Category Archives: Municipal

Caveat emptor, Municipal

Unasked Questions

Leave a comment

It is only fair and just that Jerry Gosling’s letter of support be offered as is, since it is on the letters/opinion pages. Being identified as the president of the MSA Museum Society provides the entire context needed to understand and evaluate his RAH-RAH leading of a cheering section in support of the capital plan, given the inclusion of a world class museum and art gallery, which far surpasses any sane or reasonable proposal, in the council’s absurd proposal.

There can be no excuse for boosterism disguised as “news reporting” on the front page of Thursday’s News. In large bold text the News trumpets “Trustees back Plan A, say students benefit most”, including in the body of the story that the vote was unanimous. The News blindly printed statements citing benefits while failing to ask a question so obvious any non-partisan, semi-intelligent person’s mind screams “Where’s the Beef” or in other words what are or were these never stated benefits? Or did the school trustees unanimously support imaginary, perhaps non-existent, benefits? The fact there were no actual benefits to support the vote certainly would explain the failure of the News to print even one so-called benefit. Or incompetence.

It is perfectly within their rights for the News to support and lead a cheering section for the capital plan. Fair and principled behaviour demands that this boosterism be made clear by the use of the Opinion page and at least minimal journalistic standards applied to any information purported to be news This apparent effort to hide the News’s leading of a cheering section for the proposed capital plan concealed as ‘news’ is, at the kindest questionable behaviour, more accurately described as bordering on the unethical.

The argument for it just being incompetence does have clear support on the same first page. It seems to me that the theoretical semi-intelligent person cited above would feel the statement “… with 533.91 fewer students” demands an answer to the question of exactly what .91 of a student is. More importantly, what exactly is the .09 of a student that is still attending school here? Just as an aside: in a city growing this fast what explains that Abbotsford schools have less students?

While on the subject of the capital plan council and supporters are seeking to foist, by whatever means possible, upon the gullible citizens – why is it called Plan A? I was not aware of any Plan B, C, D. Would it not be more accurate to name the plan based upon the grade it deserves – F?

Speaking of obvious and unasked questions: Why award a contract to replace the Centennial pool tank to a company that “… had not completed a cement pool before”? They came “highly recommended” – as what? It would appear obvious that the recommendation could not be as a builder of pools. Was it just because they had the lowest bid? Given the recent fiasco with pool building in Mission it would seem semi-intelligent behaviour to award the contract to an experienced pool builder who has experience with estimating what the pool replacement will actually end up costing the taxpayers as opposed to the low-ball bid submitted by a builder with NO EXPERIENCE in actually building a pool. The need to choose an experienced and knowledgeable builder would seem to be further demanded by the tight deadlines imposed by the replacement schedule.

But then it is a demonstrated, though sad and costly, fact of life that even semi-intelligent decisions and behaviour is beyond council and city planning or engineering staff. Alas, it also seems asking the obvious and needed questions are beyond the capabilities of, at the very least, the editorial staff of the News.

Homeless, Municipal

Re: Bridge Housing

Leave a comment

Self Righteousness: so self-gratifying, so self-indulgent, so sanctimonious, so often inflicting pain and misery on others in the name of helping or “correctness”.

The 2004 proposal of 6 Houses, when 30 is about what actually exist and with an MCC study suggesting that Abbotsford’s need is for close to 40 Houses, clearly demonstrates just how little understanding of reality the City has on this question. So before everybody breaks an arm smugly patting themselves on the back and the City “protects” the residents for the Houses into homelessness on the city streets, let us spare a few moments to actually THINK.

“… required to sign over their $325 a month.” Yes, well where would you suggest they find other shelter for $325 a month? Yes, there are safety issues, but it is dim-witted to suggest living on the streets would not be more of a threat to life and limb than being in their current houses.

The reason that the Province dropped bridge housing from their regulations were that the regulations were designed for institutions such as MSA hospital and thus were so onerous in a bridge housing situation nobody could realistically meet the standards. Which would mean no bridge housing; easy for council and the City, but an awfully cruel and callous way to treat those needing help on the road to recovery? But then pointing their fingers at the Provincial government is an old favourite method for the City to avoid acting on difficult issues such as homelessness.

Councillor John Smith’s “.. the moral issue” must be speaking about some special type of Abbotsford Politicians Morality. A most convenient morality; where it is “morally wrong” for the City to permit these people to be living in crowded housing, but it is “morally OK” for the City council and staff to drive these people out of shelter and onto the streets. The advantage to the City of such a fluid concept of moral behaviour is an easy way out of complex situations – to bad for the casualties, and there are casualties of this fluid “morality”.

An example of this is the Fraser Valley Inn. Yes there were problems with the Inn but the City just used an old magician’s sleight of hand to appear to act. Closing the Inn did not solve anything; it merely spread the people and problems around the city, in reality making them harder to deal with. This nice fluid view of moral behaviour means the City can continue to ignore those it tossed onto the streets and who are still there a year latter. Just who or what is going on that the City seems to like throwing people onto the streets in time for winter weather?

Be very clear on the point that I am not saying you should not want to close the substandard among them. I am saying you cannot close them until you have available alternatives for housing and services. Because throwing them onto the streets is an Immoral way to act. Unless you follow that special Abbotsford Politicians Morality, where morals can be used to act anyway you want without getting inconveniently in the way you elect to misbehave.

Municipal

Just how dumb …

Leave a comment

What, Abbotsford couldn’t build a much smaller, cheaper arena with someone to help pay the bills for an established hockey team like the Chilliwack Chiefs. Instead we chased them out of town when they wanted to come here. Now council wants to build a building we don’t need that has nobody to use it except for some vague promises of maybe getting some kind of team. Like we are suppose to take a politicians promise seriously. You use to have more sense George. They promise to stick your name on it or something? 55 MILLION BUCKS!!!! For that we could build and buy all the other things we need.

I’ve lived in Abbotsford for years and I never heard of any world class art or world class museum bits and pieces. So why blow 10 million more bucks on a world class place for regular stuff? Why can’t those who claim to support that kind of thing put their own money where their mouth is and do fund raising themselves to pay for it like they do in big cities such as Vancouver? The Whalers raised money for improvements to Centennial Pool and the city has not kept faith with them. If the chic don’t think it important enough to raise money for then just stick some rooms on the ARC extension. Maybe then the ordinary people who pay the bills will see it.

I want a guarantee that council and anyone who votes yes will be paying all taxes needed over 158.00 a year. We all know about estimates and skyrocketing real cost. Why should I be forced to pay for councils boondoggles?

Chris O’Neill