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
"The issue is people hanging around downtown. I know every one of them by name, and I hire four of them every day to clean up for me and sweep."
Rob Richichi/PART1: Nelson council candidates profiles
Nelson Star, Sep. 26, 2018
Such empathy! - while categorizing one and all "as people who mix recreational and street drugs with their mental health issues". This - according to him - promptly leading to homelessness and - big one! - impacting "the quality of life downtown".
Which can only be upped with more cops - lots more!
Conflict of Interest?
Rob Richichi - running for Council - is the owner of Aldo's Cleaners: on contract with City Hall for years - cleaning NPD/NFD uniforms.
This raises 2 questions:
1.
Should he (have) let this be known publicly to preempt any whispers about a possible conflict of interest in the making?
Rules do not require him to present this information when registering for his election.
One may argue though that making it public while campaigning would be the morally correct path to take: campaigns ostensibly being about building trust and confidence with the electorate.
2.
If he were to be elected: what should/would happen with his contract - if anything?
According to the Community Charter, 107 (1a): "If a municipality enters into a contract in which a council member...has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, this must be reported as soon as reasonably practicable at a council meeting that is open to the public."
While the Charter here does not clarify what is reasonably practicable and who must do the reporting - go figure! -
(2) then states: "In addition to the obligation under Section 100 (disclosure of conflict), a council member...must advise the corporate officer, as soon as reasonably practicable, of any contracts that must be reported under Subsection 1 in relation to that person."
In plain-speak: if he is elected - this relationship really needs to be dealt with in the first public meeting of the new Council, with the Corporate Officer having to be advised of it then by him as well.
Nothing to hide? and all that.
Yet Richichi would have to recuse himself from any actual Council deliberations of his situation.
If he does not promptly declare a possible pecuniary conflict of interest, but Council decides that indeed it is: this could lead to disqualification from holding office. Ultimately it's up to (new, inexperienced) Council to make that decision.
The Charter does not - why not? - address a situation in which someone already is in a contractual relationship of pecuniary interest with the City when becoming Councillor. While it would be reasonable to let a contract with only little time left - how little, though? - play out: Council allowing even this may appear disengaged from the public's best interest.
Aside from the possibly problematic chronology of his (current?) contract if elected - Richichi has had a no-competing-bids hold on City Hall for ages. Has convenience for the City in his case actually superseded proper procurement-procedure? And how far can Council safely step into that territory?
Keeping in mind that in Nelson politics and business are often nudged by personal histories, and in politics public perception often is stronger than fact: imagine several Councillors continuing an arrangement of pecuniary benefit with City Hall when elected.
Would you trust that Council as a whole?
Would the not-benefiting Councillors trust the ones with whatever perceived inside-tracks?
Would such Council be a strong team?
While there are obvious issues with the Community Charter and City Procurement: it seems advisable for Richichi to either not continue/attempt to renew his contract if elected - even though this may seem impracticable for City/NPD/NFD! - or withdraw from running for Council.
One or the other!
Keeping it clean!
Image Credits:
Pinterest
City of Nelson
Frances Long, Admin Director
flong@nelson.ca
Sarah Winton, Deputy Corporate Officer
swinton@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
CORE adds Travis Hauck to Council candidate List
The Nelson Daily
September 09 2018
A perky Hauck here has little of transferable substance to say for himself - even avoiding to let us know what he does for a living. He does admit though "in the (vetted) CORE release", as far as Council goes "This is totally new to me, and I have a ton to learn."
Just what we need!
Yet John Dooley - candidate for mayor - comments on this Councillor-Lite position with the glowingest
"Fantastic".
Also saying in the Star "I think their platform is very solid and would fit well with my thinking..." - hmm, not just solid but very solid - even though CORE doesn't have a coherent platform. Neither is his own very solid.
Wanting to seem acceptable to all as mayor he appears to maintain a certain distance from CORE - but doesn't, really.
Political strategizing at its worst: under the guise of having to keep an open mind diddling all sides, without clear commitment to any - but personal ambition.
Bottom-line: His single-word comment tells eloquently with what/whom Dooley does align himself for now - conveniently: naive Hauck and his nothing-there-there CORE.
Which looks more-and-more like a - so far leaderless - cult in the making.
Here: You get one - you got 'em all! When you have numbers - who needs content. Plus - Hauck may be easily steered by needing-to-control-Dooley.
Equally telling is that Dooley today changes (t)his comment's pic of his grand-kids (the same - go figure! - used also today by his son Sean - or? - in a Daily comment on his father's candidacy) to the one below of:
Terry Fox.
All-in-all tacky tactics, John!
Image Credit:
The Terry Fox Foundation
Renwick's mantra - as candidate for City Councillor:
"When I look at how Baker Street has been allowed to deteriorate, with aggressive panhandling and open drug use and violence; when I hear tourists for the first time ever saying that they won't come back to Nelson; and when I hear residents say that they are scared to visit their own downtown, it's clear that new leadership is needed at council."
Cal Renwick
Star/Nelson Daily
28.08.18
Yours - I take it.
Listen Up, Cal!
How exactly has Baker been allowed by whom to deteriorate since when? Deteriorate as such or because of aggressive panhandling, open drug use and violence? Be specific!
Did you take pictures; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; present plans to the Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce (NDCC); address Council in COWs; get all this on facebook?
How many incidents of aggressive panhandling have you personally witnessed, been subjected to (even just read about in local media) over what period of time where? Actually - how many cases of just plain panhandling - period?
Did you video them; call the police; talk to meter-maids; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; address Council in COWs; get all this on facebook?
What kinds of open drug use have you witnessed how many times where?
Did you video them; alert the police; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; address Council in COWs; get all this on facebook?
How many acts of violence - what specifically?! - did you witness, were subjected to how many times where?
Did you intervene; video them; 911 the police; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; address Council in COWS; get all this on facebook?
When how many? tourists told you for the first time ever (you personally - or generally never before anyone?) that they won't be coming back to Nelson: did you ask them why not specifically?
Did you record them; connect with Nelson Tourism; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; address Council in COWs; get all this on facebook?
How many residents - of what age? - told you personally how many times that they are scared to visit their own downtown?
Did you video and offer to accompany them; alert the police; submit letters to local papers; have interviews on local radio-stations; address Council in COWs; get all this on facebook?
No?
You are shamelessly fear-mongering, pandering to the most base Twitter instincts: Cal's fake news!
As you and your gang - one for all/all for one! - couldn't possibly have actually had (any of) these experiences you go on about - in Nelson???: this is your time to become informed like responsible adults and communicate substantiatable facts instead. Only!
I mean - wtf, Cal!
Clearly - neither you nor your co-runners and fellow-believers are - and will be in time for the coming election - as you see yourselves:
new-leadership material.
Retired - with too much time on your hands?
Your wife wants you out of the house?
Image Credit:
Dezeen
This connects with:
Market(ing)
7 Aug, 2017
The Cottonwood Bombshell - A Dud!
20 Jun, 2017
Is there a Market for this?
26 Oct, 2016
82.600 Dollars (So Far)
20 Apr, 2016
Downmarket
26 Mar, 2016
Altogether these posts have had 610 visitors by now - clearly there has been concern! And particularly should be as a send-off for this Council: what with their disregard for common-sense-accountability throughout the Market project.
And their unwillingness to openly question CAO Kevin Cormack's role in it.
This Council will be remembered for bobble-heading from one poor decision to the next with Hall St Phase 1 & 2 - but chiefly the Cottonwood Market fiasco.
Since
Nothing is left of the $122.600 approved by Council for a Cottonwood Market redo since Nov. '15.
Therefore - work on whatever - mostly behind closed doors and promised to the public only in bits of time and stuff by Cormack - the City's bottom-line - (for) now has come to a full stop.
With $82.600 of the total from Nelson taxpayers: it's time to be clearly informed by City Hall of what has and hasn't happened down there.
Mostly hasn't!
Low points along the path:
This rundown is meant to be as easily digestible as possible - more detail and chronological order can be found in the posts listed above.
1.
While dismantling the old Market structures is only contemplated - Cormack orders their sudden demolition. To everyone's surprise and dismay of many - including Council's.
2.
Council approves $12.600 for a general redo-pre-plan plan to be put together by Cover Architecture - chosen how?
An expensive elementary to-do list, really, as it turns out to be.
3.
Then they approve $30.000 for a design-or-something: sufficiently vague to give Council pause for thought. It doesn't though, nothing ever does from here on - during the new Market's evolution - to make them take a stand as a unit with
"No more of this foolishness!!!"
4.
Before any design actually materializes - Cormack initiates an infrastructure grid of spectacular disconnect to what? reality, placed in the general vicinity of a possible market-building or something somewhere.
The source of funding - and to whom? - is never made public; it ultimately comes out of the Council-approved market-pot-of-gold: to substantially contribute to the whole project later running out of money.
5.
Council allocates an obscene $40.000 to the Cottonwood Market project - almost 1/3 of the CBT's total grant-giving to Nelsonites' arts/culture for that year.
A project of dubious origin, vision and leadership.
The public finds-out about this only from the list of all grant-recipients in the Star - but not what this windfall is to buy.
Clearly - the CBT needs to narrow parameters for its funding-disbursement. Ideally now: in time for the new Council. Limiting the amount to be granted to a single applicant/organization: with that making more funding available to more across-the-spectrum deserving.
Strictly binding Council as conduit to CBT-determined rules!
6.
It is never communicated to the public who has been in charge of the Market's arrested development since David Reid - EcoSociety/Market poster-boy - unceremoniously quits running both.
Presumably it's been Kevin Cormack's divided attention since.
7.
A design for the new Market materializes. Cover Architecture talent doesn't identify with basic needs of vendors/customers: shelter for them, produce and general merchandise. Reasoning for this design - and defensive posturing against prompt criticism of it - is only self-serving.
8.
Eventually the design is quietly nixed at City Hall - when, why, how and by whom never made public.
Neither is the amount paid for it to Cover Architecture.
9.
Then - after a longish period of silence around the Market - comes a (second) band-shell nobody expects, nobody needs. After a first band-shell died ages ago as part of the general Market-design's rejection.
A non-specific-design design yet - asked for by whom? from - be still, poor heart!: Cover Architecture.
Non-specific-design design: because Council is asked to give approval to this new version on-spec! And does! The emperor's new clothes!
Once there actually is a complete design - again the architects don't identify basic needs: here acoustics + shelter. Their proposal is crippled, lopsided enough to make anyone's eyes - and music-lover's ears - bleed. There is little shelter for performers and equipment: with wind, dust, rain blowing right through it.
The rejected Market design and again this band-shell are vanity-projects: self-absorbed and unrealistic.
10.
A $40.000 request for it is up for approval-or-not before Council, July '17. Minutes before the decision is to be handed-down - Cover Architecture - now turning promoter - makes another sales-pitch - usually not allowed! so why here?: possible weddings in the band-shell, barbecues and all kinds of weekly performances forever.
In the dirt.
Council laps it up and promptly approves the funding unanimously, without any discussion whatsoever. Clearly - this is for/a show: the decision prompted already earlier in the backroom.
With the band-shell plan locked-in and its funding approved one year ago - this project is to be in place by summer '18 - now! - as is the new toilet promised - once again! - by Cormack: but still neither is and obviously won't be.
Absolutely nothing has been made public on the future of band-shell, toilet and Market as such since one year ago!
11.
So the question here - similar to that about every other Market-funding approval (or non!) - should be: what happened to the band-shell's $40.000?
Transparency!
Now
A probable explanation: Reid's departure proves crucial within this process - dragged-out over several years by now - because his ego on its own was to bring-in outside funding for the Market's redo. This approach not questioned by Council.
So - with reality kicking-in - it's been like paying one credit-card with another since.
122.600 bucks worth - thanks to our naively compliant Council.
A.
Strictly for Market funding received/spent on what when and to possibly verify the above figures - it's
Colin McClure, CFO
cmcclure@nelson.ca
B.
For detailed info on the current state of Cottonwood Market development - Council doesn't have a clue; Councillor Dailly even calling the above figures untrue, although approved by his Council - your go-to guy is
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
The only one - but good luck with that!
C.
For info on how the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) supervises - if at all - Council making annual grant-decisions:
Aimee Ambrosone, Director - Delivery of Benefits
aambrosone@cbt.org
D.
The EcoSociety's on-the-ground
Jesse Woodward, Markets & Events Director
jesse@ecosociety.ca
Saturday
There is no band-shell - just an oval concrete platform in front of where it had been intended, with a tree growing out of its largish bald-earth-center. The whole closed-off haphazardly with City-barricades.
So the Market - with its performance-space - is in its old place, just minus the wooden shelters.
And the toilet-facilities are as the toilet-facilities were.
There has been no landscaping: a dust-bowl, possibly unbearable on hot days as we had before the smoke. And surely a sea of mud when the rains return.
Inventory of what the redevelopment-process has created over almost 3 years:
An irrelevant concrete oval
An irrelevant infrastructure
The painted toilet-door
There seem to be fewer vendors, definitely fewer customers than in the past. Since this market clearly will never be more than it is now: why bother going - with the more easily, comfortably accessible Wednesday market selling the same stuff downtown.
So you may want to return your goodwill and ask for a refund!
Image Credit:
pluggedingolf.com
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Pam Mierau, Development Services
pmierau@nelson.ca
Cover Architecture
info@coverac.ca
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
