11779 replies to this topic

[JohnsonStBridge]

Does anyone know how each councillor voted on this motion?

 

In favour: Dubow, Isitt, Loveday, Potts

Opposed: Alto, Andrews, Helps, Thornton Joe, Young

 

Funny again that Isitt and Loveday claim separation from Together Victoria but end up leading the ideology on this one. While costly, the by-election is fulfilling its purpose of providing a deciding vote. 

[JimV]

Good result.  Perhaps Alto, Helps and CTJ are beginning to sense the wind shifting. The TV gang is too fanatically invested in their ideology to care.

[Nparker]

...Perhaps Alto, Helps and CTJ are beginning to sense the wind shifting...

Didn't all of them support the "community care tent" proposal? Not sure the wind has shifted much yet.

[JimV]

Didn't all of them support the "community care tent" proposal? Not sure the wind has shifted much yet.

Yes, they did (everyone did but Young.) But in the midst of our current crime wave voting against police funding would have created far more public backlash than giving 6k for a tent.  Also, the critical issue with the tent (tents, actually) is the location.  If they can’t find a location the project will basically implode.  Lisa says it will go on Cook street.  If the residents of that area step up they can keep it out of there too.  That would leave the little patch of provincial land on Southgate, which the province may or may not allow.

Edited by JimV, 18 January 2021 - 08:03 PM.

[Nparker]

 

...But in the midst of our current crime wave voting against police funding would have created far more public backlash than giving 6k for a tent..

But will it though? It seems the TV supporters can't defund the police fast enough.

[JimV]

But will it though? It seems the TV supporters can't defund the police fast enough.

Nevertheless, their motion failed.  I am suggesting that one or more of the council who may have previously supported it are aware of how unpopular such a move would be and voted accordingly.

 

Overall I am cautiously optimistic that TV is losing influence.  The lazy, apathetic Victoria voters choose mainly on the basis of name recognition and perhaps a very vague political orientation.  Combine that with the motivated activist vote and TV or TV lite get elected.

 

I think this is starting to change somewhat.  The BHP petition and the election of SA are two indicators.  Another is the reaction of neighbourhoods to the tent proposal.  I know for a fact that many of the people who protested the Avalon incursion are garden variety leftists.  Many probably voted for Helps & Company last time around. But when it’s your ox getting gored it’s a different story.  I think they are starting to pay more attention.

 

Speaking of paying attention, I doubt that you could find one out of ten Victoria voters, even among those interested in civic affairs, who could name all the councillors, let alone their general policy direction.  If there’s any chance of electing a common sense mayor and council next time then an organized effort has to start fairly soon.  I don’t want to reopen the slate discussion but IMO that’s what it will take.

[spanky123]

I think this is starting to change somewhat.  The BHP petition and the election of SA are two indicators.  Another is the reaction of neighbourhoods to the tent proposal.  I know for a fact that many of the people who protested the Avalon incursion are garden variety leftists.  Many probably voted for Helps & Company last time around. But when it’s your ox getting gored it’s a different story.  I think they are starting to pay more attention.

 

Lefties can be just as NIMBY as the best of them, it is just that Helps and Co have generally spared their friends and supporters the effort.

[Barrrister]

Lefties are much better at being Nimby since they can morally justify it under some

virtuous category or other.  

[Mike K.]

Maybe it’s more-so that politics aside, emotions do not change between different groups of people. Fear is fear, progress is progress, etc.

The situation now rests on finding a workable solution to the problem facing the city. People know this whole thing was mismanaged, and now they want the problem solved, not just pushed somewhere else to repeat the out of sight and out of mind approach which has been the mechanism by which the provisions of social services have been historically administered. I also think people are growing more intolerant over the lack of outcomes and sincere measures of success or failures among the various services being provided.

[spanky123]

Maybe it’s more-so that politics aside, emotions do not change between different groups of people. Fear is fear, progress is progress, etc.

The situation now rests on finding a workable solution to the problem facing the city. People know this whole thing was mismanaged, and now they want the problem solved, not just pushed somewhere else to repeat the out of sight and out of mind approach which has been the mechanism by which the provisions of social services have been historically administered. I also think people are growing more intolerant over the lack of outcomes and sincere measures of success or failures among the various services being provided.

 

May be true but they keep donating more and more money to the failed programs which then encourages the service providers to dig in. 

[rmpeers]

Nevertheless, their motion failed. I am suggesting that one or more of the council who may have previously supported it are aware of how unpopular such a move would be and voted accordingly.

Overall I am cautiously optimistic that TV is losing influence. The lazy, apathetic Victoria voters choose mainly on the basis of name recognition and perhaps a very vague political orientation. Combine that with the motivated activist vote and TV or TV lite get elected.

I think this is starting to change somewhat. The BHP petition and the election of SA are two indicators. Another is the reaction of neighbourhoods to the tent proposal. I know for a fact that many of the people who protested the Avalon incursion are garden variety leftists. Many probably voted for Helps & Company last time around. But when it’s your ox getting gored it’s a different story. I think they are starting to pay more attention.

Speaking of paying attention, I doubt that you could find one out of ten Victoria voters, even among those interested in civic affairs, who could name all the councillors, let alone their general policy direction. If there’s any chance of electing a common sense mayor and council next time then an organized effort has to start fairly soon. I don’t want to reopen the slate discussion but IMO that’s what it will take.

I'd like to think its possible that a majority on council isn't literally working to help make things as easy as possible for criminals. Presumably Isitt, Dubow, Potts and Loveday perceive they benefit from thriving criminal activity, through whatever means. Perhaps if they had been raised by a role model who instilled in them any sort of morality or sense of right and wrong, they'd think differently, but we'll never know.

[Stephen James]

The community care tent, without permission from the city, is now installed across from the petting zoo, where the activists in Beacon Hill Park want it:

 

https://www.cheknews...l-park-735731/ 

 

I suspect they're looking for another manufactured "incident" for C Potts and her ilk to grandstand, wail about the jack-booted police enforcing less than what the community as a whole is accountable for. If these incidents approach the level of Oka, any blood will absolutely be on council's hands for an avoidable situation.

(Telling us otherwise will fall on deaf ears.)

 

Walked through the park on Sunday and counted over 20 people mingling in that area, no masks, no social distancing, dozens more tents.

 

The agenda is clear.

[Stephen James]

At council on Monday, there was a brief and telling exchange between Stephen Andrew and Ben Isitt, separated by a few comments from others. The exchange was about how the City of Victoria does, or doesn't, consult the community before finalizing the budget.

 

It becomes clear during the meeting that anyone, from anywhere in BC, can load our portal (it sure ain't a survey, lol) with comments that become the feedback for our annual budget. It may be the case that literally anyone from Moscow, Thailand and Tasmania could influence our local budget.

 

Andrew: "So the "survey" isn't .... scientific... its it."

Staff: "Not really a survey."

Isitt: "We like it this way."

 

Think about this... The City spends how much money after their "process"(?) selling us the idea they consulted. They print budget celebration documents, they quote the results of their "get-the-answers-we're-looking-for" mechanism to justify their decisions, this bullshit ends up in the media with stolen credibility. 

 

I want to know why and I'm determined to get an answer.

 

It's a really weak leader that seeks the answers they are looking for. That can't be it, can it?  Are we that far gone, that immature?

 

Why would anyone engage, read, care, be involved, help, vote(?), if this is what we get? Why wouldn't we have a Trump if politicians can justify stuff like this to themselves?

 

Courageous leadership seeks truth and facts, EVEN IF THEY WILL MAKE A DECISION TO CONTRADICT THOSE FACTS. That's what leadership does. It takes responsibility for inspiring, convincing and moving minds.

 

If any councillor is reading this, I'd say, in contrast, this process is only a con, and very destructive. It depletes the one, most important resource in a democracy: trust.

 

Shameful.

[Nparker]

The whole point of TV as a political slate is to create an echo chamber on Council. They have zero interest in any view other than their own.

[Stephen James]

The whole point of TV as a political slate is to create an echo chamber on Council. They have zero interest in any view other than their own.

Agreed.

 

If a like-minded group of mature humans were sufficiently motivated, I suspect enough sunlight on this childishness is exactly the point of the next election. The next election could be about:

Politicians, somewhat detached from the community they claim to serve, making (how many) decisions without the support of the community, and justifying those decisions... in whatever way they'd like.

 

We deserve real consultation, facts, and useful data before councillors make decisions. My 12 year old nieces can't keep a straight face when they sell me something based on questionable reasoning. I'd like to hear Ben Isitt explain this to the residents of Victoria, in a public forum, and be questioned by a qualified, mainstream journalist.

 

I suspect his answers will go directly to the heart of the matter and we deserve to hear them.

[Awaiting Juno]

Political parties serve really useful functions at higher levels of government - where the ability to develop high quality policy is improved and where the brand enables a person to make a relatively educated voting decision based on the party platform.  That said, I think it's a disaster at the local level - just as it would be in a corporation or on the board of a non-profit organization.  Part of the problem is we have too many people to vote for and too many candidates and as a result the information needed to make a reasonable set of decisions about who to vote for is overwhelming for far too many people.  It's one of the reasons we have poor voter turnout, and its one of the reasons those on council are so inept at what they are supposed to do.

 

The problem is made worse by a lack of options to demand accountability between elections (ie. recall legislation or otherwise).  

 

I'm flabbergasted that they'd look at cutting money from the VicPD budget at this time.

[Nparker]

...We deserve real consultation, facts, and useful data before councillors make decisions...

Amen to this.

[Nparker]

...I'm flabbergasted that they'd look at cutting money from the VicPD budget at this time.

I'm not. TV council members (and this includes "Benemy") are agenda/dogma driven. The reality of the situation around them doesn't much factor into their decisions.

[Mike K.]

Recall legislation would be dangerous, in that it would become a de facto second chance at an election among those who lost, and continuously used as leverage by those opposed to a councillor or councillors.

What would help is a return to three year terms.

[Nparker]

...What would help is a return to three year terms.

This.