One can only wonder were exactly the heads of our local politicians are buried with reference to their proposed capital projects. A sports/entertainment center, another recreation/community center and a museum/art gallery. Do not get me wrong; these are all facilities that our city can use. In fact, it is only because our local government has demonstrated an inability to properly plan and manage growth and development that these facilities do not currently exist. Which means they will be built at a cost millions of dollars higher than it would have cost with a well thought-out and managed capital building plan.

I would love to see a properly designed multi-use pool built in the city as part of a recreation/community centre. Of course with the city’s track record on building capital projects the citizens are not very likely to get either a well designed venue or good cost management, maximizing our bang for the buck, on any city (mis)managed project. However I have a sense of priorities. When you choose to proceed with only 3 projects, you have to set priorities, not just choosing popular projects. Excuse me, I should say that it should mean not just going with popularity as the way of choosing projects to proceed with. Unfortunately it appears that the city has done this.

As much as I would wish for a new pool, I can see more important needs. The old library in downtown Abbotsford desperately needs replacement. Not only is it inadequate in size, but when the staff warns users not to plug in their laptops because the electrical system cannot be trusted not to fry them – it is time to replace the building. A library may not be a “sexy” project but for students, people needing access to the internet, research, literacy programs, encouraging young people to read and supporting the general public in reading it is a priority. A new library is long overdue.

Perhaps it is that because any new library would fall under the Fraser Valley Regional Library that it lacked any champions at City Hall to point out that a library should be a priority. Or perhaps it is just that those in parks, recreation and culture were much better at political infighting – since all three projects fall under their control. What is clear is that there should have been public discussion and debate about our city’s priorities before any decision on which three projects the city should proceed with, since it is clear from their three choices that neither city management or our elected local politicians have any sense of proper priorities for our City. Of course this would have required leadership and vision, qualities that seem non-existent in our local government on a wide range of social, development, growth and capital projects issues.