Attaboy, Peter!

It doesn't even matter what the topic is--and there are many "issues" in the North Okanagan--but Peter Moore's letter to the editor of the Morning Star, published today, hit the proverbial nail on its head with these last two paragraphs:

"We citizens, via our elected officials, should be directing provincial employees, not the other way around.

If government leaders and employees

do not follow the will of the people,

 I suggest democracy

 in the City of Vernon, the North Okanagan and

 our area of the province of B.C. has failed,

 and we should

remove these autocrats with our votes

 at the next provincial and municipal elections."

Peter Moore was, of course, referring to the Stickle Road/Highway 97 debacle. 

But the sentiment could just as easily apply to any of the myriad issues here.

Water prices, fees, spendthrift municipal (and provincial) governments, increasing bureaucracy/staff...on and on the list goes.

"The government asks us for input at public forums," says an observer, "and then ignores the majority's will."

"So why bother?",  replies another. 

Why indeed.

"Because government knows and decides what is best for you," says Kia unaffectedly, adding "they even have a government 'whip' to ensure everybody toes the line."

Maybe that whip can be employed come election time.

 

When Government "Misleads" the Public

Interesting letter to the editor of the Morning Star today, by Duane A. Mather:

"Public is being ignored on issue:

(Note:  highlighting by blog author because Mr. Mather's letter could just as readily apply to local officials' and bureaucrats' dealings in the GVW master water plan issue!)


While there is always more than one solution to solving a problem and certainly in the problem solving analysis, all options and opinions should be considered.

In the case of the Stickle Road issue, part of the analysis was public consultation (likely a protocol required in our provincial legislation) through the public consultation open house process.

Many people take Abraham Lincoln's words from the Gettysburg address as a definition of democracy; "Government of the people, for the people, by the people."  The open house concept sort of supports the president's decree.

It doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Point in fact, the first solution by the Ministry of Transportation team was solidly rejected by the public attending and all of our community area elected officials.  Back to the drawing board for the ministry, instead of accepting the advice of the majority of the people.

Another open house was again solidly rejected by those attending but suddenly a new position by our mayor and the elected MLA, Eric Foster, citing the need to compromise with the ministry.

I for one do not think we elected these folks to appease Victoria.  We elected them to represent the community's position as presented to them by a majority of the citizens.

At open house round three, there was another attempt to do anything but what the people want, again being solidly rejected by the majority.  In baseball, three strikes and you're out, but not if your(sic) employed in the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Transportation.

The elected officials' job is to provide fiduciary oversight and leadership to the bureaucrats, not to roll over and capitulate to their arrogance.

The ministry must not have any statistical data to substantiate their claim that a light will compromise safety by creating rear end collisions otherwise they would have presented it.

As presented in many letters to this publication, there are many such lights on Highway 97 already in existence in the valley and if there is no data to support that claim, then at best that statement is misleading.

These repeated rounds of open house consultation being totally ignored are another waste of taxpayers' money.

The most economical solution paid for with taxpayers' money, supported by a significant majority of the citizenry, simply is a light.

Unfortunately, we can only deal with elected officials' arrogance during elections and the bureaucrats who are supposedly under their control.

So if they continue to bulldoze their solution through the process, that can only be dealt with in the future.

If I was a business owner along Stickle Road, I'd be looking for other alternatives to persuade the ministry to change their view.  Perhaps a court decreed injunction might provide a more sensible review of the facts.  Recent history of the HST fiasco in this province provides evidence there are ways to deal with issues with government after being misled.

The arrogant governments in Ottawa and our neighbouring province to the east recently got an awakening to voter wrath, something to consider in the future if this stupidity continues."

Duane A. Mather

and from the same publication, same topic, a snippet of the letter from resident, Joyce Penner:

"...This is what (Mayor) Mund told me.  He is on record supporting a traffic light during the first two planning sessions with the Ministry of Transportation.  However, by the third meeting, he realized there would be no traffic light at Stickle Road.  The reason given is it would cause a bottleneck in the traffic flow and, in fact, the ministry is reducing the number of traffic lights on Highway 97.  And the issue could not be put forward for at least 10 years to the provincial government."

Stickle flip/flop with Master Water Plan?

"Yup, elected officials supporting bureaucrats is akin to an evil alliance," offers Kia "with the open house 'input' just paying lip service to the lip-servicing provincial government."

Amen to that, having witnessed the MWP process recently.

Residential Complaints Head to Victoria...Eventually

Victoria occasionally needs ganging up on by municipalities.

Especially when the MLA--in this case Eric Foster--dragged his heels (or knuckles) and refused to handle residents' complaints.

Think of Stickle Road (which isn't in Coldstream's area...but a contentious issue nevertheless).  Residents and business owners of that area attended several public hearings where the Ministry of Transportation heard concerns and suggestions designed to improve safety where the road meets Hwy. 97N.

MLA Foster didn't even attend.
Finally explaining why, he inanely stated it was to prevent it "being all about me..." 

Huh?
All about him?

But he jumped into the Amphitheatre fray early on, and soon announced that he would tell Victoria not to allow its construction, stating that a more suitable location needed to be found...(away from all those angry voters.)
 
That's basically what the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities meetings are...communities all over B.C. attend with recommendations in an attempt to gain allies among mayors and planners and bureaucrats so that projects have an improved likelihood of success with government ministers.

Whether communities want money, more money, more money or more laws and money, they go to the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities meetings with their recommendations.  "Minister grovelling" has become downright critical to a community's goals.

Let's see what's firing Coldstream's jets this year:
(Click table to enlarge)

• Water infrastructure funding...yup, residents on the GVW water system are all, well, tapped out. Especially since they're meeting soon to discuss new water rates and furthering the Master Water Plan despite the $70 million borrowing referendum having been rejected in November of 2014.

• MMBC recycling program...FINALLY a hint that officials have been listening to residents' complaints.  Seems they're finally realizing more and more people are simply putting "un-pickup-ables" into the garbage, having given up sorting and separating previously accepted items. 

• Complaints or issues arising from ALR properties ... whether it's the bird-guns or helicopters that protect cherries from birds and rain damage, residents are wondering whether mile-high buffers are necessary. 

Back to water.
Bob Spiers' Vernonblog indicates three recommendations that are on the hot plate in the next month at RDNO/GVW:

1. Greater Vernon Water (GVW) Strategic Plan for Rates and Fees Structure Workshop – Questions & Answers - Report dated June 20, 2016 RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 That the requested information from the May 26, 2016 Special Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting regarding the Greater Vernon Water (GVW) Strategic Plan for Rates and Fees Structure Workshop be received for information and discussion at the July 21, 2016 Special Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meeting. 2. Financial Options and Considerations – Greater Vernon Water Master Water Plan - Presentation from the April 14, 2016 GVW 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting FOR DISCUSSION Page 14 3. 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Stakeholder Advisory Committee Statements and Recommendations - Report dated May 2016
RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 22 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors the request from the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to hire an independent engineering consultant to undertake a peer Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Agenda – Regular - Special - 2 - June 29, 2016 review of the 2012 Master Water Plan not go forward. 

By the way, don't look for the agenda yet that contains the above.
It'll be available to we peons a few days before the meeting(s).

 

 

"What's that saying...give (some) politicians two terms...one in office and one in jail?" asks Kia.