Category Archives: Municipal

Supportive Housing Proposal – discussion pointless without information

I want to thank the gentleman (and his wife) I spoke to after this afternoons (Monday October 20, 2008) Council meeting for his patience in taking the time to talk to me.

Listening to what he and his wife had to say was though provoking and sent me back to read all the documents and material again from as analytical/language/neutral prospective as possible.

I read the handouts, went to government web sites and read the materials there and went back over all these materials again.

The conclusion I reached was that the documents were written in bafflegab (confusing or generally unintelligible jargon; gobbledegook), complicated by government bureaucratese (a style of language that is full of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords etc) and ass covering language.

It is no wonder that at the community meetings city staff (with apologies) appeared somewhat clueless and less than truthful vis-à-vis the proposed housing. Reading over the material available this afternoon, this housing could be anything; mention is made of the second stage housing I was told it was to be and was speaking of OR it could be minimal barrier housing OR it could be something else entirely.

There is no way to tell what kind of housing we are speaking of. Without knowing what type of housing we are talking about there is no way to make any judgment, must less a decision, on location.

I spoke to Mr. Giesbrecht this evening (Monday) and while I am not in agreement (or necessarily disagreement – to many unknowns), with his preference to build nothing there I do agree with his point that without knowing what other options as to location are available and the pros and cons of the locations you cannot judge “best’ location. I would go so far as to say that without knowing what kind of housing we are speaking off there is no way to judge if a location is even suitable, much less good or the best.

We agreed that from the information provided one cannot know or understand what type of housing or who the occupants will be or who will be responsible for the operation of the housing and that that information is critical. Speaking to Mr. Geisbrecht did send me back to read the Questions and Answers handout from the City.

I said to some people on Wednesday night in reference to the first community meeting that I was not sure that this type of meeting and the timing was a good idea. I can now say that this type of meeting and the timing was an ill-considered idea.

Until the city and citizens know what kind of housing, tenants and operating organization we are talking about any discussion is pointless. Garbage in garbage out, certainly applies here where we are missing the most vital pieces of information needed to judge the matter which means any decision at this point could be flawed, wrong or garbage – or all three.

The city cannot and should not be having a discussion on the matter of this proposal until they (and citizens) know what is being talked about in terms of what kind of housing, tenants and operating organizations are under consideration.

We need to step back and wait for the information needed to have an intelligent conversation, make an informed judgment and come to a sensible decision is available.

At that point we will at least all know what we are talking about and if we have points of disagreement we will at least be disagreeing about the same thing. We will not be arguing/comparing apples to oranges to watermelons to kiwi to pineapples etc. as we currently are doing.

Re-writing History?

“Gibson initially spoke out against the Plan A initiative but later supported it after the three projects received public support through two referenda.”

Let us be accurate here – there were not two referendums on Plan A. The first referendum Mr. Gibson cites was only permission to make a plan and present it to the community. It was in no way an approval of Plan A – except perhaps in the minds of those desperately seeking to justify their support of Plan A.

More importantly, if as he states Mr. Gibson was opposed to Plan A his duty to the people who elected him was to stand up and speak his opposition out loudly during the Plan A debate, informing the public of his opposition so they could take that into consideration as they voted on Plan A

As a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A I attended all public meetings and sessions about Plan A and carefully scoured the local papers for any words written about Plan A.

I do not recall hearing or reading of Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A nor do any citizens I spoke with about Mr. Gibson’s claim remember any statement or statements by Mr. Gibson against Plan A.

Given the closeness of the referendum results, a long term Councillor such as Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A would in all probability have resulted in a NO outcome and spared taxpayers the large cost overruns, the large tax increases and the debt load the city carries as a result of Plan A.

Massive cost overruns, high taxes and big debt load – all barriers to filling more pressing needs for the city such as infrastructure. Leaving one to wonder how if indeed “Municipal infrastructure, particularly roads, is a high priority for Gibson” he could have failed to strongly and vocally oppose Plan A – as did those of us who also had concerns about municipal infrastructure? How could he in any way support Plan A when it would be a major barrier to being able to fund infrastructure?

Why did we the public not hear of Mr. Gibson’s opposition to Plan A? How could Mr. Gibson vote for Plan A and its costs if infrastructure is a high priority for him?

LEADERSHIP.

I found myself mulling over leadership after listening to pundits holding forth on the issue of leadership during the current Federal election, reflecting on the scene in BC and with reference to Abbotsford’s municipal election in November.

The conclusion I reached was that it has been so long since Canadians and people around the world have had any real leadership in the public and political arenas that Canadians and others no longer know or understand what leadership is and so they accept the pale imitation passed off as leadership today.

In considering Mr. Harper’s “leadership advantage” it became clear that people have erroneously come to falsely mistake management for leadership.

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” Peter Drucker

Calling this election as Mr. Harper did was a management decision based on perceived political opportunity and advantage. The right thing to have done, the right message to send and example to set was to not to give into temptation but to obey they law Mr. Harpers government had passed as necessary to prevent political opportunism by federal parties – the opportunism he gave into.

Mr. Harper made a strategic decision rather than a decision based on character ignoring the wisdom shared by General H. Norman Schwarzkopf that “Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy.”

Mr. Harper may well run a tight ship, ruling with an iron fist but as Dwight D. Eisenhower noted “You do not lead by hitting people over the head-that’s assault, not leadership.”

Arnold Glasgow: “One of the tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.” One of the ways you do this is by facing the music, even if you don’t want to hear the tune.

Not only has Mr. Harper refused to acknowledge problems that interfere with his plans or that he doesn’t want to talk about – demonstrated by his recent behaviour of repeatedly stating the Canadian economy was fine in the face of evidence to the contrary; Mr. Harper fails to acknowledge or act on issues such as the major social problems facing Canadians and our cities (homelessness, poverty, affordable housing) that do not fit into his world view.

“A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn’t like the tune.” Anon

Of course with reference to major social problems such as homelessness, poverty and affordable housing Mr. Harper is not alone in his refusal to see or address a problem while it is more manageable in size rather than allowing it to grow into a large problem or a crisis. Provincial governments/politicians as well as municipal governments/politicians also chose to turn a blind eye to these issues, pointing their fingers at others as being responsible for addressing the issues and when they grew into an epidemic – they run around the proverbial “chickens without heads”.

They bury their heads in the sand to avoid seeing or hearing what they do not want to see or hear while Canadians long for the “good old days” as society becomes less civil and more dog-eat-dog.

“The very essence of leadership is that you have to have vision.” Theodore Hesburgh.

Why is vision so important? Because if we want a civil, supportive and healthy society we all need to be better than we are.

We have to do the little things and the big things – the things we would rather not do or have to do. For example: Carry your litter until you find a garbage can to put it in; Saying please and thank you or being patient in line-ups; Donating to the food bank – even when worried for ourselves; Taking a deep breath and behaving in a rational manner – even when our emotions are running high; Remembering that children are the future, that we need to raise healthy children and that it takes a community to raise a child and that as a community we need to invest and provide the resources needed to raise healthy children; Look at the long term as well, instead of focusing on the short term – yes “going green” will cause some economic pain but not making those changes will, in the longer run, cause economic disaster;

It is this need bring out the best that led Blaine Lee to state “The great leaders are like the best conductors – they reach beyond the notes to reach the magic in the players.”

To do that you need vision not dogma as reaching for the magic in the players requires inspiring the player to want to strive for the vision. Reaching out to inspire also serves to remind a leader that decisions made have an effect on the players in the real world and you have to consider, to understand, that those decisions will have effects in the real world.

“Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it.” – Marian Anderson

I do not know if it is ideology or that he just does not get it, but Mr. Harper’s actions and words show a total lack of understanding of the costs and challenges of issues such as child care for most Canadians. Mr. Harper stated that the other parties’ plans to replace the nominal $100 per month Conservative policy with a real investment in childcare were a bad idea because parents would lose the $100 a month. Ordinary Canadians struggling with child care need real help, not a token $100 a month. Of course for the wealthy the $100 was a nice bonus, a further transfer of wealth to the wealthy from the poor.

The flagrant lack of understanding demonstrated by Mr. Harper on this manner is the effect this $100 a month could have on those who were not wealthy or well off. i.e. those families where the extra $1200 put them over the income limit at the food bank and disqualified them from using the food bank. For these people the $100 a month was a devastating blow to their survival – forget about child care. Making up for not being able to access the food bank cost more out of pocket than they received, making the child care payment a cost not a gain.

Don’t they ever think? What world are they living in? Hey – pay attention to the effect of your actions in the real world. You’re supposed to represent all Canadians not just the wealthy and corporations.

Federal, provincial, municipal politicians – I can not count the times I have made those statements or heard them from others.

“Becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is precisely that simple, and it is also that difficult.” – Warren Bennis

I end with this quote because life has, over the past few years, taught me just how important it is to grow and to continue to grow as a person; just how difficult and uncomfortable that can be; how rewarding making the effort and working through the discomfort is.

I am comfortable in my own skin now and like the person I have become and am becoming. I will not be having spin doctors dressing me up in warm fuzzy sweaters or staging “meetings” with families, not simply because becoming who I am has granted me empathy and understanding, but because such falsehoods would not be being true to ME.

In becoming yourself you learn the importance of not taking yourself to seriously, of being able to laugh at yourself; that life is something to be lived and enjoyed and far to important to be taken only seriously.