The Louder, the Better When It Comes To Motorcycles?

(Aired on July 15, 2010)

The debate surrounding obnoxiously loud motorcycles is an interesting one.  As someone with young children who go to bed fairly early in the evening, my blood pressure increases every time I hear a loud bike pass by.  Some days getting your child to sleep feels like the proudest accomplishment of your day, and there's nothing worse than an outside stimulus ruining that accomplishment. 

That's the polarizing factor with motorcycles.  People who don't ride hate the noise, but riders love it. 

Our newsroom received an angry e-mail in the wake of a city council debate this week over whether the city can regulate the decibel levels produced.  The e-mailer said the noise actually saves lives because other drivers know the bikes are coming when they otherwise would not.  There is some truth to that, but the real reason people ride Harleys and other loud motorcycles is because they want to be noticed in non-life threatening situations.  They want to be noticed for the sake of being noticed.  Riders are attracted by the mystique and the rebellious image.  As a company, Harley Davidson has done a wonderful job playing up and cashing in on that image.  And while the bikes that come off the line are loud enough, you can buy after-market pipes to make them even louder.

The city is pretty much stuck on this one.  If council tried to enact a by-law, it would have to be enforced by RCMP, and that's a tricky prospect.  Any type of ban on motorcycle use would lead to complaints of a double-standard and be met with massive opposition.  Loud motorcycles are a fact of life and are particularly in vogue right now.  City council may have to simply hope this is a trend that will go away quickly - if not quietly.

More Parking Troubles Coming for RIH

(Aired on February 10, 2010)

Two years ago when my wife and I had our first child, I used this space to bemoan the sorry state of parking at Royal Inland Hospital.  Now, as we are expecting our second child, I have to bring up the situation again.  This time, it's not the hospital itself I have a beef with.

City council moved yesterday to add parking meters to Third and Fourth Avenues, in the blocks closest to the hospital.  This was already a two-hour limit zone, but by-law officials themselves admitted it was a tough one to enforce, meaning many people parking there could rest a little easier if their hospital appointments went overtime.  Now, it will remain a two-hour zone, with regular metered rates, and by-law officers say they will have an easier time enforcing those rules.

I should also note that city staff have made it no secret that this is a revenue generator.  The 43 new meters will bring in about $28,000 to city coffers annually.

Normally, I wouldn't have a big problem with something like this, but this is a special case.  Royal Inland Hospital has quite possibly the worst parking situation of any property in the entire city.  Though Interior Health officials have pledged to make changes to address the problem, it's clear that making R.I.H. a regional health centre has led to far more demand for parking than was originally predicted.  Patients and visitors are forced to search for parking off-site, many of them using street-side spots on Third and Fourth.  To install meters there borders on predatory.

The city is already banking on a huge increase in revenue from parking thanks to a new high-tech enforcement method that will lead to far more tickets being issued.  It seems this is an area where the city could have called off the dogs - at least until Royal Inland has addressed its own problems.

Time is Now for Water Meter Decision

(Aired on January 29, 2010)

Mayor Peter Milobar is right. He says it's time for the rubble to meet the road when it comes to water meters. City Council is facing a huge spending increase for water projects, if they don't put in universal water meters. Council will be forced to spend a huge chunk of money to upgrade the Valleyview system because of increased demand. If water meters are installed, they won't have to do that for many years down the road. It's just the start of the problem.

You can say what you will, but this is a decision that has to be made now. Water rates will go up for the construction, but in the long run, it's the right thing to do. And contrary to some armchair quarterbacks, we can't go to a referendum on this. Councillors have to have the courage of their convictions and make the necessary decision. That's why we elected them. If the public doesn't like what they do, there's an election in November 2011 when they can let the council know they did or did not back their decision.

If we can reduce water consumption by 20 percent in peak periods, the savings to the system will be huge. As Kamloops continues to grow, demands will continue to be placed on our water capacity. We already know that we overwater. Water meters will help keep that in check. Let's not play around with this any more. Let's get the job underway and make the decision. Council has wasted enough time.

The City Council Law of Inverse Proportionality

(Aired January 13, 2010)

I'm beginning to think there really is something in the water.  City hall can be pretty weird sometimes, but this week's city council meeting brought an extra measure of weirdness.

A retired doctor had to be scolded for shouting from the peanut gallery.

A former mayor - Mel Rothenburger - was essentially shamed out of council chambers because he couldn't get his cell phone to be quiet.

And a former councillor - Grant Robertson - decided the best way to argue about a dog-owner's rights was with a stuffed toy and a handful of fake dog dung.

But the thing that was at the same time weird and all too familiar was what I call the City Council Law of Inverse Proportionality.  It goes like this: the more an issue is debated, the less will actually be done about it.

This week, a dog-owner in Aberdeen came to council to complain that his dog had been picked up several times even though the neighbourhood loves it and has no problem with it greeting passers-by.  The outcome of this issue was clear to most rational members around the council table - nothing.  By-laws are black and white, their enforcement is often fairly unsympathetic, and there will be conflicts between officers and the public.  By-law officers can exercise common sense, but their and your definition of common sense often don't jive.

It took an hour and a half to come to this conclusion.

I suppose maybe it was worth it, if the public can learn the lesson that you have to have a pretty darn good reason to get the city to bend on its by-laws.  And a wandering dog - no matter how friendly - is not good enough.