Can someone please enlighten me as to why the building the RCMP had by the Highliner was stopped being used by the RCMP? What happened with that building, was it sold off then only to become a grow-op?
On a side note, I’ve always been curious what land/buildings in Rupert are city-owned. I don’t mean specific buildings/land I mean all property. Does anyone know where I can find that information?
I believe that building was leased and eventually North District moved to a less conspicuous location near Cow Bay. If I’m not mistaken, that building was purchased by outside “investors” and eventually turned into a grow op.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
… 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.[/quote]
There is an underlying need for the public to give permission before money can be borrowed because the law requires that. The Mayor and council can seek that permission either by holding a referendum or by having an alternative approval process.
The Mayor and council were completely free to put whatever question they wanted to a referendum or an alternative approval process. Nobody was standing in their way.
Instead they have left the issue to the RCMP and the Province, and failing agreement at that level the feds will decide on how to upgrade the current facility. In either case the City will pay for whatever is decided in Victoria or Ottawa. That’s rather pathetic.
The Mayor did not “hit the ground running” or “align the resources and opportunities to get results”. He and others on council kicked the can down the road so that others can make the tough decisions. Their mishandling of that important issue illustrates why there needs to be change.
I agree with you on the following:
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I especially want to see Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen.[/quote]
As for Mayor, like others I believe that the Jack Mussallem era has come to an end. Six years has been long enough. Another four would be too many.
Lee Brain lacks experience, but has struck a chord with a lot of people, particularly on the need for a more open and transparent approach to local government, where elected people talk to citizens rather than just assuming that they know what people think.
Vote for change.
I agree. Voting day is Saturday, November 15, from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM at the Civic Center. See you there.
P.S. You can also vote today at City Hall from 8:00-8:00 PM.
I am officially on the Brain Train. He’s vert smart and although he looks like a 12-year old, he speaks like a 15-year old, which is… well, anyway. He at least represents a change, and sometimes even a child can be more effective than the incumbent. And this I feel is true.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
… 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.[/quote]
There is an underlying need for the public to give permission before money can be borrowed because the law requires that. The Mayor and council can seek that permission either by holding a referendum or by having an alternative approval process.
The Mayor and council were completely free to put whatever question they wanted to a referendum or an alternative approval process. Nobody was standing in their way.
Instead they have left the issue to the RCMP and the Province, and failing agreement at that level the feds will decide on how to upgrade the current facility. In either case the City will pay for whatever is decided in Victoria or Ottawa. That’s rather pathetic.
The Mayor did not “hit the ground running” or “align the resources and opportunities to get results”. He and others on council kicked the can down the road so that others can make the tough decisions. Their mishandling of that important issue illustrates why there needs to be change.
I agree with you on the following:
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I especially want to see Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen.[/quote]
As for Mayor, like others I believe that the Jack Mussallem era has come to an end. Six years has been long enough. Another four would be too many.
Lee Brain lacks experience, but has struck a chord with a lot of people, particularly on the need for a more open and transparent approach to local government, where elected people talk to citizens rather than just assuming that they know what people think.
Vote for change.[/quote]
You and I have discussed this emergency services building referendum idea in the past and although sometimes we disagree, I believe we’re probably in agreement with most aspects of the issue. I also question why the project stopped dead in the water but in choosing between an referendum or alternate approval process, I’d choose the latter.
I’m unclear of your position on the mayoralty race. You initially seemed to be on the “Brain Train” and then indicated otherwise and agreed that Councillor may have been a better option. Now you mention his name exclusively when discussing a perceived need for change. No mention of the other candidates. Care to explain your position further?
Here is a question: if Brain fouls up, will he get a pass not afforded to the previous mayors because of his age?
A
Well I support people’s rights to hold political ralleys in public areas , I am in no ways a fan of political ralleys right in front of bust street corners and intersections where safety to pedestrians and drivers become a safety issue !!!
This age and lack of experience issue is getting really old… I for one expect that a lot of the things needed are going to take time, All I really seek is more more transparent fresh apporach.
I hope the Jack era comes to an end, although I have a lot of respect for the hard work done, a new start is needed. SGP and Brigillo do not represent a new start at all, so glad the Brain Train is getting stronger
I’d choose the former, but I think that we agree that the Mayor and council should have made a decision about the police station at least.
I checked the policing agreement again. As mentioned, since the City opted out of the decision-making, the issue defaults to the Province and if it does not act the feds will make necessary upgrades, and in either case the City will pay. Last I heard the police station will be upgraded rather than replaced.
I think that the Mayor and council should have taken the position that at a minimum the building needs to be upgraded and that will be costly, so it’s better to spend whatever more is needed to pay for a new building that will better meet long term needs. Either way there will be costs, a loan will be needed, and that will impact taxes.
Instead the Mayor and council did nothing. There was a total failure of leadership all around the table on a major issue. That illustrates why I think that there needs to be change.
Jack has served for three terms, and some of the councillors have been in for a long time as well. It’s time to let some new people show what they can do. Perhaps they can resolve some issues that the outgoing Mayor and council have failed to resolve.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I’m unclear of your position on the mayoralty race. You initially seemed to be on the “Brain Train” and then indicated otherwise and agreed that Councillor may have been a better option. Now you mention his name exclusively when discussing a perceived need for change. No mention of the other candidates. Care to explain your position further?[/quote]
Like others I have been ambivalent, particularly about Lee Brian; my thoughts have gone back and forth between the three alternative candidates.
Lee lacks experience, and I don’t like his idea of the City investing in alternative energy, which like the telecom business should be left to the private sector. On the other hand he has displayed organizational skills during the campaign. Whether talk the talk would translate into walk the walk if elected nobody knows. I don’t dismiss him, though, as a credible alternative to Jack.
Sheila and Tony have experience going for them and were capable councillors. I realize that some hospital people have issues with Sheila, but those are not my concerns. Like a lot of people I just go there on occasion and it does not strike me as a badly run, dysfunctional place.
In any event how a Mayor deals with the City’s union is far more important. I did not like the closed door, undisclosed deal with CUPE in 2013 (immediately after a community forum). That was another low point in this Mayor and council’s term of office. By law information about employee “position, functions or remuneration” is public (FIPPA s22(4)(e)). That deal should not have been hidden from the public.
I don’t care for Jack’s communications style (likewise a couple of the more popular councillors). I didn’t think that his letter to the Port and CN saying that they had ‘failed to meet commitments’ was a constructive way of doing things < thenorthernview.com/news/179688571.html >. I know that the Port was blindsided.
Sheila was right when she said that it is better to talk to people in person rather than send them letters through the newspaper. I think that Tony, Sheila and Lee (probably in that order) would better represent the City in meetings with stakeholders.
If there is one issue that would sway me between the three it is the ability to confidently manage finances. Jack is on record as saying that the City could go broke. Tony questions that and says that there needs to be a hard look at the City’s finances. The City has some major assets (to which I would add that Citywest is a major one) but he questions whether those assets are being put to best use and also whether debt is appropriately structured.
Dialogue is important, and there definitely needs to be greater commitment to transparency, but whoever is Mayor has got to come to grips with the finances. For me that’s the deciding factor. You can take that however you want.
Do candidates have to disclose the source of their campaign contributions, and if so is that before or after the election ?
Every dog has their day and Sheila, Jack and Tony have had their’s … With Sheila she represnts the so called “big 10” … can never see her looking out for the ordinary Joe.
I respect the work of Jack but his communication style I am so done with.
With Tony sorry although he has done much good work on the health care front sitting on the NH board in the past, there is too much histroy surrounding events that occured where he bite someone.
The only new start is lee and i was reluctant at first but the more I looked at his platform and spoke to him several times and how well did at the forum and bingo… Give the new young fellow his day too!
On the subject of replacing the cop shop and fire hall,sell the stupid ladder truck and the parking problems go away!Using it the attend fender benders or heart attacks makes no sense.As to the police station,we have too many cops.What in hell do they all do?And there has never been a instance where a new police station was built and the bill sent to the city,just scare tactics.
If you research that you will find that in BC if the municipal population is between 5000 and 14999 the municipality pays 70% of the operating cost and 100% of the cost of “accommodation” (station, jail, any other buildings).
Great question : I would think it was only if public funds are used? I hope someone out there has an answer for this
Voting continues today at City Hall until 8:00 PM. I voted at around 5:00 PM and noted a strong turn out.
[quote=“jamesbrown”]
Great question : I would think it was only if public funds are used? I hope someone out there has an answer for this[/quote]
Under the new Local Election Campaign Expenses Act 2014 every candidate has to file a financial report of contributions and expenses by 90 days after the election, including online. This replaces the reporting requirements under the Local Government Act.
Trivia Question: what are the names of the “big 10” also known as the “10 men”? I’m assuming that some of them are still alive.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Trivia Question: what are the names of the “big 10” also known as the “10 men”? I’m assuming that some of them are still alive.[/quote]
historically members of the Mason, Mclean, Smith, Payne, Scott and Greene and Bond families, always said to be in Lester’s back pocket as no competition was allowed for years that might compete with their businesses
Thank goodness times have changed but Rupert being closed for business is still thought to be so by many …
[quote=“jamesbrown”]
Trivia Question: what are the names of the “big 10” also known as the “10 men”? I’m assuming that some of them are still alive.
historically members of the Mason, Mclean, Smith, Payne, Scott and Bond families always said to be in Lester’s back pocket as no competition was allowed for years that might compete with their businesses
Thank goodness times have changed but Rupert being closed for business is still thought to be so by many …[/quote]
Yes, it was the big 6, not the big 10. My recollection is that Danny Bill was part of that group. You may also mean Manson and not Mason.