A recent report in the Star offers the first graspable view of things to come at the - according to City Hall - "only direct access to the lake from downtown."
Also called Stores to Shores.
Go have a look!
There are steps in rows of varying heights - some dangerously high and indistinguishable as such from above: until you step down, way down.
Those in charge of designing the whole Hall thing love what they picked-up somewhere as "social steps". Somebody immediately fell off them right after the I.O.D.E Park's completion - so the City dumped some haphazard rocks there at the time, but they eventually were removed. And now you can freely fall-off again - while being social with/on whatever.
Anyway - once you make it down safely at the lake: you see to your right the wharf above and dock below, to your left boat-houses - and in between a bay - sheltered and usually placid - defined by them.
Immediately to your left of the here "foreshore steps" is a concrete structure - a "storm sewer outfall" - for discharging waste-water, collected far and wide during wet weather, emptied into the bay at your feet.
Part of the outfall is visible at the right of this picture, behind weeds/trees.
While expanding the discharge-system is a good idea in itself - see past flooding of Front/Hall - the outfall-location is stunningly brainless. Or else the step set-up's.
It is anticipated that enormous amounts of discharge can/will freely drain into the lake now/here - even more expected in the future, what with climate change and all.
Possibly flushing out all kinds of critters living comfortably in these commodious, safe and often dryish pipes - never totally dry, thus also a breeding-ground for problem-carriers - paddling for their lives or drowned in sudden flooding.
Can't you just see it: water - with whatever carried along in it - comes rushing out close to where you sit, and because it's waste-water it is dirty, and because it's probably much dirtier than lake-water it will form a clearly visible plume, spreading into the baylet, to be initially held within its confines.
Undoubtedly there will be stuff floating on the surface and settling on the bottom.
There will be basic sedimentation.
All bound to change the environmental interplay of this part of the lake and possibly beyond, depending on the amount of precipitation. Dispersal of any matter introduced to the bay here will be very slow.
The higher the lake-level - the less you'll see the very bumpy bottom! Best not step into this flush-murk: broken glass, dead rats, used condoms, somebody's oil-change - you name it! All exposed when the outfall is relatively dry.
Possibly smelly, too.
Just don't bring the kids!
While environmental data surely were provided to regulatory agencies: their criteria are anybody's guess. As in: how could this outfall be approved in such close proximity to anticipated recreational activities?!
City Hall has been in a theoretical compartmentalized computer-model-swoon with Hall St all along - there's no actual-human component in any of it.
While possible visuals presented here may seem somewhat over-the-top - nonetheless they are plausible. Stuff dropped, swept, poured, flushed by rain down storm-drains - plus whatever lives down there - will ultimately enter - and pollute - the lake through this outfall without a "scrubber" yet.
Rats? We have rats: I passed a freshly run-over one at the Front/Poplar (electronic mall-sign) crosswalk a few days ago. In daylight.
"The only direct access to the lake from downtown" for one hell of a lot - literally - more than tourists.
Image Credits:
Bill Metcalfe
tumblr_n860hymdxp1rfp1lho1_540
Colin Innes, Public Works
cinnes@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
Natalie Andrijancic, Planner
aandrijancic@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
The following connects with post
Why YOU shouldn't run for City Council
1 April, 2018
It's time for Nelson to give the coming election focused thought NOW - before it happens, rather than complain about it after - what with those to be elected getting 4 very long years in charge of it: us!
Yet with the election to be held in just a bit more than 2 months - there's next to no indication of it.
Why not?
The Ballot
Basics: Many are under the impression that all boxes on a ballot have to be checked, that they must vote-in all 6+1 regents.
So wrong! You should vote only for those who you think are suitable - and if you don't get up to 6+1: stop wherever - that's more honest than voting for someone to be voting for someone.
Re-Elect Me!
For totally nonconstructive reasons - Oh, Victoria! - incumbents needn't declare their intentions until - really! - a few weeks before election.
Why do I feel that Victoria considers municipal elections - all things municipal, actually! - as amateur-hour?
If incumbents want to be re-elected: how can that decision possibly be expressed convincingly within such narrow time-frame - except through insulting-to-voters election-blather.
And spare us the team-work talk - what Council has achieved over the last 4 years - a Pandora's Box to begin with, often a way of hiding within a crowd and nothing personal to say.
If they don't declare their intention to rerun until they absolutely have to: do you find that arrogant, disdainful, careless, suspicious or plain lazy?
Or don't you really care: like - you're gonna re-elect your neighbor anyway.
A simple test for re-electability is to quickly - without thinking! - recall 3 positive, decisively generated contributions of a specific rerunner.
You can't because nothing comes to mind (or you haven't really been paying close attention)?
Been to any Council meetings lately? Ever? Go and find out how they do what they do - if they do!
To be constructive for Nelson's sake: rerunners should declare and start kissing babies NOW.
Those done for good with it all should also declare NOW to allow breathing-space for newbies.
Doing one or the other NOW will have no appreciable impact on the public's perception of Council.
Elect Me!
Why? If you had the balls you'd be out there NOW, making it known that you are considering a run and explain why. Get into local news-media - they're starved for new stuff. Let us become familiar with you and your ways.
Surely you know by now that you want to run. If you still haven't made up your mind - don't bother (us): you lack vision.
It's too early? Too early for what?
You're worried you may run out of stuff to say if you start a whole long month early?
Be scrutinized too closely?
Going out there now could also be testing the (personal) waters: you find out if you are really up to the job. Better to find out now that you're not than later. Then be stuck with it - and us and we with you! - for 4 years.
Once you officially become a candidate: spending lots of money on placards with your face and/or some pat slogan all over the place among many others only shows that you have nothing much and special to offer.
Buying your way into City Hall.
Participating in earnest all-candidates' meetings - very high-school-assembly - is not enough to make you stand out over all other candidates - unless you have an outstanding personality. Seeing that these mini-competitions usually are much about the same issues - you could do something different, daring such as: dance the merengue or take off your clothes. Or both!
If you're boringly - and safely - predictable prior - you'll be a boringly predictable - and ineffectual - Councillor for sure!
Bring on Charles Jeanes!
Image Credit -
Anissa
Union of BC Municipalities
ubcm@ubcm.ca
Mayor Deb Kozak
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
This follows
Union of BC Municipalities: Its Point Being? (Part 1)
28 June, 2018
directly below this post.
Both are a look at 2 particularly egregious rules - rather undemocratically foisted on municipalities by BC government. This left unaddressed directly by the UBCM, the organization ostensibly supporting municipal well-being.
Items 1 and 2 are explored in Part 1 and Part 2 respectively:
1.
Extending municipal terms of office from 3 to 4 years - without prior consultation of the directly concerned yet.
2.
Having mayors - always uncomfortably - double as Chair of Police Boards - with Vancouver the largest municipality of them.
The Gap Between 2 Chairs
As per Victoria's justice system Mayor Kozak functions as Chair of the Nelson Police Board (NPB) as well.
Not by choice!
The order to have the mayor perform extra-duty not part of mayoring - with an often adversarial position towards her own office - is counterproductive.
And definitely whacko!
And mayors cower, have been cowering for ages. Why and since when - its history - to be looked at later in this post.
With the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) nowhere in sight.
Wondering ...
Does Mayor Kozak (have to) compromise when she is one and the other at the same time?
Does she do her Chair prep at the cop-shop or the mayor's office - using mayor-time/resources? In either location.
Like - how much additional manpower from City Hall - at the taxpayers' expense - is necessary to have this thing sort-of done?
Is her legal staff as mayor the same as that of the NPB?
Does City Hall's non-disclosure rule apply to the mayor?
Does it apply to the NPB Chair?
Like - does whoever-she-is talk to herself?
As in at night over doing the dishes:
'Can we talk?'
'No, we can't - weeell we shouldn't.'
Does this drive her nuts?
Ridiculous?
Yes, it is!
All
coming down to separation of power - impartiality. Our judicial system
here ignoring this concept of fundamental importance in a spectacular
manner!
When previous Police Chief Holland attempts to get a zillion bucks through the NPB to keep imaginary hordes of barbarians from the gates, and his attempt is ultimately rejected by whom? at City Hall: where is the mayor positioned in all this? Steering this way-over-the-top NPB budget-proposal towards City Hall acceptance as NPB Chair to then promptly rejecting it as Mayor once delivered there?
Recusal from one or the other would/should have to apply to the whole very lengthy process. Leaving the NPB without its Chair. Or the City without its mayor.
When Holland ends-up complaining about the proposal's rejection to Victoria (surely blaming Kozak as mayor - yet in tandem with her as Chair?): how does Clayton Pecknold, Director of Police Services, objectively connect with Kozak as one and/or the other? Long-distance. At the same time. Or what!
Musical chairs - down the rabbit hole!
To make the/a mayor's, chief-constable's and police board's function more on-point - after ineffectual grumblings among BC police about this for years - both: the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police (BCACP) for its force and the UBCM for its municipalities need to make a joint decision towards resolving/dissolving this issue.
Separating work of the police(-board) from that of mayor - a gain for literally everybody:
Representing their members, they write 2 white papers with their particular perspective.
Keeping the news-media - thus public - informed throughout.
Then reps meet to ultimately combine these papers in one concise position. This position is fine-tuned by both memberships and - once accepted - brought before the BC Ministry of Justice, other relevant agencies and the news-media.
As for a PB Chair: engage an additional Director and choose one among the group to be Chair, possibly based on seniority or in rotation.
The bottom-line for this: the work of a mayor's Office and police department has been compromised - interfered with - for years by fusty colonial mindsets.
One seriously must wonder whether the current set-up could survive a court-challenge.
What History?!
2 letters to Michelle Mungall, Nelson-Creston MLA, on the Mayor/Chair topic - before 2 re-elections - elicit no response from anyone in her camp. Not surprised I let it go then. Not this time though, what with the municipal election for Council/Mayor coming-up- and that for a 4-year term. As in: who may want these jobs - seriously.
I connect with, attempt to connect with several individuals/groups in the thick of it all, asking a few very basic questions about the origin of this anomaly.
Not interested in exploring rights or wrongs with them but its history only, which hardly is participatory-democratic in its inception and application.
A
In what year was which mayor - for the first time - made to take on chairing his police-board?
B
What was the reasoning behind it?
C
Who instigated this?
D
Who/which agency instituted this?
When/if there are replies - they uniformly do not answer the questions:
1.
Mayor Kozak has no specific answers, neither has Frances Long, Admin Director.
2.
In several responses - not to the questions - I receive extensive material from the British Columbia Association of Police Boards (BCAPB) on policing and the Association's aims. Not interested in all that I ask again to just have my simple questions answered.
Nothing - except that Stacey Perri, BCAPB, volunteers:
"With regard to your question related to the mayor of a municipality being the Chair of the Police Board: the question of whether the mayor of a municipality should or should not Chair a Police Board has been in the public arena for many years; yet in British Columbia it appears there has not been a definitive resolution to the question."
This is interesting - while not related directly to my inquiry - but never mind "it appears there has not been a definitive resolution": she doesn't know?!
Basic historical information on the origins of Mayor + PB Chair seems elementary for them to have; Perri ducks and weaves, never acknowledging my questions-as-are.
3.
After several attempts at connecting with her, Shiloh Perkins, Exec Assistant - Nelson Police Dept/Board - following a confab with Perri - ?! - sends me the same immaterial material. Also ignoring my questions.
Unless both have problems with reading-comprehension: is there more to this? Whatever - it does not help inspire trust in police-boards in general and those who run them in particular.
I have yet to hear from:
4.
NPD Chief-Constable Paul Burkart
5.
The British Columbia Association of Police Chiefs (BCAPC)
6.
The same Clayton Pecknold who deals with Holland's attempt - together with PB Chair Kozak - to get his superbudget funded - despite Mayor Kozak.
7.
Wally Oppal - whose 1994 report The Independent Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia recommends scrapping a mayor chairing the municipal police-board. While the report leads to many reforms in policing - mayors chairing police-boards is not among them.
8.
JAG Policing & Security Branch
From 4. to 8. have had a reasonable amount of time to reply: what/who is preventing them from doing so?!
Scary in both scenarios - term-increase from 3 to 4 years and Mayor/PB Chair: the UBCM - ostensibly nurturing municipalities - is bowing to capricious authoritarian elements in Victoria.
Its upcoming gab-fest would be the appropriate environment for members as a unit to move both points forward decisively.
BUT!
Seeing that this is in September, also the time for incumbents to declare their next-term intentions: with 4-year burn-out attendance could be way down - see Part 1 - as many may not run again. Even if they do - there's no guarantee they'll be re-elected.
So - considering that municipalities - as in tax-payers - are paying for these freebies: why should they this year? At Whistler yet!
The timing for this convention is bizarre!
ITS POINT BEING?
End of original posting yesterday.
Right after putting this post online I finally receive a text-reply from Oppal
- over his phone and clearly on the run: getting my name totally wrong
for starters, clearly not remembering my message to him, not familiar
with this post, giving me info I didn't ask for - not answering my
questions.
Communication today! (Another story!)
Then - I find out that my idea all along and responsible for my insistence to get behind this: the Mayor/PB Chair construct may be colonial - is correct.
Literally!
By 1917 a mayor also is Commissioner/Chairman ex officio of the Board of Commissioners of the Police. Two other members are an alderman and an outsider.
Only British subjects can be on the police force.
The Mayor/Chairman arrangement is a simple - and for him probably rewarding - way of concentrating municipal power in one person.
As reported at the time: this is about "friends in high places".
While procedure and the Board name have been streamlined somewhat over generations - the Mayor/PB-Chair(man)-ex-officio construct as such has not.
But as for power ...
What I am thinking now: what with extensive information on the topic easily discovered by local historian Greg Nesteroff - everybody else I approach surely has access to the same. Knowing that colonialism - hush now, you hear: don't bite the hand that feeds you! - is alive and well in shame-on-you Victoria BC.
Image Credits:
Zundapp-Janus
A link to this post is sent to all individuals/organizations listed below:
Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)
ubcm@ubcm.ca
Wally Oppal, QC
woppalqc@boughtonlaw.com
BC Association of Police Boards (BCAPB)
stacey.perri@gov.bc.ca
BC Association of Chiefs of Police
engagement@bcacp.ca
Clayton Pecknold, Dir. of Police Services
sgpcsb@gov.bc.ca
JAG Policing & Security Branch
sgpspb@gov.bc.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor/PB Chair
dkozak@nelson.ca
Paul Burkart, Chief Constable - NPD
pburkart@nelsonpolice.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Shiloh Perkins, NPD/NPB - Exec Assistant
sperkins@nelsonpolice.ca
UBCM
Without well-functioning municipalities there would be no BC as is - without their Councils they would be dysfunctional.
And - of course - municipalities supply most of BC's votes, Victoria!
Therefore - the UBCM could be a powerful decision-driving organ for furthering the municipalities' developmental interests - incidentally benefiting BC as a whole.
Consistently nipping at Victoria's ankles, keeping her hopping!
Ouch!
After all - with over 170 members, including 8 First Nations - it is "an organization that has served and represented the interests of local governments in BC since 1905". Though without any appropriate growl, bark, bite. While its Mission Statement ostensibly prepared for that.
BUT!
Pretty much the only times electorates get any news from/about the UBCM are when its annual gab-fest is announced, is in progress, is over.
After - all we get is lists of interesting people local reps met, and the interesting workshops they attended there.
No major decisions.
And that seems to be that for another year.
One workshop last year - while of explosive significance - received little more seriously exploratory attention than others. Providing energetic entertainment value though.
This was about increasingly open expressions of hostility among/between Councillors and Mayors - in front of the great unwashed, too.
COUNCIL RAGE!!!
Hostilities have always been a given, but until recently reined-in with broody silences and shuttered looks: "keeping it civil".
And willfully unproductive.
More on that later.
Either the UBCM is unwilling to accept its role as enabler and the possible impact of a well-oiled P.R. machine on Victoria's often uninformed decision-making processes above and the members' reaction below, or it just finds little to connect with in Victoria.
We don't know - there seem to be no press-releases.
Two of Victoria's constructs of particular obtuseness we do know about well - standing in the way of people possibly signing-on for Council and feeling on-the-ground support once they've got the job - thus far have been left unchallenged openly by the UBCM. Although clearly detrimental to the growth of individual office-holders and their communities.
They are:
1.
Extending municipal terms of office from 3 to 4 years - without prior consultation of the directly concerned yet.
2.
Having mayors uncomfortably double as Chair of 11 Police Boards - with Vancouver the largest municipality among them.
Where were these topics in the UBCM's last annual? Has the Chair topic ever been critically addressed, seeing it's been an issue since Day One.
3 to 4 Years - No Probation
Towards the end of the second-to-last 3-year term a Nelson Councillor - expecting to be re-elected - said: it will be good to get some fresh blood and new energy on Council.
After less than 3 years.
Understandable - seeing the job is a draining experience, more involved than just showing-up at 2 Council Meetings per month.
Aside from staggering amounts of paper to be digested (fully, one wishes), staggering numbers of unproductive meetings to be attended: fellow-Councillors, the Mayor and admin Staff have to be handled within the context of constant impossible to sidestep deep-tissue city-hall-politicking.
Yet I also felt: if you need a fix now - after less than 3 years - how will you make it through the next 3? And will it be fair to expect the new ones to supply Council with what it's running short of now, this having to weaken the next Council from the start.
Most suitable as Councillors - for vision and general oomph - are younger, well-educated professionals. But those may also have a busy career and/or growing family.
Least desirable are the financially secure with too much free time, having themselves (re-)elected: not necessarily on the basis of what they can bring to the job but support among the neighbors.
When it comes to municipal elections here, voters show remarkable immaturity: consistently voting against their own interests.
Back to fresh blood. So there came 2 newbies of the right sort - one of them with the most votes of all candidates yet! - raring to contribute, change the world!
But they never got up to speed and promptly left after a single term. Taking the job to heart, making it too personal - a huge mistake in Smallishtown politics.
One must wonder at the UBCM's level of awareness of Councils on-the-ground.
If they had been/were aware: how could they just roll over when Victoria capriciously increased a term to 4 years!
This has no discernible positive value, but it does keep Councillors (voluntarily?!) captive for an additional year - with possibly more bad blood, actually! - thereby is bound to change the gene-pool of future possibles.
Victoria's brief announcement on this: aligning municipal elections with 4-year provincials makes no sense either.
They don't happen at the same time, and provincials are for well-paid career politicos, while municipals are for part-time dilettantes, paid nowhere near enough.
With mayors somewhere in between there.
We were never polled on a possible extension; we were never informed timely and comprehensibly that an extension had actually made it on the table.
Whose table, Victoria?
Councils are the spine of municipalities, are made-up of basic citizens, whose goodwill here is taken for granted by out-of-touch Victoria water-cooler types.
While the UBCM is playing dead.
The affront of adding a year to already overloaded 3-year termers: 3 years of time and energy - largely unappreciated - for the betterment of their communities.
You vill do as you're told!!!
Shame on you, Victoria, for having done this!
Shame on you, UBCM, for allowing this to happen!
About the workshop on serious confrontations in Council Chambers. Could it be that many have about had it, and looking at yet another year or more of exactly the same - people and stuff - was/is just becoming unbearable? Obviously - nobody would be honest about this here or anywhere: after all - they're stuck within the duration.
While one can empathize: should those now or even earlier at a breaking-point be re-elected, if they - I mean gimme a break! - choose to run again?
Local Councillor Dailly - in a meltdown during his 3rd year having attacked a citizen unprovoked and uninformed - accusing him of lying - ought to ask himself this question, for his own well-being and that of the community.
While expressing hostility openly, directly may not seem the most productive way of dealing with work-relationships: open expression does beat furtive repression - it's a step!
Next step - insisting that not only the 3-year term be reinstated, but also an elected municipal official be limited to 2 consecutive terms.
If they can extend them just like that - they can shorten them just like that!
In order for a Council to be effective its members need to be independently creative in contextual deliberation.
Under difficult circumstances.
Our current Council has shown little of that!
This is not to scare people off running in the very upcoming election, but just pissing and moaning about Xmas lights in a Star letter simply does not a useful Councillor make.
Contact the UBCM and your local MLA Michelle Mungall about the term-extension. This effects everybody: those who run for office and those who will be run by them once they get in and then what!
Mungall started her political career as a single-term (3-year) Nelson Councillor.
Michelle Mungall
michelle.mungall.mla@leg.bc.ca
Toll Free: 1.877.388.4498
Union of British Columbia Municipalities
ubcm@ubcm.ca
Part 2 will look at Deb Kozak occupying 2 chairs (sort-of and not by choice): the mayor's and that of the Nelson Police Board.
I mean - couldn't you just ....!
Image credits:
Dezeen
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Frances Long, Admin Director
flong@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
This continues previous post
Zuck on Opioids
13 April, 2018
Privacy
City Hall Disclosure Policy
"The City of Nelson does not share any of the individually identifiable information you may provide with the sites to which the City of Nelson links. We may, however, share aggregate data with such websites (such as how many people use our site)".
Nelson City Hall Website
Shape Shifters
Not "we may" - but "however" we do! All the time! And "such websites" means Facebook, since Facebook is doing the tracking of City Hall's user-clickers, and even if this actually were only for an accurate count (a pretext!): just for that they would need to be "individually identifiable" as well.
Which they are through all their unsecured Profile Data - involuntarily "shared" with Facebook via City Hall.
And automatically those of all their Friends.
But City Hall does not make this clear to its clickers - goes no further than the mealy-mouth Disclosure Policy above!
Identity Thieves
The double-dipping becomes a major issue during about 10 hours of disconcerting - often scary! - Washington Senate/House Hearings on the 87mill-Cambridge-Analytica disaster with Mark Zuckerberg.
Where he keeps talking about wanting the trust of users - and Senators/Representatives find it hard to trust him and his corporation over millions of blatantly manipulated subscribers.
Soul Merchants
Either City Hall is naively ignorant of Facebook's intentions with these data, or it knowingly feeds clickers to Zuckerberg; he in turn selling them to advertisers hawking anything under the sun - including political nudges.
An individual user's possibly very extensive Profile Data usually are spread over a multitude of diverse advertisers' data bases - often with dodgy commercial agendas.
Facebook - mainly focused on ever-increasing cash-flow-thus-power from/over advertisers - turns a blind eye where it should step-in!
Simple question and loud HELLO! City Hall: Why should "such websites" otherwise give a damn about "how many people use our site"?
Bottom-line: City Hall is enabling commercial exploitation of those unwitting Facebook users connecting with it.
Facebook has the same relationship with Nelson Star/Daily user-readers. Only it's not under the pretext of just counting clickers. There no reason at all is given for harvesting them.
Mind Snatchers
Facebook Canada's public policy wonk Kevin Chan - Policy Director for former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff; still with deep access to the Liberal government tsk-tsk - during his recent grilling by a parliamentary committee in Ottawa - said in his opening statement:
"I want to begin by sharing that, while we do not yet have all the facts surrounding the situation with Cambridge Analytica, what is alleged to have occurred is a huge breach of trust to our users.
For that we are very sorry."
The Record.com, 21 April, 2018
This relates to 620k Canadians - how many in Nelson? - part of the Cambridge Analytica personal-data-sweep for political purposes. And who knows what else by who knows whom. Zuckerberg admits the probability of other players.
Apologizing after the fact is meaningless: these Canadian users' Profile Data are irretrievably way out there somewhere.
Nelson subscribers also may not know: Facebook has been getting away with similar schemes since 2010. They just didn't get significant push-back until now.
Aplologists
So now it is share, share, share and trust, trust, trust and sorry, sorry, sorry with CEO Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg, and Kevin Chan.
Chan's sorry actually carries some weight in Canada: here saying sorry works in any situation.
Seemingly deemed sufficient enough by him as well, as he refuses to answer reporters' questions after the committee hearing, dealing mainly with Facebook shamelessly cozying up to the Liberal government in regards to - while not registered as lobbyist.
"After the CBC reported on the controversy, Facebook sent a statement saying it will "soon" register its personnel as lobbyists.
NDP MP Charlie Angus is skeptical about Facebook's decision to register now.
"Why is it that Facebook only does the right thing when they get caught," he told the CBC."
CBC News, April 22, 2018
Why, indeed!
Users-or-not, consider becoming informed!
They need to be stopped!
Artist:
Federico Salmi
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Frances Long, Director - Corp. Services
flong@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
