114 replies to this topic

[Sue Woods]

Thanks Mat.

Cities that use the ward system believe representatives elected by geographic districts tend to be more responsive - with fewer layers between people and their government. Having said that, I'm not running my campaign on getting a ward system for Victoria - just pointing out an option for consideration if/when amalgamation ever happens.

Cheers Sue

[mat]

This TC letter to the Editor was posted in the homeless thread, and rightly noted, that while it made mention of a possible idea to alleviate social housing shortages, the letter itself would/should inspire debate on other issues. Candidates should look at this, as the obvious attitude of the author is somewhat disturbing.

Look outside city to house the homeless
Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, October 25, 2008

I wonder if any of the mayoral candidates for Victoria are considering the option of purchasing hotels and apartment buildings in Saanich and Oak Bay to assist in the search for affordable housing. Or are we just going to continue relying on increasing taxes for the residents and business owners of the city of Victoria?

I would support the purchase of affordable housing in neighbouring municipalities for our social agencies to lease back and operate. Since it wouldn't be operated by the city of Victoria, the other municipalities couldn't do a thing about it.

Saanich and Oak Bay residents use Victoria for their pleasure. Maybe it's time they start to carry some of the costs associated with the operation of a downtown core. If they don't want to do it willingly, it's time to take off the gloves.

Victoria police spend more time dealing with residents of Saanich on the weekends but my taxes pay for it. Why is that considered fair?

Victoria has a number of social agencies that are tax exempt and that also costs the municipality revenue. There is still a glimmer of hope for Victoria: Oak Bay Mayor Chris Causton wants to help out if re-elected because he is "concerned about the breakdown of law and order in the city of Victoria."

So am I and so are a lot of other Victoria residents.

Michael Sharpe
Victoria
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

This is an argument propagated by some posters on VV, seen in local media, and heard in conversations. Some vocal residents of the City of Victoria feel an unfair burden in dealing with issues like homelessness; and crime, litter, noise and disruptions due to an active downtown core. They feel, maybe correctly (but numbers are hard to find) that it is the residents of bordering municipalities who are the main culprits, and who should be required to share the costs of policing, housing, bylaw enforcement and litter cleanup.

"Take off the gloves..." well sure, Mr. Sharpe, you keep your lovely downtown core, and the residents of Saanich and Oak Bay will happily charge a user fee for Victoria residents when they plop their towel down on Willows Beach, or glorify at the view from the top of Mt. Doug.

It is senseless, pointless statements like that which candidates in all municipalities should address. Mr. Sharpe's letter shows a clear lack of understanding on the positive workings (and frankly, in-actions) of the CRD, how police forces use mutual assist policies (and how those are financially accounted for), and that by demanding 'user payments' (that is his implication) you only build walls around communities, and create division.

[G-Man]

I have to say that I kind of agree with him one of the main reasons that I so much in favour of amalgamation. Even if the bordering muni's aren't the cause of the problem they are not shouldering the same tax burden to solve the issues either.

[Sue Woods]

[quote name='mat']Susan Woods posted this TC Letter to the Editor in the homeless thread, and rightly noted, that while it made mention of a possible idea to alleviate social housing shortages, the letter itself would/should inspire debate on other issues. Candidates should look at this, as the obvious attitude of the author is somewhat disturbing. /quote]

Hi Mat - Actually it was Ms. B Havin who posted this TC letter on the homeless thread today - not me. Just wanted to clarify.
Cheers Sue

[mat]

[quote name='Susan Woods, Candidate'][quote name='mat']Susan Woods posted this TC Letter to the Editor in the homeless thread, and rightly noted, that while it made mention of a possible idea to alleviate social housing shortages, the letter itself would/should inspire debate on other issues. Candidates should look at this, as the obvious attitude of the author is somewhat disturbing. /quote]

Hi Mat - Actually it was Ms. B Havin who posted this TC letter on the homeless thread today - not me. Just wanted to clarify.
Cheers Sue[/QUOTE]

So correct - my apologies.

[Sue Woods]

[quote name='mat'][quote name='Susan Woods, Candidate']

So correct - my apologies.[/quote]

No worries. I am too busy to read the TC much these days so thx for keeping us all up to date Mat.
Sue

[Rob Randall]

Twice in the past year or so I was invited to appear on C-FAX to talk about amalgamation as part of a panel discussion. The others on the panel were Ken Kelly of the DVBA, Myrna Boleske of LessGov.com and Karyn French of Pacifica Housing. We tried to make the case that the other core munipalities need to shoulder their fair share, especially when it comes to policing.

Councillor Madoff repeatedly says that amalgamation savings don't pay off in other cities that have tried it. I have said to her that those other cities (like Halifax for example) are spread out over a very large geographic area. When Halifax amalgamated, the poorly paid municipal employees in the hinterlands demanded to be paid the same as their big city counterparts. However, over here a Saanich or Oak Bay planner or truck driver gets paid a comparable amount to their Victoria counterparts because our pay scale in the four core munis is based on merit and length of employment, not distance from the core.

[LJ]

Twice in the past year or so I was invited to appear on C-FAX to talk about amalgamation as part of a panel discussion. The others on the panel were Ken Kelly of the DVBA, Myrna Boleske of LessGov.com and Karyn French of Pacifica Housing. We tried to make the case that the other core munipalities need to shoulder their fair share, especially when it comes to policing.

Councillor Madoff repeatedly says that amalgamation savings don't pay off in other cities that have tried it. I have said to her that those other cities (like Halifax for example) are spread out over a very large geographic area. When Halifax amalgamated, the poorly paid municipal employees in the hinterlands demanded to be paid the same as their big city counterparts. However, over here a Saanich or Oak Bay planner or truck driver gets paid a comparable amount to their Victoria counterparts because our pay scale in the four core munis is based on merit and length of employment, not distance from the core.

So why are the residents of Esquimalt dissatisfied with the amalgamation of the police department?

That would lead one to think that a full forced amalgamation would just exacerbate the dissatisfaction.

[rjag]

Councillor Madoff repeatedly says that amalgamation savings don't pay off in other cities that have tried it.

Could it be perhaps that Councillor Madoff would be out of a job if there was amalgamation?

She is typical of the rot within the system. There should be term limits for council of a maximum of 3 terms, this is civic duty supposedly, not a career.

Anyway, perhaps she should consider theres more to the argument than just savings.

[mat]

So why are the residents of Esquimalt dissatisfied with the amalgamation of the police department?

That would lead one to think that a full forced amalgamation would just exacerbate the dissatisfaction.

This issue is building, especially following outgoing Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe's letter, (discussed here on VV) which highlighted regional differences in approach to homelessness - and implied the same to other concerns.

We have the CRD, which attempts to deal with many regional issues, and has positive and negative aspects, especially with planning. While many know of their local municipal hall - especially when paying property tax and water bills, few know of what the CRD does, how it was formed and how it functions - yet it is accepted as being part of regional governance.

Amalgamation might not save money - but what it would do is provide more accountability and the ability to respond to concerns without going through various municipalities and a CRD board to gain consensus on cross border issues.

[rjag]

So why are the residents of Esquimalt dissatisfied with the amalgamation of the police department?

That would lead one to think that a full forced amalgamation would just exacerbate the dissatisfaction.

Whats the difference between the Police and Ambulance service? Should we revert back to municipal ambulance as well? How come we can have a provincial ambulance service and not regional policing?

When the murders were committed in King George Terrace dont you think it could have made a difference to have the closest police vehicles dispatched, which in this case would have been Victoria? I bet the relatives of that poor family would not have been too worried about municipal boundaries if there would have been a chance of some of the victims surviving.

[LJ]

Should we revert back to municipal ambulance as well? How come we can have a provincial ambulance service and not regional policing?

Why stop at regional police? Lets have a provincial police force. Of course then you would have precincts and the same jurisdictional disputes in all likelihood.

There is a difference between ambulance and police service. An ambulance just goes and scoops someone and transports them to the local hospital - that is the end of their involvement. In police service you have an ongoing relationship especially with frequent users of the justice system.

[mat]

Why stop at regional police? Lets have a provincial police force. Of course then you would have precincts and the same jurisdictional disputes in all likelihood.

There is a difference between ambulance and police service. An ambulance just goes and scoops someone and transports them to the local hospital - that is the end of their involvement. In police service you have an ongoing relationship especially with frequent users of the justice system.

Maybe a going back to a provincial police force is not a bad idea - The RCMP appear to be in disarray (tasers, deaths in custody, rural service, and local cooperation issues). That, of course, would not automatically solve all problems as municipal forces would still exist, but accountability might be strengthened.

[Jacques Cadé]

While reading over the BC Community Charter for a different thread, I came upon this:

No forced amalgamations
s. 279 If a new municipality would include 2 or more existing municipalities, letters patent incorporating the new municipality may not be issued unless
(a) a vote has been taken in accordance with section 8 of the Local Government Act separately in each of the existing municipalities, and
(b) for each of those municipalities, more than 50% of the votes counted as valid favour the proposed incorporation.

So there it is. You won't get municipal amalgamation without a referendum, and you won't get a referendum unless the existing councils deem it necessary.

The only solution, it seems, is a citizens' movement, and a petition.

[Coreyburger]

Or the provincial gov't changes the rules and forceably amalgamates us.

[Jacques Cadé]

Or the provincial gov't changes the rules and forceably amalgamates us.

Not gonna happen. The Community Charter is relatively new legislation, passed in 2003, and worked out over many hours of negotiation between the Liberal government and the municipalities. (And you can be sure that some of our region's councillors were pushing for this clause.) I doubt that any future provincial government would dare overturn it, and risk a revolt from the Union of BC Municipalities.

[Rob Randall]

I agree. I`ve stopped going on about amalgamation and instead am pushing for greater regional police cooperation. I`ve been learning about various ways to go about this and some within the force call it back door amalgamation.

[Sue Woods]

While reading over the BC Community Charter for a different thread, I came upon this:
No forced amalgamations
s. 279 If a new municipality would include 2 or more existing municipalities, letters patent incorporating the new municipality may not be issued unless
(a) a vote has been taken in accordance with section 8 of the Local Government Act separately in each of the existing municipalities, and
(b) for each of those municipalities, more than 50% of the votes counted as valid favour the proposed incorporation.

So there it is. You won't get municipal amalgamation without a referendum, and you won't get a referendum unless the existing councils deem it necessary. The only solution, it seems, is a citizens' movement, and a petition.

I would lobby long and hard for that referendum. And I would make a case for a ward system as part of that to assuage concerns that amalgamation will create "too large a government" and "remove' neighbourhoods from the equation", from having a voice.

Many elected officials may be against it but all the residents I speak with are 100% in favour of streamlining
bureaucracy. I think it's time for a referendum on this important and long discussed (60 years!) issue.

As it is now we have over 250 candidates running for 92 offices in the CRD - and those elected are 'assigned' a neighbourhood to represent, many as non-residents. A ward system means less and more relevant goverment as neighbourhoods elect one or two people from their midst to speak on their behalf.

Past oppostion to a ward system was the concern that there would not be enough interested or qualified candidates willing to run in each neighbourhood - but thats an arguement that's been dispelled by recent election cycles. All areas seem to be represented among our current 35 candidates.

I see a larger cohesive community with local reps making a lot more sense - to streamline process/policy, including emergency services, and sharing responsibility for solving affordable housing needs and downtown core issues.

[mat]

The new aquatic centre in Cowichan will charge non-residents double fees - TC article.

The new fees will be $10 instead of $5 for adults and $5 instead of $2.50 for children.
Lefebure said he knows the two-tier structure will irritate some Cowichan Valley residents, but he sees it as necessary because the aquatic centre was built by Duncan and North Cowichan.
Residents outside the host municipalities will pay their share through higher admission fees or by purchasing an annual "access card" -- $200 for an individual and $350 for a family -- and thereafter pay the lower rate.

I threw this up in amalgamation as tiered entrance fees, and complaints from some over non-residents over park use is a common theme in this region. Hopefully some candidates will speak up and re-assure those of us who believe in fair access for all, no matter which facility, is essential for regional cohesion. As the Oak Bay Rec. manager stated in the article (and that was funded solely through Oak Bay taxpayers)

One municipality that benefited by going it alone is Oak Bay, which built the Oak Bay recreation centre in 1975 and refurbished it in 2003.
Patrons all pay the same fee whether they live in or outside of the municipality, chief administrative officer Bill Cochrane said.
"We depend for a considerable amount of our revenue on drawing people from all over the region. There's a lot of competition in the Victoria area, and if our prices are too high, people will go elsewhere."

It would be a great shame, and be utterly unfair, for a multi-family swim day in Commonwealth pool to be more costly for some than others based on residency - (what about tourists, homeless, transient - who have an off island address, or cannot prove where they live).

The Cowichan pool fee announcement is incredibly unfair, and short sighted - let's hope the political bickering on 'who pays what when' can be put behind us.

[Bernard]

Here is my response to not having amalgamation - have the City of Victoria stop any regional work on transit outside of the city. Block any talk of rail, rapid transit, etc unless we get an agreement to have the other municipalities pay for the homeless problem.

Why should people in Victoria pay for transit improvements for people getting away from the downtown? In the city we use the buses, we have no need for any of the transit dreams out there.

Either Stew Young stumps a good share of the cash for the homeless or the City should stop all rail transit plans.

People expect the City to cover all the costs of having the downtown AND stump up for regional stuff. Time to call a halt.