Coldstream vs. Residential Homeowners

and I know who'll win.

Tonight's open Council meeting should--in itself--be viewed as an indication of the failure of Mayor Garlick and his Council's term in office.   One after another, attendees addressed the Mayor from the podium indicating their abject disgust at how this Council is handling a bylaw that sees homeowners as Developers, which automatically triggers a requirement for off-site works, similar to the process with Commercial and large developments.

Back-peddling by saying the bylaw has been in place since 2008, Mayor Garlick agreed--when questioned--that the bylaw has been idle until recently, when Judy Paterson's building permit application mysteriously resurrected it.

Quickly switching the municipality into reverse gear, Mayor and Council now wish to be seen as heroes, advising that District of Coldstream Subdivison, Development and Servicing Bylaw No. 1535, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1595, 2011, Amendment No. 1--which is slated for third reading (and passing) tonight--would exempt off-site works and service requirements for development with a construction value less than or equal to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) cumulatively over any given five year period.

No matter, it seems, that real estate representatives stated they could not in all honesty recommend to their prospective purchasers that a planned renovation might incur a set dollar cost--with a factual formula.  There is no formula, as each case is "judged" on its own (dollars-to-the-community) merit.  "So can I recommend to a purchaser that they buy a 'reno house' in Coldstream...I think not," concluded the rep.

No matter that a building contractor stated he could not in all honesty hope to gain work for his employees doing renovations in Coldstream, as a $50,000 renovation budget would--to quote Councillor Firman--"not build you a shithouse" (This candor from the same councillor who was overheard to say at Fisher's Hardware two weeks ago, "I'm only drunk half the time now.")   Contractor Dahlen indicated that renovations would "go underground", or stop entirely. 

And a Mr. Hegler indicated that in the Council's next newsletter--instead of promoting their "works"--that the publication informs the public that residents are now considered Developers, and are subjec to off-site development costs.

No matter that several residents stated they would not choose to renovate in Coldstream and trigger the off-site works and services bylaw... for drainage...or perhaps for sidewalks and curbs...or for a bike path.  One resident said that a prospective building permit for a renovation in Coldstream Estates might trigger a sidewalk development cost.  He reminded the Mayor and Council that "there isn't another piece of sidewalk or curb for miles on either side of that property."

Dave Paterson took the microphone to indicate that for any bylaw to be legal, it must be transparent and predictable...you must know what will be incurred if you apply for a permit.  Judy Paterson's research quoted text after text which indicated the District of Coldstream's bylaw borders on a travesty as it teeters precariously on the legal fence.

So, are Garlick et al heroes for "upping" the building permit application trigger to $50,000 from the previous Zero Dollars?  That's what they'd like you to believe.

Councillor Enns put it in his most patronizingly superior attitude, "so, let me get this clear...you'd like me to vote tonight to turn down the bylaw amendment (and return it to Zero Dollars trigger)."  He and Mayor Garlick reminded attendees that the "Zero" bylaw in 2008 (which had never been enacted) was "put in place by a previous Council"...(yes, Mayor Garlick was a Councillor on that previous council).

...and earlier, amateur councillor Mario Besso tried to make a point by reminding attendees--only a little less condescendingly than Enns--"that Coldstream is bestowed with broad powers...", trailing off, as though that were sufficient to quell the unrest from the public, ultimately making no point at all.  This the same councillor who--as one resident reported--"attends every bloody meeting there is for 100 miles around, and claims her dollar "attendance fee" even if she's not on the bloody committee."


And all through the hour-long "delegation" process, Councillor Dirk--the longest serving councillor in Coldstream--made no effort to hide what has become his trademark when things aren't going well for council...a smirk.  A smirk so permanent for the hour-long to-and-fro that I squinted to more easily see if tape on each corner held his mouth upturned at the ends.  No tape was evident on Councillor Smirk.


CHBC-TV recorded what I've missed reporting here, and the link to their news broadcast will be added here tomorrow.  
EDIT ADDING CHBC-TV VIDEO LINK:  http://www.chbcnews.ca/video/new+bylaw+illegal/video.html?v=2152546993&p=1&s=dd#video

What wasn't reported by anyone at the podium was this:

• Mayor and Council have a duty to represent (act on behalf of--not against) their citizens.  Part of that duty is fiscal responsibility.  If at this juncture of their elected term they decided the municipality is short of funds for their precious Wish List that includes bike paths, they need to spend less money.  Plain and simple.  Just like families do.  Just like business does.

• The bylaw at hand is a farce.  Had the Mayor and Council wished to be transparent in their dealings with residents, we would now be at third reading of the bylaw with its "trigger amount" at $500,000., not the paltry $50,000.  How could this Mayor and Council dare to be at third reading for the $50,000 trigger amount?  How stupid do they think residents are that we'll believe they're doing us a favour in enacting that!

But we should have seen this coming.  Remember when this Mayor and Council indicated that with the closure of the Owens-Illinois (Consumers Glass) plant in Lavington they were short the property tax dollars, and they'd have to raise taxes to make up the shortfall?

I remember it.  A business owner would've lowered their budget, as would a family if income dropped suddenly. 
They're even believing their own press...the loss of group conscience and responsibility to their taxpayers isn't a good sign.

Long before the meeting ended, I left, feeling disgusted with being over-governed and under-served.

Municipal elections are a month away.
Time to clean house.

I believe we now know the questions we'll put to candidates for mayor and council. 

"I'd love a $50,000 doghouse," offers Kia, adding "but streetlights would keep me awake."