Amalgamation as Reward?

I liken the threat/promise of amalgamation to Punishment.
Punishing local governments and their bevy of bureaucrats for the governance mess of the North Okanagan.

But this fellow's letter to the editor on December 29th, 2013, takes a decidedly different view.

"...My feeling is that when the City of Vernon can show a significant track record of above-average decision-making and governance that doesn't appear to be patched together for political expediency but for the good of the community, then that is the time to talk about amalgamation."

Simo Korpisto

Huh?

If--and that's a big IF--there were "above-average decision-making and governance", amalgamation wouldn't even enter residents' minds.

Because things would be running well, with surpluses versus deficits, with correctly-placed priorities versus big-city-wannabe wishlists, with true cooperation among communities versus circling their wagons, with long-term doable plans versus wishy-washy stabs at trying to please every half-baked request that arrives in council mailboxes.

There'd be no need to amalgamate.

"How many lanes do there have to be?  How many shoulders?  Does there have to be a bike path?"

 Consultant M. Trickey

Examples abound, but most recently yet another consultant's report to Vernon Council, quoted in the paper thusly:  "How many lanes do there have to be?  How many shoulders?  Does there have to be a bike path?" 

Oh for heaven's sake!
That comment AFTER construction of myriad bike paths (and plans for more) in both Vernon and Coldstream, all of which cost big taxpayer dollars.
For what?
For a few bicyclists in summer?
For no bicyclists at all during six months of winter?

I'm reminded of my childhood in Vancouver, a Zone 8 gardening city where one could ride a bicycle for 12 months each year.

My family resided a few blocks off one of the busiest thoroughfares in Vancouver--Kingsway--five miles west of Gladstone Secondary School.  I rode my bike to and from school during those years, no bike paths, no school buses to ferry students to and fro.  There wasn't even a law requiring helmets for bicyclists.  Not always the "good ole' days", but those were days when common sense was, well, more common than today.  When logic rose to the top like heavy cream.

Parents--not a provincial government--set strict rules in those days:  always ride facing traffic, motorized vehicles had the right-of-way.  Only a moron would have believed bicyclists should have the right of way.  And we were respectful of bigger, heavier, motorized cars and trucks and buses simply because we knew it took considerable time for a big, heavy, motorcar or truck or bus to stop if we did something stupid while riding a bike.
Enough about bikes.

Ask any of the Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association members...is it not as punishment that we wish to impose amalgamation on Coldstream?  Punishment for their plan to rezone East Coldstream acreages to RU10/RU30?
Amalgamation is the punishment Coldstream's Mayor and Council deserve for that plan.
And once amalgamation has occurred--as we fervently hope it does--we will not allow the new government to even whisper to impose that rezoning on our acreages.

So yes, amalgamation is punishment for government screw-ups.
Screw up and we will terminate your local government...how's that for your council's legacy?
Certainly not a reward.

While rare, politicians do have their lucid moments.
Vernon Mayor Sawatzky--when considering what to do to bolster Vernon's flagging economy--said he wasn't convinced Vernon is destined to become the centre of large manufacturers.
Hallelujah.
But he still employs an Economic Development officer.

Economically, Vernon simply can't compete with Kelowna, 40 kilometres to the south.
Kelowna offers--first of all, a larger valley--more space for residential and industrial operations seeking to locate or expand.  Less red tape and lower taxes, it's said.  And despite similar weather, why do people and manufacturers choose Kelowna?  In no particular order, an international airport, one hour less driving time to Vancouver, less bureaucratic red tape and fewer delays in getting that red tape sorted out.

Admit it.
The Vernon area is a bedroom community to Kelowna.
Vernon is terrible for business, but good for those residents seeking a lifestyle devoid of mile-long traffic.

But don't kid yourself...Vernon needs Kelowna to continue to be a thriving community.

"Vernon's got a lot," offers Kia, "most notably bureaucracy."

Punishment or Reward--whichever way you see it--amalgamation is necessary in a town that can't grow dollars.

Bike Lanes -- Users Refuse to Pay?

Entitled Bike Lanes Aren't The Answer, this August 4th Letter to the Editor from G. Campbell appears to reflect the opinions of an increasing number of motorists...and taxpayers.

"In response to M. Lissau's letter in The Morning Star -- whoa, whoa, whoa.  Let's back this pollution-spewing bus up just a bit!

How about you think of it as 'You pay for what you use fee?'

"...one in 100 people who actually use bicycles on any sort of regular basis.  If my estimate is anywhere close that would amount to one per cent of the population."   G.Campbell

 You want more bike lanes and paths but don't want to be the one paying for it?  You feel the others, who are already burdened with taxes and 'fees', too long to list, that they should pay for it?  This seems also the wish of a few at city hall as well.  Who changed the rules of common sense?  Someone get me a drink!

I drive around Vernon and it is hard not to notice the many designated 'bike lanes' on many major roadways and I swear I could fire a cannon down any one of them, at any time of the day, on any day of the week and never hit a soul.

"...I'm sure city hall can figure out a hefty yearly registration system so that you can pay your fair share."    G.Campbell

My best guess would be there are one in 100 people who actually use bicycles on any sort of regular basis.  If my estimate is anywhere close that would amount to one per cent of the population.

And just what monies do you think built and maintains that three-foot lane on both sides of the road?  Well it would be partially paid by motorists' gas taxes, already.

Consider that for a moment; all that money spent and six feet of endless road space for a handful of people.

What a terrible waste of pavement. 

Years ago kids dominated the bicycling world.  Every kid had one and every kid used them as transportation to school, play and work.

Now children are bused or driven to school and if close enough they simply walk.  The school grounds have not even tenth(sic) of the amount of bicycles parked there that use(sic) to be.  Kids are apt to hop on a skateboard rather than a bicycle.

Basically, the few people I see using bicycles are not 'kids' anymore, but adults.

Bicycles are not and never will be the answer to the environment.  They were never a practical form of transportation.  As history shows, the bicycle was fairly well skipped over from the horse and buggy to the automobile. 

You then go on to say this somehow would attract tourists to town.

Well isn't that a bit contradictory?  Just how do you suppose those tourists are going to get here?  Do (sic) think that they are going to use up their limited holidays to 'bicycle' up from the States or over from Alberta? 

People, wake up.  Certainly I can't be the only person who feels like this.

The only thing that we've done for the environment to give governments, at all levels, a blank cheque.  It has turned into the greatest cash-cow in history and they're bleeding it for all they can, right along with the corporations, gutting us for cash all in the name of 'going green', 'save the planet', etc. etc.

Every time they run short of  'funds', they dream up another 'fee' (re: tax) and use the 'environment' as their argument so that we feel a 'guilt' arguing it.

Well I for one have had enough of that ploy.  Pick pocketing us with user fees and taxes is counter-productive in getting any economy fired up.  We are the 'consumer'.  Take away our money and we can't buy things and when we stop buying things the economy stops, period.  Put more money in our pockets and we will spend it on houses, cars, holidays, TV's, etc.  Viola!(sic)  That is how an economy gets healthy and stays healthy!

Its(sic) basic economics which you would think politicians could figure out but very few of them do.  They are only good at dreaming up absurd ways and excuses to tax us more, and hence, discouraging true and real business.

This, they have found, is much easier than actually budgeting smartly.

My suggestion for bicycling enthusiasts?  You want it, you pay for it.   Enough of tagging everyone else for your hobby.

And how about coughing up the cash for the three feet of un-used pavement that already exists?  I'm sure city hall can figure out a hefty yearly registration system so that you can pay your fair share for the construction, maintenance and cleaning of the lanes reserved for bicycles.

Can't afford it?  Neither can I."

G.Campbell

"And we wonder where the skewed sense of 'entitlement' originates among kids...look no further than their parents for the answer,"  suggests Kia.

Divergent Views

Letters to the Editor--lately anyway--epitomize such divergent views!

A letter in today's Morning Star, entitled Fuel Tax, is pretty darn interesting.
Taken together, the letter by Ms. Lissau, to which he refers--(but we have not reprinted)--gives an entire new meaning to drawing apart from a common point.

"Fuel Tax"
I feel like I need to respond to Julia Lissau's letter, "Think of it as a polluter-pay fee." 
What a pile of rubbish.

Once you take out all of the filler and rhetoric from this letter, you are left with the basic fats.  Ms. Lissau is ignoring the fact that not everyone "drives because they can."  Many people drive because they have to.  What about the aged, disabled and infirm?

"...start requiring bike licenses of $150 per bike per year and toll booths on bike paths of $1.50 each use."  W.Brunsdon

What about people who live a long distance from work, family and amenities?

What about people who commute between cities for work?  What about people who drive for a living?  What about mechanics, car salespeople and all of those whose employment is linked to vehicles?

If it is so important to build even more bike paths that will be used six or seven months out of the year, instead of repairing and maintaining the infrastructure we already have, then let bicycle riders pay for it.

Let's start requiring bike licenses of $150 per bike per year and toll booths on bike paths of $1.50 each use.  We could fine those without helmets and put the money toward a true bike utopia.

I know, let's tax spandex shorts.

A fine for all those riding a bike anywhere other than a designated bike path.

All of the above funds to be returned once the global average temperature drops 0.75 degrees over a 20-year span if that drop can be attributed to people riding their bikes.

Clearly the above is over the top, but so is asking people who drive to pay for your hobby.

I think bike paths are fine but not one dime should be spent on them from public funds until all of the roads in Vernon are returned to a reasonable safe state of repair.

Potholes ruin tires and the tires then need to be recycled.  Swerving to avoid potholes crates danger.

As to raising the gas tax, think about the big picture and everyone, not just yourself, before you start to pontificate about how you, as a bike rider, somehow hold the moral high ground."

        Ward Brunsdon



"I'm all for taxing spandex shorts," attests Kia, and adds, "that's what creates the real divergent views, especially from the rear!"

Bike Path Liability

...so typical of governments to not consider Cause and Effect.

And Coldstream has its own poorly-thought-out Bike Paths.
With plans for more.

But first, this compelling Letter to the Editor, about Vernon's bike paths, from January 13, 2013 in The Morning Star.

"I've had three occasions in the last year that could have in all likelihood ruined my life.  the most recent was travelling on Alexis Park Drive, heading north towards 43rd Avenue.  I apologize for sounding selfish in this regard because it could also, and more so, (have) ruined the lives of people I don't even know.  Actually, I'm still shaken from it.

"...a bike path that pretty much encourages kids to come out and play in high-density traffic."  G.Thomas

Two kids were riding their bikes on a bike path to the left of the parked cars.  Check it out yourself.  The sidewalk, of course, is where these kids should be on their bikes.  However, I passed one.  The one in front inadvertently nipped the mirror of a parked car, overreacted and was in my traffic lane.

I was fortunate for no oncoming traffic.  I veered to the left and missed hitting this child.  If there was oncoming traffic, there would be a collision to avoid hitting this kid.

Not myself or anyone else could prognosticate the potential horror of this, all because of a bike path that pretty much encourages kids to come out and play in high-density traffic.

The next incident involved an adult biker close to a turning lane off 20th Street and 46th Avenue.  The actual bike lane here moved to a ramp toward a part of the sidewalk.  Instead, this person turned left next to a jut-out curb and right in front of me.  I was forced to jam my brakes.

I hope this city gets rid of bike paths, especially those to the left of parked cars.  The other hope is my conscience for at least trying to forestall the eventuality of a tragic accident given my close calls."

Gordon Thomas

Bike paths ARE dangerous, especially when constructed to the left of parking lanes, as shown in this photo from the U.S.A. 

Mr. Thomas explained the problem, and intersections pose danger too: 

The danger of right turns...

 And whatever happened to the tenet--learned many years ago from our parents when we were youngsters--to ride facing traffic, as in this example:

Ride facing traffic

Both the District of Coldstream and the City of Vernon, in their mad rush for bike paths to comply to the wish lists of senior bureaucrats in Victoria, have built--and are planning more--paths that carelessly place cyclists among traffic on poorly placed and haphazardly designed paths.


What if--in Mr. Thomas' case--there had been oncoming traffic and a collision had occurred?

Is the builder of the bike path liable for poor construction?
Is the child on the bike liable for the collision of Mr. Thomas and the oncoming car?
Is Mr. Thomas liable?  Consider that a court might argue Mr. Thomas could have--in a split-second decision of the "lesser of two evils"--opted to strike an oncoming car instead of hitting the child?

At a minimum...all bikes using bike lanes must be equipped with handlebar rear-view mirrors (on both handlebars), front and rear lights (LED-activated by pedal), AND that all bicycles using bike lanes must have liability insurance.

These are all factors that put our communities--and its residents who pay the bills--in jeopardy because of their planning deficiencies.

Cause and effect...entirely lost on consultants and bureaucrats.

The solution?
Better design with cause and effect in mind.

Don't build bike paths where cars are parked at the right (and DON'T try to fix that by eliminating curb-side parking!).   Bureaucrats in Victoria need to add "requirements" to the bike helmet rule:  that all bikes using bike lanes MUST be equipped with handlebar rear-view mirrors (on both handlebars), front and rear lights (LED-activated by pedal), AND that all bicycles using bike lanes MUST HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE.  Quite the money-grab for ICBC, but it is necessary.

A couple of the most dangerous "designs" are:  the exit lane (from 25th Avenue onto Hwy 6 where cars have the non-stop merge lane, yet is crossed by a green-painted bike path...green naturally gives cyclists the "false assurance" they need not stop and look behind them for traffic turning right.  Another is at 25th Avenue and 34th Street, where cars and cyclists heading west "meet" if a car were to turn right.  Neither of these bicycle paths face traffic...which sadly resulted in a bicylist's death this year at the 37th Street intersection with 25th Avenue.

Coldstream's next bike path is its Phase II extension on Kidston Road.

Are planners looking ahead to preventing liability risks?  

"They can't see beyond their noses, so it's doubtful," offers Kia.

A sad case indeed...local governments heeding big government's wishes without sufficient forethought.
And sadder stories will come.