(Aired on July 9, 2010)
New election rules that could be in effect for next year's civic election will provide a bit of a conundrum for people wanting to run for City Council.
There are two issues that are involved here. One is a spending limit for potential candidates. I'm kind of ambivalent but it seems to me there should be some sort of limit on spending to prevent a person from getting elected just because he or she is richer than someone who may be far more qualified but not as well off financially.
The more controversial issue might be the length of terms for a councillor. There seems to be an indication that terms could go to four years from the current three. Councillors we talked to have mixed feelings about it. Those in favour feel it gives councillors more time to get accustomed to their duties and put their ideas into effect.
Councillor Pat Wallace, who's been doing this about as long as anyone in the province, says she always sees a different attitude as we get close to an election, because councillors want to put their best face forward getting close to a vote. Those opposed to longer terms wonder who can make a commitment to four years if they're still working at another job. Would it then limit potential councillors to retirees, those not working or those who have understanding and civic-minded bosses?
The other thought of course is-if we get a turkey in there, and we've been known to have one or two, do we have to put up with their incompetence for four years? Although I guess we already face that in provincial or federal politics too.
The issues aren't as black and white as they might seem. But there are some obviously good changes in the wind. One will make political spending transparent. Anonymous donations would be eliminated. And that's definitely a good thing. While some of the issues are debatable, there's no question that campaign funding is one of the biggest things to be cleared up. And that alone makes the changes worthwhile.
Monday, July 12, 2010
It's Not That Bad
(Aired on July 8, 2010)
There was a letter to the editor in the Kamloops Daily News today complaining about the number of mosquitoes in Kamloops right now. I agree there are more than usual, but the total is still almost negligible.
It got me thinking about how good we have it here in Kamloops. Talk to anyone from the prairies - like me - about mosquitoes, and you realize it's all relative. Same story goes for complaining about the cold weather in winter time. Things aren't perfect in our city and in our province, but they're getting pretty close. The weather is nice, and the bugs aren't that bad.
Even the economy is doing relatively well. In spite of the downturn, Kamloops just saw record numbers for building in a six-month period and in a twelve-month period. And according to Finance Minister Colin Hansen, BC appears to be recovering better than expected as well. It's not smoking hot, mind you, but it's turning around.
From my perspective, just like the weather, you don't want it to be too hot. I lived in Alberta five years ago when the province was making money so fast it literally did not know what to do with it. At one point, Ralph Klein actually started giving it back in lump sum cheques. While that's all fine and good, the growth of the economy had plenty of negative side effects. No one wanted to work in the service industry because of all of the high-paying jobs in the oilsands. So try getting a table and a lunch in a reasonable time frame. Urban planning in cities like Calgary was completely thrown to the wayside because growth was too quick. And the wealth did not solve the social issues like homelessness and child poverty. In fact, all that wealth in the hands of so many young oilsands workers led to rampant drug use and addiction.
We're doing quite well here in Kamloops, not so well that I won't be able to find something to, shall we say "point out" - but quite well nonetheless.
There was a letter to the editor in the Kamloops Daily News today complaining about the number of mosquitoes in Kamloops right now. I agree there are more than usual, but the total is still almost negligible.
It got me thinking about how good we have it here in Kamloops. Talk to anyone from the prairies - like me - about mosquitoes, and you realize it's all relative. Same story goes for complaining about the cold weather in winter time. Things aren't perfect in our city and in our province, but they're getting pretty close. The weather is nice, and the bugs aren't that bad.
Even the economy is doing relatively well. In spite of the downturn, Kamloops just saw record numbers for building in a six-month period and in a twelve-month period. And according to Finance Minister Colin Hansen, BC appears to be recovering better than expected as well. It's not smoking hot, mind you, but it's turning around.
From my perspective, just like the weather, you don't want it to be too hot. I lived in Alberta five years ago when the province was making money so fast it literally did not know what to do with it. At one point, Ralph Klein actually started giving it back in lump sum cheques. While that's all fine and good, the growth of the economy had plenty of negative side effects. No one wanted to work in the service industry because of all of the high-paying jobs in the oilsands. So try getting a table and a lunch in a reasonable time frame. Urban planning in cities like Calgary was completely thrown to the wayside because growth was too quick. And the wealth did not solve the social issues like homelessness and child poverty. In fact, all that wealth in the hands of so many young oilsands workers led to rampant drug use and addiction.
We're doing quite well here in Kamloops, not so well that I won't be able to find something to, shall we say "point out" - but quite well nonetheless.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Trustees Unfairly Lampooned for Modest Pay Hike
(Aired on July 7, 2010)
There must be a better way to determine the salary levels of elected officials like school trustees and city councillors. It is never an easy task, and I have never seen a situation yet where the public is happy. In tough times, the officials are getting raises on the backs of the taxpayers and the downtrodden. In good times, they're taking advantage of the situation. How can they win?
For years, the officials had to make their decisions without much of a guideline, so they tried to get around that by having their administration, or in some cases even totally independent bodies, determine appropriate salaries. Methods vary, but the most common method is to examine salaries in similar sized municipalities, faced with many of the same concerns and needs of their own city. It's about the best so far. But it's not accepted by the public.
Take the case of school trustees here. They voted themselves a measly 2% wage hike this week, and they're taking flak for it. They could have taken 7%, which was the recommendation of administration after looking at other districts. I don't think 2% was out of line. School trustees have a tough job. I understand that the raise comes amidst all the budget hassles and school closures this year. But it doesn't negate the fact they were due for an increase.
I didn't see the teachers turning down a raise. Why? Because they thought they deserved it, with all the increased workload with closures and budget restrictions. They've indicated that in a contract year, they're looking for more. And yet our local Teachers' Association President had the gall to suggest that trustees blew an opportunity to do the right thing by accepting a raise. I wonder how he'll react when teachers go after their next increase? Will he have the same view? I highly doubt it.
And to suggest that the method of determining an increase is wrong is simply ludicrous. Unions do it all the time. They look around and see how other locals are doing, many industries have pattern agreements based on a contract with a single company in a particular location. Yet they criticize school trustees for doing the same thing? Talk about a double standard.
There must be a better way to determine the salary levels of elected officials like school trustees and city councillors. It is never an easy task, and I have never seen a situation yet where the public is happy. In tough times, the officials are getting raises on the backs of the taxpayers and the downtrodden. In good times, they're taking advantage of the situation. How can they win?
For years, the officials had to make their decisions without much of a guideline, so they tried to get around that by having their administration, or in some cases even totally independent bodies, determine appropriate salaries. Methods vary, but the most common method is to examine salaries in similar sized municipalities, faced with many of the same concerns and needs of their own city. It's about the best so far. But it's not accepted by the public.
Take the case of school trustees here. They voted themselves a measly 2% wage hike this week, and they're taking flak for it. They could have taken 7%, which was the recommendation of administration after looking at other districts. I don't think 2% was out of line. School trustees have a tough job. I understand that the raise comes amidst all the budget hassles and school closures this year. But it doesn't negate the fact they were due for an increase.
I didn't see the teachers turning down a raise. Why? Because they thought they deserved it, with all the increased workload with closures and budget restrictions. They've indicated that in a contract year, they're looking for more. And yet our local Teachers' Association President had the gall to suggest that trustees blew an opportunity to do the right thing by accepting a raise. I wonder how he'll react when teachers go after their next increase? Will he have the same view? I highly doubt it.
And to suggest that the method of determining an increase is wrong is simply ludicrous. Unions do it all the time. They look around and see how other locals are doing, many industries have pattern agreements based on a contract with a single company in a particular location. Yet they criticize school trustees for doing the same thing? Talk about a double standard.
On an Ominous Anniversary, Gulf Disaster Continues to Grow
(Aired on July 6, 2010)
Do the words Piper Alpha ring a bell? They didn't to me, until I started doing a little research. The Piper Alpha was an oil platform in the North Sea that blew up, killing 167 people. It was 22 years ago today. In terms of loss of life, it was the worst offshore oil well disaster in history.
In the Gulf of Mexico, just over 60 kilometres off the coast of Louisiana, another disaster is evolving. So far, the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has taken only 11 lives. But the explosion happened on April 20 - more than 75 days ago - and the gusher continues to flow. It is already the worst environmental disaster in American history, and is rapidly becoming one of the worst in the history of the world. In addition to the 6500 square kilometre slick on the surface of the water, there are reports of huge plumes of oil beneath the surface.
The reason I bring up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill once again today is not because there have been any significant new developments. Indeed, the plan is still to get the relief wells in place by August, and then perhaps we can see the flow of oil stemmed. But instead, I bring this up because I know it will take a concerted effort to keep this disaster as a part of our consciousness.
When it's watching news coverage, the public likes to see sexy pictures - oil gushing, rigs exploding, that kind of thing. That's just the way it is. But the pictures in this story are no longer sexy. It doesn't take too long to get tired of watching sludge lapping at the Louisiana shoreline, and that's how the story gets knocked out of the headlines.
So this is me reminding you, cajoling you, drilling it into your head. Please, don't forget.
Do the words Piper Alpha ring a bell? They didn't to me, until I started doing a little research. The Piper Alpha was an oil platform in the North Sea that blew up, killing 167 people. It was 22 years ago today. In terms of loss of life, it was the worst offshore oil well disaster in history.
In the Gulf of Mexico, just over 60 kilometres off the coast of Louisiana, another disaster is evolving. So far, the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has taken only 11 lives. But the explosion happened on April 20 - more than 75 days ago - and the gusher continues to flow. It is already the worst environmental disaster in American history, and is rapidly becoming one of the worst in the history of the world. In addition to the 6500 square kilometre slick on the surface of the water, there are reports of huge plumes of oil beneath the surface.
The reason I bring up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill once again today is not because there have been any significant new developments. Indeed, the plan is still to get the relief wells in place by August, and then perhaps we can see the flow of oil stemmed. But instead, I bring this up because I know it will take a concerted effort to keep this disaster as a part of our consciousness.
When it's watching news coverage, the public likes to see sexy pictures - oil gushing, rigs exploding, that kind of thing. That's just the way it is. But the pictures in this story are no longer sexy. It doesn't take too long to get tired of watching sludge lapping at the Louisiana shoreline, and that's how the story gets knocked out of the headlines.
So this is me reminding you, cajoling you, drilling it into your head. Please, don't forget.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Shuswap Crash Highlights Lack of Enforcement
(Aired on June 5, 2010)
The weekend tragedy on the Shuswap has once again focused peoples' concerns about policing on the lake. I guess not just this lake, but every large lake.
It might be a while before all the details come to light about the weekend accident that saw a speedboat collide with a houseboat, killing one person and sending several more to hospital. So it's hard to say that this is something relating to lack of policing, or whether other issues involved. But when you talk to residents of the Shuswap, or Okanagan Lake, or Kalamalka Lake, or Skaha Lake, one of their big issues is a lack of a police presence. Police presence is negligible.
There are rules against drinking. How many times have you seen boats checked? You have to have an Operator's Card, which is a joke in itself, but nevertheless, how many times are people checked? How many times do you see people speeding dangerously close to other boats, to houseboats, or swimmers in the lake? Where are the enforcement officials?
I'll tell you where they are. Doing the myriad of other tasks that are assigned to them because there just aren't enough officers to go around. Funding is such that we just don't have enough officers to get out to these locations, just like we don't have conservation officers to do their jobs, or staffing in provincial campsites. And I could go on and on.
Many of these tragedies are caused by carelessness, or consumption of alcohol. How many people do you know who go out on the lake with a case of beer or something stronger and laugh about how they're only going to have a couple of drinks. Pretty soon their judgment suffers to the point where they shouldn't be operating a boat at all. The cost of putting enforcement in place is high. I guess it's a question of what value we put on a life to determine whether or not we need to put pressure on our governments to make changes.
The weekend tragedy on the Shuswap has once again focused peoples' concerns about policing on the lake. I guess not just this lake, but every large lake.
It might be a while before all the details come to light about the weekend accident that saw a speedboat collide with a houseboat, killing one person and sending several more to hospital. So it's hard to say that this is something relating to lack of policing, or whether other issues involved. But when you talk to residents of the Shuswap, or Okanagan Lake, or Kalamalka Lake, or Skaha Lake, one of their big issues is a lack of a police presence. Police presence is negligible.
There are rules against drinking. How many times have you seen boats checked? You have to have an Operator's Card, which is a joke in itself, but nevertheless, how many times are people checked? How many times do you see people speeding dangerously close to other boats, to houseboats, or swimmers in the lake? Where are the enforcement officials?
I'll tell you where they are. Doing the myriad of other tasks that are assigned to them because there just aren't enough officers to go around. Funding is such that we just don't have enough officers to get out to these locations, just like we don't have conservation officers to do their jobs, or staffing in provincial campsites. And I could go on and on.
Many of these tragedies are caused by carelessness, or consumption of alcohol. How many people do you know who go out on the lake with a case of beer or something stronger and laugh about how they're only going to have a couple of drinks. Pretty soon their judgment suffers to the point where they shouldn't be operating a boat at all. The cost of putting enforcement in place is high. I guess it's a question of what value we put on a life to determine whether or not we need to put pressure on our governments to make changes.
Monday, July 5, 2010
HST Backlash Continues Because of Deception, not Tax Itself
(Aired on July 2, 2010)
I paid the Harmonized Sales Tax for the first time this morning. My extra-large mocha at Tim Horton's now sets me back to the tune of $2.60 - up about 15 cents from what it cost earlier this week. It was mildly annoying, but on the other hand the world did not end, I paid the extra 15 cents and went on my way.
For most of us in the middle class, that's what the HST will always be - mildly annoying. If you are in the upper income bracketm you may be more irritated than that - at least, that's dealing in stereotypes. Low income people will be impacted the most, of course, but Premier Campbell and the provincial government would argue that those people get a juicy rebate. And, in fact, that's the matrix the government is banking on for survival - that those less impacted will be less annoyed, and that the low income British Columbians can be bought with a rebate.
That's not playing out. Backlash over the HST is stronger than many - including myself - ever thought it would be. That's because, as I've said before, the tax itself is one thing. Most of us know paying an extra 7% on 20% of goods and services will not break the bank. On the other hand, there is little doubt that British Columbians are chafing over how the HST policy was announced and implemented.
They don't care that the HST is a consumption tax and thus supposedly more fair. They don't care that business groups love it. They don't care that it's a federally administered tax, and they don't care that the PST was abolished to bring it in.
They do care that the Liberal government signed on the dotted line just days after winning an election with a platform that did not include a major shift in tax policy. And that may be enough to end Campbell's government.
I paid the Harmonized Sales Tax for the first time this morning. My extra-large mocha at Tim Horton's now sets me back to the tune of $2.60 - up about 15 cents from what it cost earlier this week. It was mildly annoying, but on the other hand the world did not end, I paid the extra 15 cents and went on my way.
For most of us in the middle class, that's what the HST will always be - mildly annoying. If you are in the upper income bracketm you may be more irritated than that - at least, that's dealing in stereotypes. Low income people will be impacted the most, of course, but Premier Campbell and the provincial government would argue that those people get a juicy rebate. And, in fact, that's the matrix the government is banking on for survival - that those less impacted will be less annoyed, and that the low income British Columbians can be bought with a rebate.
That's not playing out. Backlash over the HST is stronger than many - including myself - ever thought it would be. That's because, as I've said before, the tax itself is one thing. Most of us know paying an extra 7% on 20% of goods and services will not break the bank. On the other hand, there is little doubt that British Columbians are chafing over how the HST policy was announced and implemented.
They don't care that the HST is a consumption tax and thus supposedly more fair. They don't care that business groups love it. They don't care that it's a federally administered tax, and they don't care that the PST was abolished to bring it in.
They do care that the Liberal government signed on the dotted line just days after winning an election with a platform that did not include a major shift in tax policy. And that may be enough to end Campbell's government.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Why Hold a Summit in Downtown Toronto?
(Aired on June 30, 2010)
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
