processes, by the council and when elector approval is required. The public could be involved in formulating issues and priorities for follow-up, and town halls could also have a role in better informing the public when issues require electoral approval. That way the council may be less inclined to use alternative approval to circumvent more democratic processes.[/quote]

Bottom line is that if things need to be done, they need to be done. It makes no sense to waste time and money in any referendum that will only complicate and hold up necessary projects and such. Let the people that are paid and elected to make decisions make them. I’m all for open communication to allow for feedback and sharing of ideas but we can’t let negative public opinion delay what needs to be done.

42

I agree with this. I went to the ACF with Sheila most likely being my vote and walked out of there seriously questioning her judgement. I did not like what she said about the downtown core (basically that the prosperity of the past is gone forever, we all shop online, so lets move on…WRONG answer). She was not prepared for two very valid questions. I do like that she is open for business (the mayor who wins should be open to EVERYTHING and entertain ALL avenues for tax revenues), but I just don’t know, I felt way less sure about her after the ACF…plus I just don’t think she has the universal support to sustain a win over Jack or Lee.

I doubt she gets much support from Northern Health workers (thats a huge section of voters), contractors (due to what happened with the building of her condo unit on 1st Ave by bringing in someone from out of town) or small business (after her downtown comments and her throwing the COC under the bus for not giving her the “right” questions before the ACF debate). She may have burned too many bridges to garner enough support, so I almost feel voting for her would be a vote from the 3rd or 4th place finisher.

43

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

If a question goes to referendum and the electors say no that does not mean that the issue can never again be considered. The council is free to revise a proposed borrowing bylaw (or other decision that requires electoral approval) and/or do a better a job of providing information and take the question back to the electors.

Alternative approval processes are more appropriate for uncontentious issues, such as the landfill expansion, where electors are highly unlikely to disagree or even be concerned.

The problem is that some on council, especially Jack and Gina, seem to think that if the electors may oppose something that by law requires their approval, it’s best to circumvent that by using the alternative approval process to make it technically difficult for the electorate to express their disapproval. That has been a general theme with the Mussallem councils: the preferred course is to avoid public participation and transparency when the law permits.

That and the more democratic view, expressed by councillor Ashley to a lesser extent Thorkelson, are illustrated in this article, cited earlier: < thenorthernview.com/news/225981711.html >.

Lee Brain’s proposed town hall meetings are a good idea if the meetings support but do not pretend to take the place of more formal decision-making processes, by the council and when elector approval is required. The public could be involved in formulating issues and priorities for follow-up, and town halls could also have a role in better informing the public when issues require electoral approval. That way the council may be less inclined to use alternative approval to circumvent more democratic processes.

Bottom line is that if things need to be done, they need to be done. It makes no sense to waste time and money in any referendum that will only complicate and hold up necessary projects and such. Let the people that are paid and elected to make decisions make them. I’m all for open communication to allow for feedback and sharing of ideas but we can’t let negative public opinion delay what needs to be done.[/quote]

After some thought, I fully agree with this. Townhalls are great and all…but at the end of the day do we REALLY need them? I am not so sure we do…and I worry that they would not necessarily be representative of what the people of this city want as we are likely to see LARGE portion of people not attend them…if Mr Brain is mayor, I am sure we will see a majority of his supporters show up to his townhalls and then the results of these townhalls could be seen as the “voice of the people” when really they would just be the voice of “Mr Brains supporters”.

44

[quote=“bthedog”]

After some thought, I fully agree with this. Townhalls are great and all…but at the end of the day do we REALLY need them? I am not so sure we do…and I worry that they would not necessarily be representative of what the people of this city want as we are likely to see LARGE portion of people not attend them…if Mr Brain is mayor, I am sure we will see a majority of his supporters show up to his townhalls and then the results of these townhalls could be seen as the “voice of the people” when really they would just be the voice of “Mr Brains supporters”.[/quote]

We definitely agree on this. I think that’s what happened at the forum. Lots of people came out to support Lee and booed Jack’s attempt to point out a lot of what he proposes to accomplish is impractical. The audience, which seemed Brain-leaning, does not necessarily make up the entire voting public. Was Jack rude? I think if Lee was 49 rather than 29 it wouldn’t have seemed that way. But the age disparity can work for and against both candidates, and this is where it worked for Lee – Jack was bullying the kid.

But again, Lee at least offers ideas – something I believe Jack is bereft of. I liek Jack’s ability to manage, and believe after the clear mismanagment of Herb Pond’s term, he was the right man to stop the funny business. Despite what some see as Jack’s aloofness, he has accomplished what he can with a council that doesn’t always want to work with him (some of that is definitely his own fault) and a budget that provides no wiggle room.

But core issues like budgets, tax increases, staff hirings and dismissals – whether or not we’ll ever have a bylaw officer again --are council decisions. The mayor needs to be the face of the city and be able to sell the city to investors – while standing up for all of its citizens. Jack could stand to do a better job on that end, and its where I do see Lee fitting in better to that role. It’s why right now Lee has my vote… for now.

45

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

Bottom line is that if things need to be done, they need to be done. It makes no sense to waste time and money in any referendum that will only complicate and hold up necessary projects and such. [/quote]

Yes, but what about the projects that may not be necessary or could be done a different way or are not affordable to taxpayers? Referendum decisions are typically about borrowing decisions that will saddle a municipality and its’ taxpayers with long term debt.

I don’t think the Clark government is about repeal section 85 of the Community Charter, which provides for approval by referendum. So if you want a Mayor who will ensure that no questions will ever be put to the electors at a referendum then Jack is indeed your man.

46

I have a couple of articles to share about the importance, concerns and limitations of public opinion in political decision making.

britannica.com/EBchecked/top … government

uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/arti … ssberg.pdf

pced.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/pced … load/51/47

47

[quote=“bthedog”]

After some thought, I fully agree with this. Townhalls are great and all…but at the end of the day do we REALLY need them? I am not so sure we do…and I worry that they would not necessarily be representative of what the people of this city want as we are likely to see LARGE portion of people not attend them…if Mr Brain is mayor, I am sure we will see a majority of his supporters show up to his townhalls and then the results of these townhalls could be seen as the “voice of the people” when really they would just be the voice of “Mr Brains supporters”.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that if you attend any of Mayor Lee Brain’s town hall meetings you will speak up and bring balance to the discussion.

48

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

Bottom line is that if things need to be done, they need to be done. It makes no sense to waste time and money in any referendum that will only complicate and hold up necessary projects and such. [/quote]

Yes, but what about the projects that may not be necessary or could be done a different way or are not affordable to taxpayers? Referendum decisions are typically about borrowing decisions that will saddle a municipality and its’ taxpayers with long term debt.

I don’t think the Clark government is about repeal section 85 of the Community Charter, which provides for approval by referendum. So if you want a Mayor who will ensure that no questions will ever be put to the electors at a referendum then Jack is indeed your man.[/quote]

I believe that I may have answered your question earlier when I touched on projects like a second sheet of ice or a new pool for example. There is a fine line in there somewhere and it’s my opinion that with items like the airport improvement and a potential new emergency services building, that Council has not crossed it. Section 86 supports this.

49

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“bthedog”]

After some thought, I fully agree with this. Townhalls are great and all…but at the end of the day do we REALLY need them? I am not so sure we do…and I worry that they would not necessarily be representative of what the people of this city want as we are likely to see LARGE portion of people not attend them…if Mr Brain is mayor, I am sure we will see a majority of his supporters show up to his townhalls and then the results of these townhalls could be seen as the “voice of the people” when really they would just be the voice of “Mr Brains supporters”.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that if you attend any of Mayor Lee Brain’s town hall meetings you will speak up and bring balance to the discussion.[/quote]

The point is that I shouldn’t be expected to show up in the first place. Some people do not have time to attend these things. This does not mean their opinion matters less. Many business people would never attend a townhall and voice their opinions openly, its too political and could damage their reputations and impede their business activity. Policy and decisions should not be made through the basis of a townhall meeting.

There is a reason why we elect people to make decisions without the use of such things as town halls/referendums ect.

50

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
But core issues like budgets, tax increases, staff hirings and dismissals – whether or not we’ll ever have a bylaw officer again --are council decisions. The mayor needs to be the face of the city and be able to sell the city to investors – while standing up for all of its citizens. Jack could stand to do a better job on that end, and its where I do see Lee fitting in better to that role. It’s why right now Lee has my vote… for now.[/quote]

The opposite could be argued as well…that an inexperienced person who has no prior history of dealing with business and no education in the field of business/commerce/tax and has no previous municipal law experience would also not make the best “face of our city”.

Experienced investors could be nervous investing with someone who could be described as having no real experience in dealing with municipal law or business/commerce.

Experience/stability brings investor confidence.

51

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I believe that I may have answered your question earlier when I touched on projects like a second sheet of ice or a new pool for example. There is a fine line in there somewhere and it’s my opinion that with items like the airport improvement and a potential new emergency services building, that Council has not crossed it. Section 86 supports this.[/quote]

Section 86 is neutral and doesn’t support or oppose any particular issue being “decided” through an alternative approval process rather than a referendum. It is left as a discretion of the council. How they handle that discretion is a consideration that voters may take into account when they decide who to vote for.

I agree that there is a fine line between borrowing decisions where the electors are unlikely to have a problem, and those where they feel that they should be given a say through a referendum.

I don’t think the airport loan was particularly contentious because the airport will be making the payments on behalf of the City. There is some risk in that the City and ultimately its’ taxpayers are liable, but probably not a big one. That being said a referendum could have been held at the same time as the by-election.

Your examples of a second sheet of ice or a new pool, which may be viewed as “luxuries”, are good examples of where the electorate may disagree, so there should be a referendum.

The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum.

The current Mayor appears to be opposed to a referendum under any circumstances. There seems to be some underlying fear that the public will make the “wrong” decision. But we are ultimately talking about how much taxes citizens will pay to service debt on extraordinary items. I do not see how there can be any philosophical objection to voters having a say about expenditures that a subsequent council cannot undo.

If the electors turn down a loan bylaw, that would not be the end of the story. The City would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more likely to be acceptable. Maybe, for instance, a new fire hall would be acceptable as part of the package, or maybe not. There is nothing that says that a loan proposal cannot be revised and brought back, either at a second referendum or for alternative approval if there appears to be public support.

The other objection is the cost of a referendum, which is apparently about $10-15,000. There is a strange catch-22 there. That cost could have been reduced considerably if the council had agreed to voting machines, as recommended by then CFO Dan Rodin (in 2009 if I recall). But they rejected that because fewer election workers would be needed. But because voting is hence more costly a referendum is too costly.

Relative to the cost of any of these multi-million dollar projects a referendum is not very expensive. The Mayor and some councillors may have to forego their annual appearances in the 4th of July parade in Ketchikan.

As things turned out a decision was not made on the emergency services building. Instead, the Mayor and council kicked the can down the road. That negates the third objection to a referendum, which is the time that it takes. The City could have held several votes on the emergency building since they deferred the decision.

Eventually, though, the RCMP can and will upgrade the facility to meet current standards and send the City an invoice which it will have to pay under the municipal policing agreement (a copy is online). There will be no choice in the matter.

So instead of putting questions to the electors to make a decision one way or the other, or to provide guidance, the Mayor and council have passed on the decision to the federal government, and the taxpayers will pay accordingly without any say in the matter. Hopefully the next Mayor and council will correct this.

52

Allowing the rest of us to be part of the decision making process sounds great but is it really a good idea? Not all of us are reasonable and not all of us take the time or have the the ability to find out all of the facts before making a decision, making public involvement a scary proposition. In particular, I believe that Jack was right on the money in supporting an alternate approval process for the airport improvements and for a new emergency services building. Although only one is moving forward, both needed to be done and when things need to happen, council cannot be bogged down by referendums and the possibility that projects will become kiboshed. There is a team of well paid, dedicated staff as well as 7 Council members elected who are informed and in a position to make tough decisions. If it were for a luxury like a second sheet of ice or a new pool, sure… Let’s see what the masses want, but for core services and supporting something like the airport, I don’t believe we need to get involved. I haven’t heard a single mention of having a referendum as to whether we should spend $9 million to expand the landfill.[/quote]

You might be reading more into what I said. I am not looking for a referendum on any core issue. That is the job of our elected officials. They can seek out advice from anybody - their own conscience, each other, city staff, experts in the field, their family and friends or purportedly of Mackenzie King our longest serving Prime Minister, through seances with his dead mother. I have no problem with giving up my decision making power to the people we elect.

I wasn’t very clear. I think a monthly town hall meeting might be overly ambitious. I am not opposed to the idea of monthly, but a town hall meeting in the fall, winter and spring may be sufficient.

[quote=“bthedog”] The point is that I shouldn’t be expected to show up in the first place. Some people do not have time to attend these things. This does not mean their opinion matters less. Many business people would never attend a townhall and voice their opinions openly, its too political and could damage their reputations and impede their business activity. Policy and decisions should not be made through the basis of a townhall meeting.

There is a reason why we elect people to make decisions without the use of such things as town halls/referendums ect.[/quote]

You (and crazytrain) and I have a different perception of a town hall meeting. I certainly don’t see it as a decision making body nor do I necessarily see as a bitch and complain session. A town hall meeting can be something as simple as allowing citizens and council an opportunity to exchange information/ideas. Some town hall meetings could have single item agendas. e.g water front access where we bring ideas/suggestions to council with the purpose of working together for a shared cause. Out of that town hall meeting a committee could be formed of volunteers with one councillor as liaison to develop a plan of some kind to move forward.

Maybe I am too utopian, maybe it wouldn’t work, but I see this town full of volunteers that are willing to make this community a better place. Rather than being divisive, would hope that town halls bring people together to solve problems.

53

[quote=“bthedog”]

The point is that I shouldn’t be expected to show up in the first place. Some people do not have time to attend these things. This does not mean their opinion matters less. Many business people would never attend a townhall and voice their opinions openly, its too political and could damage their reputations and impede their business activity. Policy and decisions should not be made through the basis of a townhall meeting.

There is a reason why we elect people to make decisions without the use of such things as town halls/referendums ect.[/quote]

Look, I’m not a big proponent of town halls. I just don’t dismiss them as a bad idea. If you don’t want to attend, don’t attend. I probably won’t be there either. No decisions will be made because town halls are not provided for in the Community Charter. The intent is to consult with constituents.

Consultation is an integral part of government, at all levels. Smart politicians take advantage of opportunities to listen to what constituents think, and to get their message out. That happens apart from formal decision-making processes and party decision-making where that applies.

Municipal government is no different. Whether it’s town hall meetings or something else local politicians should be creating opportunities to talk to and listen to constituents, and not just their friends either.

I sometimes wonder, by the way, whether the current Mayor and Council take advantage of consultation opportunities, for instance when federal and provincial ministers are in town. I think that Mayor Brain will make a point of taking advantage of those opportunities. That’s one of the few areas where I think that he would be quite good. He is well spoken and can present himself well. No one will expect to him to be a business/commerce or law expert. Mayors are politicians; they represent their communities.

54

[quote=“DWhite”]

I wasn’t very clear. I think a monthly town hall meeting might be overly ambitious. I am not opposed to the idea of monthly, but a town hall meeting in the fall, winter and spring may be sufficient.

.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarifier. I think one in the spring, fall and winter would be nice.

I also wonder why the local CBC can’t put this on? Carolina DeRike (sp?) put on a heck of an LNG show that let a lot people exchange ideas. I’m sure if somone proposed a regular CBC show once every three months that would bring more people out. And it would be neutral. Maybe have Shaun Thomas and Martina Perry be commentators and talk about some of the issues in the city. (this is a wild idea, but at least it might be politicially neutral)

55

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“bthedog”]

The point is that I shouldn’t be expected to show up in the first place. Some people do not have time to attend these things. This does not mean their opinion matters less. Many business people would never attend a townhall and voice their opinions openly, its too political and could damage their reputations and impede their business activity. Policy and decisions should not be made through the basis of a townhall meeting.

There is a reason why we elect people to make decisions without the use of such things as town halls/referendums ect.[/quote]

Look, I’m not a big proponent of town halls. I just don’t dismiss them as a bad idea. If you don’t want to attend, don’t attend. I probably won’t be there either. No decisions will be made because town halls are not provided for in the Community Charter. The intent is to consult with constituents.

Consultation is an integral part of government, at all levels. Smart politicians take advantage of opportunities to listen to what constituents think, and to get their message out. That happens apart from formal decision-making processes and party decision-making where that applies.

Municipal government is no different. Whether it’s town hall meetings or something else local politicians should be creating opportunities to talk to and listen to constituents, and not just their friends either.

I sometimes wonder, by the way, whether the current Mayor and Council take advantage of consultation opportunities, for instance when federal and provincial ministers are in town. I think that Mayor Brain will make a point of taking advantage of those opportunities. That’s one of the few areas where I think that he would be quite good. He is well spoken and can present himself well. No one will expect to him to be a business/commerce or law expert. Mayors are politicians; they represent their communities.[/quote]

That’s another reason Shelly Gordon Pain lost a lot of my respect at ACF. She seemed really intent on welcoming industry without reservation. No respect for the environment, no understanding of social issues and no grasp at how to encourage small business. In fact she buried small business. The backbone of any healthy community, and she outright writes it off as a passe, quaint cottage industry. I wasn’t expecting that. She might have the money to fly down to Vancouver whenver she pleases to do her shopping, but people I know would rather have some local options.

I want a mayor who a). family doesn’t own a building downtown and b). wants to work on bringing small business back. It might be that landlords want the stable LNG office to take up all of the retail space. But then we won’t have Little Anchors or Fishskin Fabric. We now have a place to buy lingerie!! (for my wife only, kids :smile: )

And with that, I think I need to apologize to that guy Baker. Maybe his question wasn’t off base. He did kill the Daily News. But that was four years ago. I suppose, time to let go :'(

56

I have been following the discussions in this forum and have not heard a persuasive argument for any of the candidates, so I went to each candidates web site.
First Lee Brain. He sure has done a lot of studying and involving. It reminds me of someone learning how to fly a plane from a book without ever having got in a plane. I don’t know if I want to be his first passenger. Having knowledge and using it (the practical part) are two different things, and I’m not really sure of his real agenda.
Next Sheila Gordon-Payne, lots of political platitudes and rhetoric, and her insistent reviewing, meaning I don’t have many new ideas of my own. Her appearance at the forum reminded me of someone who likes to blame others when things don’t go her way, bordering on vindictive. Just rubs me the wrong way.
Continuing, Jack Mussallem. I must say that Jack deserves a heartfelt thank you from the citizens of this city for trying to hold this town together in the face of extremely turbulent times. The thing that really bothers me about Jack is his and councils handling of Watson Island. It just continues to confound me.
Then there’s Tony Briglio. I don’t know much about Toni so I googled him and came across this interview.

cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/2014/10 … y-briglio/

I must say his message hit a cord with me. It has a decisive tone, has a direction and a goal. Is it perfect no, but it gave me pause to reflect on issues I haven’t considered and that’s what I want in a leader (because that’s what I want my Mayor to be a leader) My personal opinion is that Tony doesn’t tolerate stupid, but then who does?
Maybe some of the other candidates will come up with something new for me to reflect on. I’ll be waiting.

57

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I believe that I may have answered your question earlier when I touched on projects like a second sheet of ice or a new pool for example. There is a fine line in there somewhere and it’s my opinion that with items like the airport improvement and a potential new emergency services building, that Council has not crossed it. Section 86 supports this.[/quote]

Section 86 is neutral and doesn’t support or oppose any particular issue being “decided” through an alternative approval process rather than a referendum. It is left as a discretion of the council. How they handle that discretion is a consideration that voters may take into account when they decide who to vote for.

I agree that there is a fine line between borrowing decisions where the electors are unlikely to have a problem, and those where they feel that they should be given a say through a referendum.

I don’t think the airport loan was particularly contentious because the airport will be making the payments on behalf of the City. There is some risk in that the City and ultimately its’ taxpayers are liable, but probably not a big one. That being said a referendum could have been held at the same time as the by-election.

Your examples of a second sheet of ice or a new pool, which may be viewed as “luxuries”, are good examples of where the electorate may disagree, so there should be a referendum.

The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum.

The current Mayor appears to be opposed to a referendum under any circumstances. There seems to be some underlying fear that the public will make the “wrong” decision. But we are ultimately talking about how much taxes citizens will pay to service debt on extraordinary items. I do not see how there can be any philosophical objection to voters having a say about expenditures that a subsequent council cannot undo.

If the electors turn down a loan bylaw, that would not be the end of the story. The City would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more likely to be acceptable. Maybe, for instance, a new fire hall would be acceptable as part of the package, or maybe not. There is nothing that says that a loan proposal cannot be revised and brought back, either at a second referendum or for alternative approval if there appears to be public support.

The other objection is the cost of a referendum, which is apparently about $10-15,000. There is a strange catch-22 there. That cost could have been reduced considerably if the council had agreed to voting machines, as recommended by then CFO Dan Rodin (in 2009 if I recall). But they rejected that because fewer election workers would be needed. But because voting is hence more costly a referendum is too costly.

Relative to the cost of any of these multi-million dollar projects a referendum is not very expensive. The Mayor and some councillors may have to forego their annual appearances in the 4th of July parade in Ketchikan.

As things turned out a decision was not made on the emergency services building. Instead, the Mayor and council kicked the can down the road. That negates the third objection to a referendum, which is the time that it takes. The City could have held several votes on the emergency building since they deferred the decision.

Eventually, though, the RCMP can and will upgrade the facility to meet current standards and send the City an invoice which it will have to pay under the municipal policing agreement (a copy is online). There will be no choice in the matter.

So instead of putting questions to the electors to make a decision one way or the other, or to provide guidance, the Mayor and council have passed on the decision to the federal government, and the taxpayers will pay accordingly without any say in the matter. Hopefully the next Mayor and council will correct this.[/quote]

You’re right, Council can elect to use section 86 and we now are judging them for it. I like their discretion in the discussed instances and I support what they’ve done. My votes on Nov 15 will reflect that.

You said "The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum."

By your statement you suggest that the expense is needed and the money will be spent but also suggest that it should go to referendum. Why? We all know that this building, in your words, is overdue for replacement and below standards, so why do we risk having the electorate say no when in the end it’s going to be done anyways?

58

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

You’re right, Council can elect to use section 86 and we now are judging them for it. I like their discretion in the discussed instances and I support what they’ve done. My votes on Nov 15 will reflect that.

You said "The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum."

By your statement you suggest that the expense is needed and the money will be spent but also suggest that it should go to referendum. Why? We all know that this building, in your words, is overdue for replacement and below standards, so why do we risk having the electorate say no when in the end it’s going to be done anyways?[/quote]

You might want to re-think your support for the way the current Mayor and council handled the emergency services building issue because unfortunately your main premise is incorrect. The RCMP will not be building a new emergency services building, which everyone knows is needed, and sending the invoice to the City.

If that was the situation there would not be much point in having a referendum because the only alternative to borrowing the money would be a significant tax increase.

The RCMP will be upgrading the existing building to meet their current standards. They do not have authority to provide for other emergency services.

There were (and still are) other possibilities each with different costs. Rather than upgrading the existing police station a new building could be constructed that would have a longer lifespan and be better suited to longer term needs. A site across the street was considered. A new fire hall could have been treated as a separate project with its own schedule and loan financing.

Another alternative was to combine the two facilities into one new emergency services building. That would have been the most expensive, but should have provided more bang for the buck compared to building separate facilities. Mr Rodin sketched out these various scenarios.

If there had been a referendum the electors would have provided direction. If a combined emergency services building was rejected as too expensive, that would not have been the end of the issue. The Mayor and council could have developed plans to build separate police and fire facilities, probably spaced a few (or more than a few) years apart and either taken that to another referendum or used an alternative approval process if the best way forward was clear.

Instead the Mayor and council made no decision, at least in part because they could not agree on whether to have a referendum. Upgrading the police station will be left to the RCMP and the City will pay whatever it costs, while the idea of a new fire hall seems to have fallen off the agenda entirely.

It’s fine to say that the electors voted in a Mayor and council so they should make all of the decisions, but sometimes the elected officials, for whatever reasons, fail to make decisions. They may be genuinely stuck. As well as satisfying statutory requirements under the Community Charter, a referendum can provide direction from the voters, particularly on big ticket items.

59

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

You’re right, Council can elect to use section 86 and we now are judging them for it. I like their discretion in the discussed instances and I support what they’ve done. My votes on Nov 15 will reflect that.

You said "The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum."

By your statement you suggest that the expense is needed and the money will be spent but also suggest that it should go to referendum. Why? We all know that this building, in your words, is overdue for replacement and below standards, so why do we risk having the electorate say no when in the end it’s going to be done anyways?[/quote]

You might want to re-think your support for the way the current Mayor and council handled the emergency services building issue because unfortunately your main premise is incorrect. The RCMP will not be building a new emergency services building, which everyone knows is needed, and sending the invoice to the City.

If that was the situation there would not be much point in having a referendum because the only alternative to borrowing the money would be a significant tax increase.

The RCMP will be upgrading the existing building to meet their current standards. They do not have authority to provide for other emergency services.

There were (and still are) other possibilities each with different costs. Rather than upgrading the existing police station a new building could be constructed that would have a longer lifespan and be better suited to longer term needs. A site across the street was considered. A new fire hall could have been treated as a separate project with its own schedule and loan financing.

Another alternative was to combine the two facilities into one new emergency services building. That would have been the most expensive, but should have provided more bang for the buck compared to building separate facilities. Mr Rodin sketched out these various scenarios.

If there had been a referendum the electors would have provided direction. If a combined emergency services building was rejected as too expensive, that would not have been the end of the issue. The Mayor and council could have developed plans to build separate police and fire facilities, probably spaced a few (or more than a few) years apart and either taken that to another referendum or used an alternative approval process if the best way forward was clear.

Instead the Mayor and council made no decision, at least in part because they could not agree on whether to have a referendum. Upgrading the police station will be left to the RCMP and the City will pay whatever it costs, while the idea of a new fire hall seems to have fallen off the agenda entirely.

It’s fine to say that the electors voted in a Mayor and council so they should make all of the decisions, but sometimes the elected officials, for whatever reasons, fail to make decisions. They may be genuinely stuck. As well as satisfying statutory requirements under the Community Charter, a referendum can provide direction from the voters, particularly on big ticket items.[/quote]

Oh I cant thank you enough i had forgotten about this issue

I keep hoping the Jacko era is almost over and we have at least 50% new people on council

60

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

You’re right, Council can elect to use section 86 and we now are judging them for it. I like their discretion in the discussed instances and I support what they’ve done. My votes on Nov 15 will reflect that.

You said "The real issue here is the emergency services building. It would (will) be a major expense. The current lockup is below standards. Meanwhile, the fire department’s facilities are overdue for replacement (and everyone supports the fire department, right).

There is no clear or obvious way forward on this. There are alternative courses of action. That is another example of the kind of decision that should go to a referendum."

By your statement you suggest that the expense is needed and the money will be spent but also suggest that it should go to referendum. Why? We all know that this building, in your words, is overdue for replacement and below standards, so why do we risk having the electorate say no when in the end it’s going to be done anyways?[/quote]

You might want to re-think your support for the way the current Mayor and council handled the emergency services building issue because unfortunately your main premise is incorrect. The RCMP will not be building a new emergency services building, which everyone knows is needed, and sending the invoice to the City.

If that was the situation there would not be much point in having a referendum because the only alternative to borrowing the money would be a significant tax increase.

The RCMP will be upgrading the existing building to meet their current standards. They do not have authority to provide for other emergency services.

There were (and still are) other possibilities each with different costs. Rather than upgrading the existing police station a new building could be constructed that would have a longer lifespan and be better suited to longer term needs. A site across the street was considered. A new fire hall could have been treated as a separate project with its own schedule and loan financing.

Another alternative was to combine the two facilities into one new emergency services building. That would have been the most expensive, but should have provided more bang for the buck compared to building separate facilities. Mr Rodin sketched out these various scenarios.

If there had been a referendum the electors would have provided direction. If a combined emergency services building was rejected as too expensive, that would not have been the end of the issue. The Mayor and council could have developed plans to build separate police and fire facilities, probably spaced a few (or more than a few) years apart and either taken that to another referendum or used an alternative approval process if the best way forward was clear.

Instead the Mayor and council made no decision, at least in part because they could not agree on whether to have a referendum. Upgrading the police station will be left to the RCMP and the City will pay whatever it costs, while the idea of a new fire hall seems to have fallen off the agenda entirely.

It’s fine to say that the electors voted in a Mayor and council so they should make all of the decisions, but sometimes the elected officials, for whatever reasons, fail to make decisions. They may be genuinely stuck. As well as satisfying statutory requirements under the Community Charter, a referendum can provide direction from the voters, particularly on big ticket items.[/quote]

I never said anywhere that I supported how the entire issue was handled. What I question is the need for a referendum. The publics insistence in being involved created confusion and differences in opinion on how this issue should be resolved. Everyone knows it needs replacement, the question is how do we go about doing that? You’re right, this will likely lead to the province building a facility for the rcmp and sending the city an invoice. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s a difficult and precarious position for our elected officials. Do nothing, lose control and have the province build a facility for the rcmp, go through the alternate approval process, hold a referendum on whether to borrow to do it and very likely have the electorate turn borrowing and subsequent tax increase down resulting in the need to go through the alternate approval process anyways. No matter what approach they take they’re likely to upset a good portion of the electorate. But in the end, buildings need to be replaced. End of story. By your comments earlier you, as many others do, recognize that we need new buildings. So why do you feel the need to reaffirm that with a referendum? The consensus seems to be that we need them but yet there’s an underlying need to give permission to do so.