Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Where do the CNV candidates live in our community?


Don McBain said...

I don't think it is a requirment that they do have to live in the community, as it is not in provincial politics. My MLA does not live in West Vancouver-Capilano

Paul J. Gilbert said...

How about a little more to your post. Why do they need to live within the City? Do they have a business within the City?

I don't see a problem, but I would be interested in knowing what a potential problem would be with this issue.

sue lakes cook said...

I believe that Heywood lives in the District, does that matter, I do not think so because ALL of the house prices on the North Shore are at the million dollar mark. Just shows that Heywood is earning a nice buck!
I wonder how many candidates actually walk on the disgusting sidewalks in the City. Yesterday a fellow landed after trying to run for a bus. Fortunately he was not hurt, but still I wonder how many people are injured on those sidewalks.
I remember bringing this up in 2005 but of course it was ignored.
I also wonder if the City ever pays for damages pedistrians incur while walking on those decaying and dangerous sidewalks.

enzo testa said...

No it may not be a requirment for any candidates to live in the community but don't you think they should? After all they would be supporting northvan in which they live rather than surrey ;)

Anonymous said...

90% of the staff don’t live in the city why care about the candidates?

Anonymous said...

Sue, ALL of the house prices are certainly NOT at the million dollar mark. Your propensity for misstating the facts is growing tiresome.

As for the person falling down, could it not have been user error and not the sidewalk? I walk everywhere throughout the city and there are only a few places where the walks could use some work, but if you're mindful and watch where you are going it isn't a big deal. Methinks you are just looking for things to complain about for the sake of complaining. Do you ever have anything positive to say about this community? Maybe you should move someplace more suitable to your temperament.

John Sharpe said...

I don't think it is a requirement. It was more of an observation than anything. Ideally you run in the municipality you live in, don't you think? I know for me my heart is in the District and if I ran as a candidate that's where it would be. I mean if you pay taxes in a municipality , don't you think you have a vested interest in it?

Of course this is a moot point if you are an advocate of Amalgamation.

George Pringle for Mayor said...

Any Canadian citizen who has been a resident of BC for six months can run anywhere in BC.

Guy Heywood may have moved a few blocks above the City boundaries but that should not matter at all.

There should be one North Vancouver as is a prime part of my platform.

It is better we unite now before the provincial government decides to unite all of metro vancouver and we lose what we have.

sue lakes cook said...

It used to be that out of all the three North Shore Municipalities the City was the most affordable.

This is no longer the case, the City house prices are right in line with those in the District, and the fact is the majority of houses in both North Vancouvers range from $800,000.00 to one million. There is some variety in terms of condos, but the North Shore is no longer a place with a variety of home prices to reflect a variety of incomes.
In terms of City workers, where do they live = can you shed the light on this for us?
There are many (especially seniors) who would disagree with you regarding the condition of the sidewalks, that have been in a disgraceful state for many YEARS, not just weeks or months.
In terms of my facts not being accurate please state them and give the correct information.
You never stop do you George?

Anonymous said...

That wasn't George. Check the real estate papers Sue. There are plenty of single detached houses priced under the range you've given. A quick search shows 48 homes for sale under your magic $800,000. Over a dozen are under $700,000 and some are still to be had under $600,000. As for Condos there are dozens for sale with prices ranging from $149,900 and up. 86 units are priced at under $300,000. So if any person does a quick search on the MLS site they will see that you are once again pulling numbers out of your ass. I haven't even bothered to research the availability of other forms of housing such as duplexes, triplexes, town homes, etc. So contrary to what you say, there are plenty of options out there for people of different incomes. Renting is also still an option - nobody has ever guaranteed a person they would be able to own a home. That is entirely up to the individual.

As for sidewalks, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I've seen more broken water mains that dangerous sidewalks. Fortunately the water mains are being repaired. Looks like the engineering department has their priorities right. There's only so much money to spend, Sue. You talk as though the tax payer has bottomless pockets. You do understand that the costs of everything you propose are being paid by you and I, don't you? Are your pockets bottomless? Mine certainly aren't!

Chris Nichols said...

The home price on my street average 700,000 or less. I believe the last two sold for under 700k.

Yes I live in the city and felt it was right that as a citizen I should run in the community I live in.

My platform is based on meeting the needs of seniors, no densification without representation, and as for amalgamation a 75% majority refereundum would be required to get any incumbent out of their seat before they would push for such a thing. So if you want one, make it an agenda item so it will be on the docket and we will try to make it happen.

Anonymous said...

Why do the needs of seniors take precedence over the young, struggling singles and families?

sue lakes cook said...

Of course the needs of seniors who have paid taxes longer then any other group, and are the highest to be discriminated against if we do try and find a job, and are only seniors because we have lived healthy life styles should be ignored.
Far more important to spend tax payers dollars on those who live their lives without any responsibility and end up with massive health issues. You know the ones who enjoy unsafe sex, smoking (both legal and illegal tobacco), those who have chosen addiction as a way of life, those who continue to eat unhealthy food, etc.

As a person who will be 65 in January and is facing a future of extreme poverty I say bring euthanasia on. Most of us do not want to live if we are going to be a burden on our families or the health care system, or if we are suffering both physically and mentally.

Let's just see if there is at leasst one politician on any level who will introduce the right to die into our society?

John Sharpe said...

I don't often rant but, here goes.

I think it matters. If you're going to run in the District, then live in the District. Ditto for the City. It is a matter of common sense and ethics until if and when there is Amalgamation. A candidate should live where they run because they represent the people in that area. How can you have a full feel for where you run if you do not live there. Not to mention the City and the District have very different profiles and character.

Mr. Pringle,

Do you know the reasoning behind why there is no requirement? Disagree that a B.C. resident in the North Peace district can run in East Vancouver. The case may not be as strong for CNV vs. DNV but, still believe 'run where you live.'

You don't find the Richard Walton running for Mayor in the City.

At this point the two North Vans are separate. Apparently for good reason too. Just ask Mayor Mussatto

George Pringle for Mayor said...


I agree but that is the way the provincial government wrote the law. Probably to allow people who live close to an area or move not to be restricted. I doubt anyone does run in a place far away from where they live.

Darryl's reasons against amalgamation is more about a politician who is opposed to change and worried about losing his seat. As is the opposition by the other Councilors. With 4 seats for City Councilors, there is 2 less chances for re-election.

In 1981, during the last referendum, there was significant support by city voters. Why would Council block a referendum? Is is because they don't want to see a majority of voters publicly calling for an amalgamation?

I intend to be running in the future but I put the tax paying residents ahead of my electoral needs. The rest of Council needs to as well.

Perhaps what is needed is an "Unite North Vancouver" local electors group that runs in the City and District.

George Pringle for Mayor said...

Chris - if you can pull a province out of Canada with a referendum of 50% plus one, then you can Unite North Vancouver with the same.

It is the provincial government who holds the authority anyway and would make the determination and they declared the HST referendum a 50% +1 the standard for BC.

Anonymous said...

So Sue, You'd have the tax payer foot the bill for your poor life decisions? By the way, you're a master at sweeping generalities about young people. You'll never get people listening seriously to you with crap like that coming out of your mouth. Entitled much?

John Sharpe said...

Mr. Pringle, "I doubt anyone does run in a place far away from where they live."

I don't think that matters. CNV and the DNV are close together but, it is fundamentally wrong when a councillor votes to set tax rates in one municipalty but, yet does not even live in it, among other things.

The law should be changed.

John Sharpe said...

Also George,

Word of mouth has it that Darrell said at the last ACM the main reason he doesn't approve of Amalgamayion was that the CNV has $70 million in the bank and the District does not.

Anonymous said...

If the city has 70 million in the bank then we should see that coming back to the shareholders in the form of reduced taxes! Or, they should be investing it in our infrastructure. It shouldn't be sitting there doing nothing but accumulating interest.

George Pringle for Mayor said...

First, Darryl's statement is typical of our elected officials in the City. They like to use terms like "us" and "them" in order to protect their little status quo and what really matters to a status quo politician is their re-election. Should not the highest priority be the residents of the City? People who live north of 29th are not a scary enemy who wants to steal your money.

It is just inside baseball anyway, the people paying the bills need an end to continuous tax increases. The people identify with North Van more than the old line of City and District.

We can't be manipulated anymore.

We have reserves (not cash in the bank) which have spending restrictions to ensure the spending is on a directed purpose. No interest is used on general revenue.

Both the City and District have reserves most are set for normal costs. The District has reserves of 47,550,598 and the City has 97,988,000.

The City has created reserve funds like:
the Lower Lonsdale Amenity 9,225.000,
Lower Lonsdale Legacy 1,887,000,
the NMC money of 6.5 million,
the Marine Drive Community Amenity of 1,001,000 and the big one of "tax sale lands" over 48 million.

Amalgamation does not affect a Lower Lonsdale fund, it has to be spent there.

But would a new North Vancouver suffer the same tunnel vision of the defenders of the status quo? 4 members from the old city boundaries and 4 from the District elected separately like the School Board does now. One Mayor.

Darryl's view of "us" and "them" assumes that the District is a monolith. Since the original boundaries were drawn, the City has merged on the West and North side. In a combined Mayoral election the people on both sides would weigh the worth of candidates not which side of an imaginary line one used to be on. The voters are smarter than that.

I propose a referendum where both the City and District ask the same question with a set of conditions. Are the status quo politicians afraid that it would be shown that the residents see through their lines? In the last referendum, in 1981, the city voters almost approved a merger.

It is a myth that the City would not support a merger, it is the politicians who are strongly opposed to it.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you George.

Yes, the City has more $$ reserves than the District but the value of the District "land bank" is HUGE compared to the miniscule value of City land.

Where do City folks recreate? Why in the District land bank - mountain biking, hiking, kayaking from Deep Cove and Cates Park etc.

Put them together and make one super municipality and reduce the duplicated administrative costs.

Guy Heywood said...

For the record, I moved to my wife's home when we married so my stepdaughter could keep walking to her neighbourhood elementary school. Loved and miss my condo in the City. I enjoy politics and I am committed to serving the City, but family comes first.  And on the family topic, my dad and my two sons do live in the City.

Anonymous said...

poor pathetic pringle wants amalgamation so that in his delusioned mind he can rule the masses.

Guy Heywood said...

On the issue of ammalgamation. With all due respect to George's points - I am not in favour from the City's point of view. It is a District issue right now, but not important enough at this time to have made it into their new OCP. If it becomes important to them in this election they should spend some time and money and develop a business case for it - one which shows real benefit to the City as well as the obvious benefits to the District.
In the City, the highest priorities are renewing the OCP and our most important public spaces. These are going to be complex and challenging projects without the distraction of talking about ammalgamation. So for the next term we need to focus on what's important and maybe we can make more progress than we did last term.

Anonymous said...

Guy, would you support amalgamation of fire services for the North Shore?

Guy Heywood said...

Fire protection costs are lower per capita for reason - the City is denser and easier to protect - so its per capita costs should continue to be lower in an unified fire service. Beside that with the new 'move up' protocols the degree of coordination is increased anyway. So yes, assuming the case can be made and there is an appropriate process to review it.. I am in favour.

sue lakes cook said...

Guy - may I first thank you and all the other council members for the new crosswalk on West 3rd at Mahon. All residents are very very pleased.

In terms of the amalgamation of the fire departments have you read the report which I outlined at my presentation to Mayor and Council on Oct 17? This report was also presented to the District of West Vancouver. I think just the fact of contracting out the fire boat services and getting rid of two fire boats in the North Vancouvers is a good start. I also like the idea of just one maintenance centre. I want to know what you think of the present City Fire Department with 66 employees, but 33 of them are also Captains, Training officers or Leiutenants = why so many administrators? Also do you support a 7 million total for salaries for 66 employees and how much more are the fire fighters asking for?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know why the City of North Van refused to participate in the report

Anonymous said...

Every now and then Sue asks a pertinent question.

This one is so simple.

How much of a wage and benefit increase are the municipal unions demanding?

There are self-identified union members pumping their candidates, other non-union candidates, sitting members of council, municipal staff all reading and posting on this blog.

Yet, even though this question has been asked repeatedly, not one of them has been willing to publish the figure here.

Is it that outrageous?

Come on, if you've got the nerve to demand that the taxpayers give you more surely you have the nerve to tell us how much.

Anonymous said...

Dead silence on this question for 2 full days. No one with the jam, including the union candidates and their supporters, to step up and tell us what the unions are demanding from us.

Speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

All it really says is that this blog doesn't get a lot of traffic. If you want answers, do the leg work and get it for yourself. Don't sit there expecting others to deliver it to you.

Anonymous said...

BS. This blog gets plenty of traffic when the union members are singing the praises of their candidates.

Same goes for politicians and would be politicians who like to tell us how informed they are on the issues.

Well folks, here's your chance. What are the current civic union wage demands?

Anonymous said...

I won't be voting for Heywood.

My message to him: Run in your municipality!

Anonymous said...

It is obvious the wage demand
increases of the North Van. Fire F.
are high, or it would be stated!