North Vancouver's own political BLOG dedicated to North Vancouver's political players and the decisions that shape our community.
Following is the link to the letter from FONVCA & friends published in the same edition of the Outlook:http://www.northshoreoutlook.com/opinion/letters/171363681.html
I don't want to threadjack (but this topic only affects a handful of people). Have you guys seen the Cap River Coho kill from two weeks ago?Youtube
"Threadjack" -- excellent word.Unfortunately you are correct about the handful.FONVCA has done an excellent job since 1993/1994.It is truly sad that our municipal governments have decided to ignore the electorate. But it is much more complicated than that, people don't vote.Anybody reading this knows what to do: you must discuss municipal politics with everyone in your life. And encourage them to attend meetings and read the papers. On or offline.
I honestly believe that the reason people don't show up at municipal elections is that they're not unhappy with their community. NVD is a wonderful place to live with lots of amenities. Yes, the taxes are high, and yes, Council could probably rein in their spending a little, but they've been working on that by reducing staff and in other areas. Community Associations that do a good job of representing their constituents will continue to have their support, and it probably won't make a whit of difference if DNV gives their blessing or not.
This District council has got to get the boot. Who keeps re electing them?
What a ridiculous question.
Agree, it's a ridiculous question. Obviously it's the ones who bother to turn out and who are not unhappy with them. If you've got issues, and the majority agrees with you, then there will be change. And that would seem to confirm the sentiment expressed by various posters.
Who keeps re electing them? Perhaps not that ridiculous a question. Maybe it's not those "who are not unhappy with them.", but those who are party to having them re-elected.It would be easy to take advantage of voter non-participation. With only 20% voting who know's what's going on?
You're seriously suggesting voter fraud? Prove it.
Not voter fraud, voter apathy.
For Gawd's sake. If you don't bother to vote, then you can't complain about the result. Why is that such a difficult concept for the dumbass posters who complain about the elected officials we have? Since I have been old enough to vote, I have cast my ballot every time with the exception of one bi-election years ago to replace a councillor. I don't always like the result but I don't bitch either.
I think what might be "a difficult concept" is that in a liberal dominated voter municipality, all you need to do is organize your troops, soccer buddies, mountain biker buddies, other special interest groups, and Voila! your elected. The new boss is the same as the old boss. I always vote, but rarely does any one get elected that I palce an X beside. So I always bitch too.
In North Vancouver, there are no political parties at the municipal level - so it doesn't really matter which provincial or federal party the candidates support. People vote for the ones who they think will do the best job. Sure, there may be a little partisan preference, but I've voted for candidates who I know carry a different flag than I do federally. If you're unhappy living in a "Liberal dominated...municipality", obviously a reference to Provincial politics, it stands to reason that if Liberals keep getting elected, it must be that most everyone else is happy with them, and you're the one who is out of step. Do you bitch no matter who gets elected and to what office? Then perhaps you're just bad at analyzing the candidates. Or just maybe you should move somewhere a little more left-leaning where you and your neighbours can rejoice in the Dippers being victorious on election day, and then be prepared to bitch at them when they start giving all your tax dollars away to various pet projects.
No official party, but we all know there is a 'slate' even though they argue till blue in the face there isn't. HA!...and like the arrogant Libs don't give away your tax dollars to someone somewhere. You know, you might just be wrong on this one Griffin.
I doubt it.
@ GiffinI actually think you are right. People ARE happy with DNV but that doesn't mean they are informed about the direction this council and mayor are going. If they really understood the ready to go plans for DENSITY and highrises, they would not be happy. But they are still happy and thus disinterested and therefore uninformed.If they realized that Mayor Walton, as head of Mayor's Council Translink, is a strong proponent of 'road pricing' to have car drivers pay even more for Translink I think maybe they woulnd't be so happy.On this topic, it is valuable to look up what 'road pricing' means.It means you will be required to install a GPS transponder in your car so an automated taxing system can charge you by time, location and distance for moving your car, using any road, or for NOT moving your car ( parking ) and you will get a bill every month for that. Besides the gross unfairness of having drivers pay for most of Translink's transit plans, a side effect of this kind of system is that government tracks your whereabouts 24 x 7. It is an egregious invasion of right to privacy and should be resisted vigorously, yet THIS is what our mayor is supporting on our behalf.
Unfortunately, Mayor Walton was installed by acclamation 2 elections ago, and was basically unopposed this past election as his so called opponent Margie Goodman stated publicly she didnt really want the job, but just wanted to be able to air some questions.Even after THAT she received 18 percent of the votes! Now we can't blame Walton for poor voter turnout, but we sure could pay attention to what he is pushing. ( DENSITY! ) and Translink taxes.
"Management" e.g. mayors and councils, especially in lower density municipalities like DNV, are under a lot of pressure by Metro to accept a greater percentage of population growth, hence the need for creative solutions, and in DNV that means going up in building height rather than up the mountain, which would be rather expensive because there are no sewers or water pipes up there, and other infrastruture costs would be realized disproportionately. Seeing the writing on the wall, the District undertook an extensive review process a couple of years ago to identify regional town centres where higher density was appropriate, leaving the single family neighbourhoods largely intact. That to me seems like a logical alternative, call it compromise if you will, to satisfy the demands of population growth, and benefit the residents in the single family areas because their neighbourhoods are preserved, they have greater shopping opportunities closer to home and hopefully better access to public transportation. Additionally, it will have a positive effect on the tax base and will hopefully encourage Translink to give us a better cut of the budget and improve links to the rest of the City. Before you jump all over me, I am not a fan of Translink and think that things worked better before their incarnation.I also know that there are still only two bridges because I get caught up in them regularly (in my car!!) but if we can provide better public transportation for those who can make use of it, I see that as a positive change. I don't have a better solution, or more answers, so if you do, I'm only too prepared to listen. Locking the gates to population growth isn't a solution. Neither is throwing out an experienced Council to be replaced by a bunch of people who think they know better when they've never even seen the inside of District Hall.In the meantime, you'd better accept that the status quo just ain't what it used to be.If the whole issue of greater density in regional town centres irks that many people, then you will indeed see a greater turnout in the 2014 elections.Just be thankful that you don't have a nutcase mayor like Gregor Robertson and his "visionary" band. What's going on in Vancouver with Mayor Moonbeam is of much greater concern, I believe, in terms of imposing unpopular policies, and I predict that he and his colleages will see themselves largely turfed out of office by an increasingly irate voter constituency. The challenge for the NPA is to find a mayoralty candidate who can rally the troops and kick the nuts out.
Griffin for council! Griffin for council! Griffin for council!. . .What's that, he's already on council? Oh right, what was I thinking?
Hey 8:44 AM, rather than the snarky comment, how about actually entering the discussion? Explain why you feel Griffin is wrong and give us your solutions. I'm on the same page as he is. Put density at the town centres, transpiration and commercial corridors. The infrastructure is there and it preserves the single family neighbourhoods. If you want further sprawl then there's additional infrastructure to build and maintain. Why not utilize the infrastructure that is already in place?Come on, 8:44 AM stop the sniping - that's just lazy and unproductive. Enter the conversation and give us your solutions.
transpiration should be transportation.
Many Lynn Valley residents who don't want High rises as it is against the character and profile of the community and neighbourhood. 3 or 4 level structures would be fine. That's what people want. Community driven, not developer driven.
We won't know what the majority want until there is a public hearing or the next election. Until then, you seam to be speaking for a lot of people without any proof that they actually support what you are saying. Show me proof that the majority support you. If presented with facts, I suspect that they would rather see the town centres sacrificed to density than the surrounding single family neighbourhoods. Even if that means towers. I'll take a town core of towers over 4 floor condos encroaching on single family neighbourhoods or further sprawl any day of the week.
What seems to happen often with development proposals is not enough people pay attention, or care, or notice and don't show up in opposition and district council sees only this small number of people against it, not enough to speak for the whole community. The development gets pushed ahead because they say the majority are ok with it because they don't show up to say anything. This is how they get their way.
If they cared enough to oppose the development, they'd show up in enough numbers for the public opinion to unmistakable. Think Site 8 in the city. And if the are really upset, they have the second opportunity to make their opinions known at election time. This is democracy. If it doesn't go your way then you'll have to get over it. It's the system we've got. It isn't perfect, but it works.
The last two comments unfortunately are not true for the City - only in rare instances. What's happening now since Site 8 is that the hearings are stacked with friends of the developers and developers fund some candidates. People did show up in numbers for Harbourside, not just at the public hearing. In the City things are predetermined behind closed doors - hard to fight against.Especially when unions are funding phone campaigns at election time (with volunteers of course).
Griffin here...and I am not on Council, just interested in what's going on and taking a pragmatic view of things. The posters subsequent to Anon 08:44 are at least posing legitimate comments and arguments. I am not aware of exactly what is going on in the City insofar as developments are concerned, but I am in agreement with the comment about union control. All you have to do is look at the Council debates and see which way the NDP-backed candidates are talking versus the others, and it becomes pretty clear which side their bread is buttered on. So keep up the chatter about voters having the power to make changes and they may just get the message.One of the major challenges in the City is the large number of renters, many of whom are new Canadians or residents not able to vote yet. They may not be as tuned in to the concerns as people who have lived here for years, own property and know the system.As far as the District is concerned, we don't have obvious partisan leanings amongst Councillors and although they've made what I consider to be bad decisions, they do seem to listen when enough people turn out to public meetings. Fortunately, in the District, we have a good number of community associations which still, despite the recent items in the news, do a good job of informing their residents of what is going on, and if they feel strongly enough about something, they show up to meetings and voice their opinion.
Thanks Griffin, and unfortunately in the City we don't have strength in community associations. We are envious of the work associations do in the District, and wish we had Corrie Kost in the City.It's really difficult to fight the "machine" in the City, when so many involved people have turned off because of past experiences.Still, some of us have not totally thrown in the towel. The 1308 Lonsdale battle is still coming, as are many others. Imagine - we not only have developers funding Council but they even write letters to the News under other names! (reference a letter by Onni recently)
Associations putting forward their consensus can be helpful. There are individuals who belong to associations, and even represent associations, who put forward their personal opinions to Council.Perhaps they think that their view and the view of the association are one in the same even if that view has not been discussed and approved by the association?This is confusing as the association viewpoint holds some credibility. However it is not uncommon to see an association rep rely upon the credibility of the association to expound his personal bias or unfounded opinion to Council which may be unmitigated nonsense.Council is left in the awkward position of trying to deduce whether the rep is speaking for the association or him/herself.This performance puts a farcical spin on the entire process and isn't a panacea.I'd be cautious about extolling individuals as shining lights of an improved process.
To anon at 10.08.. thanks for this. Members of our organization are told to be perfectly clear when speaking to anyone, either to members of the public, or to Council, that they are speaking personally and not representing the group. We have one person authorized to handle media inquiries. Our credibility and integrity are fundamental.
Post a Comment