Thursday 21 February 2013

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


    
         

Tuesday 5 February 2013

Nelson Going To The Dogs





A recent article - written by a very silly woman in Vancouver, about the possible impact of Nelson's no-dogs-downtown bylaw on tourism and flogged to the very silly National Post (NP) - had the usual, predictable result. In Nelson. Tourist-dry-up-alert! Yet some less impressed here may wonder if she had tried the Sun or Province first - more logical choices. After all - who reads the NP in the very west, and is that demographic likely to come to the Kootenays? So these less impressed here may say: Who cares! Let her first deal with the highest concentration of intravenous drug-users in any city of the Western world - at the same time - this city consistently touted as one of the most livable! That combo not keeping tourists away either!





Meanwhile At City Hall
Maybe twice in recent memory, the dog-bylaw - more specifically the Animal Regulation and Control Bylaw - has been run around the block, after the Nelson Star's publication of mail from - supposedly - out-of-towners, who were so deeply offended by not being allowed to bring Flopsie downtown, that they will never ever come back to bad, dog-hating Nelson.
No matter where it claims to come from: an e-mail like that could easily originate here, like - for instance - from the person who dumped dog-turds at the barricade, blocking access to the Dogwalk last spring - when it was totally flooded thus totally unsafe. Making dog-people's lives ever so inconvenient, by forcing them to find another place for Fido to dump. Possibly a more open, busier place where they might actually have to pick-up the turds. Bad City Hall!
Dog-people can be weird: like it stands to reason that people who claim a dog is man's best friend have social issues.

Whatever - this time it's a real article in a real newspaper, and Nelson's fragile ego is getting bruised big-time: They don't like me! I thought they like me! 

So Councillor Kozak - in a spurt of energy fueled by righteous panic - connects with the business-people who say they believe (not know!) the downtown-dog-ban indeed hurts their business. Prompting Kozak to want dogs - again! - downtown pronto, by getting the topic on Council's agenda ahead of 6 other topics of seemingly lesser importance. Her aim: a trial run of dogs into downtown - come May to October. The more - the better!

According to the Star, Feb. 1, 2013, Kozak also plans to recommend strict enforcement and fines for bylaw offenders to dole out to dog owners caught walking their pet off leash or not picking up after it downtown.
She here appears to have a blind spot to the fact that bylaw-enforcement has been nearly non-existent for ages - aside from parking-issues downtown - because of chronic underfunding thus understaffing of the Bylaw Enforcement Department. And unless the City would put significantly more enforcement-personnel on the streets (early am to late pm) to enforce directly - particularly during busy summer months on Baker: we would end-up with a messier, smellier, more unsanitary and less inviting downtown - like any larger city. Heritage turds!
But a well-functioning enforcement/fine-structure would necessitate practically overnight wall-to-wall amendments and heaps of cash now to have it all in place well before the beginning of May. Even though it's unreasonable to want to infuse big money and lots more enforcement-personnel into a revamped dog-bylaw only. What about all others and finally enforcing them? Like snow-shoveling - taking place or not on the same sidewalks on which dogs would express themselves!

Local dog-owners have habitually ignored pertinent sections of their bylaw because they can (and will continue to do so): dogs are off-leash in Lakeside Park, on the beach, along the lakefront and on the soccer-fields. Dog-owners very frequently do not pick-up their dogs' turds in the park, along the lakefront, the Dogwalk and the Salmo Railway Trail - even though bags are provided for this. Dogs frequently can be seen downtown now.

The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.

According to the same Star article: She said that city staff won't be going around clearing doggie doo off the sidewalk - that responsibility will fall to pet owners and business owners who are responsible for the sidewalks in front of their business.
I am deliberately writing about dog-turds because the pursed-lips doggie doo does not present a clear enough image of the problem. Making turds cute. Turds are not cute! I don't do cute!
Currently, the bylaw does not make business owners responsible for shoveling dog-turds in front of their businesses. This is solely up to the pets' owners!

The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.

Business Owners
Store-keepers and relevant organizations have been largely uncreative when it comes to stimulating business. Just/still waiting for the money to roll in, ever since the initial shot in the arm in the 80s. Allowing dogs downtown again will not mean more money in the bank. An overly simplistic notion!

Same article: the business association is recommending bag dispensers be installed throughout the core.
More of the same simplistic: This - coupled with allowing dogs in the downtown core - will most certainly invite locals and area-residents to bring their dogs along to get their exercise out of the way that way, including the daily, much-anticipated dump! On Baker! But a turd not always being a turd - in terms of consistency - cleaning that up (how?) will not really leave the pavement-spot spotless. But legit! And convenient! And time-saving for those ever too busy for these 2 nuisance-components in their dogs!
Then there's the fire-hydrant factor. Dogs will mark and re-mark territories endlessly by urinating at/on anything anywhere. A bummer at any time - but particularly over periods of hot summer days without rain!

I don't know if Kozak is uninformed of the current bylaw-version, or if she is actually planning on bylawing store-owners to shovel turds. 
Supposedly Council is not acting on the snow-shoveling problem because someone in Saskatchewan is currently challenging in court being told to shovel a stretch of sidewalk. Sooooo - shoveling snow is not enforceable but shoveling turds is?
Anyway, store-owners, beware of what you wish for: you may get it!

The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.




Dogs in Stores, Restaurants
Picture a large and/or hyper dog or 2 in a busy store. Picture them getting acquainted in that sniffy accelerating circle-dance.
In a food-store? All the above, also getting into food-supplies. Sanitary issues.
In a restaurant? All of the above plus lying around, for busy waiters to trip over.

Parking Dogs
An alternative to endless, unpredictable store/restaurant-scenarios would be to tie-up the dog somewhere outside. In hot sun. Rain. The dog blocking busy foot-traffic by lying down or - getting restless from waiting - moving around as far as the leash will allow. Possibly a Rottweiler-don't-touch-me-stranger? Attacking someone because of the weirdness of its situation? Getting it on with another dog? Urinating at whatever it's tied to? Taking a dump?

Vicious Dogs
The current bylaw is explicit about keeping and moving vicious dogs in town. So, would these dogs be allowed in the core - in any of the above-mentioned locations/situations? Even a muzzled pitbull can cause considerable harm and mayhem. What about tourists bringing their vicious Daisy dog downtown - without a muzzle?

The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.


NO DOGS DOWNTOWN!
I have given ample reasons why there should be no dogs downtown. All of them stacked-up point towards: introducing dogs to the core will have a negative effect overall, and word may just get to the NP that Nelson - ironically! - now is filthy-smelly because of dogs and their urine and their turds. Oops! Too late! And that Nelson - this time for sure and with good reason - definitely is not worth a visit any longer!

Allowing dogs downtown would have more of an impact through those of locals and area-residents than tourists: supposedly there are periodic voices in support of allowing dogs there. Has anyone asked these voices: why? The reason just may be that some feel they are not welcomed into City Hall's decision-making process - still, they want to be acknowledged as being there here. Somehow! A gluten-free tree-hugger making a statement: me and Buddy against the machine!

Tourists' voices? Not really! I mean, the only reason their dogs are on the table now is that silly article not being seen as what it is: a silly article. But pushing Kozak's buttons via the expecting to be taken care of business-folk. Smallville econo-politics.

How many times have we gone through this dog-thing - and why never based on objective research/reasoning/planning?

NO DOGS - PERIOD!
If people don't have enough time and energy and space for a dog to be a dog - the lack of any/all of these amounting to animal-cruelty - they shouldn't have a dog! This is probably - to varying degrees - the case with most dog-"owners", no matter how much they profess to love their doggie-woggie. Dogs - as individual creatures with individual needs - often aren't convenient. Even or particularly when left alone. And oh-how-cute-puppies grow - sometimes unexpectedly big! And demanding!
So, deal with what you got a dog into! On the dog's terms - not yours!
Dogs going shopping downtown? For a latte? Rarely!

I will look at some why-what-how of man and his best friend in the post to follow this one. 

Fees And Fines
How strictly does the City follow its own licensing-rules, does it collect yearly licensing-fees? Fees and fines were set at least 10 years ago. It is time to bring them into today's economic reality - up them drastically! - which may fund some (not enough!) additional bylaw-enforcement but - more important! - stop many from getting a dog on a whim.

Finally: Tourist-Dogs!
Instead of - inadvertently - making Nelson's no-dogs-downtown policy seem hostile: turn this into an advantage and communicate it as such in advertising Nelson to potential visitors:
> Explain the positive aspects of a dog-free downtown - none of the above hassles - applying to tourists and locals alike.
> Offer free and conveniently close Parkade-parking and water to tourists with a dog to wait in the car - cool and comfy during hot summer days, sheltered during the cooler.
> Provide several emergency phone-numbers of local vets.
> Explain the total wonderfulness of and give directions to the Dogwalk: ideal for the tourist-dog! Running and swimming freely! How good is that!  
> Explain that there is a dog-hotel downtown - hourly rates - as well as a high-end dog-stuff store, with a doggie-spa-experience on the premises. While Mummie does Baker.
Simple gestures like these turning Nelson into a decidedly we-do-dogs environment. Marketing 101!
While keeping Baker clean and (dog) hassle-free!






Nelson needs to accept what it has/hasn't, is/isn't - learning to deal with occasional criticism as necessary reality/identity checks. Building on all that through councillors - individually forming well-contemplated opinions - then coming together as Council. With the electorate as invited partners.
Instead of here making a quickie short-term decision, based on a spotty newspaper-report: which Council would customarily disdain (if perceived as negative) - so why not this time?



WOOF!                
                
                                                                                   WOOF!



                                        
                             WOOF!