Comments for Bowen Bulletin

Comment on Changing of the Guard by Murray Skeels

Murray Skeels — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:57:50 +0000

Andrew, they were never forced to have that vote. They could have said “The Parks Canada proposal is not good enough. We reject it. We don’t need a vote. If PC comes back to us at a later date with something more solid, the council of the day can decide whether or not to look at it.” But the pro-park people were their supports and the councillors involved just couldn’t bring themselves to let those supporters down.
And David, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas bylaw was the one that everybody hated. The only people who spoke out about the Steep Slopes were developers and would-be developers. Failure to pass it has left the Municipality vulnerable to liability if the fill at the top of some slope in a new development slides onto somebody’s house. My fear is that the new council will be more pro-developer than pro development.

Comment on Changing of the Guard by David Chamberlain

David Chamberlain — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:07:22 +0000

Murray, the democratic way of handling the issue was for Council to understand what the people wanted BEFORE putting it to a vote. Instead, several pursued what THEY wanted, and tried to convince everyone that it was a good idea. A backwards approach.

This particular Council had a history of doing just that – reference the proposed Steep Slopes and noise bylaws as other examples, where they attempted to push through their own agenda, and had to backtrack due to the public outcries.

I just hope that the new Council is more ‘plugged in’ to the community than the previous one.

Comment on Changing of the Guard by Andrew Pietrow

Andrew Pietrow — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 05:09:13 +0000

I am not saying anything about them personally, Murray,
just that they had no mandate to pursue this monumental change to this island. Their position, as elected officials, is what gave them the opportunity to pursue something that was a personal desire, rather than a desire of their constituents.

My understanding is that they were ‘forced’ to have a vote, based on how contentious the issue was for the community.

Comment on Changing of the Guard by Murray Skeels

Murray Skeels — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:10:48 +0000

Andrew, I appreciate that you were very opposed to the National Park. But I don’t understand why those members of council who championed the idea should be characterized as ” a privileged few”. One of them is your next door neighbour.
The democratic and idealistic way of handling this debate was putting it to a vote. The council members that you are vilifying did that and they lost. Its over.

Comment on Changing of the Guard by Andrew Pietrow

Andrew Pietrow — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 03:25:50 +0000

Still to me, the main election issue of the national park, boiled down to the previous council having NO mandate to pursue such a large initiative for 2 years without first having run this issue as a main platform during an election campaign.

Sad how such a personal agenda of a privileged few, wasted council/staff time, instead of having actively pursued critical considerations / measures to get the municipality’s (taxpayers’) house in order.

Shame on them for having been so selfish indeed!

Comment on Changing of the Guard by David Chamberlain

David Chamberlain — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 01:05:08 +0000

First, Council isn’t elected to do ‘the right thing’ in their own eyes, which may be very biased and influenced by a few, but to represent the majority. Some members obviously forgot that.

This election can be seen as a powerful lesson of democracy in action, and I hope that it’s not forgotten by the new Council. The last four Councils have been dysfunctional, let’s see what this Council can do. And if these guys ignore the people, then I suspect that this lesson will have to be learned all over again.

Comment on Diplomacy by Tim Rhodes

Tim Rhodes — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:25:22 +0000

The surplus/community lands are meant to do all you say Murray – and they can – however, they are also meant to pay off a $2 million dollar debt. Until we can do that you are quite correct: it will be difficult to convince the community to trust the new council.

BTW, the term ‘community lands’ only came into use when council decided to ‘land bank’ rather than do what had been promised when they were purchased.

Comment on Diplomacy by Tim Rhodes

Tim Rhodes — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:46:10 +0000

Murray,

Have you seen our piece on the Surplus/Community lands. I think it answers everything you are concerned about.

I see nothing wrong with picking the project closest to being realized to champion and wonder why no council has championed it – or dealt with the surplus/community lands, or at least a piece f them.

Comment on Diplomacy by Murray Skeels

Murray Skeels — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:19:39 +0000

Hi Tim
Thank you for your comment.
I believe that I have quite a good understanding of the surplus lands issue and I don’t think that I misinterpreted your statements at all.
The Community Centre financing will have to be approved by the voters of Bowen Island and they won’t approve it unless the surplus lands debt has been dealt with. This is a critical issue that was entirely overlooked in your discussion of how you and your partners were going to bring the Community Centre to fruition. I also note that you picked the project closest to being realized to be the one you championed, although I couldn’t see any new ideas.
By the way the surplus lands are not surplus to our needs, they are the lands on which our community facilities will be built. They are the lands that can become home to more affordable housing and they provide the space to house the commercial areas that will revitalize Snug Cove. They can’t just be sold off to get money. I have often pushed council to refine their plans for selling the surplus lands because that process will help to crystallize our plan to solve other problems. It is a jigsaw puzzle and it will take careful thought to put it together correctly.

Comment on Diplomacy by Tim Rhodes

Tim Rhodes — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:18:43 +0000

Murray,

I have to ask. Is this a deliberate misinterpretation or just a total lack of understanding?

The point was rather simple. The surplus lands involve some time and some risk to deal with. There is no need to tie the community centre to that process.

Anyway, we have another mail-drop this week on how we could deal with the surplus lands – and how they could have been dealt with years ago.