A hot spring-day. I walk along the trail - green-on-green, except for deep logging-truck-gashes up the hill, next to the trail, just past the trestle-bridge (nobody talks about that!) - looking forward to the skunk-cabbage farther on, and long-green hair streaming around my legs in the cool creek.
There is talk that smoking skunk-cabbage root - while supposedly poisonous or possibly because of it - would get one high. I never try, neither does anyone I know. I do love the bitter smell from cupped-hands blossoms, the lacquered leaves!
Then across the highway to Cottonwood Lake. I can't deny: at its best with nobody else there. The still water a bit scary - stump-monsters below! - therefore - just in case - I stay close enough to the float. Stretching out on its warmth to doze after.
Never thinking about whose land this is - quite naturally mine while I am here - but vaguely aware that some unidentified part is privately owned.
Same trees, same water.
It has been public(ly available) info since Feb. 2018 that logging around all this is to happen - most likely sooner than later. While the automatic reflex may be wanting an immediate study on the (possible) environmental impact - nothing!
The EcoSociety?
In the meantime - in an attempt to leave my skunk-cabbage, my creek, my lake, my float as they are: there may! have been negotiations - initiated by the RDCK - when and how and reaching how far we are not told - for buying this area from the owner, who bought it specifically to log for the highest possible profit. Which he has a right to!
What we do know: neither Nelson nor Salmo - necessary participants in any such deal - are ready to participate financially. Regardless - the RDCK, Council and the City's CAO won't talk about more because of the "sensitivity" of the negotiations. What negotiations at this point after what we also are not told.
MLA Mungall has not responded to invites on the matter.
Go figure!
And while for nearly a year no public momentum has developed - not for the lack of news-reports: on Dec. 19 a sudden
"Emergency meeting energizes supporters of Cottonwood Lake recreation area" Nelson Daily, Dec. 20
and
"Meeting hears appeal for community group to buy Cottonwood Lake land" Nelson Star, Dec. 20
All this rather the faster they go - the behinder they get:
1.
Serious logging in/of the area supposedly will start around Mar. 2019. So what seems an "emergency" now didn't have to be if the public - or specifically interested individuals - had focused on this sooner.
The RDCK? Who knows.
2.
This meeting's organizer does not necessarily come from altruistic motives only: he lives nearby!
3.
There is no workable "community group" as yet. Just putting one together - acceptably structured - will take considerable time, energy and focus. Getting swept along in a righteous, feel-good meeting is one thing - longer-term commitment to minutiae quite another.
Sooo... Councillor Logtenberg claiming that such group would be "faster on its feet" with negotiations than the RDCK is not only a bit too chest-thumping but also possibly eyebrow-raising in these here Smallishtown politics.
4.
The RDCK and several Council members are present at the meeting: but they still won't divulge specifics on the(ir) non-deal, even though clearly a non-starter.
Curiouser and curiouser - supposedly negotiations between the RDCK/City Hall and the property-owner are still ongoing - why else the secrecy: yet this private bunch - comprising whomever and (some) councillors, run by whom? - is ready to create a parallel? reality of also wanting to buy the property?
Presenting but not representing. Neither fish nor fowl.
Or what!
5.
Would the owner even talk to such an impromptu group at this stage of his game?
6.
Yet Councillor Logtenberg also enthusiastically proposes "crowdfunding (such as a GoFundMe campaign) and at the same time apply(ing) for grants from all levels of government, the Columbia Basin Trust, other funding bodies, and private donors." (Star)
Dream on! Having little experience in such undertakings - even just City matters: he seems naive, seeing that there's absolutely nothing in place to support any funding-applications - while logging is to commence in earnest in a couple of months. Meaning - the very experienced owner is set on go!
With a solid business plan!
7.
While councillors know how much funding might be needed: if they don't talk about it to their (possible) group - why should anyone even consider contributing financially, with basic info deliberately withheld?
For overall transparent doability: launching another - funded somehow - plan now would first necessitate cancellation of the one originated by the RDCK/City Hall.
And they communicating accumulated info to the group as a whole.
Everybody's role clearly defined in whatever-this-is - don't hold your breath.
8.
Ultimately - collectively buying a piece of land in the neighborhood will have no impact on logging in the suburbs. It is an expensive, self-indulgent gesture.
This must be about province-wide legislation.
9.
What is it with these people?
While the large number of attendees at this "emergency meeting" attests to (a sudden) interest in the matter: how many have actually spent time regularly around the lake - if any - hiking-in quietly, instead of driving-in-and-out conveniently.
If more were hiking along the trail: the logging between bridge and highway could have received (more) attention/concern long ago.
Be honest now: what's more important - Cottonwood Lake or Xmas shopping?
As much as I want the area to remain untouched-by-human-hands, just to have it there there when I am ready to go infrequently - to paraphrase Councillor Logtenberg, when he sees no problem with accumulated parking-fines of 16 years flushed down the toilet:
"Sometimes you just have to suck it up and move on."
Nothing remains the same - even in Nelson.
Image Credits:
Bill Metcalfe
spoonflower.com
thecolorsofwater.com
amcaluminum.com
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Ramona Faust, RDCK
rfaust@rdck.bc.ca
John Dooley, Mayor
jdooley@nelson.ca
Parking-Amnesty Approval
Council approves - without in-depth discovery of Staff's supporting material and meaningful discussion - the City's "parking-ticket amnesty" in the Regular Council Meeting, 3 Dec, 2018.
While councillors energetically participate in the discovery and development of an earlier environmental issue: they now are far less expressive. Standing-out though is dramatically self-promoting Councillor Logtenberg, here with a grand gesture of us sometimes just having to suck it up and move on.
Telling us what to do is not part of your job-description, Councillor! We won't suck it up, and many of us will probably find it difficult to move on past the long history of the whole damn thing - with its entrenched lack of professionalism: transparency and accountability!
More on this amnesty-as-such prior to approval can be found in the post below:
Parking-Ticket Amnesia
27 Nov, 2018
Now What?
How many of the out-standing 27.000 tickets - of which a vague half now (belatedly) appear to be non-retrievable outside the area - will be paid at $15 per - between
4 Dec, 2018 and 19 Jan, 2019 - we will know by the end of next month. Or not.
It will take longer to determine whether paying-up will have an impact on parking-attitudes, nurtured during 16 years of inconsistently paid fines and no result-focused supervision of process by those in charge at City Hall.
Amnesty-participation by many could be an indication of local drivers not only willing to mend their wicked parking-ways but also to atone for this behavior of old.
Acknowledging it as unbecoming of gluten-free tree-huggers.
Facebook subscribers paying (being warned to pay) amnesty-fines to the City online - for multiple tickets yet: may find at some point in the future that their credit-rating has been compromised. Seeing that Facebook gleans subscribers' data when emailing to/emailed from City Hall - also a subscriber - harvesting/selling them in bits. The same will apply to email traffic between possibly less subtle collection-agencies (more on them below) and hold-outs.
Off to the workhouse!
Paying in person may be the safer way to go.
Conversely - the fewer takers the amnesty attracts - the clearer the indication that tossing tickets will continue to be the way to go.
City Hall's negligent P.R. job with getting the many-layered significance of their old system>amnesty>new system to the public in tardy bits and pieces - only incidentally divulged over weeks by the CFO to local news-media - may keep I-do-because-I-can attitudes fixed.
Referring those not participating in the amnesty to a collection-agency - as now proposed by the City - seems like a colossally labor-intensive, colossally expensive job.
Is City Hall hiring?
Having such agency chase down someone for 50 bucks is bizarre. Costs of it would be much higher than the sum gone after.
So - who gains? After who pays for it?
Linking payment of fines to issuing new plates by the ICBC has not worked so far because it was really attempted by one municipality only - thus shrugged-off.
So - for the province-wide apathetic now it's: been tried, can't be done!
While actually this needs City Hall to seriously organize itself around the issue with a clearly developed vision, to be shared with all MLAs in a concerted effort, and all UBCM members united!
Looking for thoughtful practicable input from those who elected/hired you: the kind of issue you are paid very well to take-on!
Free Veterans'-Parking
What precedes the amnesty-approval in the same Council Meeting (its timing showing still more insensitivity to the public's current mood about parking-shenanigans in the street and at City Hall) is a request - 30 Oct, 2018 - for making parking free for those with a veteran's licence-plate.
"Dear Mr. Mayor Dooley
& Members of Nelson City Council
Re: Veteran's Parking
I was in Kamloops recently, and I was surprised and delighted to learn that, as a veteran, with veterans licence plates, I am entitled to park on any meter in the city or on any city parking lot, and that I am not required to pay.
Parking is free for veterans.
I understand that the gesture does not reduce revenues significantly because there are so few veterans. The merchants approve of the arrangement because it encourages veterans and their families to spend more time shopping. In Kamloops veterans are recognized as being special, having served in defence of their country. It is a generous and tangible way to say "thank you".
I would like to request that Nelson City Council give consideration to extending free parking to veterans with veterans licence plates, in recognition of their service.
Yours truly
Ieuan J. Gilmore"
This promptly initiates at City Hall the
"PROPOSAL: Provision of free parking to veterans
PROPOSED BY: Public"
"Council received a request from Ieuan Gilmore of Nelson requesting that Council consider providing free parking to vehicles that have veterans licence plates."
"People are eligible to apply for a veteran licence plate in British Columbia if they were honorably discharged from or are currently serving (author's emphasis)..."
1.
The request does not come from the "Public" but a single member of it.
2.
"Veteran licence plate" is a misnomer. Even current reservists fall under the vet-label here.
3.
No Canadian Armed Forces members - past/current - have ever "served in defence of their country". Considering Canada has never been attacked militarily.
4.
Yet his all-superseding come-on is "The merchants approve of the arrangement because it encourages veterans and their families to spend more time shopping."
While absurd reasoning - good P.R. for Chamber of Commerce reps at City Hall: wanting us all to shop local! For Xmas! No wonder this request was rushed through Council within a month!
Who approve this also unanimously and without discussion. Such as: will these "veterans" be allowed to park anywhere, for any length of time?
Presumably so - as restrictions are not part of the City PROPOSAL's approval.
Consequences
Meter-maids say "they see approximately 10 vehicles per day with veteran's plates". Conceivably having 10 more cars hog metered parking-stalls must have significant impact on right-now/right-here availability.
Seniors who are also vets will get vet-plates, thereby park anywhere forever. Giving-up their costly seniors' passes - and btw there goes that income for the City as well!
With Greyhound gone there will be more cars, ergo more parking needed. At this point allowing free-range parking - to an only vaguely defined group - is folly!
How long will tourists - the predominant force behind Nelson's economic health - put-up with ever decreasing parking?
For instance - the City gave-up almost 100 Nelson Commons parking-spaces, this requested in a Variance. Originally required by bylaw for a project of its size. This Variance had been worked on (for the Co-op) by the City long before even submitted to Council (by the Co-op).
Predictably, these spaces now missing have had a spiraling affect on the near neighborhood and from there into all of downtown.
City Hall looking after its own.
Smallishtown Politics!
With parking-attitudes as have been, no more parking to be squeezed into the streets, and old-parkade spaces rented to permanents: Council needs to stop giving away parking-stuff reactively and start to proactively think of creating parking: a new state-of-the-art, architecturally stunning, multi-function parkade (in Railtown) now!
Nothing else will do (it)!
Image Credits:
John Nordell
livabl
dezeen
flickriver.com
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Mgr. - Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
John Dooley, Mayor
jdooley@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
"City council is considering offering a one-time amnesty for drivers with outstanding parking tickets."
Nelson considers amnesty on parking fines
https://www.nelsonstar.com, 20 Nov. 2018
To begin with - crucial here - it's not City Council "considering" this - they never did - but City Administration having already decided.
While the write-up itself may be of general interest - more so to drivers sitting comfortably on stacks of unpaid parking-tickets - its reader-comments are actually much more revealing of what's going on behind this at City Hall.
Process: Explained
When an issue - in-house or community - comes before Council with a request for a change, variance, support, etc: this is framed by Staff on a brief, never varying introductory cover-page - the Request To Appear As A Delegation.
The actual issue of concern is attached to it with comprehensive evidentiary documentation in printed word and pictures. To back whatever need.
To convince.
That then in person explained by the Delegation in a Committee of the Whole (COW).
This same material is made available to Council several days before the COW. With by then well-informed councillors commenting, discussing, asking presenters for clarification, and often referring issues back to Staff for further exploration.
Process: Why Explained
This explanation is necessary here, because the Delegation - in this case City Administration fronted by Colin McClure, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) - in the COW, Nov 19 - making the Request for a parking-fines amnesty: presents oral information broadly - with bytes here and gone on video-screens.
A slick sales-job with only a few flash-cards!
But not even these are made available to Council (and the public) prior.
Nothing!
Therefore - Council has nothing to prepare with/for. And because they're new to the job - overwhelmed and still not clear about the process - have little to say to begin with. So - they end-up agreeing to this amnesty to be agreeable - just asking for possibly shifting its time-line somewhat.
A Recommendation at the bottom of the cover-page reads "That Council receives the presentation from Mr. McClure for information and directs Staff provide a report for decision at the next Regular Council meeting."
Moi? What information/presentation? What decision in 2 weeks? they must ask themselves before the COW. Because all they've got is this cover-page.
Expected to make whatever? happen in 2 weeks - most unusual, actually unheard of! - without any detailed material provided yet to base it on - except for the CFO's breezy oral presentation later in the COW - should raise 2 questions for Council:
1.
Why no documentation?
2.
Why the hurry?
Story: Unexplained
DATE: November 19th, 2018, Committee of the Whole
TOPIC: Bylaw Notice (Parking Tickets)
PROPOSAL: Proposal for amnesty of parking tickets
PROPOSED BY: Staff
And that actually goes like this:
For 16 years the City has neglected to collect fines on 27.000 parking-tickets. It is left to Comments on the Star-story to come-up with figures. Like - the total to be now discounted/forgiven may be in the mid $900.000! Do the math for the total of actually ticketed fines!
With drivers - in no time - catching on to nobody there there to make them pay - and only too ready to stick it to City Hall: unpaid tickets have piled-up.
Being able to simply ignore parking-tickets - while a liberating experience - must have a tremendous negative (unexplained/explored) impact on already limited parking downtown.
The joy of parking when, where and for how long you please!
The freedom of tossing a ticket!
Towing cars has been minimal and proven ineffective.
Bottom-line: A direct link between City Hall's inertia on ticket-fines > the growing number of tickets ignored > parking availability downtown compromised for years > can and should be argued.
According to McClure in the COW: fines partly pay for road-upkeep/repair. Does it then follow down the rabbit-hole that streets/sidewalks are in such bad shape, because (somebody unsupervised? at) the City has knowingly been amiss in collecting fines promptly for so long?
There are different versions of where parking-fines actually (should) go. Although McClure - the City's go-to money-guy - ought to know.
Who knows?
Throughout this presentation, the CFO neither mentions the total of actual ticket-fine loss over 16 years, nor the total of the proposed discount.
Just these 2 figures, please!
Process: Explained Away
So here comes the amnesty. McClure talks about all 27.000 unpaid tickets having to be entered into a new system, but wanting to cut down on work-work-work by offering an amnesty (actually a discount on fines) if drivers pay-up voluntarily - between Dec 4 and Jan 2.
With City Hall - and most everything else - closed for much of that time.
Weekends and holidays.
Not only that: when - not if - this amnesty is approved in the Regular Council Meeting, Dec 3, it will take effect the following day!
Meaning - it needs to be advertised energetically right now - BEFORE it's even been approved by Council!
Meaning - Council's approval is a mere formality!
The new Council is conveniently (and disrespectfully, by the way) bypassed in this fixit-process: no chance of questioning evidentiary documentation - possibly to avoid money to burn! - and rushed off their feet!
So - to still make them feel part of and this amnesty more palatable to the Xmas-lights-on-Baker crowd - be still, poor heart! - McClure proposes donating a portion of collected late fines to a charity of Council's choice.
Yes, but do they sing?
On top of the already enormous loss of revenue to those who do because they can: the City now proposes to reward them for ripping-off the system!
It is doubtful that many will be converted. In fact, to why-not-just-keep-a-good-thing-going cynics this proposal may make City Hall appear even stupider.
This should not come as a surprise to City Hall as - while in the future meter-maids will be able to identify drivers with out-standing tickets by zapping their license-plate - it is not known if actually paying fines will differ from current methods. Except - paying by smart-phone supposedly will have a new and exciting app: provided drivers own such phone and choose to p(l)ay - period.
Deja voo all over again?
Councillor Anderson reasonably suggests that running this collection-scheme over Xmas may be ineffective timing, what with everybody in their usual hyper-active, too costly already shopping-frenzy.
Yet Councillor Page's idea to widen the time-frame to 3 months may not be productive either: people forget what they'd rather forget - such as and right after Xmas debt, Boxing Day bargains, general holiday-drink-a-thons causing major headaches and credit-card aftershocks for ages!
While the CFO attempts to unstick these sticking-points with 'we are open to changes' - he continues to push this squished amnesty-time-frame.
How long have they - who? - actually been organizing this?
As Joan Rivers used to say: "Can we talk?"
Because this replacement of an old system of doing stuff with a new one may not seem credible to many, if the new system is run by the same people who've run the old one. Into the ground.
Speaking of whom: is anyone going to be held accountable/responsible for this mess?
Now the whole Administration looks incompetent and untrustworthy (certainly in money-matters) - over the years having blown so much possible revenue: directly feeding into economic neglect and the downtown-parking problem.
About collecting parking-fines:
Establish a collaborative system with ICBC to have drivers pay all their active tickets in full when they pick-up their new license plates. This is already being discussed in other places. Why not here?
You want to drive - you pay!
No excuses!
Simple!
Image credits:
fromupnorth
tumblr
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Colin McClure, CFO
cmcclure@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Mgr. - Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
New Lakeside Exercise Equipment
Those regularly visiting "their" Lakeside Park will have noticed the new exercise equipment (black) plunked into bald mounds of cedar chips - with verdant growth walkers were used to removed except for the odd tree, and some obligatory rocks added.
This across from the "old" exercise equipment (yellow) - now promptly and conveniently labeled a "liability". Supposedly an insurance risk - thus needing to be removed! Even though - despite the findings of Public Works experts - there is nothing wrong with any of this equipment, except moving parts should be greased and nuts tightened periodically. Basic maintenance. Which - in the past - only happened on users' specific insistence!
Regardless - yellow machines with moving parts currently operate smoothly, particularly after being lubed by rain.
Having used most of this equipment regularly since its installation - I know. How many - if any! - from Public Works and City Hall as such have - who knows.
While the yellow equipment allows for a well-rounded work-out - its effectiveness increased by added reps - the black equipment does not. For instance - doing basic crunches for abdominal strength - elementary! - is out: there is no black bench for that purpose.
It would have been reasonable to survey concerns - going from yellow to black - of those using the yellow sets - before arbitrarily deciding on their black replacements: but this was not done.
Neither - to my knowledge - did the previous Council (publicly) approve this.
But should have. Or not.
Therefore two questions present themselves:
Who - single-handed - originated/implemented the black project?
and
Why?
Costs
According to Colin McClure, the City's Chief Financial Officer (CFO):
"The City was successful in our application with CBT for this project receiving $65K.
The budget was set for $130K - it appears we will be over by approximately $13K ..."
So - if the whole project costs (about) $143K, and the CBT contributes 65K: Nelson tax-payers get stuck with (about) 78K for exercise equipment which largely duplicates what we have (well-functioning and in a pleasant setting) already.
It never fails to astound how much money there is at City Hall for vanity projects, while City streets and sidewalks present consistently growing real "liability" issues.
The Liability Angle
With the general similarity between the yellow and the black - it stands to reason that possible liability-rules apply to both.
But - while the yellow equipment in its simple functionality presents little danger to users even with the most trying abuse - more significant black liability-coverage may be needed across the great cedar-chips divide.
Dangerous Black Equipment
4 machines present very real - while ignored by more experts - liability issues: because their use at any time, by anyone is dangerous!
3 of them - too difficult for the park-purpose - would be more appropriate in a high-energy, supervised setting - with knowledgeable users wearing a lower-back-supporting weight-belt, the kind power-lifters usually wear: lifting-processes there and here being similar.
Since the average user - here clearly not identified - is not a pumped gym-rat: those behind the project might consider donating this too advanced equipment to the fire-hall or cop-shop.
These machines work with pressure against piston-resistance. While the resistance can be calibrated on a dial - proper body-alignment - focused on/coming from the lower back - is crucial with any calibration to prevent possible severe injury there. But the average user may not know about this.
Dial-calibration does not allow for a user's specific needs/capacity: even the lowest setting must be difficult for many.
Instructional user-pics - up to 10 very small ones per/no words - face away from the hands-on user.
Go figure! Literally!
Many won't be aware of the danger in using these machines: the more resistance - the more dangerous, particularly because their design is awkward - thus using them is awkward to begin with.
The CFO says: "I did have Cathy Potkins, who is an expert in exercise and cardiac physiology with Interior Health help in the selection of equipment, and we had a recreation consultant assist as well."
Right!
While the CFO's explanations are given in first-person-singular - it is highly unlikely that he actually is the driving force behind the project, except for its financial aspects.
But Kevin Cormack, CAO, immediately comes to mind. He is the one exclaiming "Liability!" - to categorically shut down the topic - when it briefly comes-up in the last COW of the previous Council.
McClure continues: "I'm thinking, if we need to, we can add additional written guidance/instruction on site and/or have a few learning sessions, potentially with an instructor (volunteer) this spring/summer."
"We" probably don't need to and won't - until a serious accident between now and next spring/summer wakes up everybody real quick.
Clear - easily accessible/readable/absorbable - instruction must be part of each piece of equipment. But isn't! Instructional user-pics should be of women also. But aren't! Guided properly - anyone must be able to work-out how to use each set/machine safely by her/himself.
If not - the set/machine shouldn't be there!
Simple!
In contrast: the yellow - to be dumped - equipment - its use easy to work-out - with prominent written instructions/benefits an integral part of each set/machine - provides everything the black equipment doesn't.
The 4th machine in question is to test (improve?) the user's balance on a round, flat plate - 16" across, 12" off the ground - supported on a spring in its center from below. When one steps on this plate it wobbles in any direction - possibly greatly.
While there are 2 handles for holding on: one of two images provided shows a user simply standing on the plate - not holding on; the other has him standing on one leg - arms stretched out horizontally, also not holding on!
Any moisture, frost, snow or ice on the plate will keep it just about permanently slippery!
A nightmare in the making, particularly for unsupervised children and seniors not too steady on their feet to begin with.
Speaking of children. All sets/machines say: 13+ (age for users)! As if they care - particularly on Saturdays - with soccer played by hordes of those way under 13 across the cedar-chip wasteland, and many of them climbing unsupervised all over these sets/machines.
Because climb they must!
This should have been factored into the black planning-process - as crucial!
Council's Involvement
While this Council is not responsible for approving the project: it does inherit its consequences. Therefore - their involvement - specifically that of Councillors Renwick and Page, representing the City on the regional Recreation Commission - is appropriate at this point.
Opinions have to be voiced, decisions have to be made from the very beginning, because if Council(lors) won't step-up - somebody else will for them.
And take over soonish! For good (figure of speech) - period!
This User's Involvement
With degrees in physical fitness and gerontology, my work emphasized psycho-physiological well-being - mind/body - throughout the aging-process. While working for the San Francisco Department of Aging as ombudsman for the elderly, I also counseled on gerontological issues and taught exercise classes.
My observations here have value: based on academic knowledge, experience, concern - and common sense.
I see little of that anywhere in this black exercise set-up.
Image credits:
pinterest
fogofint
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Colin McClure, CFO
cmcclure@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Aimee Ambrosone, Director - Delivery of Benefits
aambrosone@cbt.org
This connects with posts:
John Dooley, CORE-Lite and - Terry Fox?
11 Sep, 2018
and
Cal Renwick: No S(CORE)
29 Aug, 2018
Nelson's downtown has come into (blurred) focus of late: not because there are particularly new issues with it - but because it's election-time, and this connects with the Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce (NDCC) - for years - directly and indirectly - fear-mongering with: all other-looking-people are drugged/mental/criminal homeless we must get rid of!
Their downtown(only!)presence is bad for business - they're also not buying our stuff.
A disingenuous attempt to pump more life (i.e. profit) into downtown: if we get rid of them the money will come!
NDCC: Gimme Your Money!
To that end - a few years ago - NDCC directors - not the general membership! - devise a resolution to kick-start an "aggressive panhandling bylaw". Without any fact-based documentation on aggressive panhandling as an ongoing reality in Nelson.
This resolution is fast-tracked to Kevin Cormack, the City's CAO, who promptly puts it on Council's agenda as a bylaw, vaguely listing the NPD and its meter-maids as originators. With neither anyone's name nor numbers of basic/aggressive panhandlers or any other City-generated fact-based evidence to back a need for such bylaw.
Council - asking few questions - seems ready to approve it: until this blogger draws their attention to the numerous inconsistencies in the proposal. Nudged by Councillor Morrison - they then start to question/discuss in-depth.
This energy to quickly form the construct of our "street culture" concerns/initiatives.
The number of panhandlers - never large - has not grown since. But - while the proven reality should have a settling affect - the NDCC, City Staff and NPD still have not produced any numbers.
Which makes one wonder whether producing them - easily doable - would actually be in the NDCC's and CAO's interest. After all - their tandem aim all along has been to rid Nelson of all untouchables, with the attempted bylaw possibly a legal way to do that.
Election: Where's My Money?
In the meantime - the bylaw dies a well-deserved death - but here they come again! They: now a more select group - candidates for Council and one re-run for the Mayor's Office.
BUT!
Very visible among them is CORE's Cal Renwick and former mayor John Dooley: both top-tier NDCCers, seemingly aiming to get the NDCC into City Hall through the back-door!
I mean - why wouldn't they - or the media - mention this affiliation?
Both now making the current City Hall team responsible for all downtown-business woes:
Hordes of violent/mental/homeless druggies have tourists running (if true and incidentally - to wherever they would find more of what they find here);
locals are afraid to come downtown - spending no money;
the lack of Xmas lights there (only there!) - in recent years - has seriously messed with everybody's habit of buying much stuff they don't need;
the current team's neglect of Baker has turned it into a filthy, dangerous hell-hole.
Cal Renwick
He never before spoke up publicly about all of downtown's ills (above) listed in his drama-queen election-mantra. As a solution he plans to devise a new - while similar - panhandling bylaw "to curb some of the negativity and some illegal activities." Some of each - he does not explain - and ignores that the last time around such bylaw was found pointless and - possibly - illegal.
So - as Councillor he would champion a similar pointless, possibly illegal panhandling-bylaw for a problem we don't have.
Welcome to my nightmare, Cal!
John Dooley
"I also want to address civic pride...starting with Christmas lights, clean streets and a safe environment for all."
Xmas lights are the basis of civic pride. Right-on, John! Then clean streets, and a safe environment running third.
This blogger recalls him complaining years ago - while he was mayor for 9 - that downtown buildings needed cleaning/painting.
He did nothing about that then - neither did the NDCC in a possible concerted effort with its general membership - but particularly the Downtown Business Assn.
Civic Pride, indeed.
I haven't felt unsafe downtown now and ever - and I don't find its streets dirtier.
Yes, buildings should be cleaned/painted - but that is not the City's job.
It also is not the City's job to make downtown's small businesses laugh all the way to the bank.
Market Research 101: If you have a good-quality, reasonably priced product for which there is a consistent need/market - you're in business.
Regardless!
Ideally with the Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Working Group and Nelson & Kootenay Lake Tourism having your, each other's therefore Nelson's back - with a shared vision.
Ho-Ho-Hum!
Image Credit:
memolition
Tom Thomson, NDCC - Exec. Director
tom@discovernelson.com
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
