There has been much tweaking of Nelson's parking-spaces/fees for some time: most meeting with a strong backlash from those who park. Or want to.
Now we are to have commuter-parking for a fixed fee on Cedar. With this concept arguable: the only public input possible - while indirect and late - is after the City's presentation to Council, in comments following online write-ups in both local papers. There and probably on facebook.
Some days later, this item in the Star has mysteriously disappeared - together with its comments. The explanation is unsatisfactory.
These comments - emphatic and poignantly questioning - ought to be real-time food for thought to the new wave at City Hall in charge of re-configuring parking for Nelson. Deja voo all over again!
Following are examples of what has increasingly irked the public parking-wise over years. To make them less receptive to new parking-bits.
Just rearranging the furniture won't do any longer.
While all those outside City Hall could get behind a parkade!
Park This! #1
When - Mar, 2014 - the Co-op applies to Council for a Nelson Commons parking-variance: this is a mere formality - because Dave Wahn, Manager of Development Services & Sustainability and Approving Officer, as well as the Co-op's enthusiastic flag-bearer at City Hall, has been working on this for a considerable time prior to the application. Ostensibly (coincidentally nudge-nudge!) reworking downtown-parking.
But really just running a show of smoke and mirrors. Seeing that the Co-op is going to ask for the required almost 200 parking-spaces to be cut by half - he will simply make spaces downtown shorter and narrower all the way down the rabbit-hole. Thus create more spaces elsewhere. The genius of it!
Council happily clucks its no-questions-asked approval. Followed by Wahn's so-there! comment after the fact: people will just have to buy smaller cars; this is the trend anyway. Cross my heart - he does say that!
Today's statistics have it: the demand for larger SUVs/trucks has been increasing steadily, so there!
Now the Co-op's 37 aboveground spaces frequently are full, while its underground-parking - entered/exited only driving east on Vernon - is cumbersome and disliked by customers.
Meaning: aboveground parking is overflowing into the neighborhood. Who would have known! Possibly even onto the just one block away Cedar stretch, now to be turned into fixed-fee commuter-parking.
Wahn's scheme to make downtown parking-spaces shorter and narrower dies quietly with Council's approval of the variance. So - when the current Development Services team talks about a general parking-redo: they are stuck with significant Co-op parking-reverberations in the downtown-core.
Almost 100 parking-spaces gone - thanks to City Hall!
Also see post
Dave Wahn, Prince Variant
4 Mar, 2014
Park This! #2
A price-increase of the seniors' parking-pass is approved by the current Council, without regard for those seniors - 20 Feb, 2017. This creates a s**t-storm of major proportions. Mayor Kozak's comment "Although some seniors live on fixed incomes, others have more money than many young people" is not helpful. A definitive "some" and "many".
Showing the disconnect between City Hall and this rapidly growing segment of Nelson's population. Duly noted and loudly expressed. By seniors. Who promise to remember come election-time.
Also see post
Seniors' Parking-Pass Increase
21 Feb, 2017
Park This! #3
After the sort-of completion of Hall St Phase 1 - the very downtown-core stretch of Hall between Herridge and Vernon has free parking for 42 cars, over the course of about 1 year. Meaning a significant loss of revenue, which could be applied to the same road-repairs the seniors' parking-pass increase supposedly is meant for - but who cares! Not City Hall!
Also meaning: just around the corner from Hall - on Baker and Vernon - people not only have to feed meters: seniors do it with their increase and the general public with an upped to $1.25.
Again see post
Seniors' Parking-Pass Increase
21 Feb, 2017
Park Council
While parking in Nelson has been a - literally - fundamental issue for decades, it has never been acknowledged constructively as that by City Hall and/or any Council. For the sake of future economic viability of the City - with increasing tourism a vital part - this must change consciously: growth on any level necessitates more cars, buses, trucks - and places for them to be left.
When Hall St Phase 2 is presented to Council for approval-or-not - even though the presentation is superficial and incomplete - Council shows few concerns and little interest. Approval of this thing seems yet another foregone conclusion. Until a couple of parking-spaces down there raise their energy-level righteously. They claim those spaces and promptly approve Phase 2!
Everybody happy now?
Yet certainly not these feelgood-lite spaces nor even the 21 on Cedar address current and inevitably larger future transportation concerns - private or commercial.
Our geographic urban constraints demand a parkade downtown - nothing less. With willingness as step one: a vision will coalesce, and the money will follow.
Everything else - no matter how well intended - is just more tweaking of already locked-in-for-good (for-bad, really) circumstances.
Also see post
Park(ade) This!
27 May, 2016
Image Credits -
historygraphicdesign.com
pixabay
Alex Thumm, Planning Analyst
athumm@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Development Manager
pmierau@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak,Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
"Fifty-two local businesses signed a letter to city council asking to put a pin in its downtown revitalization plans until several issues, including parking congestion, panhandling, drug-use and graffiti, were addressed."
"Competing with online shopping and chain stores is made extra difficult, the letter said "if our customer (1) struggles to find parking, (2) is accosted for money by an aggressive panhandler, (3) trips over people sleeping on the sidewalk and then (4) walks through a cloud of marijuana smoke, all the while observing (5) the general decay of the ambience on their way to a store."
2017's top stories No. 6: Businesses decry downtown plans
Tyler Harper - Nelson Star, Dec. 28, 2017
(6) "We are not indifferent to the plight of marginalized people."
Letter
A Letter to the Mayor, Council and Residents
can be found in the
Star's E-EDITIONS
May 5, 2017
Page 28
Following are thoughts on the 6 salient points above. The rest of the letter goes on and on, with reasonable-us signees - in a roundabout way - blaming the City and customers for all that ails them in their downtown-world. Yet one must wonder how many of them actually read, digested and retained this.
We've had most before in chunks, over time.
Even though 52 may look impressive - a large number of familiar downtown-names are not listed. Neither is the origin of this proclamation - really - stated formally or referred to in the text.
So - even if Mayor, Council and Residents wanted to communicate: what's with this group?
1. Parking - A Human Right
Until all Railtown is turned into a parking-lot, or a parkade is built at Baker/Fall: Deal with it, drivers! There is parking - just not always exactly in front of where you want to go. That you find at the mall!
With shopping/parking often a twin-issue - a rhetorical question: Why doesn't the Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce (NDCC) once-and-for-all get out of its entitlement-mode and promote developing a doable model, instead of just whinge about this age-old fatburger inconvenience.
Parking-yoga at its CP Station? Parking Anonymous? A walk in the park?
2. Aggressive Discrimination
There is no aggressive panhandling! Never has been! Even non-aggressive panhandling - considering social iniquities province-wide - has been minimal and low-key.
The NDCC started this bit of fear-mongering with an initiative hatched by its top-tier decision-makers - not the general membership - promptly followed by Kevin Cormack, CAO, putting a panhandling-bylaw to Council. Without any factual documentation whatsoever from the NDCC/City substantiating a need.
Council rightly shelved such bylaw until - while not questioning its dubious origin and path.
This has never been about panhandling but the CAO's obsessive Euw!!! towards our unndesirables - who don't shop much either, wink-wink - to cleanse Nelson of them by any means.
3. Sidewalk Slumber
None!
This is particularly creepy: A delightful shopping-experience could be marred by the happily spending shopper having to step over some undesirables guilty of not having any money for shopping - or food or shelter.
Speed-bump!!!
Nelson's haves (wanting more!) and have-nots (needing some!).
4. Blowing Smoke...
The rare whiff - from local desirables, too - but no "clouds". And not to forget - today's Nelson is totally based in quite recent, highly lucrative (trickled-down to the same 52) area dope-cultivation.
Marijuana has given this city whatever momentum it has. And clearly is in the process of losing, with no decisive grand vision to propel it forward.
Will the NDCC court marijuana dispensaries to become dues-paying members?
5. Ambient Decay
Are they talking Blade Runner here? Granted: downtown facades and awnings have needed painting and washing for years. But building-owners among the 52 are responsible for that. We are not going to rerun the '80s with all kinds of funny-money!
Signees even admit their own complacency by writing "Without exception every business and person listed below feels that we have let downtown incrementally decay in recent years." Like - thus far have attempted absolutely nothing towards improving the ambience of the area in which they do business. The ambience they are complaining about.
Hyperventilating in numbers now may make them feel good for a while. But ultimately: if everybody is responsible - nobody is responsible. The NDCC clearly is not ready to run the show.
There was an appropriate time for thoughtfully constructive input before the revitalization-plan was given more formal shape.
Where were the intrepid 52 then?
6. We Love Street People! Really!
According to Points 2 - 5 it is obvious that they indeed "are not indifferent to the plight of marginalized people". To the point of largely blaming them elsewhere in this exhausting letter for downtown's "decay".
Now What - So What!
Businesses have reason to be worried about "online shopping and chain stores": thanks to their NDCC still waiting to see profit-margins magically upped, those including their customers' - fools they! - tax-dollars.
Most recent example: the NDCC's disinclination to decisively push downtown shop-owners into a concerted Xmas-cheer effort.
Even though for their own benefit!
None of these businesses are in the business of employing locals and paying taxes. They're in it to make money for themselves. The more successful they are - the more minimum-wage help they need, and the more taxes they pay.
That's how that works!
One hopes Council will remember the NDCC's here at best repetitious and at worst offensive posturing when it comes to next-time funding!
Shop Local?
Reconsider!
Credits:
imagewees
pexels
pixabay
northernsound.ie
insidenova
Tom Thomson, NDCC
tom@discovernelson.com
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil.nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
Hard is the journey,
Hard is the journey -
So many turns.
Commemorative Chinatown Rock, Nelson
Li Bai
701 - 762 C.E.
The long and winding road
Let It Be
The Beatles
1960 - 1970 C.E.
Collective-Connective Heritage
Images
Wang DongLing
Andy Warhol
Astrid Heyerdahl, Director
dirctor@touchstonesnelson.ca
Joy Barrett, CD Officer
cultural@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Provincially
"The Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report recommended legacy initiatives to help British Columbians understand the impact of these historical wrongs and the achievements of Chinese Canadians.
It was recommended that historic places be inventoried, and from that a legacy initiative to formally recognize significant historic places under Section 18 of the Heritage Conservation Act has been developed. A public nomination process was held, and 138 nominations representing 77 places were received for consideration for recognition."
(One for Chinatown Nelson)
"... was to create a shortlist of places, organized by level of significance, to be put forward to the Minister responsible for Heritage..."
"The evaluation process followed a value-based model, ensuring that the evaluators reviewed the nominated places based on how they represent the overarching heritage values of the Chinese Canadian community of British Columbia. Evaluation was guided by the historical context statement and thematic framework that provided a summary of the history of the role of Chinese Canadians in the development of British Columbia."
"In total 19 historic places were selected to be recommended to Minister Thomson for formal recognition."
Heritage BC, 2 Apr, 2015
Particularly noteworthy is that the terms heritage and historic/historical are frequently applied here - while never in Nelson - in connection with the Chinese.
Out of 77 nominations of individual places 19 are accepted, and these 19 are listed in order of significance. Chinatown Nelson is ranked 4th.
"Following a thorough evaluation by sector and community experts, Chinatown Nelson was selected to receive provincial recognition.
...
Places chosen for formal recognition will be included on the B.C. Register of Historic Places, and will be put forward for inclusion on the Canadian Register of Historic Places."
Richard Linzey
Director - Heritage Branch
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations
29 Jan, 2016
May 2017 - Chinatown Nelson is registered provincially and nationally. This includes a separately requested image of the Commemorative Chinatown Rock, Vernon/Hall.
Locally
2017 Heritage Award, City of Nelson
"Background:
The City of Nelson will present an annual heritage award to an individual, group, or collective who has made an outstanding contribution towards the preservation and/or promotion of the City's cultural heritage.
The City's Heritage Working Group established this award to recognize and publicly appreciate individuals, groups, businesses, or other organizations who have demonstrated leadership in heritage restoration, renewal or promotion, and thereby acknowledge the contribution heritage makes to the City of Nelson's vitality, well-being, and identity.
The award comes with a $1000 honorarium, which will be presented at the Annual Reception on December 11th, 2017."
APPLICATION FORM, 27 Sep, 2017
An application (of color) for this award is made based primarily on the official provincial/national recognition and subsequent registration of Chinatown Nelson, while also on the Commemorative Chinatown Rock, and an acclaimed radio program about Chinese on Kootenay Co-op Radio: where they came from and how, ending-up here - archived at Touchstones, the Rossland Historical Museum and Selkirk College, Castlegar reference library.
The award goes elsewhere.
"During the 2017 Council Gala Monday at the Prestige Inn, local historian Greg Scott was awarded (the) City of Nelson's annual Heritage Award or (sic) his dedicated work in the education, promotion and preservation of Nelson's local history."
...
"Greg Scott as (sic) an extremely worthy recipient of this award," says Heritage Working Group's Chair and Touchstones Museum Executive Director Astrid Heyerdahl. "His commitment to Nelson's heritage is invaluable, and we are lucky to have such a resident, dedicated to keeping Nelson's history alive."
The Nelson Daily
Contributor (as in Submitted), 12 Dec, 2017
There is lots more - gushed by one may guess whom? - certainly more than a press release.
Of interest here should be the Heyerdahl/Scott connect and her praise with benefits. She is the Chair - while also the executive director of Touchstones - of the group originating the Heritage Award concept and choosing the recipient; he is a Touchstones Board Member, closely involved with Touchstones in various roles for ages.
She praises "his commitment to Nelson's heritage" and "keeping Nelson's history alive" - the latter a bit rich (and ignorant?) - while Scott's focus over the years has pretty much been colonial.
Nelson Colonial does as Nelson Colonial is. "Keeping Nelson's history alive" is not achieved by omitting parts of it; white-washing it is essentially racist.
In the same gush - to show the scope of possible local interest in Nelson's heritage aside from Scott's - the Heritage Working Group might at least have presented a list of all award-applicants/nominations and their criteria.
But no - they and their attempted contributions don't actually figure. In this scheme of things.
And The Daily doesn't ask, not having written this paean.
With not-so-nice national discrimination, indigenous issues, human rights issues, xenophobia, immigrant issues, religious issues, racism - all folded into colonialism - popping-up more and more forcefully (again!) among nice Canadians: at long last - within a factual local socio-historical context - said Group could have made a statement of Nelson's all-inclusiveness, diversity embraced with this year's award. Could have! Also an indirect welcome for our today rapidly increasing number of citizens of color.
It will be interesting to watch Columbia Basin Trust's position on real-time heritage issues warts-and-all - entrenched since Day One - in its seemingly generous Heritage, Museum and Archive Grants.
Surely eagerly prepared for by Touchstones/Heritage Working Group - already beating their collective P.R. drums above.
To be continued
Image Credits:
Lao XunKe
Astrid Heyerdahl, Director
director@touchstonesnelson.ca
Joy Barrett, Cultural Development Officer
cultural@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Xmas literally is THE big time for downtown-shops. And what with most attempting to sell stuff differing little from that of stores to their left and right in a very compact area: it would seem logical to show it off most advantageously i.e. for maximum profit.
Nelson's same old sad green-and-red-plastic-fantastic street-decorations and few colored bulbs never contributed to anyone's shopping-high. That ultimately being the (profit-)goal of it all.
While having potential customers finance such or similar new lighting and decor through their taxes is bizarre - without such lights, etc. these same people seem to find it impossible to psych themselves into stores. Go figure!
According to Mayor Kozak, on this topic in the Star, Dec 13, 2017,
"... the City purchased lights for businesses downtown to decorate their buildings, ... but (most of them) are not plugging them in, and I don't know why."
Why doesn't she, with jazzing-up Baker at Xmas an issue every year! When were these lights handed out? Why didn't the City step on this ages ago? How about finally assessing what's going on light-wise with businesses and - if need be - kick some butt! Keeping in mind: downtown-businesses habitually are more inclined to take than give.
For shopkeepers genuine festive emoting isn't part of it: that's just a come-on to get locals to spend much money on much stuff they wouldn't buy if it weren't for the pressure of the 12 Days of Christmas. When my true love gives-gives-gives to me-me-me! And vice versa. And everybody.
One would think that with e-shopping cutting into their business, shopkeepers would be eager to do whatever it takes to make up for that by promoting themselves any way possible.
Eh, Chamber of Commerce!
Like - in order to beat the competition - all shop-windows without exception should be spectacular. You don't achieve spectacular profits with sparse Walmart-inspired outdoor lighting/decorations. In larger cities anywhere stores will outdo each other with magical window-displays and store-fronts. A tradition. And people will go from store to store to ooh-and-aah. While in that swoon - allowing themselves to get lured inside.
There are official competitions in which onlookers judge windows and store-fronts to then choose the winner.
An event like this could become an annual Nelson thing, hello Nelson and Kootenay Lake Tourism! With serious local and tourist money to be made!
As already suggested in posts years ago: Xmas windows and store-fronts of individual businesses could be guided efforts comprising the Cultural Development Committee in all its manifestations, the Arts Council, Columbia Basin Trust and the Downtown Business Association. While mostly paid for by the owners.
According to Pam Mierau, Development Services, in the same Star item, the City has "... a general lighting plan for the downtown as well as a holiday lighting plan."
While it makes sense to wait for these, one needs to be concerned with the possibility that the "holiday lighting plan" will be Xmas-specific: tax-payered and clearly only for the material benefit of downtown-merchants and 2 months tops per year.
Yet multi-purpose, year-around festive lighting would be good. Sooo - "holiday" meaning which or what? Victoria? Eid al Fitr? July 1? Chun Jie? Hanukkah?
Or only (glossed-over, crassly commercial) CHRISTmas!
Shopkeepers -
You want to make money-
You've got to spend money!
Yours!
Image Credits:
Jun Ong, Penang/Malaysia
Pam Mierau, Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@ nelson.ca
Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Colin Innes, Public Works
cinnes@nelson.ca
Tom Thomson, Chamber of Commerce
tom@discovernelson.com
Dianna Ducs, Director
dianna@nelsonkootenaylake.com
Request for Decision
Any issue - in-house or citizen-proposed - needing City Council's approval, is presented in a Committee of the Whole (COW) as a REQUEST FOR DECISION (here RFD).
An RFD is a standard document covering the issue itself and looking at its projected positive/negative impact, with substantiating documents attached.
Near the bottom is a Recommendation to Council - usually to pass the item as presented in the RFD. Who is doing the recommending is not clear but certainly would be interesting to know with in-house issues, frequently presented imprecisely.
Whodunnit?
At the very bottom of an RFD are 2 signatures:
the one on the left with AUTHOR printed above and usually DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER below;
the one on the right with REVIEWED BY printed above and CITY MANAGER below.
No names printed though!
(This City Manager used to be called Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). What changed? Admittedly - City Manager does have a more being-in-charge-of-absolutely- everything-and-everyone punch.)
Anyway - unless one is familiar with those signature-scrawls belonging to personnel one is familiar with: they could be anybody's.
Expert authorship by a mid-level employee is doubtful, what with too wide a range of knowledge required. That and the author/deputy certainly not having enough time to gather all pertinent material to then write it up as well. One RFD of many and all with the same deadline.
Just as it is doubtful that the CAO will relinquish determination of what goes into an RFD to a Deputy and be satisfied with reviewing it. Only.
It is more likely that the CAO provides topic, key-points, fixes direction and goals; the Deputy Corporate Officer has droids do research and gives shape to the material as Writer, to ultimately have the RFD polished and approved by the CAO as Author.
Troubling: why names of the so-called author and so-called reviewer are not identified-printed as well, as is customary anywhere in official documents.
Back to this later.
RFD Presentation
Normally citizen-based issues are dealt with relatively easily in COWs, with their presentation narrowly focused and heavy on itemized single-need-based documentation.
While in-house issues - affecting the community as a whole - like bylaws, plans/concepts and physical projects - should take more involvement from Councillors: deeply discovering purpose, use and flaws.
The following focuses on the latter - in-house issues. Well - flaws too.
In-House Issues
Although Councillors need to take responsibility for self-motivation with more convenient decision-making via RFDs only - they are not supported in this when Requests lack depth, detail, logic, defining documentation and - objectivity. Frequently several of them in one RFD, and that way actually authored and reviewed by whom?
If not cognizant of this Councillors then may - too often do - accept the RFD at face-value. Thus possibly nudged in a particular direction.
This can lead to issues being approved in general only. And once approved overall - any later specifics, changes by whom? are out of Council's hands. Like haphazard, open-ended Hall St 1&2; loads of money for nothing into the Cottonwood Market; the totally unsubstantiated attempt at a Panhandling Bylaw.
Request for Information
Wondering about the names of those seemingly responsible for having in-house issues put to Council - I connect with Frances Long, Director of Corporate Services, for clarification.
And that goes like this - quoted directly:
Oct 7, 2017
To: Frances Long
Subject: Request for Decision Signatures
Hi, Frances -
The "Author" of Requests for Decision for the Reg. Meeting, 10 Oct, 2017, is a "Deputy Corporate Officer" with a signature unknown to me - thus probably to at least most outsiders who read them.
Seeing that these documents are made available to the public: it is desirable - for the sake of transparency - to know who those signing are. Would you please - as a matter of course - print their/all names together with the job title.
This is my 2nd request.
Thanks -
Claus Lao Schunke
While in the past messages to Long are replied to almost immediately - I don't receive a reply to #2 yet for almost one month:
Nov. 2, 2017
Re: Request for Decision Signatures
Good afternoon Claus;
I am sorry to inform you that we will not be changing our practise and printing the name of the person as well as the position on our Council reports. What is relevant in those reports, is the position, not the person that is holding that position. The responsibility for what was written in the report remains with the position no matter who the person is that holds the position. The signatures are required as an internal control to verify that the person signing is the person holding the position as stated in the report with the originally signed documents being retained as the City's permanent record.
Frances Long, CMC
Director of Corporate Services
City of Nelson
What?
Here City Hall is replacing people with a fixed position/title through a signature-scrawl only. To the point of the City Manager's signature - when he is absent - replaced with that of the Chief Financial Officer. Who - then called City Manager by virtue of his signature above the printed position - in reality has nothing to do with any of it - even less issues at hand. REVIEWED BY - indeed!
The breathless tone of Long's reply makes me - more than before - wonder why she/they won't be transparent about an issue as ordinary and easily adjusted as this.
I also wonder at the style, form and content of this message - here quoted verbatim, including punctuation - totally different from Long's usual way of communicating electronically.
Actually authored! by a deputy corporate officer (with atrocious writing-skills)?
What is to be avoided here? Who is doing the avoiding?
Nov 2, 2017
To: Frances Long
CC: Mayor Kozak
BCC: Council
Re: Request for Decision Signatures
Hi, Frances -
Thanks for your long-awaited clarification.
"What is relevant in those reports" to the public - seeing that Requests for Decision must be available publicly - is that the citizenry should know who is originating what. Which clearly goes beyond "relevant" for "internal control" only.
Obviously - the public - ostensibly served by City Hall - is deemed irrelevant here.
Transparency -
Claus Lao Schunke
Along those lines - FACT:
City employees are working under a non-disclosure rule - sensibly largely ignored - a gag-order, really.
Put in place when by whom, and why is it (still) there?
BOOM!!!
Image credit:
Caspar David Friedrich
+ image manipulations
Frances Long, Director - Corporate Services
flong@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Remember
A soldier's dual-function:
Kill/get killed.
You'd rather not -
Don't go!
Simple!
