Parking-Ticket Amnesia

"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  

An Exercise in Liability

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