|
Post by Rick Shea on Aug 11, 2005 13:44:33 GMT -5
If Canadian political history is any indicator, the civic election this year could end up as one of the nastier ones on record. In past elections where controversial issues come to the forefront, and where there is significant polarization around opposing points of view, the tendency has been to degenerate into name-calling, negative campaigning, and so on and remain in that mode. In those disgraceful cases, everyone usually loses.
Given the serious issues facing Kelowna, I hope that the upcoming election really deals with the issues, which will not go away no matter how much dirt and mudslinging there is. It is just as important to carefully and reasonably articulate the visions from all groups and individuals of what Kelowna ought to be, as it is to articulate what clearly is not wanted in Kelowna.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Aug 28, 2005 10:07:14 GMT -5
The Sunday Okanagan (Aug. 25, 2005) reports that Kimberly Ouellette is throwing her hat in the ring as a candidate for mayor. The paper says that she believes "the current mayor, Walter Gray and council have lost touch with the people." That certainly is true and they have demonstrated a contempt for public participation in decision making by making back-room deals with developers as in the case of Lawson Landing and denying the public a fair say as in the case of not allowing a referendum on the Aquatic Centre.
Regrettably, Ms. Ouellette supports the city's policies on growth and development ("smart growth" -- a euphemism for radical densification). She says growth should be environmentally and socially responsible. Well, the current growth rate isn't responsible nor sustainable and it can't be made so by merely arranging how or where that growth will take place. In order to make it sustainable the growth rate must be slowed. If densification is smart, then slow growth is smarter!
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Oct 3, 2005 18:29:40 GMT -5
I note the announcement at castanet.net that Jennifer Elsasser has announced her candidacy for council, under the slogan "Fresh Face Fresh Ideas." Yet Jennifer goes on to talk about continued growth being "obvious," an "exploding" population, and generally the same old same old about "guiding" growth in Kelowna. Yes, fresh face, same stale old ideas, and the same result for Kelowna. Too bad. jenniferelsasser.com/_wsn/page3.html
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Oct 9, 2005 10:41:49 GMT -5
There is a lot of enthusiasm out there for making Sharon Shepherd our new mayor. I, for one, agree that Walter Gray needs to be replaced and that Sharon would make a fine choice. But along with this enthusiasm there is a false optimism and complacency setting in that all we need is to replace Walter Gray and our problems will be solved. This couldn't be further from the truth. As city councillor Sharon Shepherd had one vote. If Sharon is elected mayor, she will still only have one vote, the same vote as a matter of fact. Sharon as councillor has offered a different and refreshing perspective on many issues but she was frequently in the minority among her council colleagues. If Sharon is elected mayor without also replacing the incumbent city councillors she will still be in the minority and not much more will be accomplished than before. Therefore it is critical that some of the enthusiasm that is being generated for Sharon Shepherd and her ideas also be channeled toward electing new city councillors that are compatible with her vision of sustainability.
|
|
|
Post by DuaneT on Nov 4, 2005 15:25:08 GMT -5
Since you have refused to answer these questions on Castanet I have decided to ask them here.
Let?s start with one of your statements, John Zeger. You said Quote: ?ASK proposes limiting the number of building permits (notice I didn't say not allowing any new construction which you seem to be presuming)?. So does that mean that anyone that wants to add onto their house will not be allowed? How would you decide which building permits to allow and which ones to disallow? How about if they wish to add legal secondary suite, will you disallow that when you know we are short thousands of low cost rental units? Which brings up another point, you have claimed, at first, that we are over 7000 rental units short and now you claim we are close to 8000. Do you actually know the numbers or just making them up as you go along? Please provide your bases for your calculations. I, personally, will admit that I don?t know the actual numbers.
Let us use your suggestion of ?inclusionary housing? to allow increasing the number of units to house the 7000 - 8000 affordable housing shortage, how would you ACTUALLY encourage developers to do so, fully knowing that you can?t MAKE them ( it is a free country last I checked ? they have a choice to develop or not )?
After reading a report in which Los Angeles uses this program (David Paul Rosen & Associates March 21, 2003) I discovered that they offered incentives to the developers such as increased density, fast track processes, subsides, design flexibility, fee wavier and fee reductions. As a result at least 34,000 affordable homes have been built in the Los Angles area in the past 10 years. Would you be prepared to offer the same?
You have stated publicly on numerous occasions as the chairperson of the CRCP that you and your organization are against ANY development over 4 stories and more then 50 units. You have also stated that you would Quote: "exempt any new housing projects that are primarily for affordable housing from any growth restrictions.? So, if I understand this correctly, you would allow a developer to come in and build a ?project? of higher density as long as it was for low-cost housing. This seems to contradict your position stated earlier. And to further confuse matters, a developer HAS indeed come forward with such a plan (Harvey / Leon Rental Development ) and you WERE AGAINST this publicly at the ACP meeting! So are you flip-flopping or do you make the rules as we go. So, if we elect you to council how can we be assured that you are not just saying ?the right thing? to get elected then turn around and attempt to STOP all development so Kelowna fits your own personal notion of what you thought Kelowna should be when you moved here 4 years ago?
Next, you have made it very clear that you are a former planner with the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. Can you provide some examples of your work out there as reference for your potential voters? How long did you worked there? Why did you leave? And who was your supervisor so that we may verify your work there? I understand there was a proposal to cap the population of Edmonton and force people to move to the outlaying areas. What do you know about that?
Since you have contacted people in lake country then you are fully aware that in the past 4 years Lake Country has had an annual growth rate of just over 1% and they want to increase it to 3%. In fact they had been planning on an average growth rate of 3% for the past few years to build a solid tax base. Do you feel it is fair to decide the future fate of a close by community?
You state that we need to create a ?Greater Okanagan Regional Planning Commission?, (would this be like the one you worked for in Edmonton? Sounds like you are trying to create yourself a job). Well, this plan and your idea of coordinate growth policies sounds very much like the one that was occurring around Edmonton and I am beginning to see a pattern here. It failed in Edmonton so now you will try to force it on the citizens of Kelowna and the Okanagan Valley.
I want to make if perfectly clear I am for affordable housing in this community, but I firmly believe your ideas and plans to force developers to do it will only discourage this from happening and ultimately turn our economy downward. We need to look at building up, we need to redevelop core areas like Downtown Kelowna, Orchard Park and Rutland, ( areas in which you have spoken out against redeveloping ). As a voter I expect you to answer these questions since you are running.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 5, 2005 20:36:38 GMT -5
As someone who advertises for developers on his website, Duane Tresnich, head of MoveKelownaForward, I think you have an agenda and I won't be wasting any of my time on you. And if you or your juvenile buddies try to bring your smear campaign over to this forum, you will be banned. In the meantime I'd get some psychiatric help if I were you, as I think you are obsessed.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 20, 2005 16:03:20 GMT -5
"(Election) results suggest dissatisfaction with rapid growth" -- these aren't my words but rather the heading of an artilce in the Daily Courier on Nov. 20, 2005, the day after the election. The paper states that "The same kind of progress and development championed by Walter Gray proved to be his undoing" according to UBCO political scientist Carl Hodge. In another article the Courier interviewed Robert Hobson saying hat "the city's massive growth in recent years was the main issue in this campaign. 'There was the perception that we weren't being thoughtful enough about the decisions we were making as a council.' "
It is clear that the voters elected Sharon Shephed mayor because they have had enough of the rapid growth of Kelowna and its consequences in terms of increased traffic congestion and crime. Unfortunately, the mayoralty contest was the focus of attention in this election and having voted for a change for mayor the voters thought their job was done and went to recognizable names in returning the incumbent councillors to office. I just hope the councillors who have been elected have learned the lesson of Walter Gray's defeat and take some meaningful action to slow Kelowna's growth rate or they will suffer the same fate as the former mayor three years from now.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 26, 2005 9:54:32 GMT -5
It's not hard to figure out why John Harding and the Daily Courier was so hell-bent on discrediting ASK during the election campaign. Have you ever seen that eight page supplement "Residential Development" in the Saturday Okanagan and all the developer ads sprinkled throughout other sections of the weekend paper? That advertising pulls in tens of thousands of dollars for the newspaper every week and the developers' boy must protect his investment. When Harding talks about keeping Kelowna open for business he means keeping the advertising dollars flowing for him. Harding's constant attacks against ASK was nothing less than a display of the politics of greed.
On a slightly different but related point, do you remember the editorial that Harding wrote earlier in the year saying that he would make campaign contributions from developers an issue in the election? Did he? No! Big talk but no delivery. Once again, Harding tries to project himself as the progressive thinker but in the end he's always the developers' boy. It makes me wonder why anyone pays attention to anything he says.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 4, 2005 12:18:59 GMT -5
One of the biggest disappointments of the recent election was the low voter turnout. With an exciting mayoralty contest and many important issues to be decided one would think that more than a paltry 31.5% of eligible voters would bother to cast their ballot. But perhaps the voter apathy is indicative that a decline in our social community has already occurred as the city's population has grown.
Reporting to city council after the election City Clerk Allison Flack noted that larger B.C. communities tend to have a lower voter turnout than smaller ones. In the recent election both Vernon and Penticton had voter turnouts around 50% significantly higher than Kelowna's. Tom Rice, professor of political science at the University of Iowa, commented in a recent study that " [voter] turnout decreases as city size increases. Social connectedness may be at work here because ... people in larger communities are less likely to know their neighbors and less likely to have social contacts that are geographically proximate. This isolation can lead to weaker social networks, which hinders turnout." It is sad to think how the continued population growth of Kelowna is contributing to an even further erosion of our social community which manifests as voter apathy.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Dec 12, 2005 13:26:45 GMT -5
More on the role played by John Harding and the Daily Courier in their attempt to discredit the ASK slate during the campaign. In the seminal and award winning 1987 book "Urban Fortunes:The Political Economy of Place" sociologists John Logan and Harvey Molotch describe the role and motives of the newspaper in local politics. "One local business takes a broad responsibility for general growth machine goals -- the metropolitan newspaper. Most newspapers ... profit primarily from increasing their circulation and therefore have a direct interest in growth. ...the media have a special influence simply because they are committed to growth per se, and can plan an invaluable role in coordinating strategy and selling growth to the public. ... a newspaper's essential role is ... to bolster and maintain the predisposition for general growth." Accordingly, I would advise the public to be mindful of the motives of members of the urban growth machine such as local newspapers while reading their opinions on matters having to do with growth and not be overly swayed by their opinions which are largely determined by their self-interest.
|
|