93 replies to this topic

[J Douglas]

I wonder if J. Douglas missunderstood or if it was me?
I have been to all but one of the "all candidate" meetings and have heard Paul Brown say the same thing each time -that all of the municipalities need to participate in the cost of these mega projects.
That the regional district as a whole needs to speak with one voice when talking to the province and the feds about projects such as mass transit.
To proceed otherwise is not good for Victoria, and its tax payers.

It could be that I have missunderstood, but I am going on media reports and an all candidates forum I attended. Brown seemed to be scornfull of LRT at the all candidates forum, and also in articles such as this one in the TC:

http://www.bclocalne.../133498963.html

He states that LRT is not "realistic" for Victoria, and also repeats the inaccurate notion that it will only benefit suburbia. This doesn't sound like he is going to make a whole-hearted pitch to higher government, as soon as he gets the support of a couple more municipal governments (the key ones already support it). These are topics we have done to death on this forum already.

Sorry if it is a little harsh, but this sounds to me like a bean counter who has no vision of how he would like to see Victoria develop. He just wants a neat set of books. This is not a bad thing in itself, but again, once on the hot seat he will find that there are all sorts of competing interests in the community who want various things done. And they all have a vote. Just hanging back and saying I'm an excellent accountant won't be enough at that point. No matter what one's viewpoints on various projects are, one must agree that either doing, or not doing them, will have it's own cascade of effects. Hence, one must take a stand.

[Mike K.]

No matter what one's viewpoints on various projects are, one must agree that either doing, or not doing them, will have it's own cascade of effects. Hence, one must take a stand.

Brown is taking a stand by not supporting LRT.

[J Douglas]

Brown is taking a stand by not supporting LRT.

Good- then it's tied down. There was a suggestion here that he neither did nor didn't, but initially wanted to get a concensus of municipalities before looking any further. If he doesn't, then that is a position. I don't want to reopen our LRT thread necessarily, but, his position then entails a certain future for Victoria. Is this one he as considered, and is in favour of? Because by saying no, it means a migration away from a certain form of development, and towards another. No action can have as much effect as an action. Has he considered increased urban sprawl, or a gridlocked downtown, or business flight to the suburbs, or other changes in the urban landscape that may entail from this decision? Maybe he has discussed these things in detail, but I haven't heard it. What I have heard is Mr. Brown quoting figures on LRT that are doubtful, and have been met with rebuttal by Mayor Fortun, with no further argument offered. If he has offered these considerations to the public, I'd be glad to look at them.

[Eblanc]

Vote for Paul Brown

[Barrett r Blackwood]

YES Paul Brown

[gumgum]

Who should I vote for i wonder.

[Bob Fugger]

Wait, are you saying this is ok:

Fortin said the only explanation he could come up with...

So, it's ok that Fortin doesn't know where the city's money is spent or how it's allocated, but it's not ok for Brown to go by what the stats say (namely, that there was a drop in funding at P&R)?

Are incumbents suddenly held to a lower standard than challengers? If Brown is wrong - and remember that Fortin has a multi-million-dollar staff at his disposal, including a nearly $150K annual salary spin doctor (Katie Josephson) and a $220K annual salary city manager (Gail Stephens), who could within hours provide him with the right facts - why doesn't Fortin say "we shifted library funding out of parks and recreation to general services," instead of saying that this is an "explanation" he (Fortin) "could come up with"? When he puts it like that, it doesn't sound like he knows for sure, and it instead also sounds like mighty strong weasel-speak. Can't he get his staff to tell him? Either the shift explains the 20% drop or it doesn't. Which is it?

...Oh, but wait. I see that the article you reference was written by Bill Cleverley, who (imo) is not likely to pursue a story with assiduity.

I was curious about this supposed accounting legerdemain, so I went the City's website to review and compare the budget and actuals from 2010 to 2011 - and wouldn't you know it, there are no archived budget documents.

So I thought, maybe if I looked in this year's budget, it will show me 2010 Budget, 2010 Actual and 2011 Budget. Imagine my surprise that this year's budget is nowhere to be found! Well, there are the council and mayor sales job presentations, but the City of Victoria's actual annual line item budget document is nowhere to be found...or at least on the webpage entitled BUDGET. It does have their five year operating plan, but that is different and at too high a level.

In contrast, the City of Nanaimo has available for public consumption on their website its latest audited financial statement. And for the year before that. And the year before that. And the year before that...all the way back to freaking 1999!!

And so in support of Ms B.'s statement, why are we holding to a higher standard a challenger who has to go above and beyond to get the books, whereas the incumbent has an entire Finance Department at his disposal? His folksy, "You know, I looked real hard and the best I could come up with..." is total bull$hit coming from someone who is tantamount to the Chairman of a corporation with $272M in revenues - and even worse when you see that over 53% of that money goes to personnel.

[Bob Fugger]

Who should I vote for i wonder.

Have you thought about giving Paul Brown a try? There appears to be some buzz...

[Rob Randall]

I was curious about this supposed accounting legerdemain, so I went the City's website to review and compare the budget and actuals from 2010 to 2011 - and wouldn't you know it, there are no archived budget documents.

So I thought, maybe if I looked in this year's budget, it will show me 2010 Budget, 2010 Actual and 2011 Budget. Imagine my surprise that this year's budget is nowhere to be found! Well, there are the council and mayor sales job presentations, but the City of Victoria's actual annual line item budget document is nowhere to be found...or at least on the webpage entitled BUDGET. It does have their five year operating plan, but that is different and at too high a level.

In contrast, the City of Nanaimo has available for public consumption on their website its latest audited financial statement. And for the year before that. And the year before that. And the year before that...all the way back to freaking 1999!!

And so in support of Ms B.'s statement, why are we holding to a higher standard a challenger who has to go above and beyond to get the books, whereas the incumbent has an entire Finance Department at his disposal? His folksy, "You know, I looked real hard and the best I could come up with..." is total bull$hit coming from someone who is tantamount to the Chairman of a corporation with $272M in revenues - and even worse when you see that over 53% of that money goes to personnel.

There's hardly a point in having an extensive website if not budget information is there. I'm surprised by your findings. There's no excuse for budgets not to be posted. This is my money. I want to know exactly where it's going without making an appointment at City Hall. But I guess that's what I'll have to do to find out if the Parks budget was indeed cut or if the money was merely transferred to a more sensible spot in the budget. Once again, Nanaimo is beating us in communications!

I've been to a few council meetings and that type of budget shuffling seems common.

I think it's disingenuous to mention Fortin's staff at his disposal. The article was a report on the events transpiring at the Fernwood debate and I doubt there was anyone at the debate with a budget in hand ready to whisper in the mayor's ear. The facts regarding the parks budget require more in-depth reporting than was possible for that article. I would hope the TC would follow up on this. Really, this in Monday's job as the traditional alternative rag. Or FOCUS, but as much as I admire FOCUS I doubt they would investigate something that would make Fortin look good.

I'm keeping agnostic on this until more facts come out.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Really, this in Monday's job as the traditional alternative rag. Or FOCUS...

If it's the weekly Monday Magazine's (or heaven forbid the monthly's Focus's) job to do the work of actual reporting (and doing the work of reporting, including investigating stuff), then what exactly is the T-C's job?

Aside from regurgitating press releases as news stories, that is...?

[Ms. B. Havin]

PS It is not disingenuous (definition: "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does") to expect the mayor to have some grasp based in fact beyond supposition ("could come up with") to explain big financial shifts in the city's budget.

I am not being disingenuous. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

[Christine Selig]

The on line pole that is open right now on this site seems ( so far ) to be showing what I have heard from family and friends, that Paul Brown is going to be our next mayor.

[Rob Randall]

If it's the weekly Monday Magazine's (or heaven forbid the monthly's Focus's) job to do the work of actual reporting (and doing the work of reporting, including investigating stuff), then what exactly is the T-C's job?

Aside from regurgitating press releases as news stories, that is...?

Cleveley's article was about the debate. Insight into the specifics of the budget is a topic better suited to a separate article, I think, due to the research involved, tight deadline and the off-topic nature as he'd have to hold the story until the next day to confirm that point. If I were still writing I wouldn't combine the two. Cleverley should follow up on this as I think it is a good story. But this is also Monday's role--to offer the contrary view of the mainstream story regardless of its origin or what side of the spectrum it supports. I was told this directly from Monday's former top writer, Russ Francis. TC and C-FAX turn stories quickly, Monday has several days, FOCUS has a good month to work a story. The TC has the advantage of covering the developments of a story several times before FOCUS goes to press so that's why I hope someone, anyone picks up on this. The TC dropped the ball on the bridge story because of lack of resources and disinterest by their reporters (they like the new bridge IMO).

My take on the story (being aware it is from Cleverley's viewpoint) is that Brown made the accusation, which puzzled Fortin, as it didn't jibe with what he knows on the budget. Asked for an explanation, all Fortin can suggest is Brown is mistaken--he must be thinking of the library distribution but as he's alone on stage, he's unable to confirm it with staff before the story goes to press.

If it turns out Brown is right and the parks budget was indeed cut, I publicly vow I will doorknock with a stack of Brown pamphlets.

[Bob Fugger]

Rob, were you at the Fernwood debate? It sounds like you were. I got the impression when Dean heard the 20% figure, that it wasn't the first he'd heard it. Like his, "the best I could come up with..." shtick was something he'd been musing on for some time. Maybe at the James Bay event? If that was the case, I would have at least given the Finance or Parks Manager a call the next morning to get the goods so I'd be prepared for the debate.

[Rob Randall]

^No, all I know is from you and Cleverley's article.

[martini]

If it turns out Brown is right and the parks budget was indeed cut, I publicly vow I will doorknock with a stack of Brown pamphlets.

That's a very powerful statement.
I will be curious of the results.
This being said by someone who voted for Dean even with my misgivings seeing him in action over the years.
I somehow expected him to 'shine' as a mayor.
Instead I have felt misled and duped as a voter.

[Mike K.]

Instead I have felt misled and duped as a voter.

When over 90% of council sessions have an in-camera component, feeling duped and misled sounds about right.

[tedward]

No it doesn't. Open Victoria is an apolitical slate of candidates, not a registered political party. I think political affiliations refers to membership or endorsement by a political party - and I don't think any members of the Open Victoria slate are card carrying members of nor are they endorsed by any party.

You are in error. Open Victoria is legally an elector organization the same as Vision Vancouver, The BC Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party of Canada.

BTW, I will be voting for Paul Brown (more on that in a bit) even if this semantic nonsense is still going on.

[tedward]

While I have had some issues with Open Victoria (the party that isn't a "party") and I do not think we agree on every issue (I support the Occupy Movement as democracy in action) I have been forced to look for a candidate I can support for Mayor.

Dean Fortin comes across as a weasel. This is the second election where he used an old NDP membership list as his personal fundraising tool. During the previous election I said I was not a Fortin supporter yet this fall I again received a call from a campaign worker who told me I was a Fortin supporter. Yep, I was on his list so I must be a shiny happy member of the 'Dean Team". Thankfully I have received no further calls after letting the caller know just exactly what I thought was going on and suggesting I may be forced to make a formal complaint.

But what really did it for me was the emerging issue of Royal Athletic Park being semi-privatized without public debate. Apparently an unnamed Vancouver businessman is negotiating with the City of Victoria for exclusive use of Royal Athletic Park every summer starting in 2013 for a proposed baseball team. Yep, a team that does not exist, being funded by a mystery someone from Vancouver wants to shut out Victoria United, Victoria Highlanders FC and any other teams or events that want to use the City owned facility during the summer.

And why? Because apparently the idea of moving the outfield fence makes their brains (and wallets) hurt. This crazy invention called "wheels" that allows the movement of objects is too expensive or troublesome for this proposed team to deal with.

All of this has been reported in the Times-Colonist but when Mr Fortin is contacted his response was that soccer can be played at Topaz Park and that the Highlanders used to play in Langford.

Now, where the Highlanders used to play seems irrelevant to me and only shows how clueless this guy is, especially when combined with his suggestion of playing at Topaz Park. We are not talking about a beer-league bunch of amateurs here. The Highlanders are a club that provides a professional product and may someday play in a fully professional league offering jobs and a contribution to the Victoria sports scene sorely lacking. We may be able to support a pro baseball team (although recent history and demographics suggest otherwise) but we will never have pro basketball or CFL football. We could have a pro soccer team if the right venue is available. Royal Athletic Park has been that venue since 1908 when the first soccer games were played but Mr Fortin seems to understand neither the history nor potential of this sport

Soccer is succeeding as a pro sport all over Cascadia. Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders and Portland Timbers have all joined Major League Soccer. The Canadian Soccer Association is currently doing a feasibility study for a new Canadian League. The prospects for the most popular spectator sport in the world have never looked better in our region and all this guy can see is a few kids kicking a ball around in a public park while mom & dad watch from the sideline.

Royal Athletic Park should have been begging the Highlanders to play from the start. They should be bending over backwards to build a future for this team but instead they are, with Mayor Fortin's blessing, negotiating in secret an agreement that hurts a locally-owned club, serving a huge local community for the benefit of something that does not yet exist being proposed by someone from outside Greater Victoria.

At least Paul Brown and his Open Victoria team seem to be committed to transparency in government. I know that I have no guarantees but I am willing to give them a shot. I would rather deal with someone who disagrees with me honestly and with the possibility that rational argument might change their mind. Brown also seems to me to be the candidate with a legitimate chance of unseating the arrogant incumbent and his team of lickspittles. For these reasons I will be voting for Paul Brown for mayor.

[Bob Fugger]

You are in error. Open Victoria is legally an elector organization the same as Vision Vancouver, The BC Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party of Canada.

BTW, I will be voting for Paul Brown (more on that in a bit) even if this semantic nonsense is still going on.

Elector organizations and political parties are different entities. For example, you can be a card carrying member of the BCNDP (blech!) but you cannot be a card carrying member of Open Victoria, because such a thing does not exists.

But, agree to disagree then, as I do agree with you that what is essentially semantics is obsfuscating the real issue: a lack of transparancy and accountability at City Hall. I also agree with your pro-soccer, anti-mystery baseball agenda and your Cascadia reference!