Nelson: Business As Usual - Or Not!

The deepest sin against a human mind is to believe things without evidence.
                                                                                 Aldous Huxley

Mere seconds after the National Post (NP) article, Nelson goes into a tizzy: its chronic nobody-will-come-here-any-longer fear deftly used by Councilor Kozak to present the Nelson Business Association (NBA) with: riches and fame beyond your wildest dreams a certainty! In about 2 months!
Council has to okay this one though and - not being immune to tizz - begins proceedings towards a bylaw-amendment immediately, by putting the issue ahead of 6 other bylaw-concerns - previously determined to be more important - to run this dog around downtown one more time, for a trial-period of 6 months.

Within days a special Council Meeting is arranged to deal with the topic: nobody knows quite how - including councilors. No time/material to prepare. Interested parties - as well as basic Nelsonites - are invited. After a lot of public tizzying, a record turn-out is expected and provided for with unusually extra space and chairs in Council Chambers.

One ruminates what turning this dog into Concern Number One may mean: does Nelson have no real problems, or does it have one single big, enormous, humungous, very real one? Both symptomatic of deep doo-doo.

And they come: Jocelyn Carver of the NBA; Dianna Ducs of Nelson Kootenay Lake Tourism; Tom Thomson of the Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce; Joan Reichardt of the Seniors Coordinating Society; Inspector Burkart of the Nelson Police Department/Bylaw Enforcement; members of the general public and news media. No dogs.

The Trial and Error
Councilor Kozak:
Doing full glamour just in case - while knowing that the issue is not need-based, thus having little to say - she defers to Mayor Dooley to say something. The mayor sees difficulties in arranging necessary appropriateness for this quickie project. And rightly so!
Jocelyn Carver:
Although supposedly coming from several years of looking at this: she still has no hard, fact-based evidence of need. Her top-point being that the majority of businesses surveyed wants dogs back downtown.
One business there belongs to Dale Donaldson. He wants dogs back - but not in my store you don't! Which makes me wonder whether all those surveyed wanting dogs on Baker - would also want them in their business. Were they asked?
Ssssooo.... are dogs now/would they be allowed in the Kootenay Co-op - Jocelyn's often very crowded, health-conscious place of employment? Being a co-owner/member - I have never been asked.
Dianna Ducs:
She does not come from a clear the-more-dogs/the-more-money place; a crucial piece of her argument (for?) is not factual - she is called on that.
Tom Thomson:
In a smart move, he keeps it personal and light and states that he feels no need for walking his dog around downtown. And is against dogs there.
Joan Reichardt:
Safety issues for seniors.
No.
Police Inspector Burkart:
He and Bylaw Officer Thomson - comprising two thirds of Bylaw Enforcement - sound wonderfully on-top of it now - and just as wonderfully on-top of and positive about additional enforcement-needs with dogs back downtown.
3 Basic Nelsonites:.
All: No.

Verdict
What becomes clear during the meeting: many of the general public who want dogs downtown again are blind to the indoors-component and unfamiliar with out-of-date and/or spotty bits of the bylaw.
The present proponents' lack of clear evidence of need - thus support for it - creates indulgent but growing resistance to an amendment. Making it neither advantageous nor advisable right now.
Ultimately, nobody is ready to second a motion to advance the issue. And a decision is made to let sleeping dogs lie in 7th place and deal with the animal-bylaw comprehensively and appropriately in due time. Including the downtown-topic.

Business Business
When I talk to Council and those sitting behind me about the NBA having been uncreative in their approach to discovering opportunities for itself and just using the NP article as an easy why-not/can't-hurt, there is a vague shuffling, muted murmur of protest behind me. Undoubtedly from the NBA.
1.
It seems that they have come from a place of entitlement ever since/because of the face-lift and make-up job in the 80s. Expecting them and ensuing heritage-this-and-that to generate money in perpetuity. Staying in the 80s, getting stuck in the 80s - waiting for the money. While by-and-by - seemingly unnoticed - the face-lift begins to sag and the make-up to smear and run, so that today - without the green-leafy summer-cloak - there's a frowzy-frumpiness to it all.
2.
So now we have Shop Local! Essentially this sounds ok - why wouldn't we when doable. Nelsonites: to whatever degree captives of the geography anyway. But - a bit of emotional blackmail here - we are also told that shopping locally creates jobs and brings in taxes needed to run the place. True enough but! Nobody is in business for the purpose of providing jobs and paying taxes. People run a business to make as much money as possible for themselves! And the more money - the more employees to make still more money. And pay more taxes. Everybody pays - well, should pay! - them: employers and employees. So, suck it up!
3.
More about shopping locally - specifically downtown. Winter after winter stretches of downtown-sidewalk are not shoveled: there is the never-ending cycle of snow>slush>ice. So, NBA, how about getting out there to do it, so that potential customers don't fall on their butt or simply don't come downtown to shop locally, because they don't feel safe and appreciated!

There is something to get for the NBA in this meeting. A reality-check! You are not entitled to anything: you want it - make it happen! And stay off this dog-thing: you won't shovel in the winter - you won't shovel in the summer! You want dogs on the streets - but you don't want them in your shops! 
What!

Enforcement Enforcement
Bylaws are only effective when implemented; implementation is only affective when enforced. And the public's resistance to following bylaws makes a Bylaw Enforcement Department crucial.
There's no point in now amending any bylaws even just remotely needing nudging, unless Bylaw Enforcement is amended to be bullet-proof, then consistently implemented and enforced if not. And item/situation-specific bylaws given a strong enforcement-component.

Right now, Nelson urgently needs enforcement of bylaw-enforcement enforcement!

Spending time in dialogue with Deputy-Chief Paivarinta, in the months before his retirement (awkward timing for us!) - I suggest establishment of a computerized basic data-base of complaints, warnings, etc. and using that towards a fixed fining-process. Linking it with a complaint-mechanism for the public. Expanding from complaint-driven enforcement only to enforcing directly as well: as in not only dealing with parking-violations but but also with the sidewalk next to them. Looking at motivation- and supervision-issues. Bringing bylaw-enforcement into today: from minimal token gesture to reality-based necessity, with reasonable funding and man-power. None of this in place now.
There are some positive in-house results - but then the deputy-chief leaves.

 

I do not know if Bylaw Enforcement is among the 6 ahead of the animal-bylaw - and if so: where. But I suggest it to become a priority before all others. An amendment of the animal-bylaw will be pointless without it!








For creative business possibilities in the downtown core - see post:

Nelson In Living Colour
1. Dec. 2011

below.





Images:
Keith Haring, Henry Horenstein