Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

This Council seems to really like being disappointed. Some of them have a habit of asking for things they know they can’t get.

The financial implications of no-net-loss of parking for the Spirit Square is huge. Parkades are incredibly expensive to build. The City would have to incur a huge debt to pay for one and it would take a very long time to pay it off.

Demanding that bus route changes happen now rather than in 5 years, as proposed, is unreasonable. Translink, like the City, has to plan out its goals to be met over time because they don’t have the resources to do everything they wish right now.

I agree that we should be pushing for improvements and reaching for what we truly want rather than being complacent. But at the same time, we should not be making unreasonable demands or creating unrealistic expectations. All we’re doing is setting up ourselves, and our citizens, for disappointment and creating more stress for the people being asked to do the work.

Last night at the Council meeting, a member implied that the public transportation system should be more “user-pay”.

This is very curious. What exactly does the public transportation system include? Obviously, of course, busses, trains and all the costs of operating and maintaining them. But what about roads, bridges and tunnels? And who are the users anyway?

If White Rock were to advocate for a user pay transportation system, then we should accept road tolling throughout the region for all users, not just those riding Translink busses.

When you think of the transportation system as including roads, sidewalks and bike paths, it becomes obvious that everyone benefits from a comprehensive transportation system. Some people use one mode more than others. Everyone uses the different modes in a different combination. Everyone benefits from having all modes being available, even if it’s just because when other people are on the bus or riding a bicycle, they’re not contributing to more traffic congestion.

So if we all benefit and we’re all users of the transportation system, then we all should pay. If bus riders are expected to pay more of a cost of providing that service, then I’ll suggest that car drivers be expected to pay more of a cost of providing the road network and all its requisite services.

At what point does an exaggeration or melodrama become a lie?

I certainly see no problem with exaggerating a point for emphasis or using dramatics to illustrate passion or inject some humour into a conversation. But when it falsely validates or amplifies fears in the community — when it becomes misleading — then it’s just a lie. I don’t think that’s acceptable behaviour for an elected person.

Citizens should be wary of Councillor Coleridge’s statements alleging that the City is secretly planning to sell parks, the beach is threatened as a swimming destination by pollution, or that the Spirit Square project will pave over the lawn. It makes for good political theatre, but none of it is true.

What makes Councillors’ remarks reek of political opportunism is that the $3000 limit for discretional spending is exactly that. It was never intended to be an absolute limit on a Councillor’s expenses for education; it is the limit for discretional spending — money that can be spent without asking for permission. That’s why there is money in the budget to fund a request for more, and why the policy explicitly permits it.

If Councillors have changed their mind and now want to change the rules, they should admit so. It is disingenuous to imply that I broke any rules or did anything wrong. Everyone knew that I was attending the conference and writing a report on the workshops. Some encouraged me during meetings of Council to submit my expenses. Nobody at any time suggested it wasn’t a good idea to do so.

I am upfront and honest so much so that I have been told some people find it indecent and annoying. There was certainly nothing mischievous or sinister going on. I think that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a trying to create conspiracy theories or capitalize on cheap political opportunism.

Unfortunately, some councillors seem more interested in the community’s perception of how well they perform in their responsibilities than actually performing their responsibilities well. It’s incredibly disappointing how quickly their courage, vision, and rational thought evaporates under the watch of the TV cameras. They undermined my credibility when I couldn’t be in the room to respond and without allowing me to opportunity to explain the chain of events leading to my request. They call it accountability; I call it gutless politics of convenience.

The only glimmers of integrity I saw in how councillors handled this issue was from McLean and Peddemors. McLean has been consistent, though quietly so, in supporting education and keeping current on new research and best practices. Peddemors committed to looking favourably on a request for additional funds since I attended a conference on his behalf two years ago. He had registered then had to bow out, but the fees were non-refundable. Since I was the councillor who assumed the registration, the expenses were taken out of my discretional funding. He did vote in favour of reimbursing me my expenses, but I was still left waiting for someone, anyone, to speak up on the facts that the policy was written with exactly these kinds of circumstances in mind, and to speak about the value of continual learning.

I think it’s important to learn more about the issues that I have to deal with as a councillor. Shocking as it may sound, being elected did not magically bestow all worldly knowledge upon me. From the behaviour of the councillors last night, I wonder if I’m the only one who remains a mere mortal who isn’t all-knowing. Or perhaps I’m the only one who believes that informed and educated decision-making is valuable for a well-governed community.

There was an interesting little article in the Globe & Mail today comparing the happiness of people in different Canadian cities and internationally. People of St. John NB not only ranked first in Canada but among the most happy in the world.

“Quebec City placed second on the survey while Charlottetown was third. Moncton, N.B., and Kitchener, Ont., tied for fourth while St. John’s, N.L., was sixth. Rounding out the Top 10, in order, were Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg and Halifax.”

 
I have been hearing a lot lately about studies of what they call “subjective well-being” — happiness.

For example… “Countries where average per capita income is between $20,000 and $35,000 have satisfaction rates only a few percentage points above a whole range of countries where income is below $10,000″
– http://www.ukwatch.net/article/what039swrongwith_happiness

What is clear is that it doesn’t have anything to do with the scenery or house you live in, the car you drive or how much money you make. It’s about relationships. It’s about people and how they treat each other.

How we treat each other are choices we make throughout the day, everyday. No matter how big the space we sleep in, no matter how beautiful or ugly the landscape around us, we can choose sufficiency over entitlement and we can value relationships over money. It’s about looking for the positive even if it’s just hope, caring about the people around you even if you don’t know them, and finding satisfaction in what you’ve got even if it’s just life.

In everything we do everyday, we have choice in how we measure our satisfaction with what we’ve got and in how we treat the people around us.

 
So, what are you doing to make your city a happy place?

During the Vidal project debates it was suggested that, unless I complied with the demands of some citizens, they could not trust I would uphold City bylaws. They seemed to imply that this was a test. Notwithstanding that the impact of the variance on neighbours was demonstrated to be negligible at most, they wanted me to deny the application simply because they asked me to. Well, I can’t do that. I see no integrity in that.

It was said that I am elected to represent the people and that I must do what I’m told by the people (specifically, the people who attend public hearings). But what if I don’t agree with some of the people? How could a councillor be trusted to make decisions of integrity if they simply did what they were told to do?

What would happen if a huge number of people told me to vote a certain way, but one person had an insight that caused me to believe that a different decision would be the better decision? Should I vote against my conscience? Should I intentionally vote in favour of what I believe is not a good decision because that is the direction of a majority of people?

I don’t believe windsock decisions are appropriate for most questions City Council must answer. I believe councillors should read the material provided, look for pertinent information, listen to the thoughts and ideas of citizens, share perspectives in Chambers… then think for themselves and vote as they truly believe in their hearts and minds is in the best interest of White Rock citizens.

I don’t dispute that there are times when the choices have equal consequence, when it is very appropriate to follow the direction of the majority of people who share their thoughts. But it is my opinion that those are relatively rare occurrences.

For citizens to hold trust in Council’s decisions, councillors should balance rational thought and emotional reaction, provide logical facts and heartfelt sentiment in their reasons, describe how that specific decision fits into their vision for the community, and demonstrate personal integrity and accountability by making and explaining their own decisions.

They should not simply parrot what they think the majority of people want them to say. That’s not leadership. That’s not integrity. That’s not accountability.

At this week’s Finance Committee meeting, members were scratching at a couple thousand here and there in the budget, not actually eliminating much, mostly just shuffling things between years.

One big pressure is the ongoing dramatic inflation in the construction industry. The funding required for planned infrastructure projects (road, sewer, and facility maintenance) continues to rise quickly. So I couldn’t help but wonder, how many hundreds of thousands would we have saved if we had borrowed for our Five Year Financial Plan (FYFP) capital projects when i first suggested it?

<<the remainder of this post was lost and could not be recovered after the webhost server crashed August 26, 2008>>

What do you think is the purpose of question period at White Rock City Council meetings?

People have offered many noble and inspired answers. For example: 

<<the remainder of this post was lost and could not be recovered after the webhost server crashed August 26, 2008>>

As our community changes, how do we protect the values that support our unique identity and great quality of life?

I wrote a post a couple weeks ago, titled friendly & inclusive?, about what I thought “small town values” means in terms of how we treat one another. Now let’s think about the values of the built environment. Consider the Miramar Village project and Victoria/Vidal proposal (Turtle Recording Studio behind the Boathouse); What does community reaction tell us about their fears and the values we want to protect? Read on »

Should we tax the money you make or tax the money you spend? Read on »