Municipal, Snafu

Abbotsford council votes to turn Essendene into virtual parking lot.

Leave a comment

Bob Bos was correct about one point concerning the proposed changes to Essendene Avenue – it is a “no-brainer”.

Any city councillor who would and did vote for this has no brain. Or alternatively has a brain but is brain-dead.

Essendene is the major connector for traffic travelling from the west side of Abbotsford to the east side of Abbotsford accessed via Old Yale Road for the simple reason there is no other even semi-convenient route from between west and east.

Say what you will about city staff, at least they had the common sense to recognize that with approximately 16,000 vehicles a day using Essendene cutting the number of lanes in half (from two in each direction to one each way) is a recipe for monumental daily day long traffic jam.

Not to mention the problems and congestion it cause on other streets and at other intersections as people seek routes to avoid a 30 plus minute traffic crawl through downtown old Abbotsford.

Bos stated “It looks busy with four lanes. Three lanes gives the impression of less traffic and will create a change in atmosphere.”

It does not just look busy it is busy. And that is with two lanes in each direction. Reducing traffic to one lane in each direction is not going to give the impression of less traffic – it is going to give the impression of a parking lot,

I do concede it will create a change in atmosphere. Although why Mr. Bos and city council feel the need to provoke road rage in downtown old Abbotsford …

“The two-block area of Essendene has more than a half-dozen vacancies and Bos said the lane alteration will change that.”

It will definitely change that. I am just not sure why city council or Mr. Bos think increasing the vacancy rate in the downtown core by driving the customers downtown businesses depend on to stay in business away from the downtown is a good idea?

Creating the planned traffic nightmare will cause those who absolutely do not have to go downtown to avoid downtown and cause those who have to pass through the downtown area to be focused on getting through the traffic jam ASAP, not on spending more time in backed up traffic by stopping downtown.

Apparently council feels they have not created enough fiscal problems for the city and feel compelled to waste $533,000.00 turning downtown into a disaster area.

Given the ruination council has brought about in city finances this is not only fiscally irresponsible behaviour, it is reckless and reprehensible behaviour.

Council does not have the money to do needed road maintenance but can find funds for this? Just what is council planning to cut from the budget to pay for this fecklessness? More fireman?

I would suggest that the salaries of those councillors who voted to turn Essendene into a virtual parking lot be used to pay for this debacle.

It is well past time council be held responsible for their irresponsible behaviours.

Consider, Federal

Local Television – a Sunset Industry?

Leave a comment

I was watching a favourite show the other evening when it was rudely interrupted by yet another save us from the consequences of our own bad management decision making commercial AKA save local television.

At the time I was watching an American television program via a Canadian television signal that was replacing the signal of the US station I was watching.

Which has me pondering: Are these really local stations? Regardless of whether they are local or not, should we save them?

My television was tuned to an American station but the US signal was replaced by the Canadian stations signal – even though this results in portions of the program having been removed to make room for the extra minutes of commercial time Canadian stations are permitted.

It was necessary to impose Canadian content rules on these stations (with the exception of the CBC and its different mandate as the public broadcaster) to ensure a minimal Canadian content. Still, the majority of the programming is foreign (mainly US). On a content basis not only are these stations not local, they are not even Canadian.

Before making this statement I considered the matter of the daily news broadcasts. Take Global for example, which I believe has the most hours of local news broadcasts; 5:30 – 9:00 in the am; the noon hour news; early news from 5:00 – 5:30 pm; supper hour news; and a final hour of news for an apparent total of seven hours.

But is it seven hours of news? If you watch all the news broadcasts during a day it quickly becomes evident that most of the seven hours is made up of rerun material. Indeed if you watch the first half hour of the news in the early morning, all you really need to watch of the final news cast is the first few minutes to catch any (if any) interesting or important stories that have developed during the day.

Take out the international news and non-local sports and one is left with what? A hour total of different, non-repeated news in a day? Further, if one watches the news programming on the different stations the stories, the news reported is the same (for all practical purposes).

Does an hour of local news a day make a station or stations a ‘local television station’ when weighed against all the hours of foreign and non-local programming?

Keep in mind that a local newspaper such as the Vancouver Sun contains far more news and detail than an audio/video newscast can. Print media is an inherently denser medium for the transfer of data – the news.

Consider also the question: for someone living in Vancouver is a Toronto station a local station? Obviously not, even though the Toronto station occasionally carries stories about Vancouver.

In a similar manner Vancouver is not Abbotsford’s local television simply because the occasional story about Abbotsford is broadcast on a Vancouver station. This is an important point because Vancouver and other metropolitan stations are going to want cable to pay them for their signals delivered to communities in the vicinity of the metropolitan area such as Mission or Abbotsford.

As I stated: on a content basis not only are these stations not local, they are not even Canadian.

Another result of Canadian media, for the main part, being controlled through conglomerates is that content, management and decision making are dictated not by the needs of the local market but by the needs and best interest of the conglomerate.

If content, ownership, management and decision making are all non-local, how can it be ‘local’ television?

Perhaps the more important question we should be asking is whether we should be “saving local television”? Is television a sunset industry and should the market be allowed to determine the future/fate of local, over the air broadcast television.

In the beginning of the television age in Canada private stations were owned by local businessmen. Such locally owned stations were however, few and far between due to the lack of a market that would allow a private television station to earn a profit.

People who love to criticize the CBC forget that at the beginning of the television age population density and geographic distance meant Canada lacked a market place and a demand for private television signals. The CBC was created to sew the country together and to nation build through the dissemination of news and information across Canada.

It took time and the CBC to develop and build a market for television broadcasting that could support private television stations outside of a few well populated Canadian cities such as Toronto or Montreal.

Media conglomerates came into existence only when the market for advertising in television markets made the purchase of stations across Canada possible by providing ‘collateral’ that enabled the conglomerates to borrow funds to purchase television stations across Canada  from the local owners.

At the time this media consolidation was occurring the conglomerates cited market forces, the changing marketplace, for driving media consolidation. They stated that the conglomeration taking place was a result of market forces and that the CRTC had to permit the broadcast industry to change in response to changes in the marketplace.

If the CRTC had to permit change in the form of conglomeration to occur in the broadcast industry in response to marketplace changes does it not follow that the CRTC also has to permit change to occur in the broadcast industry in response to current changes in the marketplace?

Remember that the current over the air local television broadcaster system came into existence when over the air stations were the only way to deliver video into the home. Remember the effect that television had on radio?

Radio had ruled the airwaves before the introduction of television which became the new king of the airwaves. People would gather around the radio in the evening to listen to The Shadow, Amos and Andy, Gunsmoke and numerous other shows.

Once television became wide spread it was the television set people gathered around in the evenings. Dramas, comedies, variety and others shows all died on radio – or in a few cases adapted and moved to television as Gunsmoke did. Although with different, more photogenic actors to play the characters.

Radio was left to adapt, to play music, report the news or broadcast live sports.

In the same way that radio was displaced as king by television, television has/is now being displaced as king by cable which is itself being challenged by new and emerging technologies.

The market that the existing over the air television broadcast system served no longer exists.

In the same way radio had to adapt and redefine itself to find and develop a market they could generate revenue from when television came along, television stations must redefine and reinvent themselves to develop a market they can generate revenue from.

Much of our current television system evolved simply to rebroadcast US (and other nations) television programs over the air because, with the limits on signal strength and thus distance, local over the air broadcasts were the only way to deliver television signals to the home. This is why the end of the broadcast day signoffs included a list of repeater stations and their frequencies that were used to extend the coverage area of individual stations.

For years Hamilton’s CHCH local television station prospered. With only the CBC and CTV in the Toronto market CHCH could choose from among the programming available that was not shown on these networks and thrive. Along came Global and City TV who could pay higher fees for programming and CHCH ceased to be profitable.

This was a scenario played out across Canada as new networks, small or Canada-wide, together with new stations in some of the major markets changed the marketplace and resulted in loss of independent local stations such as CHCH.

Did CTV, Global, City, et al call for the government to impose fees to be used to support these local stations? Of course not, they declared that the casualties were the result of the market and that the market was the best judge of what stations should survive.

During this period the ownership structure changed as well moving from ownership based mainly in the communities to national media conglomerates.

Cable has profoundly changed the marketplace, providing not only access to US over the air broadcasts but to a host of cable channels and programming that have come into existence.

There is no longer a need for the existence of multiple stations to broadcast foreign programming locally because this programming is now directly available to the viewers.

Finally keep in mind that cable is not immune to changes in the market. Satellite, phone companies, the internet and wireless technologies are changing the market place and challenging cables position as king.

Radio – Television – Cable: as the market changes we must allow change to the broadcasters/signal providers to occur in response to these changes. Or we will find ourselves propping up the equivalent of buggy whip manufacturers, with the arrival of the automobile, in the broadcast/signal providing industry.

The local over the air broadcast system as it exists today is a Sunset Industry. The market that over the air broadcasters were created to serve no longer exists; the market having undergone and continuing to undergo profound change driven by rapid technological development.

Up to date technology, especially communications technology is a key component of Canada’s economic future. It is imperative that the government and the CRTC not interfere with the changes necessary for the broadcast/signal providing/communications industry to adapt to the new marketplace and emerging technologies, even though it means some stations will cease to operate.

Over the air broadcasting will not disappear. But it will be composed of fewer stations, with an ownership structure and management more responsive to the local market, providing programming that will need to be innovative and not based on the tradition rebroadcasting of US programming, with more locally and Canadian generated programming (along the current lines of the CBC).

In the same way that the new technology television was allowed to displace the old technology radio because televisions newer technology had changed the marketplace the Government, the CRTC and Canadians must allow the newer technologies of cable, satellite, the internet and wireless to displace the old technology of over the air television. Or risk protecting a sunset industry, denying the development of competitively necessary new technologies and businesses required to support Canada’s future economic prosperity.

Caveat emptor, Municipal, Snafu

Another Abbotsford Fudge-a-Budget

Leave a comment

Fudge: to avoid coming to grips with something

One has to wonder why city council bothers with a budget or if they would bother with a ‘budget’ if it were not required by the province of BC’s Local Government Act.

While council pays lip service to creating a ‘budget’ this year’s fudget (council’s fudge-a-budget) process has made it unequivocally clear that the needs of the city, Reality, fiscally responsibility and common sense were of minimal (if any) concern to council in arriving at 2010’s fudget-it-budget.

Council’s behaviour, directions to staff and staff’s report highlight that council’s focus is on creating a fudge-it-budget that isn’t going to jeopardize their chances of re-election.

Financial staff’s original draft for 2010 was for a 6% increase but council directed financial staff to come up with an increase closer to 3.9% which led to the 4.4% proposal accepted by council, excerpted below.

“The capital budget (which they describe in their report as “already significantly underfunded”) did not increase in 2009 and the roads and facility infrastructure continue to deteriorate. A one per cent increase is not significant, but acknowledges the growing gap in infrastructure funding,” they wrote.

The authors noted several challenges in trying to meet the council’s directive: the fragility of the roads and capital projects program; an underfunded reserve fund.

Fire services would take a significant hit of $350,000 in 2010. 2010 marks the fifth year in a row where increase will be below city costs, they said.

Continue to deteriorate, as in this is not the first year that council has made the decision to allow roads and facility infrastructure to deteriorate.

At what point would council find it necessary to stop allowing roads and facilities to deteriorate and begin proper maintenance? When cars start disappearing into potholes? When we get a head-on collision because drivers cannot see the road marking lines in the dark or rain? When facilities have to be closed because they are unsafe or buildings start falling down.

Council happily spends money on plasma flat screen televisions and on an unnecessarily, expensive large, colour electronic outdoor sign for ARC but won’t spend to do the maintenance necessary to maintain ARC and other facilities.

Money isn’t spent until the lack of maintenance causes a breakdown, such as an ice-plant, where it costs many times more to do repairs than it would have cost to do maintenance; standard operating procedure under Abbotsford’s council.

Fragile is not a word one wants used in describing roads and capital projects. Still that is better than underfunded in reference to the city’s reserve fund; which is preferable to hearing about the growing gap in infrastructure funding.

Council opted for a significant hit to Fire services despite the danger of lengthened response times and increased property losses. Given the gamble with lives and property in that decision one wonders why councillors are opposed to a casino. Or is it just taxpayers money, property and lives council likes to gamble with?

Sneaky – an increased turnaround time for development applications will have developers going to other cities and council won’t have to add any meetings to handle increased city business.

The need for early closure of some recreation facilities and/or reductions in programming will cause less wear and tear on buildings so the lack of maintenance won’t be as noticeable or potentially costly.

Reduced responsiveness to citizens as a result of reduced staff means council and senior staff won’t be bothered by citizens as much and provides an excuse for avoiding/not answering citizen’s questions.

With the existing poor levels of park maintenance who will notice increased litter or grass several inches longer?

A reduced ability to repair potholes and intersection rutting should serve to provide a distraction to divert driver’s attention from the inexcusable deteriorating roads to the “we’re keeping taxes down” potholes and rutting. Of course this policy could prove costly if citizen’s start billing city hall for the cost of tires and suspensions ‘deteriorated’ by the city’s deteriorated roads.

Even the most cursory examination of the 2010 ‘budget’ process/proposal makes it abundantly clear that council is aware of numerous failings of their so-called ‘budget’ – and chooses to avoid dealing with the many financial, operating and capital problems that have come to plague the City of Abbotsford precisely because of councils repeated refusal to behave with fiscal responsibility, make tough decisions and/or deal with the fallout from their poor financial decision making and priorities.

Phone council, write them, talk to them prior to their secret budget meeting on January 4, 2010 and ask councillors where the city’s portion of the McCallum ($8.3 million) and Clearbrook ($8.3 million) interchanges ($16.6 million in total) is going to come from since it was not included in the budget.

Tell council to stop digging Abbotsford into an ever deeper financial hole and demand council act responsibility in beginning to address the chaos council has caused the city, its finances and its taxpayers.