Nelson Commons: So What's With This Name?

Considering that City-staff/Council are now looking at possible approval  of the Kootenay Co-op's development of what used to be the Extra lot now about to turn into the somewhat updated Co-op lot - the following should be of interest. 

The big picture...
The Co-op - over a year ago - calls a meeting of its member-owners to have them vote on whether or not to allow shifting reserve-funds into a construction-fund.
The poster-boy here to lend the evening gravitas and legitimacy is Dave Wahn - the City's Manager of Development Services & Sustainability, APPROVING Officer.

At this time many Extra customers - infirm and/or with low income - are worried about very soon having to buy reasonably priced groceries at the box-store on Lakeside - a too far and very difficult trek for those without a car.
A member raises this concern in a Q&A with Dave Wahn. Who tells the woman  that there should be no problem because the City could build a bridge from City Hall to the box-store. Simple!
Actually there is a problem - a big one: the City has no intention to build a bridge at this time. And Mr. Wahn - in his capacity at City Hall - knows this. The woman is satisfied: the crowd noticeably relaxes - no feelings of guilt necessary. Close one!
And most here hearing only what they are open to hear and believing what they want to believe - the obvious question how could a bridge possibly be built anyway within the next month or so before Extra closes is not raised. Believers all! In thrall of the can-do-no-wrong-sacred-cow: my Co-op! Thinking for me!

In these very early days no plan exists for the property's development - fixing-up the store-as-is a consideration.
Mr. Wahn says a row of smaller stores could occupy the Vernon side of the store. Simple again! They eat it up!
What is not mentioned: the structural nature of the wall-as-is would not allow for window-and-door holes simply punched into it. Without a prior very far-reaching redo of the whole wall: it would certainly collapse thus the roof thus the building. Which raises the question does he know what he's talking about.
Regardless - he clearly does the sales-job the Co-op brought him here to do. He's the City-expert: promptly instrumental in member-owners then overwhelmingly voting for shifting the funds.

This raises the point - not necessarily legal but certainly ethical (not only for him but also the Co-op): does the City-thus-taxpayer employ him to flog private enterprise, particularly an enterprise in which he later most certainly will play an officially deciding role?

getting smaller...
Over time the project has gone through changes - the most determining that the Co-op is working without an outside-developer. After earlier saying that it did not want to become a rent-collecting landlord. This begs the question why - the answer possibly to be found in the come-and-gone Kutenai- and Nelson-Landing developments.
So - with the Co-op's prosaic focus on now having to get an apartment-building off the ground and selling units - the initial idea of turning the whole lot into a Commons - the center of the region, as the general manager called it - fades real fast like.

and smaller...
And what is before City-staff and Council for approval today is a 4-floors-closer-to-5 assembly-line apartment-block with a supermarket on the ground-floor and insufficient parking. Far removed from what the City's Waterfront & Downtown Master Plan thus Council envision for this particular area and the Co-op envisioned/promised originally. Condos only - no more of that green and social-housing talk.

I have been cautioning - as a single voice in blog-posts - against too-vague/too-big/too-soon since the beginning - while in principal I am for a bustling all-purpose/events central town-square - a Nelson Commons. And I will continue to caution Council and concerned City-services - particularly Mr. Wahn's! - to be circumspect in their part of the approval-process. Their decision will determine whether the center of the city will grow organically - so to speak - or be in lock-down for many years to come.

Not once are Commons-aspects - playground/meeting-place/green space for all - mentioned in Bob Hall's extensive Finding Commons Ground, Aug. 30. There is no plan for a green space.







and tiny...
On Aug. 25 - Russell Precious - the project's manager - invites me in an e-mail to a conversation in public. He as the rose - I as the thorn. My image. I immediately agree to this - but with a proviso of Co-op members, general public and news-media invited as well; the event well-publicized by mutual agreement - and not an opportune sales-pitch for the Co-op.
What we can talk about is that he is sacrificing the integrity of the original vision - the meaning of Nelson Commons - for the sake of enough-already convenience, and that I am holding him to maintaining that integrity. And will continue to do so.
We can also talk about Plan B.

As of this date - I have not received a response.







Images: H. Armstrong Roberts, Andy Warhol

Villa Kelowna

According to nelsoncommons.ca: the latest plans of what may determine the downtown-core - possibly for a generation or two - are now before Council and City staff.

1 Brick
There are so many images of very similar-looking apartment+store buildings to be found on the Net - one must wonder how the Co-op's architect arrived at his concept. The image shown here is from among them - not the Co-op project!
It is hard to see (literally!) how anyone could be enthusiastic about the Co-op design - potential buyer, concerned Co-op member or just interested citizen - based on the indistinct very-mini website-renderings, totally lacking detail. Clicking on individual pictures at different times goes to loading - possibly forever - I give up.

 

What with the overall appearance of this latest version essentially very little different from that presented in the recent update to/in the Committee Of The Whole: a boring apartment-block duly seen by Councilor Macdonald as unremarkable - the question presenting itself:

How does Nelson envision its core, and do the current Co-op plans represent a definitive version of that - for the City today and tomorrow?

Deirdrie Lang's enthusiastic initial announcement of the coming manifestation of the very center of the universe at Extra - had been tantalizingly promising while leaving unclear what exactly. At this point we know what exactly, and this is not exactly what we had been maneuvered to believe was coming.
Whatever Nelson's vision of itself in/for years to come could be - unfortunately the City does not seem to have one beyond the Waterfront & Downtown Plan's predigested generalities (thus may be tempted to buy into this one!) - it must not be: turning its center - thus Nelson-as-a-whole - into Kelowna-generic.

2 Bricks
It seems once the Co-op's early euphoria had worn-off, the visionaries got stuck in hands-on practicalities: not finding a developer (why?) thus putting together a local team and having to sell apartments. With that focus only - context eventually went! While - in order to make this development a true Commons - building-plus-environment as a unit would need to be no less than wrap-around exceptional. Much more than the presented retirement-housing for just living in but not looking at: downsized living-space and downsized aesthetics downsizing Nelson permanently!

With the City's aspiration: to be seen by all as special and cool and far out - and profit to be derived from that! - this central development must be a crucial building-block in creating a tourist-destination instead of being just a stop-over! Not just an in-and-out supermarket - but the promised environment where to spend quality-time in interesting company.

Yet Nelson Commons now seems like a very pretentious name for a parking-lot.

3 Bricks
There's much great architecture out there everywhere: combining aesthetics, functionality, environmental concerns in inventive use of materials and space. Why not here - in artistic, with-it Nelson, looking for an identity by the way. Great architecture is not necessarily determined by what it costs - but inventiveness applied. This Co-op design is not great - not even adequate. Just getting a job done.

If approved as is - the building and its environment would not be the heart of Nelson but its congenital heart defect. If not approved as is - a Botox-quickie alone won't do. No matter how much more work that may entail - sorry Co-op but you waded into this one with eyes wide-shut. This whole non-concept needs reworking to get back on track initially envisioned by the Co-op and now expected by all. 

Pile Of Bricks
Unless it never was meant to be more than what we're looking at now - and we've been duped all along. I know, I know: a nasty thought, but the building-design has not really evolved since day one, and there never was one specifically of the Commons-aspect: the initial kicker getting us excited! Who's excited now raise your hand!

One hopes that City Hall - and prospective buyers! - will swat their way through the Co-op's smarmy come-on and look past it at the project's unattractive looming reality - then make their decision.

No matter what the outcome: this project will determine the current Council's legacy.

               You owe it to all of us to get on with what you're good at.

                                                                         W.H. Auden

                                                                                         Poet

Image: Russell Scott Steedle & Capone Architects, Inc.    

The Yellow Peril - in Nelson! Again!

 

Over Here!
A while ago Canadian news-media vaguely have it that some trade-agreement between Canada and Oh-No-Not-China either has been or is just about to be signed.
Details are murky, but there's one crystal-clear fact: this agreement is way more advantageous to China than Canada. Naturally followed by: those Chinese are just about to take over! Gasp! Not again! No investigative journalism here: no in-depth examples forthcoming. Also not demanded.

In Nelson this story-as-is - picked-up from whatever source - generates indignant comments all along the same uninformed, self-righteous lines, including those of a City councilor. Who should know better!

Predictably it all goes away in no time - the story has no legs; everybody can concentrate again on what really matters to Canadians: piling-up household-debt at the mall.

So much for that but still too much of Canada's sinophobia, institutionalized by white-bread (no crust, please!) British-Colonials. Nurtured by generations since. And another failure of national multi-culture feel-good to take care of THE Canadian conundrum: yes we are an immigrant-country and no we don't much care for immigrants with skin-color deficiencies. Particularly the Chinese kind!
With Nelson right up there sinophobiawise: habitually ignoring historical facts of local Chinese contributions - positive all - and going store-bought WASP-heritage only. 

Over there!
So then I go to China and ask friends if they know anything of any trade-agreement just signed between China and Canada. Nothing! I explain that some Canadians got their knickers in a wad over China - supposedly - having gained unfair advantages in the deal. They state the (to all but Canada!) obvious: A trade-agreement is signed by at least two parties, and - supposedly - both know what they're signing. Voluntarily! If one party - after the fact - feels it got a bum-deal: this party was/is stupid!
Now if your government signed the deal, and you're not happy with that: your problem is your government (not China!) which you can easily change, Canada being so democratic and all. My words - theirs are more circumspect. 
My thoughts too. Still - one of those embarrassed-over-being-Oh-Canadian moments.
They also say: to us Canada itself is of no particular interest; we only want to buy stuff from you - as you want to buy stuff from us. China is signing trade-agreements all over the map - just without using the customary American-model come-on: let's be friends we just want to help and protect you so we'll put a military base here and train you in killing more effectively as a bonus and by the way take all that silly oil off your hands and lucky you give you arms in return so it's all good!
While China says what it wants up-front - goes for that - and in developing countries may offer to contractually take-on infra-structure projects as part of a deal. Straightforward. Simple.

Over here over there!
Something to consider though in Canada-China dealings on any level: 

Face - having, wanting, giving, losing face is of utmost importance in the Chinese mindscacpe. China has a strong group-identity, so when you make the government lose face - all Chinese lose face.

When the Harper - a man with lots of second-hand ideology and without a clue - comes into power (literally!) - while posturing to position himself as a global player: he immediately shows general disdain for China via her human-rights record, etc. The usual. All phoned-in because he doesn't find it necessary to introduce himself in-person. After a couple of years of that, he can't make it to the opening-ceremony of the Beijing Olympics - scheduling-conflicts he says! - which gets him a lot of negative press in the West.

But China is cool. Says nothing. Although losing face in a big way - what with this coming from the baby-leader of a baby-country with a consistently appalling human-rights record of its own since day one. With treatment of Chinese in Canada close to the top of the list.
Eventually somebody in Ottawa gets through to the Harper that he's behaving like an idiot, so he sends Flaherty to Beijing to do nice. Another silly maneuver: sending an underling.

All this establishing a relationship China deals with dispassionately and critically, at arm's-length - while small-fish-in-large-pond Canada is oblivious and predictably splashing about.

When Chinese lose face they usually show no reaction. But they will never forget this - keeping it polished possibly for years, to one day bring it out again: payback-time! Not revenge based in passion - unannounced and quietly applied; a toughened particular approach to a particular situation.
And what with their Canada face-file now being thickish, the relationship - smiles for days - is locked-in for the duration. With negotiations of this recent trade-to-and-fro possibly colored accordingly. So this media-spread assertion may just be Canada's pouty reaction to being put in its place and kept there. Those Chinese - how dare they! Mom!!!!!

So there!
Then I come back from China - after the end of the national Asian Heritage Month here. Celebrated in various ways across Canada. Not in Nelson. Because the Nelson Cultural Development Commission's focus - supposedly on arts, culture and heritage - is oblivious to culture as in cultures, and heritage is about wet-paint upper-tier real estate over time.
More about that shortly.

The newest rumor making the rounds nationally is that Canada ought to move some of its naval operations/equipment from the east-coast to Esquimalt in BC wink-wink.

 


              Atta boy, Stevie!

 
  
SOHO Galaxy, Beijing: Zaha Hadid Architects 

Council And The Manager - A Drama-Series

In Theoretical Terms:
Community Charter
[SBC 2003] Chapter 26
Part 5 - Municipal Government and Procedures
Division 5 -Officers and Employees

Officer Positions
146  A council
(a) must, by bylaw, establish officer positions in relation to the powers, duties and functions under sections 148 [corporate officer] and 149 [financial officer],
(b) may, by bylaw, establish other officer positions, and
(c) may assign powers, duties and functions to its officer positions.

Chief Administrative Officer
147  A bylaw under section 146 may establish the position of chief administrative officer of the municipality, whose powers, duties and functions include the following:
(a) overall management of the operations of the municipality;
(b) ensuring that the policies, programs and directions of the council are implemented (my emphasis);
(c) advising and informing the council on the operations and affairs of the municipality (my emphasis).

In Simple Terms:
Council originates - the chief administrative officer (CAO - in Nelson commonly referred to as city manager) - under (b) above - implements what Council originates!

In realistic Terms
This has become (more of) an issue recently, with CAO Cormack possibly confusing the position of CAO (administrative) with that of a corporate CEO (executive) - an elsewhere rather different reality!
More specifically: Mr. Cormack making decisions commonly made by Council - bypassing the legally nailed-down process and either justifying his actions very superficially or not at all. It's a Harper thing.

Following examples are only of the who/how in decision-making - not a perceived benefit/lack-of-benefit of a project.

1. Script: Baker St. Amenities Redo
Basic premise:
Many had it then, have it now much more tangibly - the whole thing has been a slick bundling of issues/possibilities to benefit business-owners on their way to the bank. At that time, presented by Mr. Cormack in a well-orchestrated media-blitz. On location! With a paparazzo and without Council!

1a. 
Presented as in: the redo-plus-costs of these amenities didn't have to be approved by Council as a line-item because - according to the CAO - politicians had already done all that as part of the Waterfront & Downtown Master Plan. Meaning: if not questioned loudly - this justification could let him implement anything in this Plan whenever he decides!
While in a parallel reality one would assume that any changes this plan advises would need to be specified definitively to and approved by Council in stages - to only then be implemented by the CAO. There was no hard-copy (re)design/plan - period - for the amenities when they were torn down in part; there was only Mr. Cormack's one-man show.

In-principle-acceptance of a long-range, non-specific plan is not a base from which to jump into implementation of its individual non-specific components! A series of steps must be taken first is how it used to be.

 
1b.
Politicians approved? Politicians who? The only politicians to approve anything like this would be - cue percussion! - Council! Who didn't!
1c.
Funding - according to Mr. Cormack - is an opportunity-cost. Not explained to Council or public. Opportunity cost? Where exactly does he keep that bottomless personal stash? We do know though it's actually all our money - thus would feel one hell of a lot better if Council - via a thoughtful decision-making process - were part of this stunt. Which they aren't. Which should trouble them and - more important! - the public!

In Practical Terms:
The audacity of these justifications is mind-blowing! Stupid public! Equally disturbing is: elected Council - a group of six, ostensibly grounded in democratic to-and-fro - allowing the city manager - one City employee, employed by Council! - to make their decisions. And then some! Today Baker - tomorrow ze vorld!
But you know how it goes: smallish town and everybody's worried about their personal agendas getting poked. Including councilors. Sub-plots for days! Delish!

Also see posts
Baker Avenue - The Heart Of Gold
23 March, 2013
Bench Kevin Cormack!
28 July, 2013

2. Script: Soccer-Moms-Only Parking
Basic premise:
An example of the second kind: bypassing Council plus not giving any explanation either. Keeping it real simple like.
Several large, colorful groups of bushes along the road between soccer and tram - home to various kinds of wildlife - are removed just-like-that to make room for additional parking to benefit a particular interest-group. Cue music: Joni Mitchell putting up a parking-lot.
Among needed staff the sad-eyed-voiceless-children number is used to slide the project through smoothly. Triple hankies!
2a.
This drastic change should have been brought before Council by a delegation, with prior submission of supporting material: a presentation of perceived need, possible impact. To only then - possibly - be handed to the city manager for implementation.
I've witnessed Council discuss with gusto the pros and contras of concrete- vs crushed-gravel-surfacing of a sidewalk to nowhere in the hills somewhere - but not this?
2b.
The work-order went straight from CAO to Public Works & Parks. With funding seemingly another opportunity-cost - here also tax-payered to benefit a special-interest group.
Bypassing Council so completely that they only may have found out about the project by going for a walk along there. Or reading this blog.

Like see post
Park Kevin Cormack!
18 July, 2013

On Whose Terms:
And so it goes - more and more low drama: with Council usually caving on integrity-issues, and Mr. Cormack - not troubled by same - filling a vacuum.
Item:
When I - in a Committee Of The Whole - brought-up the City's disastrous handling of publicly donated Japan-earthquake-relief funds, and CAO Cormack (incorrectly!) claimed that these funds had been donated to the City: Council just sat there. Not a word! To eventually cave in a backroom-deal.
Item:
As they did on the Taser-issue - aware of it for months before Chief Holland and Deputy Burkart finally dodged and patronized Council face-to-face. In the meantime, Taser-deaths multiplying all over the map.
Items:
Then this amenities-stunt plus the soccer-moms.

He does
because they won't
so he can.

  
Seeing that elections are close: there will be spin-offs with the same predictable plot-lines - and no happy endings - unless the audience starts demanding more for their money!

No popcorn for the drama-queens!

Nelson Police Board/Department - Accountability

Following is the material I presented to the Nelson Police Board (NPB), July 30, 2013 - a bit after the fact of the Taser's return to Nelson, but I was abroad for a while, NPB meetings are not regular, and - after all - accountability is and remains accountability. Generally a weak link in Nelson's matters civic :

NPB/NPD Accountability - Example: Taser
The re-introduction of Tasers in rather than to Nelson has raised concerns twofold among the Nelson public:
1. Tasers as such
2. The manner of communication - or lack thereof - prior to, during and
     after the re-introduction
Both - for the general public - are anchored in accountability: the Nelson Police Department's (NPD) Integrity, Respect, Innovation, Compassion and Accountability and the NPB's The Nelson Police Board is accountable to the community of Nelson.

1. Tasers as such
Considering Nelson's (violent) crime-rate being minimal, the recent addition of 2 police-officers and carrying Tasers made voluntary - the decision to bring them back clearly is not need-based. The Taser - according to Chief Constable Holland: an additional tool in the police-officers' tool-belt. But at what multi-level cost?
In on-the-ground reality, use of a Taser here could become a short-cut - even lethal termination - in conflict-resolution, whereas interpersonal communication-skills were the prominent and most often sufficient tool previously.

In Canada 17 people died by Taser - between 2002 and 2007.

Using a Taser on a tourist - no matter what the NPD's justification - would clearly do far-reaching damage to Nelson as a tourist destination.

Recent official declarations that use of a Taser - if applied appropriately by retrained police-officers - generally is safe for those tasered, fail to take into account police-officers' psychological state before/during use of their Taser and the ordinarily unknown physical condition of those to be or being tasered.
Example of the former: Part of a current investigation in Toronto - a police-officer seemingly tasered a man AFTER he was already shot (several times) by another (other) police-officer(s)!

2a. Manner of Communication: Re-introduction - NPB
Although the Board ostensibly is accountable to the Nelson community, and its Strategy 2011-2015 claims to want to increase communication - in my memory, it never has communicated thus been accountable here.

The latest: The Taser-issue - which should have been recognized as very sensitive to many - was neither announced as intention nor explained comprehensively as an accomplished fact.
The BC Coroner Service's declaration of (Robert) Dziekanski a homicide (after being tasered multiple times at the Vancouver Airport) - just days after the brief local Taser announcement in the Nelson Daily (only!) - should have moved the NPB to give a public in-depth account: but again - there was nothing!

There recently have been some (mostly minor - one seriously major!) adjustments to the NPB's website - clearly prompted (only) by my initial presentation to the Committee Of The Whole (COW), April 22, 2013, and subsequent blog-posts. Mention of the Board Strategy's plan to increase communication was (seriously major!) deleted!

In fact - clearer now than before the adjustments: the NPB is neither in communication- nor accountability-mode.

2b. Manner of Communication: Re-introduction - NPD
Taser-related announcements by NPD members - prior to the NPD's presentation to the COW, May 27, 2013 - only superficially addressed the re-introduction. I received no reply to an e-mail sent to the chief constable (police chief) immediately after the initial announcement - only got pieces of disjointed information by phoning the Department.
Not once then, in that COW or since has there been an explanation - period - for WHY Tasers in Nelson. Much of the public's perception of the prompt use of a Taser here - only 3 weeks subsequent to said COW - is framed by: Well, of course they'd make a point!

The NPD's presentation to the COW was not based on the public's need to be informed: the NPD had to be invited.
COW - Chief Constable Holland
a.
The Chief's distinction between Tasers not being lethal force but high-intermediate use of force distinguishes between homicide-by-Taser and homicide-by-Taser.
b.
The Chief's defense of Taser-use by claiming that there is less risk of injury by Taser than by police-officers using fists and/or batons to restrain is troubling for 3 reasons:
1. Using fists and/or batons on a person does not mean the person is being restrained but beaten into submission. Restraining is done with words or hands - not fists and/or clubs!
2. The Chief offers a violent either/or-scenario only- disregarding a less or non-violent alternative.
3. How many people were killed in Canada by police-force with fists and/or batons between 2002 and 2007 - when 17 were killed by Taser?

COW - Deputy Chief Burkart
According to the Deputy Chief (Inspector): in his 18 years as police-officer he has arrested thousands of people but only used his Taser less than a handful of times. Which raises the obvious question: So why have these expensive and dangerous toys? As per the Nelson Star - he spent 5 of those years in Calgary but has been in Nelson the last 13. I don't see how he could have arrested thousands - meaning at least two thousand - of people within those years; the vast majority of them Nelsonites. Particularly when considering his time-off between sets of shifts, administrative duties (towards becoming deputy chief) and vacations (plus other police-officers surely making arrests as well).

Summary
There is a lack of credibility in actions/inactions and statements/silence by either group and as a unit all along. The presentation to the COW by the NPD - oddly but not surprisingly without the NPB - did not clarify but add to a general perception of both groups' detachment from the Nelson public as people: it seemed patronizing. The NPD's and NPB's proclamation of accountability sounds hollow. As does that of respect by the NPD.
Regardless - public record has it continuously and extensively that police-officers - despite explicit rules and intensive training - are fallible. Potentially this includes the Nelson police-force. I never used to feel unsafe in Nelson before the return of Tasers - but I do now. Not because I fear being tasered - although who knows! - but because of the manner of (and people behind) re-introducing - or not! - the Taser. Even though both groups supposedly are accountably focused on the public's safety.

Also see posts:
Nelson: A Shock to the System
7 April 2013
Harperville And The Cop-Shop
12 April 2013
Taser Nelson, Please!
23 April 2013
City Hall - Zap! Gone!
26 June 2013

End of my presentation to the Police Board

To protect and serve - here, on whose terms?
A Yahoo-poll, involving 44.000 respondents - days after the Toronto killing -found that nationally 56% have no trust in the police. Police-activity with negative fall-out in specific locales will automatically bleed into national consciousness. Go figure! And public perception usually is more persuasive than media-fact. Meaning Nelson, too!

No matter how efficiently the NPD may see itself doing its job: this being a smallish town - needs and successes of the NPD are relative to smallish-town criminal activity. Clearly without need of Tasers.

The Chief priding himself in his force apprehending a van-thief plus returning the van - within a couple of hours - to the owner: a single, new-arrival-in-Nelson mother of 2 small children (no cute bunny-rabbit!) - is gratifying in proportion to the Nelson scene. But insignificant within a larger context. And coming from that context in Nelson is vital - certainly more honest. Without that mindset cops here may be perceived as just overpaid, overindulged elitists - with overpriced scare-tactic toys. At the same time: doing the community-relations thing alone - in feel-good get-togethers with particular groups over tea and cookies - won't do either: they may be seen as bit-by-bit infantilization of the general public. Lulled.

Consistent and open communication is half the policing-battle won.

A positive - if not necessarily happy-making - ending to this: A recent conference of the BC Association of Police Boards (BCAPB) voted in favor of electing Chairs within Boards - instead of having a mayor automatically fill that position. Currently as per the stupidity of BC politics - and of low-voltage productivity.





To all units: Reporting a stolen moment ... repeat... reporting a stolen moment!

Images: Stephanie Marrott, Julia Letheld