Leadership and democracy

[Rick Shea]

The recent use of the alternative approval process for the Mission Aquatic Centre in Kelowna is a reminder that leadership is a critical issue in a democracy.

First of all, it is important to underscore what leadership is not.

It is not leadership to presume that a project will go ahead and allow the contractor to place signs on the project fence long before it is approved. That is arrogance.

It is not leadership to advance the interests of one area of the community without simultaneously balancing the interests of the other parts. That is favoritism and catering to special interest groups.

It is not leadership to promise a referendum, and then refuse to keep that promise because it is "too risky." That is contempt for public input.

It is not leadership to vote in favor of and use a process with which you fundamentally disagree. That is hypocrisy.

In general, it is not leadership to presume that, because you were elected, you have the right to do as you wish, especially when there is clearly a significant level of opposition.

In the case of the Aquatic Centre, the city of Kelowna's own surveys contained a sufficient margin of error that any claim of majority support is meaningless. Council has now left the door open for Glenmore and other areas of the city to rightfully complain that they are being disadvantaged in this process. Council has ignored the recommendations of city staff to scale back the project, and has so far only recommended that the project be funded through a tax increase, despite all the other alternatives available. None of these are indications of leadership.

Leadership in a democracy requires that elected officials act as deputies for the electorate, not as dictators. Yes, leadership may require making quick and tough decisions in times of necessity. One example may be the need to upgrade the water system after the cryptosporidium problems in the past decade.

But democratic leadership involves clearly identifying and articulating a shared public vision, then advancing that vision. That, apparently, is an idea that is beyond the grasp of at least some members of our city council.

Rick Shea
Kelowna

[John Zeger]

I attended the October 16 city council meeting where they were to discuss the results of the AAP process and amend the bylaw to increase the borrowing to cover the cost overruns on the Mission Aquatic Centre. Previously Mayor Sharon Shepherd said that she wanted council to revisit when council should use the AAP in the future. But I was shocked by how little discussion there actually was. At the meeting Shepherd said that they would discuss the use of the AAP the next time that approach was to be used. In other words "manyana." Councillor Robert Hobson said he was satisfied with the reasons that the Province changed the requirement of signatures from five to ten percent of the electorate in order to force a referendum. Read "that removes any democratic checks by the public on the powers of city councils" (something that Hobson doesn't want to see). Councillor Colin Day reminded all of the reasons that council went to the AAP namely that the construction costs were increasing, but avoided the issue that it was never clear that a majority in the community even wanted the pool in the first place. All in all, it was a bad day for democracy in Kelowna and the taxpayers will get their revenge at the next civic election in November 2008.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the local media today.

February 7, 2007

Dear Sir:

City Council’s decision yesterday to approve the condominium project for Lakeshore at Barnaby prompts me to offer several suggestions to save Kelowna taxpayers a considerable amount of money.

1. Let’s dissolve the Advisory Planning Commission and lay off the entire planning department. They appear to be unnecessary, as Council ignored their recommendations in this case and many, many others.

2. Let’s just do a blanket rezoning of all agricultural land in Kelowna to high density development, and a blanket amendment of the Official Community Plan. With yesterday’s decision, Council has shown that they really don’t care about preserving agricultural land anyway, and this will save us from going through the motions every time (and from all those silly “farmland forever” forums).

3. Come to think of it, let’s just do away with the Official Community Plan, as it falsely encourages ordinary citizens to believe that they might actually have a say in what happens in this city. Additionally, Council has clearly demonstrated with this and other developments that the OCP fundamental principle of more dense development in core areas and prevention of sprawl are just wishful thinking.

4. Do away with the Water Smart program, as Council doesn’t seem to care about water use anyway, and just keeps bringing in more and more users to Kelowna.

5. Finally, given that the default condition in Kelowna seems to be to favor the developers, do away completely with Council and turn the city over to the developers. They are, after all, the ones who really control this city. As an added bonus, the development community can then just go ahead and take over the Westside without an inconvenient and expensive referendum, so that they have even more land to develop without restrictions.

I’m sure that, if we think about it, we can find other similar ways to save taxpayers money, but these would be a good start.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

Sharon Shepherd,
Mayor, City of Kelowna
Kelowna City Councillors

Dear Mayor Shepherd and Councillors:

Further to my previous email wherein I pointed out all the financial benefits of eliminating our city council and just letting developers run the show, I have what I believe is a constructive suggestion to ensure that the current level of oversight of development activity in Kelowna can continue.

I respectfully suggest that the city consider doing away with the entire city council, and hiring my dog instead.

This suggestion has several advantages. By attaching a rubber stamp to each of my dog’s feet, and scattering appropriate paperwork on the floor and letting her run loose, approvals can happen four times as fast. I have already trained my dog to roll over and play dead when a developer approaches. My dog will work for peanuts – er, dog food. My dog has keen hearing, so that, unlike some councillors, if she falls asleep in council chambers, she will still hear what is happening around her. And finally, my dog doesn’t need to take expensive trips to other cities and countries; she’s already very happy riding in the truck with her head out the window.

I ask that you paws and give this suggestion serious consideration. Out of concern for Kelowna taxpayers, I believe it is the leash that you can do.

Best Regards,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

Since writing that letter, many other good reasons for having council go to the dogs have come to mind.

As an example, when we get close to an election, my dog won't have to waste time kissing the butts of business people, developers, and special interest groups. As simple sniff on the way by is usually enough for her.

As another example, unlike what our council does, when my dog marks her territory on the Mission Creek greenway, it doesn't result in lawsuits. This would give us a leg up on legal bills.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the local media and to Kelowna council.

Dear Sir:

The public hearing for rezoning of “Neighbourhood Three” on the south slopes happens this week, and the proposal goes before the Advisory Planning Commission next week.. The proposal is to rezone the land from agricultural (A-1) mainly to large lot single family residential, with a few other uses as well.

This vote by the advisory planning commission, and the ensuing vote by Kelowna Council, will clearly show what our priorities are in Kelowna.

With a vote in favor of this rezoning, and proceeding with this subdivision, Kelowna council will accomplish the following:

· clearly demonstrating that they really don’t care about urban sprawl, as this development is about as far from city centre as it gets
· clearly demonstrating, by removing some viable agricultural land and some valuable wildlife habitat, that they really don’t care about those issues
· clearly demonstrating, by allowing more people to move into Kelowna, that they don’t care about water and resource issues in Kelowna, and that the Water Smart program is just a waste of money in the long run
· clearly demonstrating that they don’t care about affordable housing and about increasing taxes for current residents, as more growth always drives up taxes, and this subdivision will simply be more expensive view homes for the wealthy and the speculators, with a bit of token park and commercial space thrown in
· clearly demonstrating that current residents really don’t matter, as the newly declared truck route on Gordon will funnel all the construction traffic -- concrete trucks, dump trucks, trucks full of materials -- through what used to be a quiet dead end street called Stoneybrook.
· clearly demonstrating yet again that traffic planning is an oxymoron in Kelowna, as all this new traffic will funnel into roads that are already becoming dangerously congested, and which run through multiple school zones
· clearly demonstrating that they don't care about air pollution and climate change, as the wealthy people who will purchase these houses are most certainly not inclined to use public transit
· in summary, clearly demonstrating that, in Kelowna, it really is all about profits for developers and speculators

As I recall, Mayor Shepherd was a donor to the Friends of the South Slopes society, whose interests include this area. Does anyone see any irony in that?

Will council vote in favor of this rezoning?

Did I even have to ask those questions?

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the Capital News in response to a column by John McDonald.

Dear Sir:

Jackie Deshannon didn’t quite get it, and neither does John McDonald. “What the world needs now” is neither love nor a benevolent dictator.

McDonald’s proposals to increase gasoline prices, limit urban sprawl, divert taxes to transit, implement block pricing on gasoline, and generally change our lifestyles are all worthy proposals, but they don’t address the underlying problem – a problem which will only make any and all of these measures completely and utterly futile.

That problem of course is sheer human numbers and population growth. Cut our green house gas emissions by 40 percent? A decade or two of growth will negate any benefits. Build denser development closer to the workplace? A few decades of growth will bring back the sprawl. Block pricing on gasoline? The wealthy don’t care, and growth will make up for any short term reduction in use for the rest. Sheer human numbers makes the likelihood of a serious contagious disease more and more likely, depletes other planetary resources, and increases the number of violent conflicts between nations and even between inner city neighbours.

Mr. McDonald is in good company, though. Al Gore, David Suzuki, Elizabeth May, and virtually everyone with a conscience seems to be unable to take that last step, to acknowledge that unless we deal with the underlying problem of population growth and sheer human numbers, Mother Nature will soon take care of our short stay at the Hotel Planet Earth in any number of ways.

It is sadly true that any prominent public figure or politician who proposes population caps, or even (horrors) population reduction through natural means, would be committing political suicide. Yet this is precisely what our beleaguered planet needs.

Perhaps it is due to misunderstanding, long-held economic myths, or even simple propaganda that citizens are unwilling to listen to this message. Population caps at a local level do not necessarily limit mobility, yet opponents resort to ignorant and histrionic statements such as “throw up a wall,” “close the drawbridge,” and so on. Given our national birth rate, population caps at that level do not even prevent immigration. On a global level, population growth is slowing even now. We could speed that process along through education and better birth control.

Canada could become a world leader by establishing a national population cap at our current level, and by entering into immigration/emigration agreements only with other countries who have done the same. Canada could implement the theories of steady state economics, where growth in the quality of life is not linked to growth in consumption and population.

Despite the histrionics and propaganda; continued population growth and increased consumption are not inevitable or even necessary. Indeed, if we cannot break out of that mindset now, our growth will most surely kill us. The only item in question is how.

Sincerely,
Rick Shea