Nelson: The Slippery Slope of Bylaw Enforcement

.............


Literally, too: slippery slope as in winter-sidewalks. Specifically those along businesses/residences in the downtown corridor.

Ideally I would write this against a backdrop of downtown-days in snow to slush to ice to more snow..... - winter in Nelson. But as it happens - today is a red-carpet day: a stunning blonde in blue, with a swirling train of gold and silver. Even in Louboutin stilettos - safe and downtown.

Bylaw No. 3203, amends City of Nelson Traffic Bylaw No.3156
Notice to Motorists, Businesses & Residents
4.
According to City bylaw," Every owner or occupier (sic) of a business premises (sic) shall remove any accumulation of snow or ice upon (sic) any sidewalk abutting the land or premises owned or occupied by the person not later than 11:00 a.m. of any day except Sunday and holidays." When clearing downtown sidewalks, please do not push the snow into the amenity area.
5.
"Every owner or occupier (sic) of residential premises shall remove accumulation of snow or ice upon (sic) any constructed means of access including but not limited to sidewalks, stairs or driveways adjacent to the land or premise owned or occupied no later than 11:00 a.m. of any day."

I am quoting verbatim, including punctuation! Doesn't mangled officialese just make you sic! Irregardless - shoveling's gotta be done by 11! But not on Sundays or holidays - and that according to the already amended version of Traffic Bylaw No. 3203 above - although many businesses in downtown Nelson are open at least on Sunday. So - in effect - anyone entering/leaving/passing one of those on Sunday will slip at his/her own risk!

Anyway, the shoveling-law is nothing new - everybody knows! And too many owners or occupiers - possibly about a third of those in the downtown corridor - don't care, slippery slopes and all - because they don't have to. That's what it comes down to here and in the following.

(Just One) Example:
Corner building 417 Hall/701 Baker
Owner - Wade Nearing

Occupants - 417 Hall entrance (to upper level)
Dr. Esta M.Porter
Midas/Ronson Tire
Global BC

Occupant - 701 Baker entrance (to street level)
Lordco Auto Parts
Opens Mon - Fri: 7:30am; Sat: 8:00am; Sun- and holidays: 9:00am

The building is somewhat set back from Baker, with an area the depth of an average car's length providing parking between building and sidewalk - along all of the Baker side.
Lordco occupies the whole street-level space of the building but only the right half of the parking-area, for 3 to 4 cars.
The left half has three signs, announcing that two spaces are reserved for Global BC and Dr. Porter, on a 24-hour basis, and the third allows authorized parking (towable!) only.
Left and right are separated by a Coke machine. My concern is with the whole Baker side - that because I walk and walk along there, when I walk downtown and back almost daily.

Here goes:

Over the last four winters - as a rule - the sidewalk along the left reserved parking-spots - and as far as the Baker/Hall crossings - has never been cleared of snow/ice, unless the City plowed in very rare supersnow conditions. Meaning that this stretch may go from deep snow to deep slush then bumpy ice plus more snow over time: this only to disappear during a lengthy warm-days-and-nights spell. All unsafe enough during the day - then there are poorly lit nights! This may be a situation where: if everybody is responsible - nobody is responsible.

The Lordco parking-area on the right is heated from below, thus any snow falling on it will melt quickly and run-off into the snow on the sidewalk, which then turns into/remains ever deeper slush for long periods of time - no run-off into the street! - unless it all freezes into very bumpy ice on the sidewalk during the night. This also can become cyclical - snow, slush, ice, snow, etc. And worse at night!

Over the last four winters, Lordco only cleared slush on those few occasions when - seemingly only sort-of - prompted (but not followed-up) by a bylaw officer prompted by me. One-time efforts.
It has run like this: My first attempt - over time - at getting this often very deep-wet or icy but always unsafe situation taken care of for good - was by talking to a man at Lordco. He was not receptive, made excuses.
So I called Bylaw Enforcement: telling the man there about this ongoing problem. Asking him why there was no sidewalk-shoveling-bylaw enforcement. He promised to look into it and called me back to tell me that he handled it by being nice to the Lordco! And Lordco shoveled once. Possibly as a favor/reward for nice!
I eventually found out where the need to be nice to bylaw-breakers seems to come from.

The following winter I talked with a parking-meter man on Baker about the still-ongoing situation. He had excuses for Lordco's - what I thought - total disregard for pedestrians along that stretch, while accommodating driving customers with a heated parking-pad and Lordco knows what else! And again I brought up why parking-meter officers - walking on unshoveled or iced-over sidewalks to check meters anyway - don't enforce the shoveling-bylaw at the same time. He said he would look into it.
This was the bylaw-man frequently seen downtown, standing around and  having chinwags. A gregarious kinda fella - and what with everybody being somebody's second cousin in this here small town - clearly it's more comfortable to confront non-confrontational parking-meters.
Then - last year - I talked with another meter-man on Ward at Baker. This one was decidedly into meters only. And when I came-up with - admittedly somewhat simplistically - Lordco just doesn't care, he emphatically said yes, they do! Defensive! As in defending a bylaw-violator! He! Bylaw-enforcement guy!

There seems to be no middle-ground with Bylaw Enforcement. The name alone - Enforcer - brings-up bad-movie images. If one were to think about it. As I do. Many members of the public may have bylaw-concerns but could be hesitant to so abruptly - in this one-step approach - "complain" officially about a "violation", what with having to find applicable info first and then get/download the Complaint Form to go on-record! Also - again there's the second-cousin possibility!

What could be addressed with a phone-call to Bylaw Enforcement - and resolved by them with a visit to the party of concern - is not happening here, ostensibly because of a lack of resources. But if there is a lack of resources - probably  meaning a lack of manpower - a particular case coming to a resolution may take a long time. In my particular area of interest: winter may be over! One more time next year! Bylaw Enforcement Procedures admit that an investigative process may take several months! While violators continue to do because they can!

But - with principles and the larger picture on the line - I am ready to take all official steps advised. What with Nina Simone singing: That'll learn ya! and me being more inquisitive and much more straightforward - pushy? - now than when I initially became aware of (this) bylaw problem(s) years ago. Enough already! I will file separate complaints against Lordco, Global BC and Dr. Porter. Also the Bylaw Enforcement Department itself! I mean: who enforces that Bylaw Enforcement enforces!
I've got the forms: now I am waiting for the next snow-slush-ice attack to provide appropriate background noise.
Interestingly - complaint-forms are to be handed in at the police-station. Another possibly off-putting factor for many. A connector: If we had a more visible walking police-presence - another story! - they would experience sidewalk conditions first-hand. Community-involvement!

The across-Nelson survey established clearly that many are not satisfied with bylaw-enforcement! This segueing nicely into City Hall recently announcing that a new way had been found to coax hesitant bylaw-related fees/fines out of locals, and even more recently Councillor Cherbo sighing that raising parking-meter fees has not lived-up to baited-breath expectations.
There are dots begging to be connected. Like: maybe people don't pay fees and fines because of their dissatisfaction with bylaw-implementation or enforcement, or they don't care because they feel the City doesn't. And maybe the disappointing meter-funds could be supplemented by firmly laying down the law - second cousins or not - with snow-shoveling-bylaw breakers! And whoever else ought to to be fined according to bylaws!

Some of the money coming in that way could pay for extra help if needed. Or - more important - retooling the process. The Bylaw Enforcement Procedures state that the City doesn't have the resources to be on top of bylaws being broken and must rely on citizens to come forward to alert Bylaw Enforcement to violations. I certainly did - and nothing!
What if its officers - working within a closed environment where bylaws clearly are broken - only had to acknowledge cases, to then initiate a process.
You know how to write tickets - so write already! How simple is that!

It is bizarre that the old, the infirm, mothers with little children - all, really, because all are unsafe in conditions mentioned above - should have to "alert Bylaw Enforcement" to this kind of in-your-face violation all over the downtown area, possibly after the fact - an accident - before the bylaw is actually kick-started. In a few months! But never on Sunday!
A senior - breaking a hip on a slippery sidewalk - may not be in any condition to do much "alerting", even less the clearly needed following-up!

  

                                                                                                                                                                            

                             

                                                  What's with this community thing!

       I, today, submitted complaints for bylaw-violations by the 4 occupants above and against the City of Nelson Bylaw Enforcement Department 

         about public-safety issues.                                                  

                                        Mar. 1, 2012

          To be continued!

.........



Nelson: Natural Organic Co-oops!

.....................

The Co-op and Extra Foods and all that.

Particularly all that.

We have the write-up in the Star, Feb. 15, focusing on the Co-op, with nothing said about the other major player (1 of 3) in this - Extra Foods - aside from: Over the past three years the Co-op has been in conversation with Extra Foods and despite discussing lease options they decided to buy the property instead. Which is an oversimplification - far from fact. With a time-warp component yet!
Then - in an update, Feb. 17, giving Extra some overdue space - the Star mentions that 40 employees will be out of work when Extra closes.
An Express item, Feb. 17, is a short-cut to as-will-be: even less mention of Extra.

I will here have a much-needed look at Extra and the Co-op and what is or maybe is what, with the proposed move already having begun to set a significant ripple-effect in motion - actually two ripple-effects sloshing into each other - with two ungainly rocks having been unceremoniously plopped into the village-pond at the same time! One by the Co-op and one by the building's owner. Not Extra!

Extra Foods
The Co-op did NOT converse with Extra over the past three years but only with the building's owner - James Howe, a local - seemingly since last year, when the Co-op announced its move into Extra premises on a leasing-basis. In fact, the Co-op has never connected with Extra. This is a significant distinction, because the Star write-up makes it appear as if Extra gives-up the premises amicably - over a latte sort of.

Not so - they had no intention of moving out now! After the parent-company - Loblaw - just recently installed a completely new cash-register system and upgraded its corporation-wide electronic connections, including Nelson's Extra.

Just as Extra had no intention of moving out when the Co-op approached the owner (initially?) last year. Extra's lease is between Loblaw and Mr. Howe. When the Co-op negotiated with him then, there actually was nothing to negotiate legally, because Extra still had one year left on its five-year lease, and this lease stipulates that Loblaw has the first right of refusal. At that time no Extra/Howe renegotiation had been opened yet.

Thus last year's announcement by the Co-op of its imminent move (and subsequent decision to withhold the year's "member-dividend" because of it) today looks rather odd. As does its soon-after announcement that the move was off - supposedly - because the owner's demands could/would not be met by the Co-op - supposedly.

It seems that Loblaw entered this year's lease-renegotiations in good faith - see the tech upgrades mentioned above - but they would not meet the owner's demands. Ultimately, the very recent and public turn of events rattled Extra just as much as it did the owner of the Co-op's current location.
There is much room for speculation as to goings-on between the Co-op and Mr. Howe over time; what is clear though is that the Co-op is leaving there and entering here on a note at best sounding shrill and flat. Very!

Soon Extra Employees
30 in-store employees will lose their job; an additional 10 or so are outside support employees. Of course - with these 40 having families - many more are directly affected. Example: a young couple - both working at Extra - with a new baby and mortgage.
Tom Chamber-of-Commerce Thomson's input is only so much empty rhetoric, what with ... a number of displaced workers ... and ... the possibility ... of being able to assimilate some of those folks over at the Great Canadian Wholesale Club down at Lakeside Drive or Save-On Foods or Safeway. Right - assimilate some of those folks over down at. Obviously, these stores hire their folks on a need-now basis - they will not take on Extra folks, coming from charitable urges only.

Deirdrie Lang, Co-op general manager, in the Express piece talks about the Co-op being committed to making the best decisions for the larger community. Actually, it is not up to Ms. Lang to make such decisions. Reaching out to extra Extra employees now may be a good one though: not only for these soon-to-be jobless but also as a PR-move to contain sloshing-about ripples in the pond. Wet!

Extra Customers
About half of Extra's customers are on low and/or fixed incomes; many of those are elderly without transportation. Based on pricing: the Wholesale place on Lakeside will be their only option. How these elderly will get there is problematic. Not only in terms of distance but also conditions along lower Hall and Lakeside: heavy, complicated and fast-moving traffic, no sidewalks and often extreme weather-conditions.
The Co-op's simulated FAQ sheets Did you hear the BIG NEWS? - in answer to its rhetorical question about what will happen to Extra customers - promises: It is our intention to offer a new Co-op that is accessible for our entire community.
Physically yes; price- and productwise not so much.
The Co-op seems to have this vision of soon turning everybody into gluten-free tree-huggers. As comforting as that may sound to many - it won't to all, particularly those who just get on with their lives as best as they can. There needs to be respect for and acceptance of other life-styles - that's what community is all about!
This reminds me of Mitt Romney's attitude that poverty is telegenic - the poor being rather less so.

The New It/Costs
The Co-op will take-over a completely empty box with a leaky roof. Neither walls nor roof can support any major structural modifications -

the place was not built to be anything but what it is now.

The fundamental difference here between leasing and owning is that leasing would have meant pretty much making do with what is: possibly a band-aid on the roof, some non-structural dividing, a paint-job, a customer-accessible toilet, their own curtains. While buying is for keeps - a total redo to fit a long-term vision and protect their investment. According to today's rules. Of course: the more improvement - the higher the overhead and taxes!

The initial estimate of about 3 mill - just to be able to move in on a lease - will now be substantially higher. Any development of the property - aside from making the box doable as a store - would raise costs to astronomical levels. But that to what end - seeing that Nelson's economy is in the dumps and - at best - will stay there, unless City Hall comes up with a workable rethink - the much-touted sustainability on wheels. Meaning that there may not be any revenue-generating demand from the outside for major development within the property.

So Deirdrie Lang's proclamation of this (being) an incredible opportunity for ... the City of Nelson and our entire region is a tad over the top. The whole world? Oh, Deirdrie!

On a more prosaic level, this actually could be an incredible opportunity for the city taxwise and a temporary fix for local builders and their suppliers. To them - the more the better!

75% + 25% = 0

According to some in the know: considering to free all of the Co-op's available financial reserves for the construction redo runs two red flags up the pole real quick like.

1.

If they need the so far untouchable 25% - a pittance in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much it may (can only) be - they're worried and into robbing piggy-banks.

2.

By putting all their reserves into readying the new place - they will fly without a parachute. Asking for big trouble, what with reality usually ending-up much more costly than estimates promised. And then what!

Back into the store as such. Dividing the space to rent-out part of it is dicey - we have enough empty space in town. Initially, the proximity of the Co-op may be an attraction to other natural organic retailers - thus, presumably, natural organic customers. But if the unnatural inorganics stay away from the Co-op - because they get their Pringles elsewhere - they may stay away from these retailers as well.

An aside -

What with the natural label getting much negative press lately, and who knows what natural organic means to begin with: it my behoove the Co-op to change that part of its moniker. How about a new - real - name, period?

Any kind of Co-op-owned non-grocery unit within the box - like a cafe or whatever - may have a negative impact on similar businesses in the vicinity or Nelson. And how communal is that!

Inventory

Space for and investment in inventory: True - the box will provide more space for more stuff, but how much more stuff does the average customer need? Hasn't the Co-op been pretty much (in some cases more than) providing what people need within this context? Adding more minutiae to the inventory may fill shelves and find the occasional customer, yet a cardinal rule in supermarketing is: fill shelves with as little as possible made to look like as much as possible - then sell big quickly. Don't abuse your credit to stock inventory with little turnover - thus no significant return NOW! The Co-op won't be able to sustain doing that financially.

Wanting to offer more food-stuffs is partly co-oppish ego and partly a push for more income through gratuitous consumption. Cute food. The Co-op is already doing that with miles of aisles of boxed breakfast cereals. And it carries more chocolate bars in town than most - all of interchangeable quality, only from different producers.

From co-operative to co-orporate!

As Kathy Lette says in

The Llama Parlour:

You just can't have everything. I mean, where would you put it?

I'll say!

Size isn't everything. Just because the premises will be larger - yes, a supermarket! - does not necessarily mean more customers. And there's no guarantee of quicker check-outs - all supermarkets have the same check-out problem. And this problem will persist as long as people absolutely have to go shopping for loads when other people absolutely have to go shopping for loads. As they do purposely at Whole Foods anywhere, turning them into preferred pick-up places - with working it in long and slow check-out lines being an art-form!

Surely, the Co-op could be roomier, but glomping onto the Extra property just because it's there and extra-big presents great and extra challenges, ordinarily not connected with a move from here to there. This undertaking is in danger of becoming a very expensive (and stubborn) vanity project.

I have had no problem with the Co-op's current space and stock, and I recently have begun to feel comfortable with its pricing-system: but now I am concerned with the strong probability that prices will go up again to help finance a move into ever higher/stronger/faster. Again: to what end?

I don't see myself indirectly/directly - in the glow of co-opping - giving financial support indefinitely to this organization, which ought to be tuned into today's overall capitalist-economic, environmental and ecological circumstances enough to behave more modestly.

I will miss Extra.




The Co-op will hold a meeting ostensibly to ask members for a Yes or No on the piggy-bank issue: Mon. Mar. 19, 19:00, at the Best Western Baker Street Inn. At this point - it will be the only topic!


..............

Nelson: Free Money - But Hurry!

..........


Funding is being made available to support projects identified as priorities within individual communities as well as to arts, culture and heritage organizations.
The former through the Columbia Basin Trust Community Initiatives (CIP) and Affected Areas Programs (AAP), in conjunction with the Regional District of Central Kootenays (RDCK).
The latter by the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) and its Columbia Kootenay Cultural Alliance (CKCA).

Seemingly.

Seemingly - because there has been no press-coverage whatsoever about this since their announcement in one small, unremarkable ad in the West Kootenay Advertiser (hard-copy), Thu. Feb. 9, for the CBT/CKCA offering and in another smallish, unremarkable ad in the Express (on-line), Fri. Feb. 10, for that of the CIP/AAP/RDCK. As far as I've noticed. Both ads are headed with the CBT's logo and superficially similar in appearance.

Running these funding-offers concurrently and not keeping them clearly and visibly self-explanatory/contained on all levels - no matter how well-intentioned - is confusing and possibly counter-productive. Definitely not client-friendly!

The seeming lack of a press-release (actually 2!) - timed to allow for immediate extensive press-coverage thus maximum length of time for preparation by those to be funded - seems like a one-way concern. There may be press to inform the wider public on Wed. Feb. 15, but seeing that deadlines for applications are Mar. 5 and 9, this would mean 1 week less for those targeted - but mayhaps uninformed hitherto - to pull it all together.

I initially became aware if it all through a confusing group-e-mail from the City's cultural development officer (CDO), Wed. Feb. 8. Still, without this e-mail I most certainly would have overlooked the 2 ads.

My reason for getting into this here is that many funding-neophytes, yearning to find funding for their pursuits, still may not know about these possibilities; and if they do they may be frustrated by clunky communication. So if they don't find out quickly or don't find out at all: long-time funding-junkies - hardened by/adapted to the funds-providing process per se and totally ready for rent-money - may become primary beneficiaries of the CBT's largesse.
                                             

Even those not interested in applying may want to continue reading this post anyway: an example of self-defeating (non-)communication from the top down.

Extensive press-coverage of these funding-possibilities would seem particularly appropriate with the CIP/AAP/RDCK offering as - even though it's all about priorities within individual communities - no possible local priorities are identified. There are a couple of phone-numbers, an e-mail address and a website: aside from process this website offers no insight whatsoever, and phone-numbers and an e-mail address mean possible waste of more time and energy - adding frustration. Nothing project-focused in writing!
Deadline for applications: Mon. Mar. 5, 2012
The website for the CIP/AAP/RDCK funding-venue is:
www.rdck.bc.ca/corporate/grants/cbt.html

The CBT/CKCA possibility for those with an artistic/cultural/heritage-bend is somewhat more forthcoming, with funding-availability for itemized sample-areas listed on:
http://www.basinculture.com/
They have 1 phone-number and 1 e-mail address.
Deadline for applications: Fri. Mar. 9 or 23, depending on the program.

Okay, that's done! Or not! I have attempted to keep this as simple as possible - sorted - with whatever info I have; arts, cultural and heritage  aspects (CBT/CKCA?) - as in the CDO's e-mail - here need more attention though.

The e-mail says:
The City of Nelson and its Cultural Development Commission (CDC) are pleased to announce that it (sic) will be continuing with last year's initiative to devote up to 35% of the Columbia Basin Trust Community Initiative funding to local arts, culture and heritage projects.
"We're very pleased that for the third year running, Council has dedicated this allocation to our vital arts and heritage sector," says Councillor and CDC member Donna Macdonald.
How vital the arts- and particularly the heritage-sector are is arguable; she does not mention culture in this quote but then continues with:
"This allows the CDC to oversee a process whereby an independent jury of local arts, culture & heritage professionals adjudicates the applications. This objective and informed approach has worked very well."

The key-word in all this - though not vital - being "culture".

The City's 3-year Cultural Action Plan, 2008, says:
2.1 Cultural Mapping Project and Web Product
The Cultural Mapping Project will produce information outcomes: cultural inventory, infrastructure and economics. It will provide planning tools for cultural infrastructure investment and cultural tourism as well as support for practitioners.
The City of Nelson does not have a clear understanding of who and what comprises our cultural sector.

What with - 3 years later - still not having consciously, definitively come to terms with what culture means in Nelson, the CDC has been disregarding the culture of the Whole in favor of a more convenient (possibly more glamorous)   narrowly focused arts-mainly approach. So - in this e-mail anyway - the councillor/CDC member predictably fades in-and-out of culture. With the sequence of terms arts, culture and heritage coming straight from the CKCA's grants-application info-sheet - instead of the CDC's parameters of day-to-day concerns.

To sort this: Arts are imaginatively articulated reactions to/within the aggregate experience - culture! - of the Whole. Arts originate in particular cultural circumstances. Arts from culture.
Culture as in Cultural Development Commission means just that - otherwise it should be the Arts Development Commission.

Specifically -
The CKCA states in its funding-offer, Jan. 9, 2012:
Arts, Culture And Heritage Grant Application Available
Columbia Basin-artists in all disciplines - as well as arts, culture and heritage organizations - are invited to apply for funding through the Columbia Kootenay Cultural Alliance (CKCA), which delivers the Arts, Culture and Heritage Programs of (sic) Columbia Basin Trust (CBT).
"This is support for our neighbours, our museums, our local theatre troupes - for the many ways arts, culture and heritage weave through our lives," said Gary Ockenden, CBT director of Community Engagement.
The CKCA acknowledges a difference between arts and culture! Is ready to fund this difference!

Sooo... - seeing that the CDC still doesn't know from culture - I wonder who the suddenly-pulled-out-of-a-hat culture-members of an independent jury of local arts, culture & heritage professionals may be. And the others - for that matter. For the sake of transparency, this information ought to be open to the Whole!
Thus I asked the City's CDO in a reply to the above-mentioned e-mail, Jan. 9, for a list of this year's jurors (ideally - 3 lists of the 3 groups!) and their professional qualifications, as well as juror-lists of the previous 2 years. Seeing that this will be the third year for it all. As of this date, I have not had a reply but will post it when/if I receive it.

The CDO's e-mail talks about local arts, culture and heritage only - clearly the CKCA's funding-domain. Here. One would think. With the CKCA's application-intro using the same terms. But then - surprisingly - the web-address provided in the e-mail for applications/info is that of the RDCK, with neither the RDCK ad in the Express, nor its on-line application-material talking about arts, culture and heritage. Or much of anything else - aside from electoral areas.
For the uninitiated: piling confusion on top of confused! You too? Still feeling creative? 
Or what!

                    

                                                            

                                                       Fund-a-mentals!



Wed. Feb. 15

Today there's nothing in the Nelson Star (as I had thought: maybe ...!) about the grants currently offered by the CKCA and the RDCK - no ads, no in-depth explanatory write-up. Nothing!
Now - through Krista Patterson of the CKCA connecting with me - I find that the CKCA indeed sent out press-releases in January. 
The Cultural Development Commission has only publicized RDCK-funding info and that through its one e-mail only - seemingly because of its direct involvement with adjudicating - but art is art (or not!): so at least  acknowledging the current CKCA funding-effort would have seemed appropriate. 
The CDC could/should have been instrumental in getting the word out to the wider public through local whatever-media. Smallish ads - with the CBT logo/routine lay-out - are easily overlooked; we see and possibly ignore those regularly.
So if not the CDC - who?





.....

Getting religion!

..............

Men never do evil
so completely and cheerfully
                            as when they do it
                               from religious conviction.

                                                        Blaise Pascal
                                                                                1623 - 1662







........