Tuesday, December 13, 2011

What's on your mind about North Vancouver politics?


This is an any topic post about 'North Vancouver's political players and the decisions that shape our community.' Let's discuss what's on your mind?

40 comments:

John Sharpe said...

At last nights DNV council meeting there was a delegation from Safe Technology and they asked council to call for a moratorium on smart meters or transmitters as the speaker called them.

The City of North Vancouver at its Nov. 28th Council meeting passed the following resolution:

THAT the City of North Vancouver call upon the Government of British Columbia to impose a moratorium on the installation of Smart Meters until the Clean Energy Act is amended to provide for full public consultation through the BC Utilities Commission.

Don said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don said...

Back to the topic.

Do you really think that municipal governments can stand up against BC Hydro? It is great that they are saying NO to smart meters but does it really matter?

Don McBain said...

I think I now have my identity correct.

Don McBain said...

I will not use stickman graphics here John, the Liberals used them in their failed attempt to quash the Fight HST movement that WE WON!!

Anonymous said...

One thing that was kind of weird in Monday's presentation to DNV council was the presenters qualifications. She called herself Sally de la Rue Browne REHO. So I looked up REHO (Registered Environmental Health Officer) and it kept coming up with her name only... Is this a fictitious certification? Usually when you google a certification is comes up with a .org professional association and information on the credentials. With this one it keeps coming up with only her... What gives?

Anonymous said...

Also, in her presentation she said that the UN has ranked wifi as a class two carcinogen. I think she meant the World Health Organization, the UN doesn't do that sort of thing.

When something is listed on the Group 2B IARC, WHO list that means that it is a 'possible carcinogen', not a scientifically proven carcinogen. In fact wifi, and more specifically, the electromagnetic fields that are created by it, are only 'known' to raise the body temperature of a person when they are in concentrations in excess of 1000 times more powerful than a wifi emitter.

Put your tin foil hat on.

Anonymous said...

I think it important to note that the presentation against the smart meters was a delegation and the meeting was not well attended.

There was no Press present.

I think there are more important issues to address, i.e. voter apathy.

How do we people who pay attention to politics, and often actually get involved, encourage, entice, etc. to get people to pay attention to their governance?

Anonymous said...

Something has to bite the citizens hard before they pay attention. Reactive VS Proactive. By then it may be too late.

Anonymous said...

Citizen and voter apathy pretty much tops the chart, John. Why else would an entire undeserving DNV Council be re-elected?

Rod Clark said...

So our City Mayor has come out of the closet ... http://bit.ly/svfAg4

Read the article & weep. Darrell brings Party & Slate politics to the City ... great leadership eh?

John Sharpe said...

Great to have you on board Don! And sorry about the stick men.

The DNV does not have jurisdiction over this issue, but they can add their voice in the call for a moratorium. I hope they do and I'd like to see the BC Utilities Commission involved.

Anon 12:26 PM; I'd have to differ that the meeting wasn't well attended; The chambers were actually at least half full which is better than most regular council meetings. Yes, would like to have seen the press.

John Sharpe said...

...and Don I hope the blog will start to see more non anonymous posters like yourself.

Looking forward to your first main post topic!

Anonymous said...

With all due respect John, I'd like to see less non-anonymous posters unless it is their ambition to run politically.

It's a good thing to get to know our potential candidates as their views could impact our lives so please get your names in print.

Aside from that group, the opinions and comments of the poster is of interest and their identities are not.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the need for named posters. In fact, if you go through the history of this blog, some of the most topical posts have been by some of the anons. As the previous poster said, the only people who need to identify themselves are those with political aspirations and those whose egos require it.

Anonymous said...

From Craig McInnes in today's Vancouver Sun:

Language is the currency of political debate. When the currency is devalued, as it is when politicians treat truth as an endlessly elastic commodity, two things happen.

First, the chance of honest compromise diminishes. The kind of intelligent conversations that ordinary people have in which disparate views can be woven into novel solutions that neither might have thought of on their own, rarely happen.

Instead, debates are another form of battle in which words are slung over the heads of the opposing side in a never-ending campaign to win over voters.

Second, the disrespect politicians show for truth in their enthusiasm for tearing each other down seeps into the popular view of politics and politicians, which is often summarized as "they are all a bunch of crooks."

While that's clearly not true, it isn't much of a stretch to get to that assessment from the terms politicians use to describe each other.

None of this will change until voters start demanding bet-ter. We need to persuade politicians of the need to improve their image so that they become leaders we can look up to instead of people we hold with the same contempt they show for each other.

We need to stop making allowances for politicians who define truth as not being able to be pinned down in a lie. The fact that so many of them are willing to misrepresent their opponents, to lie about what they stand for and then attack them on the basis of those lies, doesn't make it right.

We need to punish at the bal-lot box politicians who don't understand that without trust, there can be no respect and without truth there can be no trust.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lying+politicians+undermine+currency+democracy/5864305/story.html#ixzz1gcmm2Ii7



http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Lying+politicians+undermine+currency+democracy/5864305/story.html

Anonymous said...

Rod it is very clear that Mussatto and Keating are just using the City of North Vancouver as a stepping stone to bigger, brighter and richer things. They will get there too, because the already have the union bucks, the fire fighter bucks, and with all the new development they will have the developers and new immigrant bucks as well.
No way to stop them now.

Anonymous said...

Randy Helton, Coordinator of Metrovanwatch has sent a letter to the mayors and councillors in the Metro Vancouver Region calling on the new Metro appointees to foster an open, transparent, accountable and accessible culture and to choose a Chair and Vice Chair who will do the same.

He goes on to say:
We are concerned that some B.C. municipalities have the most expensive civic elections (per vote) in Canada, a new record probably having been set again in November 2011, and that the major funders include developers, unions and foreign interests. This relationship could create a structural conflict of interest when the elected officials try to balance the public interest against the interests of their funders, especially where municipal political parties have dominant control. We hope that all mayors and councillors will be vigilant in watching over affairs for the entire Metro Vancouver region in order to balance the complex needs of the economy, agriculture, greenspace protection, environment, housing, jobs, and more.

http://www.metrovanwatch.ca/

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that the City of North Van will qualify as one of the most expensive, looking at the money spent in 2008 by unions. Too bad the disclosure documents aren't required to be filed for so long.

John Sharpe said...

Hello Anon 9:21 PM,

If there were "less anonymous posters" it would pretty much mean every comment on the blog would be anonymous. I prefer a balance as in all things. As for ego and political aspirations, I don't think Don for example has either.

(Don, correct me if I'm wrong).

And, as non-anonymous poster myself I'm not known for a big ego and the only political aspirations I have are to follow it. (Although by virtue of being this blogs owner it's pretty hard for me to be an Anon).

On the other hand Barry Forward, the originator of this blog obviously had aspirations.

Anon 9:39 AM,

Many of the most topical comments have been by anonymous commenters, but there have been many equally topical posts and comments by non-anonymous bloggers.

Mocrael or Lyle Craver have no political aspirations that I know of either.

Anonymous said...

John, thanks for your reply. I was Anon 9:21 and I didn't mention anything at all about "ego". You've got that mixed up with Anon 8:39.

In any case, you have dabbled with political aspirations as has Sue, Wendy, George and other named posters. All fair ball as we voters like to have a sense of your views in case your names show up on the ballot one day.

As far as Don, Lyle, Mocrael and any others who you state have no political ambitions go, their points are not more or less valid with the inclusion of their names. In my opinion I'm just as happy to have them expressed anonymously as the names are superfluous. I'm trying to be nice but bluntly speaking if they're not going to enter politics I really could care less who they are and I'm just interested in what they have to say.

Anonymous said...

Just a fantastic letter to the editor in Wednesday's NSNews concerning traffic on the Shore.

The author just hits the nail on the head in his observations of the expensive diminishment of our roads through dangerous intersection bulges, speed humps, little or un-used bike lanes narrowing our roads etc.

He observes that our topography, weather, age and familial needs simply render most transit and bike options impossible yet inordinate amounts of money are spent on these alternatives to the detriment of drivers.

Where were the local candidates that are prepared to stand up for the driving majority?

John Sharpe said...

Correction; First sentence of previous comment should have read..."If there were "less non-anonymous posters" ....

John Sharpe said...

Anon 7:24 PM,

Point well taken. The blog has always really been about the argument and not the person behind the argument. Still I appreciate when someone puts there name to what they say regardless of aspirations. This is not too say that I don't appreciate the faceless points of the Anonymous bloggers.

Anonymous said...

" This is not too say that I don't appreciate the faceless points of the Anonymous bloggers."

If this is true John, then maybe you could point this out to those who continually take pot shots at the anons on this blog. As long as the conversation is topical and respectful, it should't matter who writes it.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that all the city councillors get a MacBook, iPhone, iPad, paid home internet access, and all-in-one colour printers when they are elected?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you phone city hall and ask? Or better yet, send the council members an e-mail asking them your question.

Anonymous said...

Who cares? Councillors are entitled to anything they want. Suck it up tax payer.

Anonymous said...

So, when are people going to start getting really angry at council over the continual annual increases to utility charges - far above the annual rate of inflation?

Anonymous said...

The new water treatment plant cost a fortune and it has to be paid for.
A new sewage treatment plant is coming and it will also cost a bundle.
Garbage tipping fees are through the roof.

So if you want fresh water, not to dump raw sewage in the ocean and your garbage picked up who do you propose should pay for it?

Anonymous said...

Listen up, people. District Mayor and Council were re-elected for another three years. Their entitlement to public office grows with every re-election whether deserved or not. We had some good alternate choices to make change, but voter apathy took easy street. So suck it up and stop whining. This is democracy at work, you know.

Anonymous said...

No it is not democracy at work. It is the Liberal Machine on the North Shore that gets their people out to vote for the wrong people.

We must find a way to get more people to engage.

The Press is onside with developers and pro-development councils.

They pay for advertising.

We are screwed.

Lyle Craver said...

I have said publicly that the powers that be would be quaking in their boots if we ever got a 90% voter turnout in municipal elections.

This would be the ultimate "Howard Beale" moment. (I have included a link to the famous rant for those not familiar with it)

There is something wrong where 12 of 14 incumbents in DNV and CNV can be re-elected (and neither of two new CNV councillors can be called 'newbies'). It will be most interesting to see the candidates' financials when they come out in March.

Some change in the system is a very good thing and it is very bad public policy when the system is so stacked in favor of incumbents.

The problem of course is that the status quo serves incumbents very well and thus they have no good reason to be interested in change.

ALL of us are Howard Beales now and then - but we can't live that way all the time and expect productive things to happen over the long haul!

Good government is based on 'open decisions openly arrived at' and the public good is ill-served when key decisions are made behind closed doors by our Councils. It is good to have them thrash the issues of the day out in public and we get better decision making when the public hears what went into the decisions.

Anonymous said...

Yes, encumbent advantage is democracy at work. That is how it works in virtually all democracies.

Now if you're saying it's not fair, just, right - well that's a different thing.

Unions and developers can make significant campaign contributions in our local government elections. They don't give away money because they're altruistic.

Fair, right, just? Perfectly legal and permitted.

Councillors make meaningful decisions at the in camera meeting which are then transformed into theatre for the public at the open meeting. The fluff decisions are mixed in with the important ones at the open meeting helping to homogenize the process.

That is a function of our democracy.

The majority don't bother to vote.

Lots of talk about change but very little action as the status quo suits the majority and that is democracy.

sue lakes cook said...

Tis the season to be jolly....and if you are on the public payroll you must be jolling all the way to the bank. This just off the press:


Other superintendents who broke the $200,000 mark including benefits were: John Lewis in North Vancouver ($232,263), John Gaiptman in Greater Victoria ($233,042), Tom Grant in Coquitlam ($222,738), Dianne Turner in Delta ($216,631), Terry Sullivan in Kamloops-Thompson ($212,643), Jan Unwin in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows ($212,051), Denise Perry in Central Coast ($202,625) Hugh Gloster in Central Okanagan ($201,340), Mario Cyr of the Conseil Scolaire Francophone ($201,313) and Frank Dunham in Mission ($200,210).

Wonder how much Municipal employees, school board employees, fire fighters, etc are getting for their Christmas bonuses? Just another thing we will never know.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. We do know exactly to the penny how much they are paid.

Both the CUPE and the Firefighter Collective Agreement links were published on this blog.

If one takes the time to read them one will see that there is no "Christmas bonus" for civic employees.

However, there is a negotiated premium paid to those employees required to work Christmas (and other annual statutory holiday) Day.

Anonymous said...

"I have said publicly that the powers that be would be quaking in their boots if we ever got a 90% voter turnout in municipal elections"

I echo the various protestations about the lack of strong turnouts in elections, especially municipal ones where so many issues have a direct effect on day to day matters. But, I don't necessarily draw the conclusion that 25 or 30% of the public (usually pretty evenly spread out) doesn't accurately reflect the will of the whole. We all know that polling legitimacy is arrived at with far smaller samplings (19 times out of 20). So I wouldn't agree that it would just so happen that the 30% that showed up were ALL of one mind and those who didn't vote would have voted differently.

VS

Anonymous said...

Well said and well reasoned. Thanks, Vincent.

Anonymous said...

Translink just ordered a new SeaBus.

Actually just an RFP at this point but close enough.

John Sharpe said...

Good spin Vince. You can theorise all you want about what the results might be with a large turnout but, until it actually happens there's know way of knowing. My theory: large turnout, much different result because you engage the community. Also there will be more than just family, friends, and soccer buddies etc., voting for the incumbents.